All Comments (1644)

Hmm.. being a woman myself it sickens me to see things like this. We are people, not just objects made for men.

peto dtojclfg trfixds rlmk irgqmfn oirst bjqiluvwd

peto dtojclfg trfixds rlmk irgqmfn oirst bjqiluvwd

peto dtojclfg trfixds rlmk irgqmfn oirst bjqiluvwd

peto dtojclfg trfixds rlmk irgqmfn oirst bjqiluvwd

You write "many Muslim girls throughout the world are still obliged to wear the veil". However, many educated Muslim women claim to be proud to wear the hijab. How do you explain that? And by the way, could you comment on the Turkish government's decision to give women wearing the hijab access to universities?

One of my students drew my attention to this online article. I agree wholeheartedly that the picture that Sam has painted is totally unsatisfactory. I am glad to say that it is a picture that I do not recognise from my own religious experience. Clearly Sam's agenda would not be served by quoting the Bible passages which give the opposite perspective - that God does believe in the right of women to be treated with equality, honour and respect. I assume this kind of polemical approach to apparently broadsheet journalism is acceptable in US. Shame.

This is an extremely thought-provoking article. I can't stop reading Sam Harris articles tonight- I should be doing my philosophy homework- but I am absolutely engrossed in this stuff.

I am muslim and as on we do not believe in some of the things you mentioned above i love my culture and believe you are misled we believe in honesty and trust and the WHOLE story about womens writes are untrue please research it .Muslims would greatly appreciate it

I've made a YouTube video of the same name as this article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT3yY1AYgMo

I don't know what religious sects you've been observing, but I think you'll find that groups who actually employ such practises are incredibly rare. Contrary to popular belief, it IS possible to have deep religious faith and to be a rational human being in modern society. I don't buy your black-and-white view that you're either reasonable or religious. Your way of reducing the world into the religious and the rational is just as bad as religious fundamentalism.

I don't know what religious sects you've been observing, but I think you'll find that groups who actually employ such practises are incredibly rare. Contrary to popular belief, it IS possible to have deep religious faith and to be a rational human being in modern society.

Mr. Harris, I have read your article and it seems to be a very interesting article. The problem with your article is simply that you have taken the idea in a wrong way. Muslims who beat their wives and those who kill their daughters if they are raped simply come from a misunderstanding of the Quran.

And the reason why women are kept away from men is because that there are predators out there that will attack women if they see them alone in the dark and thus it protects them from being attacked. I can't say much for the Bible since I'm not a Christian but being a Muslim, I do know certain things about Islam.

A good story, thanks!

m181k

Could you imagine if a book was released that stated that:

'A woman so loved her children that she freed them from the flesh and delivered them to the heavens'

I wonder how much of a following this would incite if this was replaced in the Bible. Why do we worship a myological human creation that supposedly did this similar act, yet a modern woman actually did do this and we condemn her for it? This woman is Andrea Yates, of Friendswood, Texas who a few years ago suffered from "dellusion" and post-partum psyhcosis and drowned her 5 children. I'm not advoctaing anything for her, as she caused irreversable harm & death to children which should be punisheed to the furtherest extent of the law. However, she in-part did it to guarantee her children would get into heaven before they were exposed to sins & evils. In my opinion, it is total and complete hypocrisy to worship a book that among it's many evils allowed "his only begotten son to perish..." but as a society condemn Andrea Yates.

I'm hopeful that a day will eventually come when we elect whose best for the office, feed hungry children because they need a meal, and do the right thing because it's just the right thing to do without regard to anyones fanatical beliefs or superstitions playing a part in what is right. i.e I don't believe in abortion as a means of birth control because human life is precious and should be cherished, I don't need a crazy hullcegenic being impose faulty ideas about abortion.

Sam & Richard, so far you gentlemen are great and seem to hit it on the head everytime. Please keep up the good work.

“Call it God; call it superstition; call it, as Atran does, “belief in hope beyond reason” — whatever you call it, there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly, something beyond the reach or understanding of science…

"When a trait is universal, evolutionary biologists look for a genetic explanation and wonder how that gene or genes might enhance survival or reproductive success…

"Wherever Atran turned, he encountered the passion of religious belief. Why, he wondered, did people work so hard against their preference for logical explanations to maintain two views of the world, the real and the unreal, the intuitive and the counterintuitive? …

“I started looking at history, and I wondered why no society ever survived more than three generations without a religious foundation as its raison d’être,” he says…
Religion, in this view, is “a family of cognitive phenomena that involves the extraordinary use of everyday cognitive processes,” Atran wrote in “In Gods We Trust.” “Religions do not exist apart from the individual minds that constitute them and the environments that constrain them, any more than biological species and varieties exist independently of the individual organisms that compose them and the environments that conform them…”

"The bottom line, according to byproduct theorists, is that children are born with a tendency to believe in omniscience, invisible minds, immaterial souls — and then they grow up in cultures that fill their minds, hard-wired for belief, with specifics.

