Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason. She began her writing career as a reporter for The Washington Post, and has been a contributor to a wide range of periodicals and newspapers for more than 25 years on topics including law, religion, medicine, aging, women's rights, political dissent in the Soviet Union and Russian literature. Jacoby has been the recipient of grants from the Guggenheim, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 2001-2002, she was named a fellow at the Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. Jacoby’s other books include Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004); Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge, a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1984, and Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for Her Family's Buried Past. She is working on a book about the relationship between American anti-intellectualism and political polarization, to be published by Pantheon in 2008. Her photo is by Chris Ramir.
Close.
Susan Jacoby
Author and reporter
Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason."more »
I don't believe in god because as a hypothesis it is in discord with most of the ways I imagine the universe to be. I do have ideas that are completely unscientific - but they are often derived from scientific ideas and non-theistic philosophies that I have read about. I don't have any problem with the idea of a god. However, for me, to believe in a god would be like putting on a shirt that doesn't fit well, or a hat that is the wrong color.
Disbelief in god is very much a choice. It may be a "move" in a game controlled by believers - I am not so sure about that - but if so, then I consider it to be a forced move for those who have chosen to develop their minds with an emphasis on scientific, non-theistic philosophy, or Earth in relation to the entire universe.
I am not sure that there is no god. However I am as sure that there is no god as I am sure about many other positions I tentatively take in debates. I admit that the God idea has a certain allure. But I choose the model that is consistent with the balance of my world-view. I also think that my worldview is consistent with the tradition in wesern culture where scientific models are emphasized, positions are argued, and tentative opinions form based on how well the models fit the world.
I believe us westerners are prone to absolutes, but that it is not necessary to always fill in the gaps of knowledge with faith. You won't see me insisting on the non-existence of god, because it is true that I don't have indisputable evidence. Who am I to say that my world-view is superior to those of believers?
Regarding your statement that disbelief in god is also a leap of "faith": First we should determine the origins of that word, and compare the christian meaning of the word with the scientific method. I think the truth is something closer to my first paragraph. I would love to have faith in something, but I don't have faith in science.
I was going to it doesn’t get civil until you get here, but then you threw in the Ebay shot :)
I know what you’re saying. There’s debate and discussion and then just out right slamming. I don’t find the later as productive or as fun.
But getting back to Ebay, what color do the boxes come in?
Ben.
Agreed one can reject God without indisputable evidence particularly since there is not indisputable scientific evidence either way. It is a leap of faith by both theists and atheists. We need that in order to fill in the gaps.
Ben let me ask you and the other atheists on the thread. Do you not believe in God because of science alone or is it that you haven’t heard a definition of God that makes sense to you. Obviously we can’t provide scientific proof at this time or anytime soon.
Other than indisputable proof is there anything that would move you to agnostic or a theism?
Priver, your welcome for the kind words, I am just not sure what they were? I will definitely take the compliment! It’s better than Ghostbuster slamming me for making him think
Yes I live in Minneapolis. I recently looked around Saint Paul, ate at Pizza Luce, and it is an attractive city. It is a bit too quiet here, but it really helps me to concentrate.
Regarding religion and science. They are related in that ultimately we tend to view both in terms of Greek philosophy. To me that is what distinguishes the west from places such as China. I think that there is less emphasis on objects/attributes, and more emphasis on relationships in China. Science and religion also both supposedly strive after the truth. Jihadist made an interesting point about about atheism as a "move", in a game where believers create the rules, above. I think I will read the book she suggested. I don't know if I will agree, but I will read the book to find out.
But regarding science not being able to prove whether god exists, I think there is another way to think of it. Some scientists think scientifically about nearly everything, so god is a form of discontinuity, and in some cases a contradiction to scientific models of the universe that we have evidence for, but that do not directly relate to the question of the existence of a creator. As Stephen Hawking said, "neither a beginning nor an end then what place for a creator?" So it is possible to reject the idea of god without indisputable evidence. I could explain it in probabilistic terms, but the truth is that it is a preference for conceptual closure, though not necessarily confinement. Or you could say that scientists can evaluate the plausibility of hypotheses very well, possibly too well.
To me it seems odd that most people switch between scientific reasoning and non-scientific reasoning without noting the difference, using each of the two areas piece-meal. When we are having a debate, isn't it generally assumed that we explain a hypothesis and support it? Isn't that scientific?
I'm not an angry or militant atheist, I am just curious how others think.
Just a casual observation here but, but why in so many cases does it take so long for a thread to develop into a rational or at least a civil conversation?
It seems that the first 3-4 days of any given discussion just include too many random, blow hard pot shots.
I can't get the "God in a Box" stuff out of my head. I bet I could sell a few "boxes" on Ebay for $20 a pop to random idiots.
I personally do not think that God exists. I don't believe that purpose is the only measurement for our existence. I think that there is a possibility of a consciousness that is not attributed to carbon-based life. I am not saying this is fact, but a theory - like most of science. It is true that science cannot explain everything yet - but remember that at one time the world was flat, and the Earth was the center of the universe. We WILL figure it out.
I think science and religion don't have to be incompatible. They're just made out to be so in most organized religions. They serve different ends and seek to answer different questions. Will they converge at some point? Maybe. How exciting would that be!