"Whatever the specifics, certain beliefs can be found in all religions. Those that prevail, according to the byproduct theorists, are those that fit most comfortably with our mental architecture…

"Belief is our fallback position, according to Bering; it is our reflexive style of thought. “We have a basic psychological capacity that allows anyone to reason about unexpected natural events, to see deeper meaning where there is none,” he says. “It’s natural; it’s how our minds work…”

“Even if Gould was right that there were two domains, what religion does and what science does,” says Daniel Dennett (who, despite his neo-atheist label, is not as bluntly antireligious as Dawkins and Harris are), “that doesn’t mean science can’t study what religion does. It just means science can’t do what religion does.”
“Christian theology teaches that people were crafted by God to be in a loving relationship with him and other people,” Barrett wrote in his e-mail message. “Why wouldn’t God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?” Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them, he wrote. “Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me — should I then stop believing that she does?”

"What can be made of atheists, then? If the evolutionary view of religion is true, they have to work hard at being atheists, to resist slipping into intrinsic habits of mind that make it easier to believe than not to believe. Atran says he faces an emotional and intellectual struggle to live without God in a nonatheist world, and he suspects that is where his little superstitions come from, his passing thought about crossing his fingers during turbulence or knocking on wood just in case. It is like an atavistic theism erupting when his guard is down. The comforts and consolations of belief are alluring even to him, he says, and probably will become more so as he gets closer to the end of his life. He fights it because he is a scientist and holds the values of rationalism higher than the values of spiritualism…

"This internal push and pull between the spiritual and the rational reflects what used to be called the “God of the gaps” view of religion. The presumption was that as science was able to answer more questions about the natural world, God would be invoked to answer fewer, and religion would eventually recede. Research about the evolution of religion suggests otherwise. No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what Atran calls the tragedy of human cognition.”

-----From “ Darwin’s God” by Robin Marantz Henig. The New York Times, 4 March 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?em&ex=1173243600&en=166dbd9e75680e73&ei=5087%0A

as a follower of Jesus, i'm thankful for anyone who can point out these terrible atrocities in hopes all people - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists - will take heed and stop the madness. i disagree that the holy books don't point in this direction, but even still, i'm happy that sam harris is a prophet of this age, opening our eyes to the ridiculous ways religion has been used.

Bernie

As you rightly noted, this thread has died out. The length of this thread might be a contributing factor. The other reason might well be that people had pretty much said their bits, and the discussion had begun to go in circles. At least I can say for myself that I have nothing new to say and I was getting bored with myself for repeating the same things.

Atheism is not new, and the questions and arguments put forward by atheists have been tackled by brilliant theologians before. Spiritual atheism, and the anti-religious crusade in the name of reason and science seems to be the novelty, but from a theological point of view it is even simpler to explain than pure atheism. Spirituality that fights God, that as a lay person I know is a battle older than mankind itself. I have been taught in Catholic Catechism how Lucifer the brilliant angel (the most intelligent and the most beautiful), who was on the top of the angel hierarchy, supposedly wanted to be God (it could not bear the thought of having anyone above it or better than itself) and hence set up a revolt in Heaven. God granted Lucifer its wish, and gave it and the band of angels who chose to follow it, a kingdom of their own. That happened before mankind was created, and it is that world that is referred to as powers and principalities. It was Lucifer, from its new kingdom, that came to tempt Eve and succeeded. So there, even I as a simple lay person know the answer! A rebellion at the human level is different of course, but it has a parallel in heaven before the creation of man. A rebellion against religion which ignores all the good that religion has done and all the beautiful aspects of religion is bound to backfire, simply because it can no longer claim to be speaking the truth. There is nothing scientific about ignoring mountains of evidence about the positive influence of religions down the ages, and focussing only on the imperfections in the way religion was practised by some. Real scientists seek the whole truth, and of necessity assess all the data, without selectively ignoring whatever contradicts their viewpoint. Completely ignoring contrary evidence is the technique used by lawyers, not scientists.

Fortunately for the theists, the crusade isn't even being taken up by the very scientists in whose name Professor Dawkins and Mr Harris have initiated it. So a further discussion might not even be necessary considering that atheists themselves are tackling it brilliantly enough.

You might be interested to know that there is a ongoing discussion on WP On Faith forum on two threads re atheism: 1. Question of 27 Dec 06, "Is atheism in vogue?", 2. "Who was Jesus?" - the discussion has morphed into atheists vs theists debate. On both threads, you will meet a new crowd, some posting on both threads, discussing the same topic. Better still go through all the questions posted so far since November 2006 and find out which ones are still active.

Maybe you should consider posting on the more recent threads - that is where you will meet some of the old crowd still posting and get to discuss some really pressing issues in the process.

nfzlekut asqpbjk wucvh rikgtczaj dnkjlh tflyec pamhsoli http://www.xrcuzyls.xhbn.com

uncxaw eqtiru zvmjorq dvefsky cqtvywxl uqydbailj yiwo

uncxaw eqtiru zvmjorq dvefsky cqtvywxl uqydbailj yiwo

Great tae see ye postin again Soja. But alas, it still looks like this board has gone all moribund with no prospects of revival. Which is a great pity as there was such a fine lot in here, from the very ignorant to the greatly learned.
How I wish there was some way to keep us all together especially when you consider how much there was/is to learn from each other!

“Some in the audience spontaneously applauded when I posed the question, "how do we as scientists advance reason in an inherently unreasonable world?" including many of the scientists present. That is anecdotal evidence that professor Dawkins's and Mr. Harris's positions are not entirely representative of science or scientists in regard to religion and to the respective roles of religion and science in politics and ethics. Dr. Tyson and Lawrence Krauss seemed to me very skeptical about the wisdom or prospect of implementing Steven Weinberg's call for science to save humanity from "the long nightmare of religion." The nightmares but also the dreams will very likely remain a substantial part of what it means to be human, despite any hope or attempt to wish them away.”

------------Scott Atran (an atheist)

The plight of women as promoted by archaic religious teaching will not improve until the hearts and minds of men are opened to the truth. Truth will not have a place in the sun until religions cease to protect uncivilized behavior.

MU wrote: "An artificially conceived embryo is morally problematic to begin with."

I agree. But this does not change the fact that they exist and can be naturally or artificially split into twins. Are you claiming that this "evidence" was obtained without a "warrant" and is therefor not admissible?

MU wrote: "None of this has anything whatsoever to do with theology or the soul"

That's because you believe these questions have already been answered. Our role in the universe is fixed and predetermined. Nothing we can discover will change that.

I, on the other hand, do not share that view.

MU wrote: "I am very sorry my answers have disappointed you or frustrated whatever point you were trying to make."

No need to apologize. It's clear that you were simply leading the discussion in a direction you felt most knowledgeable.

The church does play an important part in society. It gives people a sense of community and helps those in need. I have great respect for what you do. However, while we agree on the "what" we don't always agree on the "why."

Scott, you've completely lost me. I have no idea whether an embryo has a soul. My church takes no position on the matter (which should give you an idea of the importance of that issue). Barring natural pathologies or willful destruction, a naturally conceived embryo inevitably becomes at least one human person. It is in every sense a distinct, unique, unrepeatable, and inviolable individual human life. An artificially conceived embryo is morally problematic to begin with. Messing with it compounds the difficulty. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with theology or the soul. I am very sorry my answers have disappointed you or frustrated whatever point you were trying to make.

Soja wrote: "..but the fact that people from different cultures have had similar experiences - that should serve as significant evidence."

Do you believe in alien abductions since they all seem to be perpetrated by short grey creatures with big eyes? Just because several people describe a common experience the same way is not evidence of a supernatural or extraterrestrial source.

Most people feel relaxed by the color blue and excited by the color red. This universal reaction transcends time and culture, yet you do not claim these colors have any special religious significance.

There is scientific evidence that meditation reduces stress and stress has been proven to have negative effects on the immune system. Many people, including myself, believe that meditation has other significant benefits, which is based on the results of thousands of years of practice. However, none off theses facts prove meditation has any supernatural origin.

Soja wrote: "I'm particularly intrigued about the development - spiritual atheism."

I would conceder myself such an atheist. however I do not attribute my experiences to a supernatural origin. Nor would I define myself as an atheist since it's definition is someone who believes that God does not exist. I simply do not believe the claim that God is the basis for morality, is the creator of the universe, has given us an eternal soul and will punish us for being his creation. I take issue when people claim their beliefs have authority due to supernatural origins and these beliefs have negative effects on me and the world in general.

Soja wrote: "Religions have a role much wider than working out morals. ... Scientists make nuclear weapons but do not decide how it should be used. There are many such moral issues for which science does not provide an answer in the context of its neutral work."