I just have this image of a giant 'jack in the box' thing that pops up after hearing 'pop goes the weasel'. God in a box makes me laugh too. :)
I think all who seek will find an answer in some form. Even if it leads to atheism. It's never easy to change a view like that that is SO personal, especially since people are brought up to believe one thing, but often don't challenge it until adulthood if at all. It's also REALLY hard these days to just get the chatter out of our heads when everything around us is built to keep it going. it's about bringing all of one's available faculties to the job.
The more I find out, the less I know. It makes for real wonder and joy at the journey itself.
I think science and religion really aren’t that different in they can’t prove or disprove God’s existence. They are very different in that I think the start from two different points as at some point in ultimate reality they likely converge. But that is an understanding that is eon’s away from us.
We haven’t even conquered the unifying theory of physics and we think we can completely understand that God doesn’t exist via science. Conversely look at all we do understand and yet we think we have the final answer on God from a few religious books.
God is too grand. Just to make Ghostbuster giggle again. You can’t put God in a box.
We can only go on what we know right now and continue to look at understanding more.
Love the LSD comment, but yes, definitely not God LOL.
I have heard Green’s book are quite good and I will peruse! Thanks.
As for your comment “Then I am essentially doomed.” That would depend on ones belief. Personally I don’t think that is so.
I liked Priver’s quote early 'the universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action'. If you keep searching sincerely then my friend you will find it. To me in the end there is only source.
I think part of finding the source, God whatever you want to call it means stripping away all the noise of the physical world. Until one finds what resonates with them that is very hard to do.
Exactly, the empirical method has limitations and cannot account for the abstract world of natural laws, moral laws, etc. Therefore, the modern scientific community should stop acting like they are the measure of all truth. I like science but it cannot account for everything.
What was the lie Satan told Eve in the garden? Do you think Satan still tells the same lie? He is the father of lies.
Rob Adams, I have read several enlightening books. The Tao Te Ching, I Ching, Bhagavad Gita and now and then I read the Bible and Koran. Although they are beautiful and amazing reads, it doesn't bring me any closer to God, just as meditation and the like has not either. The closest experience may have been the first and only time I tried LSD, which was both powerful and thought-provoking, but no God. I will pick up the books you've suggested and give them a shot. I would recommend The Elegant Universe or The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. My point is that no book or deity has or possibly ever will speak to me.
I would say to that, Krusso, is who said that is what Jesus said? Can we verify it? No. The thing you are searching for is the answer to "why?". You are searching for purpose in the universe, and to that, I can't find fault. I just don't think that something needs purpose to exist. It doesn't explain why there are other planets and galaxies. Why are we the focal point, and why the distant fireworks? They don't explain anything. From your experience, it is rather easy to see God as the root of everything, but what if I don't have enough of a functioning brain to contemplate God? Then I am essentially doomed. I just don't think that your God is the answer, just as you don't think my lack of belief is the answer. There is no clear evidence that God exists. Pretty things aren't evidence, for why would they need to be pretty? I did believe in God at one time, but I do not any longer. Jesus never touched me, none of his followers ever touched me, and I could never sense or feel God or his power. I can't verify that Jesus said any of the things he did, nor God, nor any other deity I didn't hear myself. How do you know that nature doesn't think? Could the Earth not regulate what is on top of it? Does it have to be an invisible man?
I have found the Truth His name is Jesus. I will be learning about His inexhaustible truth for all eternity. He said:
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).
Luke’s Fourth Post
I can't have eternal life in Jesus Christ because I've already committed the unforgivable sin, so I'm damned regardless. How do you know that God speaks all languages? Did he tell you that? The fact is that either A) God did not create a perfect planet and it is under constant revision, B) That God made it so changes occur for some perfect order in the end, or C) He didn't create the universe because he doesn't exist. Can you site proof that he does, or is just that stuff that you find pretty is so pretty that someone had to make it? The limits to the scientific method are only the physical limits to how we can explore them. The difference is that science develops because new evidence is discovered constantly, while religion develops so it can defend the lack of knowledge and understanding in it's original text(s). I have a conscience just like most do because it is generally innate in human beings. Just like nurturing for the young is generally innate in many mammals doesn't mean that one mother isn't going to rip her baby to shreds. Conscience is a means to order society, and obviously, based on your religion's history, it doesn't prevent people from hurting each other. Value to who? Value to what? I don't see any evidence that God is within me. My parents had sex, and that is what caused me to be born. So much for cause and effect. Jesus didn't will me into existence because he isn't alive. I think that is enough proof. It is true that nature displays order, but what else could it display?
I did not ask you what a conscience does I know what is does. The question is where did the human conscience come from?
I see that you dent the clear evidence that God exists. You are willfully rejecting the clear evidence of God's existence.
I would say that I could give you more evidence but you would still reject it because you have made a decision of the will to reject God's revelation and to assign creative power to inert nature.
Do you think that life could come from non-life? Do you really think that morality came from non-moral nature? Nature does not think nor does it know right and wrong.
Now Krusso, there is nothing within that post that I can disagree with. If God speaks to you, you should consider yourself lucky, because he left me and many I know in the dark. Good luck to you in your search for truth. If I had any reason to believe otherwise, I wouldn't think this way, but I haven't any proof of it.
Luke’s Third Post to Me
“I may sound like a jerk, but you have to realize that the same way that you are offended when people tell you that your religion is false is the same offense I take with the smug attitudes and comments about my system of beliefs (or lack thereof). I admit I don't know all the answers, but you can't do that, Krusso. This idea that you speak to God and know all the answers is nonsense. If everything is solid and you have the answers, then why are you still here? People like you have been pushing people to your idea of truth for far too long - and if you can explain evolution, then go ahead. If you can explain where the dinosaurs came from, go ahead. If not, then you really don't have the answers, do you?”