I'd simply point out that, based on it's track record alone, religion is in no better position to answer such questions than science. If we are to survive as a species, we need to question and challenge our beliefs.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion...

Namaste

MU,

Yes, you are repeating yourself. I'm quite aware that the debate on stem sell research is based on many complex issues.

I'm fascinated by your ability to ignore factual evidence simply because it's one of many facets in one particular multifaceted issue. This sort of behavior is rarely seen in any other sphere other than religion and reflects the belief that...

a. You are free to hold irrational religious views, even when there is significant empirical evidence to the contrary. You feel no need to discuss or question it.

b. You're free to hold irrational religious views because they have no effect on others.

I was simply pointing out that what we discover about the universe often conflicts with religious beliefs. This has been going on for thousands of years. If anything seems bent on taking God of the picture, it's the universe, not science. Don't blame the messenger.

As a follow up, I provided a specific discovery that cast significant doubt on the belief that human embryos have souls and then went on to give a concrete example of the impact that belief has on humanity as a whole.

While it's only one facet of a complex issue, the belief that embryos have a soul does has a significant impact on stem-cell research. Each facet should be able to stand on it's own merit. It also effects many other issues, such the right of rape victims to prevent unwanted pregnancies the day after they are assaulted.

You've simply chosen to focus on the moral and legal issues of one particular example in an attempt downplay the effect your belief has on others.

Again, this is not a true discussion. Given enough Biblical scholars and an infinite God, religion can come up with a story to explain any fact that conflicts with it's views. No evidence exists that would shake your belief in God and any evidence I identity that would make be believe in God does not exist since it's "not in God's plan" or would "conflict with my free will."

MU wrote: "One path leads to happiness, the other to nothingness."

You see two paths, where I see only one. Happiness and, eventually, nothingness.

Bernie

To your remarks about the message of the SOS light and the difficulty with interpreting messages which some claim have divine origin, Scripture for instance: You'd be surprised at how similar the experiences of mystics from different religions are. They used vocabulary in keeping with their cultures to describe their experiences, but the experiences they were describing were essentially the same. That is the proof that the reality, all believers call God, exists. And if you were to examine the history of religions and the holy people who conveyed God's message, they were human beings who had no self-serving agenda, and were sufficiently detached from the affairs of the world to tune in to another dimension. Now you may be convinced that such a transcendent reality doesn't exist because you haven't experienced it, but the fact that people from different cultures have had similar experiences - that should serve as significant evidence. Would you ignore the results of an experiment if different scientists from different parts of the world, at different times in history came up with the same results? Religions have evidence of the experience of millions of people down the ages.

I'm particularly intrigued about the development - spiritual atheism. As I understand it, it is supposedly the incorporation into atheism of all spiritual wisdom and practices developed and perfected by religions over the centuries, minus the supernatural and the God bit. If the new spirituality didn't include a hatred for religions, it might have been different. Spirituality is the specialty of religions, remember? So it would be simple enough to find the explanations for such spirituality from a religious point of view. But I won't go into that and leave it to the experts. Suffice it to ask what if religions took over all the achievements of science, incorporated it into Scripture and said it had nothing to do with scientists or science? Not only that, but religions considered it necessary to get rid of scientists and science altogether for the good of mankind? That is how the anti-religious crusade with the determination to stamp out religion sounds to me - at least as it is being presented by Timmy and Andy Ross, who are supposedly echoing the mission of Dawkins, Harris et al.

One thing I know with certainty is that those who want religions to be stamped out don't speak for all scientists, 40% scientists being believers. The 60% scientists who are non-believers haven't declared such a crusade yet. As far as medicine is concerned, it doesn't want to stamp out religion at all. Many studies have shown the beneficial effects of religious practice.

Scott:

When I discuss science vs religion issues, please remember I am writing as a believer in God and science. I'm only referring to the anti-religious crusade that is being referred to in this thread. Science is a morally neutral activity. Religions have a role much wider than working out morals. Religion is NOT at war with science but looks at science as a valid revelation of truth about the mind of God, and views the truth from a much wider perspective, and evaluates the impact of science on human life accordingly. For example science is hard pressed to make a decision whether it is right to switch off the life supporting machines which keeps a patient alive like a vegetable with no hope of recovery or regaining consciousness. Scientists make nuclear weapons but do not decide how it should be used. There are many such moral issues for which science does not provide an answer in the context of its neutral work.

I'll leave the discussion at that on this thread.