Luke I do not think you are a jerk I think that you are a valuable person who has questions. I know I still have questions and that I am still learning. I am not offended by the rejection by most in this world of what I believe to be true. I expect that response and I think that this message is worth being rejected for. My prayer is that people would turn to Jesus and be saved from their sin and given new life. I was once a very angry young man but Jesus changed my heart.
Why do you think it is nonsense that God speaks to me through His word the Bible?
Evolution is a theory that the majority of modern scientists assert is science. The problem is that the naturalistic theory of evolution has no empirical proof. Therefore, the theory of evolution is a philosophy or a belief system not science. I have no problem with believing things by faith but as I have stated before faith is only as good as your object of faith. If you believe in something that is false it cannot help you.
I do believe that there is change within organisms but that those organisms still retain their identity of what they are. In other words there may be many variations of cats but they are still cats. Can you name one organism that scientists have observed changing into another kind of organism? I am not talking about change within the kind like the cat kind, the dog kind, and the monkey kind. I am talking about cats changing into dogs or monkeys into men. Before you try it most will say, “Well of course not change like that takes millions or even billions of years.” In other words they have not observed it happening. This kind of thinking is not based in empirical proof but is based solely on faith.
Dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. In ancient Chinese art there are paintings that depict dragons which are dinosaurs. Where do you think they got the idea to paint these amazing creators? The dinosaurs are simply extinct just like other kinds of organisms that have now become extinct.
I can't have eternal life in Jesus Christ because I've already committed the unforgivable sin, so I'm damned regardless. How do you know that God speaks all languages? Did he tell you that? The fact is that either A) God did not create a perfect planet and it is under constant revision, B) That God made it so changes occur for some perfect order in the end, or C) He didn't create the universe because he doesn't exist. Can you site proof that he does, or is just that stuff that you find pretty is so pretty that someone had to make it? The limits to the scientific method are only the physical limits to how we can explore them. The difference is that science develops because new evidence is discovered constantly, while religion develops so it can defend the lack of knowledge and understanding in it's original text(s). I have a conscience just like most do because it is generally innate in human beings. Just like nurturing for the young is generally innate in many mammals doesn't mean that one mother isn't going to rip her baby to shreds. Conscience is a means to order society, and obviously, based on your religion's history, it doesn't prevent people from hurting each other. Value to who? Value to what? I don't see any evidence that God is within me. My parents had sex, and that is what caused me to be born. So much for cause and effect. Jesus didn't will me into existence because he isn't alive. I think that is enough proof. It is true that nature displays order, but what else could it display?
Luke’s First Post to Me
“My manmade theory of Naturalistic Evolution certainly has some facts involved, rather than the ancient superstitions in your manmade belief system. Remember, God didn't write the Bible. What language does he speak? English? Or some soul language? I have faith that I have no soul, and that when I die, my matter will still exist (which is PROVEN, mind you), but my consciousness will not.”
What are the facts of evolution as it pertains to the origin of the universe, the animal kingdom, and humankind?
God speaks all languages because He is all-knowing. He used the agency of man to communicate His word the Bible. Do you think that would be too hard for the all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present God?
“I have faith that I have no soul, and that when I die, my matter will still exist (which is PROVEN, mind you), but my consciousness will not.”
Can the scientific method (observation and measuring in repeatable experiments) account for everything that exists?
Luke’s Second Post to Me
“What about the unfortunate souls that happened to die before the Bible got to them? Do they just go to hell by default? What does God tell you happened to them?”
All people that have ever lived in the past, who live now, and who will ever live in the future could, can, and will see that God exists by all that He has made. His created order exhibits His creative genius. All people know that they have broken God’s law by the conscience that God has placed within them. In other words all people knowingly do wrong (sin) because their conscience is a witness to that truth. You conscience demonstrates that you are accountable for your actions. Where did your conscience come from? Can you prove to me that you have a conscience with the empirical method (science)? All people have evidence within them that God exists and in the external world. To say there is no God is like saying a painting does not have a painting. I would say that you are more complex than any painting even the most renowned. You have value because you are made in the image of God. I pray that you would understand this truth so that you may have eternal life in Jesus Christ.
Original sin as per many contemporary Catholic theology professors:
"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon])is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin.
Original Sin is therefore only symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.
Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.
Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.
Baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics of
Catholicism.)"
I may sound like a jerk, but you have to realize that the same way that you are offended when people tell you that your religion is false is the same offense I take with the smug attitudes and comments about my system of beliefs (or lack thereof). I admit I don't know all the answers, but you can't do that, Krusso. This idea that you speak to God and know all the answers is nonsense. If everything is solid and you have the answers, then why are you still here? People like you have been pushing people to your idea of truth for far too long - and if you can explain evolution, then go ahead. If you can explain where the dinosaurs came from, go ahead. If not, then you really don't have the answers, do you?
Explain this, Krusso. What about the unfortunate souls that happened to die before the Bible got to them? Do they just go to hell by default? What does God tell you happened to them?
My manmade theory of Naturalistic Evolution certainly has some facts involved, rather than the ancient superstitions in your manmade belief system. Remember, God didn't write the Bible. What language does he speak? English? Or some soul language? I have faith that I have no soul, and that when I die, my matter will still exist (which is PROVEN, mind you), but my consciousness will not.
Original sin is one of the issues I have with Christianity. That concept just doesn’t sell with me. Do we want to have that long discussion?
As for created in God’s image, absolutely. That is actually something I take almost literally. We are not separate from God. A very simple analogy, God is the ocean and I am a drop of water. I am made of the same stuff as him but can not do things on the same scale, unless I do. But with out enough understanding I can not.
To me that is what made Christ different. He did not have the illusion of being separate from God because he was not separate from God and he knew this. That was how he was able to do what he did.
I speak to God all the time in prayer and He has answered my prayers for 20 years now. He speaks to me and all who believe through His word the Holy Bible. I walk by faith in Him who gave me life. All people have faith in something. Is your faith in the manmade theory of Naturalistic Evolution?
Krusso, I would suffice to say that since God has never spoken to me or anyone I know, that God has a relationship of apathy and stagnation. We are the kings of our domain. Who has spoken to God? You? Did he say "Check this out...Gays are bad, atheists are dumb, evolution is dumb, the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool you...anything like that?
The Bible says that we humans are made in the image of God. When God says that He is not speaking of our physicality but that we have emotions, self reflecting intellect, and a will, but there is another way that we are made in His image and that is the way we can have a relationship with God. God has always had a relationship of love. God is three persons yet one God. He has had this relationship from all eternity. The most profound thing about being made in the image of God is the way we humans can have a relationship with Him once our sins have been washed away by faith in Jesus and His sacrifice and resurrection from the dead.
Ben... I am a Saint Paul boy myself. Minnesota is well represented then!
Ghostbuster... sorry to make you use your brain... my bad.
Priver, I agree on death. I think even more is revealed to us there, but for some reason the thrill of the hunt (understanding while we are here) just has this certain pizzaz to me. It's like don't spoil the surprise or don't read the last page of the book before you get to the end I guess.
I loved the quote 'the universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action'.
...and the problem with you Mr. Adams is that you make me use my brain late at night after I've already shut it off for the evening!
I'll definately look into that website you posted.
God in a box eh? Sounds like one of those late night infomercials. Seriously though, that is a frequent topic of conversation among all the christians I've ever know. I think could write a book on that topic myself.
E.M. Cioran - The certitude that there is no salvation is a form of salvation, in fact it is salvation. Starting from here, one might organize our own life as well as construct a philosophy of history: the insoluble as solution, as the only way out.
You write of a phenomena that appears to have some roots across all cultures. People in abrahamic religions have claimed that their god spoke to them or that they have a living relationship with Jesus. Shamans in distinct cultures, over the centuries have used the information obtained through meditation/trance/etc to heal people. The experiences are remarkably similar, even across continents. I think you're really on to something here. This appears to be some sort of mystical experience that is common to all people. Whether it's a mass delusion or some sort of interaction from something larger is really up to the individual to decide. Since it's based on personal experiences, it isn't ever going to be codified and broken down in a scientific manner.
If someone has such an event and they think it's all in their mind, and doesn't act on the information given and someone is hurt by their nonaction, that is something they will have to live with. But if something is received this way and acted upon and someone is helped by it, is it a bad thing?
What you describe is what those who follow an earth based spirituality tend to seek out. I had a teacher once tell me 'the universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action'.
As a pagan, I don't separate out creator and created either. There are more people who feel that way than you might think. We see the processes of our minds as just as natural as eating or sex. That's why for us, all are sacred, because all of it comes from Nature. From what I've heard the numbers of people who think this way are growing, too. It's not about rejecting science at all either. It's about using all of our capabilities in equal balance and measure. Something we don't really do much of in this day and age.
Where does that leave the bible in all this? I have no idea. It's my feeling that the bible might be an attempt to describe such events. But some people are so insistent on the inerrancy of the book and words themselves that they don't necessarily see that in there, and so they start insisting that their way is the 'only truth'. And then people start dying over it.
But when I look at the world, at nature and at everything on it, and see divinity everywhere, I can't help but marvel at the wonder and mystery of it all and the possibilities.. I want to learn as much as I can about what I may be able to do to promote education and understanding. Am I going to die? Of course. But when I see death, like birth, life, sexuality, healing as a sacred process, I'm not afraid to die anymore. I'm more afraid of dying before I've done everything I want to.
I think we're all searching for something that may be right inside us all along. Sort of like Dorothy in Oz.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and the two links you gave. It is most useful.
Frisco and its environs seem to have more restaurants in the world per square mile. Better food then even New York I think. Can't still sleep well in local time though.
You noted : "Daniel Dennett wrote, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, of evolution by natural selection being an "acid" that dissolved religious or creationist views of the world. The folk wisdom of most people is heavily influenced by science - often indirectly and destructively. So it seems to me that something needs to replace the areas of religion that are degraded by new knowledge. Or Christianity needs to adapt quite a bit. Isn't there a point at which a religion cannot adapt to new knowledge anymore?"
As you know, nature abhors a vacuum. It also always seem like once one's mind has a gap due to displaced beliefs, one find other beliefs to fill it up. Likewise, once one's soul has a hole due to lost faith in anything, one finds a filler that may be despair, cynicism or new hope and faith. Only one knows how many times in one's life one weave in and out of gaps in the mind and holes in the soul.
E.M. Cioran said - "The certitude that there is no salvation, in fact is salvation. Starting from here, one might our own life as well as construct a philosophy of history : the insoluble as solution, as the only way out."