Shanthi! Shanthi! Shanthi!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Scott, I'm repeating myself, but it is quite mistaken to suggest that serious ethical questions would simply disappear if you disallowed the concept of the soul. Belief in a soul is not a prerequisite for defending human dignity. Nor does the fact that new—sometimes quite difficult—ethical dilemmas arise mean that they should simply be ignored.

Yes, "we" choose to put God in the picture. Conversely we're perfectly free to ignore God. One path leads to happiness, the other to nothingness.

MU,

My example of soul math was in response to Soja's question of why science was intent on "taking God out of the picture." I'm simply presenting evidence that we're the ones who put God there in the first place.

While I agree that not every scientific possibility should be permitted, I'm not willing to ignore such evidence in favor of a 2,000 year old concept of an eternal soul that's present at conception.

MU wrote: "I'm not a theologian.."

I'm not asking you to be one. Nor am I a scientist. However, it seems obvious to a layman such as myself that these discoveries cast significant doubt on the concept of souls. If it takes a room full of religious scholars to come up with a story that reconciles these facts with the concept of human souls, what does that say about our universe? Shouldn't science only affirm God as the true creator instead of casting doubt?

MU wrote: "Every human person has a fundamental right to be conceived and born naturally without being subjected to ghoulish abuse. No one has the right to manufacture a human being as he would a carburetor"

I'm not suggesting that we create embryo factories for research. Thousands of excess embryos created during in vitro fertilization are destroyed every year. These embryos could hold cures for millions of people suffering from a wide range of afflictions.

Of the 72 stem cell lines approved for federal funding in 2003, only 20 remain. Most are unusable to due DNA corruption. These lines, originally created from in vitro fertilization, will soon drop to zero unless new laws are passed. The belief that souls can exist in a petri dish is a significant barrier to such laws.

Scott, I'm not a theologian, and I don't quite get the point of your obsession with soul math. In any case, purely secular medical ethics, morality, and law—let alone theology—are hard put to keep up with the kinds of developments to which you refer. Nevertheless scientists have a grave obligation to conduct themselves ethically. Not everything that is possible is permissible.

Some of these procedures do savage violence to the most basic concept of human dignity. Every human person has a fundamental right to be conceived and born naturally without being subjected to ghoulish abuse. No one has the right to manufacture a human being as he would a carburetor.

MU wrote: "We have no difficulty understanding there are two personalities and two legal persons, even in the case where the embryo never fully separates. But if nature takes a different course, do you ask what happened to that other "person"?"

Clearly, we can observe distinct personalities. However, we can not observe souls.

MU wrote: "So with the soul. If two persons have their origin in the same embryo, then two souls (if any) are present in that embryo. If only one person has his origin in that embryo, then plainly there is only one soul."

So, what happens when a researcher artificially splits and embryo and creates two embryos from one? Did the embryo somehow know that it was going to be split and include an extra soul at the time of conception?

Researchers have found a way to remove a cell from an embryo created via in vitro fertilization and culture it into growing - without destroying the original. While this process only been performed with the intention of creating new stem cell lines (none have gone to term), a similar process has been performed successfully with primates, resulting in artificial twins.

Since these primates obviously have observable, distinct personalities, would this not mean that two soul would be present in artificially twinned human beings? (assuming personalty = soul, as you've indicated)

Again, would the embryo had "known" it was going to be artificially twinned and included enough souls at the time of conception?

Scott, rightly or not, I did not read your comment about soul math literally. I adduced that the underlying issue was the moral status of the embryo. It is that question which, as I said, does not necessarily require a discussion of the soul.

As for your literal question about soul production, nobody knows. However, I would again point to the case of born conjoined twins. We have no difficulty understanding there are two personalities and two legal persons, even in the case where the embryo never fully separates. But if nature takes a different course, do you ask what happened to that other "person"?

So with the soul. If two persons have their origin in the same embryo, then two souls (if any) are present in that embryo. If only one person has his origin in that embryo, then plainly there is only one soul.

But even if the moral status of the embryo did depend on the presence of a soul, one soul would be sufficient. In determining whether the embryo deserved protection, it hardly would matter whether there were only one soul or possibly more than one.

MU wrote: "The point about conjoined twins is that we're perfectly capable of answering the kind of question you raised without discussing souls."

I'm rather confused. How exactly did we answer the question about embryos creating two souls after conception without discussing souls?

MU wrote: "Your definition of the right to life is distressingly contingent. I wonder if you could address when those of us not "knowingly" or deliberately conceived (surely the preponderance of humanity) acquired a right to life (if we did)? Or may we all be rounded up and sent to the ovens?"

My definition of right to life was in reference to my specific situation. To clarify...

A human fetus is, in my opinion, a human being and has the right to live. A human embryo is not yet a human being, but has the right to live if it's parents decided they want to take it to term. In other words, It's ability to become a fetus should be protected once this decision is made.

If an embryo was unknowing or unwilling conceived, it does not have the right to life until it becomes a fetus. At that point, it gains the right to live since it has become a human being.

Soja, that was beautifully written.

You write: "To me every human being is a mystery, every human journey is unique. ...I do not set myself up to judge anyone. I do not feel called to be an evangelist. I relate to the human being and not to their belief. I appreciate all that is good and beautiful no matter where and in whom I find it."

Me too.

Isn't it amazing to look back to where we have come from?

Soph: "I do wish to live at a level of consciousness where this world as I see it, is not the end; where truth and love will reign; and evil will not triumph as it does in this world."

Me too.

How is it that we can come to the same values and philosophy in life, one with a god, and one without?

I have to go offline for awhile, I love this conversation and am sorry to leave.

Peace.

When I was 4 my family stopped going to church (Catholic) because our church deemed my newborn nephew a bastard (born out of wedlock-my sister was 16 at the time) and denied him baptism for this reason. Women who were divorced in this congregation were no longer worthy to partake in any sacriments. For much of my life I explored other branches of Christianity only to find more of the same completely senseless and defeating personal judgement. As we've all seen in more recent years the growing numbers of victims of even far worse crimes by the church (pedofiles as priests)coming forward I have become completely mortified and disgusted by the reach of religion's influence. About 2 years ago I came to the conclusion that Sam Harris speaks so eloquently about. But I'd like to make very clear...it was religion that drove me away from religion.

Just yesterday I picked up Letter to a Christian Nation. I broke a personal record for the "fastest ever read" book on my shelf. I am completely overwhelmed by it and cannot stop thinking about it. I am extatic about the notion that perhaps someone like Sam Harris may reach people on an intellectual level about religion and its nonsense and archain practices. Our society could use a lot more of this as so much damage has already been done by the religious right in terms of the power they have over policy in this nation. Until more moderates open their sensibilities to this we will all remain "God's Hostages".

Mentally unbalanced: "Cham, you're right that nothing I said "proves", or is contingent on any "proof", that God is. I can't prove it, any more than I can offer absolute proof that I am or you are. But if I am or anything is, God is, because God itself is being, and God is being itself."

I must not have been clear, I'm not asking for proof of god, or even it's definition. I know that there is no proof either for against the existence of god, so that argument is futile.

What I'm curious about, is what is the benefit of god? If you assume god, what unique knowledge, what unique experience does that give you that is not available to someone who does not believe in god?

In other words, what is the benefit of believing in god?

This ties in with Soja's last posting.

Cham, you're right that nothing I said "proves", or is contingent on any "proof", that God is. I can't prove it, any more than I can offer absolute proof that I am or you are. But if I am or anything is, God is, because God itself is being, and God is being itself.

Scott, yes, some citizens' understanding of human dignity is rooted in a belief that we are made in the divine image. You are perfectly free to evaluate their public policy arguments against your own understanding of universal human rights. So, yes, I deliberately steered the conversation away from soul math. If you don't believe in a soul, that question is irrelevant. The point about conjoined twins is that we're perfectly capable of answering the kind of question you raised without discussing souls.

Your definition of the right to life is distressingly contingent. I wonder if you could address when those of us not "knowingly" or deliberately conceived (surely the preponderance of humanity) acquired a right to life (if we did)? Or may we all be rounded up and sent to the ovens?

CHAM:

Many thanks for your long post which was addressed to me sharing your views on spirituality. Let me assure you that I respect your position as atheist, your concept of spirituality and your experiences, even though I do not share the same views and have had different experiences.

To me every human being is a mystery, every human journey is unique. Only God is privy to the secrets of a human heart. I do not set myself up to judge anyone. I do not feel called to be an evangelist. I relate to the human being and not to their belief. I appreciate all that is good and beautiful no matter where and in whom I find it.

I cannot say what my experiences might have been if I were not born into the culture and family that I was, if I had not been exposed to the circumstances and persons that I was, if I was not drawn by an inner call to prayer which set me on a personal spiritual journey. I was born into a deeply religious culture with a long tradition of religious practice. Family tradition has it that our Hindu ancestors were Nambudiri Brahmins (the priestly class, who practised Vedic religion, the oldest religion known to man!)who were converted to Christianity by Apostle Thomas in 52 AD. My Christian ancestors lived in the same village for centuries until my father moved out as the first one in the family. There was not much chance of exposure to the idea of atheism in my life, if you asked me. Despite all the arguments I have heard during these discussions, atheism doesn't make much sense to me. The conviction of a first cause, believers call God, is so natural to me. Praying was natural to me, even as a child.