Or something like that if I remember that offhand correctly which do apply to atheists if they agree to that characterization for unbelief or non-belief. As a believer, of course I have a different kind of certitude - that there is a God, and there is salvation of the human race if we do the right thing here on earth. Rather naive, presumptious and blindingly hopeful:)
You will love John Gray's "Straw Dogs -Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals". It's a short book, less than 250 pages, including appendices, but it really perk's one's mind up and make one think in new ways on human existence whether one agree with Gray or not.
I am partial to thinkers who are mavericks or controversial in their respective fields, be it Hannah Arendt in philosophy, or Joan Robinson in economics.
As he is a professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, John Gray's perspective is from the Judeo-Christian heritage and intellectual tradition. He contend, among other things, that unbelief is a move in a game whose rules are set by believers; that atheism is a late bloom of a Christian passion for truth; that nearly all philosophies, most religions and much of science testify to a desperate concern with salvation of mankind. I love the last paragraph of his book (if I recall it correctly) asking - can we not think of the aim in life as being simply to see?
Ben, it has been a delight talking with you here. I have to focus on work completely for the week.
Best regards
PS - I had the best filet steak ever in Minneapolis. Not in Chicago, Kansas City, Houston, or Dallas.
I am saying that God is BOTH personal and abstract, both the creator and the created. I know that doesn’t jive with contemporary belief.
Our senses are but one tool to help us determine our beliefs. For me my senses got me moving to explore that I am more than my body. They have helped me reaffirm a belief in God.
We can know there are things other than our 5 senses. I have heard and felt things while meditating that were not me.
There are things I just feel I know are right. Faith. It is just different than other people.
Are you positing that nature is God? Are you saying that the natural world is all that there is? Are you saying that the only things we can know are through our senses?
Faith is only as good as the object of faith. Remember that the universe is winding down and that you are going to die.
Now you are thinking my friend! Kidding of course, it is all about interpretation and one’s definition of God. In Christianity he is an entity a personal God if you will. Buddhism is more aligned, though not exactly, with what you just said. Buddhists help me out here… Norrie where are you. Who else wants to help with the Pantheist view (all-encompassing immanent abstract God).
I actually believe God is both.
Either can serve the purpose of furthering one’s spirituality. Many say that their concept/definition is correct. You will need to determine for yourself which definition serves your purpose.
My purpose is a quest for ultimate truth… or at least more truth and understanding. That way I can hopefully accomplish two things. Evolve my spirituality which theoretically will serve me better when I leave the Earth. Secondly I believe that an evolved spiritual understanding can help us in the here and now. I guess there is a third reason which is hopefully I can be better than I was yesterday.
Luke if you still have questions, try the Dagoba system… look for a little green guy named Yoda. :)
What if God isn't an entity? What if he is a consciousness that exists in every speck of the universe? I personally think there is a better explanation that no man, dead or alive, has or will ever know of.
The short answer to why God put us here; through us he can experience something that he is not, which is separate from anything. Through our illusion of being separate he can experience being separate, though we really aren’t separate, but on a conscious level we appear to be separate.
That’s the latest, greatest answer I know of… but I don’t think it is the end. I think that is about as far as we can go to understanding the ultimate truth at our current stage of evolution. My 2 cents anyway, to each his own.
Luke you are correct in that humans do share a common root system. Good will, compassion and love seem to be the common themes I see across religions. We don’t have to do it because God will be angry or because God says that is what to do. We do it because one should observe that it works.
As for religion and the varying definitions of God, truth, rules etc; Two things really. As I posted to Ghostbuster how do you put the all and the everything into a box? As you even said of course we make him like is otherwise how could we understand him. One definition is not sufficient. God is too grand for that in my opinion. Secondly the message comes to us in difference forms as we each have our ways of comprehending. Religion is a tool and each variation works differently for each person. Choose the tool that suits you best, or choose none at all.
Regardless of which religion a person has been raised on you can tell the people who understand they are more than their bodies, they understand spirit and understand that it transcends an individual religions.
What are you doing other than being smug with your ignorance? I am arguing with the idea that homosexuality is us spitting in God's face. If he didn't want people to be gay, he wouldn't have made them that way. I am arguing that everything that God does is good (do I even need to fight how ridiculous this argument is?) - good for who? Not for me. If God is out for me than I am out for him too. Luckily, I don't have to, because he doesn't affect me, because he doesn't exist. I don't believe that there is a God who affects things in this world at all. Krusso, why did he make other planets and galaxies? Why aren't you stoning people? Your faith is a mix of what the Bible says and what you can live with and nothing more. What I believe isn't diluted through time. The understanding only grows deeper. Of course I am passionate about it - I was lied to until I discovered the truth on my own.
Again I see a lot of passonate anger on your part but no answers. You need to do more than just be outraged.
Again, On what basis are you attempting to argue with me? Are you asserting that nature is all that there is? That all we can know is through the empirical method?
If people approach it with and open mind they will find it an interesting read. If you are really set in your religion you may not find it of much use, it may actually irritate you.
The thing I liked best is it does say in there do not even take this as absolute. Walsch says well then aren't we just making it up as we go along. God's response is you are making it all up as you go along anyway. When we create our own reality, which is actually the illusion we call corporal life. How do you put something omnipotent, the all and the every thing into a box?
There are some shots at confinements of traditional religious practices/beliefs, but if you look past that and really consider some of what he says it will make you think. There are things that are contradictive to standard beliefs and things that overlap.
Even if you don’t believe he actually speaks with God you may find it an interesting read.
The problem with you Ghostbuster is your mere presence on this site now puts the stupid tune in my head!
Rob, I appreciate your approach as a response to my atheism. It is true that there are things we experience as humans that can't be written off as mere delusions - they do have value. However, I think that the argument of the existence of God is silly - ofcourse we have to make him like us, or how would we ever understand him? Look at it this way, however. What was God's purpose for making us? Would it matter if he never did? Not at all - and that is what brings purpose into question. Does the universe need to exist? Nope. Also, doesn't experience shape belief as well? Why does a book or school of thought have to dictate our actions? Where is the compassion in not wanting to harm someone just so God isn't angry with you? Why not avoid harming them because you care about their well-being or wish them well? Why is it that Pagan and Eastern religions and philosophies contain inate feelings of compassion and love while Western organized religions and philosophies need some damning hand to push them along? I certainly don't need misanthropia to run my life. I don't need solace in the pain of others - where is the love in that? Why not the realization that human beings share a common root system, and that we are stronger when our principals and ideals don't consume good will and compassion?
I understand your position. I am an independent when it comes to spirituality; I take what I find useful from various religions, my own experience and research. I have seen or read too much to not explore further. I believe if you explore you will find there is something more. Now what you find is up to you. We all come to our own conclusions on spirituality and religion.
Luke there are a plethora of definitions of what God is, what he does and how he operates. Just because there seem to be a bunch of ‘bad definitions’ doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. It just means we don’t understand right now.
One of my biggest draws to the idea that there is at least something else beyond this body and beyond this life is documentation (proof?) of near death experiences, particularly in children, out of body experiences (read any of the books by Robert Monroe, see the Monroe institute as well) and things I have heard and felt during meditation experiences. There is more than just our bodies.
When I explore those I couldn’t help but be interested in what all the fuss about God is. Even myth came from some sort of truth at some time. My first interest was these people who have allegedly talked to God are the most interesting. I think a number of people who have. The one that caught my eye was Neal Donald Walsch from the Conversations with God series. That will likely drive a number of the Christians crazy, but that’s ok we can still be friends
The reason that one caught my eye was one it is current, he’s alive we know what has been written down. It is written in our time in our understanding for our culture. The issues I have with ‘typical’ scripture is the authenticity and interpretation. I don’t want to start a thread on that because that is a monster discussion on its own. However by reading Walsch I have become interested in what other religions have said in the past.
First I find the common themes, which there are, and two I want an understanding of all religions since religion helps shape belief and thus people’s action and that shapes our world.
Again I don’t want to debate here Walsch versus typical scripture because that is a large discussion. The point is this long exploration of mine has shown me too much to not explore any of it. There are a multitude of opportunities and tools for us to use to explore spirituality or in your case the discover if there is indeed more.
Find your own path my friend and then find your own answers. There will be many people there that will help you along the way if you so desire.
That is the problem Krusso, you don't KNOW anything. You just accept what you don't KNOW as fact. Where is your evidence? A single book. God doesn't allow anything. He doesn't do anything? How can you believe in something so inept and careless? So regimes that kill millions are right? You think you are innocent by ignorance? You think that irresponsibility is just fine because God only does what is right? You don't buy a dog, tell it not to take food from the table, and then leave the room and expect it not too. You just do what you must believe your God did - fill us with shame and hatred and anger to justify our actions. Bravo! Perpetuate sin by condemning it! Great job! I do have a better explanation. The universe did not need a reason to exist. It just did. You are confusing cause and effect with purpose (which is very common in your faith). It didn't take an Einstein to make a plant - it took a seed (with no brain or central nervous system). Also, who has the monopoly on consciousness? Isn't is just as valid to say that the universe wanted to create itself? Why do invisible men have to make everything?
I thought I would add some more to my response. My last post was kind of long, so I just had to stop at a certain point.
Regarding the language of science - I think it is a mark of a good scientific thinker to feel the connections of all inferences being considered. There needs to be deep understanding, and there should not be an engineering mentality of "lets just do this." At the same time, there needs to be flexibility.
It seems like the most famous scientists are generally those who recognize and capitalize (in some ways) on shifts. Godel and Einstein are two good examples.
But there are many others with very valuable things to say. For example, Judea Pearl wrote what I think is the most interesting book on causality. He is a computer scientist. I don't think any lay people will read his book.
One thing you have explained well to me is that there is a reason science is not as popular as religion. That is because science does not relate well with most people. Because of that, I should not expect people to speak in scientific terms. And I should not expect science to ever replace religion. You are completely right about that I suspect. Hitchens is not going to convince any believers. I doubt Hitchens would convince me either, judging by my reaction to the few pages of "God Is Not Great" I read in the bookstore a few days ago.
Daniel Dennett wrote, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, of evolution by natural selection being an "acid" that dissolved religious or creationist views of the world. The folk wisdom of most people is heavily influenced by science - often indirectly and destructively. So it seems to me that something needs to replace the areas of religion that are degraded by new knowledge. Or Christianity needs to adapt quite a bit. Isn't there a point at which a religion cannot adapt to new knowledge anymore?