The questions that troubled my Hindu ancestors (at least five thousand years ago), who thankfully did the work of paving the path for belief in God for me are supposedly the following:

Who am I?

If I'm not my body, then who am I?

If I'm not my mind or my thoughts, then who am I?

If I'm not my feelings or memories, then who am I?

Where did the universe come from?

What does all this mean?

I do not ask those questions because they have been already long asked. But I do wish to live at a level of consciousness where this world as I see it, is not the end; where truth and love will reign; and evil will not triumph as it does in this world. My logic, my search for truth and my sense of justice cannot be without a God.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

MU wrote: "let's not be obtuse... Forget about theology."

Let's not avoid the question.

MU wrote: "Do conjoined twins have a single name, identity and personality, or two?..."

I don't see how this is relevant to my question.

Just because some embryos fail to completely split, doesn't change the fact that a single embryo can turn into more than one individual after conception. Are you saying that surviving conjoined twins with distinct observable personalities, regardless if they are split, do not have two souls? Can the salvation of one twin, joined at the hip, get the other into heaven?

Obviously, I'm being facetious, but you get my point.

MU wrote: "Do you have a right to life?"

I have to right to stay alive as long as I deem my live has meaning to me. Should my life no longer have meaning, and my death would not result in hardship on others, I may give up this right. I gained this right when my parents knowingly decided to conceive me and bring me into this world. In other words, I conceder "right to life" to mean my parent's right to conceive a child with the intention to bring me to term.

Personally, I find the concept of aborting a human fetus offensive. Unless the mothers health is at risk, I think it should be legally limited to the first trimester of pregnancy, if not earlier.

However, while I believe that human embryos are alive and potential individuals, they are not yet human beings. Unless an embryo has been created and chosen to be brought to term, it is not protected by such right.

Such embryos are created during the process in vitro fertilization. While many are created, only one or two of most viable embryos are actually transfered into the mother. The reaming embryos are either frozen or even destroyed. Yet, due to current laws, these embryos can not be used in scientific research.

MU wrote: "The moral and legal status of the embryo is a question of human rights, not theology"

Certainly, you don't expect me to believe that religious beliefs had nothing to do with federal funding restrictions on in vitro fertilization based stem sell research, do you?

Sorry, that message was mine. I usually don't fill in the name on emails until of written it, in case I accidently hit sent. Here it sends it anyway.

That's that daft bugger Numpty coming on as 'Anonymous' replying to his own post!
The chancer has done that so many times heretofore.
What a bampot we've got here!

from "mentally unbalanced": "But science alone never will explain the total reality and mystery of human experience in a way that is remotely satisfactory to actual fully realized human beings."

I actually agree with you here.

We are amazing spiritual creatures. Even if science could explain it all, it would not change that the experiences you listed, and many more, are important to us. (I’m not sure what you meant by faith.)

I don’t think that a god is necessary to have them.

What do you think can be experienced with a god that cannot be experienced without a god? (Let's keep it in our living life, in line with the things you named.)

Speak for thyself, O Bard.

Numpty, had you said that humans are more than animals I might have gone along with you, as I imagined even you would be aware of the fact that we are animals, but there ye are, a true to form numpty that proves the case I’m about to make here!

We humans are animals alright, and 99.99% of humans are at a big disadvantage compared with all other animals. For after all, every animal, indeed, every form of life, apart from us humans, instinctively knows what is required to be what they are. But humans take up to 30yrs to develop the true potential to be a proper, civilised human, and even then that depends on many factors being in their favour, so that it is just a few (very few) that get there.

Humans with their built-in aggression (surely you’ve seen even new born babies in paroxysms of rage when expected service isn’t up to scratch?) are the most ferocious, cruel, form of life (bar none, not even the dinosaurs!) this planet has ever known.

Speaking for myself, I’m inclined to go along with Shakespeare’s fear and horror of life that represented Man as nothing more dignified or glorious than a “poor, bare, forked animal,” chance product of “our dungy earth”. Aye, and that includes you Numpty! Def'nitly!

Cham parrots the familiar argument that religion is simply an effort to explain natural phenomena for which science now provides better explanations.

The problem of course is the premise. While wind, tide and seasons present fascinating questions, they are hardly the most essential ones human beings confront. Those important questions are for philosophy and religion, not science.