All Comments (193)
auto company geico insurance Egg on
November 20, 2007 7:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 07:14
auto company geico insurance Egg on
November 20, 2007 7:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 07:14
cash advance resource Nasty, brutish and short
November 20, 2007 4:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 04:20
mortgage calculator refinance breakeven Fly in the ointment
November 20, 2007 1:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 01:12
traveler insurance phone number Beef and reef
November 19, 2007 7:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2007 19:31
avljnmxi syatpeiwq iqxym fcpyeq hriyx jxczkhmv gulqnvahb
July 5, 2007 2:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 14:25
avljnmxi syatpeiwq iqxym fcpyeq hriyx jxczkhmv gulqnvahb
July 5, 2007 2:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 14:24
avljnmxi syatpeiwq iqxym fcpyeq hriyx jxczkhmv gulqnvahb
July 5, 2007 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 5, 2007 14:23
Hi Rob,
I don't believe in god because as a hypothesis it is in discord with most of the ways I imagine the universe to be. I do have ideas that are completely unscientific - but they are often derived from scientific ideas and non-theistic philosophies that I have read about. I don't have any problem with the idea of a god. However, for me, to believe in a god would be like putting on a shirt that doesn't fit well, or a hat that is the wrong color.
Disbelief in god is very much a choice. It may be a "move" in a game controlled by believers - I am not so sure about that - but if so, then I consider it to be a forced move for those who have chosen to develop their minds with an emphasis on scientific, non-theistic philosophy, or Earth in relation to the entire universe.
I am not sure that there is no god. However I am as sure that there is no god as I am sure about many other positions I tentatively take in debates. I admit that the God idea has a certain allure. But I choose the model that is consistent with the balance of my world-view. I also think that my worldview is consistent with the tradition in wesern culture where scientific models are emphasized, positions are argued, and tentative opinions form based on how well the models fit the world.
I believe us westerners are prone to absolutes, but that it is not necessary to always fill in the gaps of knowledge with faith. You won't see me insisting on the non-existence of god, because it is true that I don't have indisputable evidence. Who am I to say that my world-view is superior to those of believers?
Regarding your statement that disbelief in god is also a leap of "faith": First we should determine the origins of that word, and compare the christian meaning of the word with the scientific method. I think the truth is something closer to my first paragraph. I would love to have faith in something, but I don't have faith in science.
June 6, 2007 11:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 6, 2007 11:45
Ghostbuster.
I was going to it doesn’t get civil until you get here, but then you threw in the Ebay shot :)
I know what you’re saying. There’s debate and discussion and then just out right slamming. I don’t find the later as productive or as fun.
But getting back to Ebay, what color do the boxes come in?
Ben.
Agreed one can reject God without indisputable evidence particularly since there is not indisputable scientific evidence either way. It is a leap of faith by both theists and atheists. We need that in order to fill in the gaps.
Ben let me ask you and the other atheists on the thread. Do you not believe in God because of science alone or is it that you haven’t heard a definition of God that makes sense to you. Obviously we can’t provide scientific proof at this time or anytime soon.
Other than indisputable proof is there anything that would move you to agnostic or a theism?
Priver, your welcome for the kind words, I am just not sure what they were? I will definitely take the compliment! It’s better than Ghostbuster slamming me for making him think
June 6, 2007 9:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 6, 2007 09:25
Hi Rob,
Yes I live in Minneapolis. I recently looked around Saint Paul, ate at Pizza Luce, and it is an attractive city. It is a bit too quiet here, but it really helps me to concentrate.
Regarding religion and science. They are related in that ultimately we tend to view both in terms of Greek philosophy. To me that is what distinguishes the west from places such as China. I think that there is less emphasis on objects/attributes, and more emphasis on relationships in China. Science and religion also both supposedly strive after the truth. Jihadist made an interesting point about about atheism as a "move", in a game where believers create the rules, above. I think I will read the book she suggested. I don't know if I will agree, but I will read the book to find out.
But regarding science not being able to prove whether god exists, I think there is another way to think of it. Some scientists think scientifically about nearly everything, so god is a form of discontinuity, and in some cases a contradiction to scientific models of the universe that we have evidence for, but that do not directly relate to the question of the existence of a creator. As Stephen Hawking said, "neither a beginning nor an end then what place for a creator?" So it is possible to reject the idea of god without indisputable evidence. I could explain it in probabilistic terms, but the truth is that it is a preference for conceptual closure, though not necessarily confinement. Or you could say that scientists can evaluate the plausibility of hypotheses very well, possibly too well.
To me it seems odd that most people switch between scientific reasoning and non-scientific reasoning without noting the difference, using each of the two areas piece-meal. When we are having a debate, isn't it generally assumed that we explain a hypothesis and support it? Isn't that scientific?
I'm not an angry or militant atheist, I am just curious how others think.
June 5, 2007 11:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 23:11
Just a casual observation here but, but why in so many cases does it take so long for a thread to develop into a rational or at least a civil conversation?
It seems that the first 3-4 days of any given discussion just include too many random, blow hard pot shots.
I can't get the "God in a Box" stuff out of my head. I bet I could sell a few "boxes" on Ebay for $20 a pop to random idiots.
June 5, 2007 10:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 22:48
I personally do not think that God exists. I don't believe that purpose is the only measurement for our existence. I think that there is a possibility of a consciousness that is not attributed to carbon-based life. I am not saying this is fact, but a theory - like most of science. It is true that science cannot explain everything yet - but remember that at one time the world was flat, and the Earth was the center of the universe. We WILL figure it out.
June 5, 2007 10:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 22:30
Thanks Rob, for your kind words. :)
I think science and religion don't have to be incompatible. They're just made out to be so in most organized religions. They serve different ends and seek to answer different questions. Will they converge at some point? Maybe. How exciting would that be!