Science never will explain everything. Explaining everything is not science's job. Science may be able to explain certain aspects of phenomena like "love" in terms of brain functioning and evolutionary imperatives. But science alone never will explain the total reality and mystery of human experience in a way that is remotely satisfactory to actual fully realized human beings. Cham is content to think of the human experience of love as not "anything different" than the behavior of elephants. Thankfully, very few people are such scientific totalitarians as to utter such a foolish and bizarre statement. All I can say is I'm very glad I'm not a loved one of Cham's.

The human person is not an animal. Not only love, but reason, intellect, knowledge, wisdom, will, autonomy, self-control, self-knowledge, self-expression, civilization, industry, creativity, innovation, faith, hope, justice, mindfulness, toleration, are among the more self-evident qualities that separate man from brute animals. In religious language man is created in the divine image.

Those who foolish suppose that science will supplant religion do not understand religion—and don't really understand science.

The religion side of the argument needs to stop trying to use the existence of things that science can not explain, as proof or evidence of God. These things only speak to the truth that science has not yet answered all of the questions about life.

None of these arguments even remotely make a case for God and certainly not for the Abrahamic God. This whole, "we can not explain love, therefore God" argument is so weak and desperate. There are an infinite number of possible answers to the the things that science can not explain. Among the least plausible of these explanations is the idea of God or a creator. But when you get to the specific doctrine of Christianity, the odds of this being the answer to the unknown are so highly implausible, one can say with credible certainty that it simply isn't true. Because there isn't a scrap of evidence to indicate that it is. Moreover, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the reality that God was created by man, not the other way around.

Continue to believe if you want. But we will continue on, forever and ever, dealing with you as the delusional, gullible, duped dupes that you are. We've heard all of your arguments. They are laughable at best. Pathetically naive is a more honest assessment.

Tick tock tick tock.
The free flowing information available to all found on the World Wide Web will end this madness in a couple of generations.

You will disagree with all of this.
How sad for you.

Soja wrote:
"Timmy: Your comparison of smoking to religion = silly to the core."

Allow me to edit your sentence slightly so that it actually has meaning. Just need to omit the first few words and we get:

religion = silly to the core

Enough said.

Soja John Thaikattil: There are plenty of things in life that an atheist takes for granted without demanding scientific proof. Love is one clear example. There is really no scientific explanation or proof for love, no evolutionary explanation for selfless and self-sacrificing altruism.

Here's one: evidence of love and altruism can be seen through all of nature.

In 2005 National Geographic's web site had examples of love in animals for Valentine's Day. One example was a mother and baby elephant caught in a river during a flash storm and being rushed away. The mother lifted the baby to a higher bank to safety as she was carried away. Amazingly, she survived the storm, and came rushing back to find her baby. I don't think that behavior was motivated by anything different than the love that we feel for our children.

Altruism is seen in bees that will attack if their hive is threatened, sacrificing their lives.

Dolphins have midwives, and when a dolphin is sick and is too weak to go to the surfaced, others will help push it to the surface for air until it is well.

Many animals live in groups, ants, ladybugs in the winter, zebras, deers of all sorts, wolves, birds, elephants, penguins, etc.

There is power in numbers, a better chance of surival in groups.

Here is the evolutionary explanation: a species will survive better if parents care for the young, they will survive predators and ravages of weather if they stay in a group. They will survive better if they defend themselves.

Nature has figured this out because it helps the species survive.

In people, we see a wide range for love and altruism. Some people feel it so strongly they dedicate their lives to helping others, others feel it so weakly they live for themselves. (Interesting to note that in both cases, the extreme is not to have children.)

I would argue that this is nature's experiment.

However, I do agree that there are things that are hard to explain. Love and altruism are easy. How about the love of music? An appreciation of natural beauty? But, just because we don't have an understanding right now, doesn't mean that we have to invent one right now and say that this is a sign of God, simply because I can't think of anything else.

Gods were invented very early in mans history to explain why things happened that had been observed. Gods moved the winds, the tides, the night, and precession. These gods were sometimes and often created in man's image. They were the first answer to our question why? It could be argued that gods were created from our scientific inquiry.

Over time, we have been able to learn more about our world, and we have learned that gods do not cause these things. It flows, then, that God does not cause morality, that there are other reasons for love and altruism and the evolving moral code that people have tried to encode.

If a god were all powerful, and wanted us to know it, it seems that it would certainly have been powerful enough to give us a set of universal truths that are unchanging over time. However, all religions have evolved and changed as our views of ourselves have changed. Religion has evolved with us because it comes from us.

It's time to shake off this prehistorical need to explain things we don't know with a simple explanation of god. We know now that there are expl