I just have this image of a giant 'jack in the box' thing that pops up after hearing 'pop goes the weasel'. God in a box makes me laugh too. :)
I think all who seek will find an answer in some form. Even if it leads to atheism. It's never easy to change a view like that that is SO personal, especially since people are brought up to believe one thing, but often don't challenge it until adulthood if at all. It's also REALLY hard these days to just get the chatter out of our heads when everything around us is built to keep it going. it's about bringing all of one's available faculties to the job.
The more I find out, the less I know. It makes for real wonder and joy at the journey itself.
Blessed be :)
June 5, 2007 7:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 19:08
KR
I think science and religion really aren’t that different in they can’t prove or disprove God’s existence. They are very different in that I think the start from two different points as at some point in ultimate reality they likely converge. But that is an understanding that is eon’s away from us.
We haven’t even conquered the unifying theory of physics and we think we can completely understand that God doesn’t exist via science. Conversely look at all we do understand and yet we think we have the final answer on God from a few religious books.
God is too grand. Just to make Ghostbuster giggle again. You can’t put God in a box.
We can only go on what we know right now and continue to look at understanding more.
June 5, 2007 6:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 18:09
Luke.
Love the LSD comment, but yes, definitely not God LOL.
I have heard Green’s book are quite good and I will peruse! Thanks.
As for your comment “Then I am essentially doomed.” That would depend on ones belief. Personally I don’t think that is so.
I liked Priver’s quote early 'the universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action'. If you keep searching sincerely then my friend you will find it. To me in the end there is only source.
I think part of finding the source, God whatever you want to call it means stripping away all the noise of the physical world. Until one finds what resonates with them that is very hard to do.
See my post with Krusso on morality near the end of the thread. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/pamela_k_taylor/2007/06/dont_ask_why_but_what_can_i_do.html#comments.
I talk about what is left when you strip everything away. Whether one believes that to be God or something else is up to the individual.
June 5, 2007 5:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 17:35
Rob,
Exactly, the empirical method has limitations and cannot account for the abstract world of natural laws, moral laws, etc. Therefore, the modern scientific community should stop acting like they are the measure of all truth. I like science but it cannot account for everything.
What was the lie Satan told Eve in the garden? Do you think Satan still tells the same lie? He is the father of lies.
June 5, 2007 5:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 17:15
Rob Adams, I have read several enlightening books. The Tao Te Ching, I Ching, Bhagavad Gita and now and then I read the Bible and Koran. Although they are beautiful and amazing reads, it doesn't bring me any closer to God, just as meditation and the like has not either. The closest experience may have been the first and only time I tried LSD, which was both powerful and thought-provoking, but no God. I will pick up the books you've suggested and give them a shot. I would recommend The Elegant Universe or The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. My point is that no book or deity has or possibly ever will speak to me.
June 5, 2007 3:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 15:28
I would say to that, Krusso, is who said that is what Jesus said? Can we verify it? No. The thing you are searching for is the answer to "why?". You are searching for purpose in the universe, and to that, I can't find fault. I just don't think that something needs purpose to exist. It doesn't explain why there are other planets and galaxies. Why are we the focal point, and why the distant fireworks? They don't explain anything. From your experience, it is rather easy to see God as the root of everything, but what if I don't have enough of a functioning brain to contemplate God? Then I am essentially doomed. I just don't think that your God is the answer, just as you don't think my lack of belief is the answer. There is no clear evidence that God exists. Pretty things aren't evidence, for why would they need to be pretty? I did believe in God at one time, but I do not any longer. Jesus never touched me, none of his followers ever touched me, and I could never sense or feel God or his power. I can't verify that Jesus said any of the things he did, nor God, nor any other deity I didn't hear myself. How do you know that nature doesn't think? Could the Earth not regulate what is on top of it? Does it have to be an invisible man?
June 5, 2007 3:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 15:21
Luke.
Giving scientific proof that we have a soul or that God exists is currently not possible.
Are you willing to explore things that at least indicate there is something else other than our body and mind?
If you do not want to delve into religious books then I would suggest the following.
Read Far Journeys by Robert Monroe.
Read conversation with God, book 1.
Meditate any kind – transcendental, Zen, etc
Perhaps one of those will peak your interest.
Regardless I wish you peace. I hope to continue to see you on the site.
June 5, 2007 2:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 14:52
Luke,
I have found the Truth His name is Jesus. I will be learning about His inexhaustible truth for all eternity. He said:
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).
June 5, 2007 2:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 14:33
Luke’s Fourth Post
I can't have eternal life in Jesus Christ because I've already committed the unforgivable sin, so I'm damned regardless. How do you know that God speaks all languages? Did he tell you that? The fact is that either A) God did not create a perfect planet and it is under constant revision, B) That God made it so changes occur for some perfect order in the end, or C) He didn't create the universe because he doesn't exist. Can you site proof that he does, or is just that stuff that you find pretty is so pretty that someone had to make it? The limits to the scientific method are only the physical limits to how we can explore them. The difference is that science develops because new evidence is discovered constantly, while religion develops so it can defend the lack of knowledge and understanding in it's original text(s). I have a conscience just like most do because it is generally innate in human beings. Just like nurturing for the young is generally innate in many mammals doesn't mean that one mother isn't going to rip her baby to shreds. Conscience is a means to order society, and obviously, based on your religion's history, it doesn't prevent people from hurting each other. Value to who? Value to what? I don't see any evidence that God is within me. My parents had sex, and that is what caused me to be born. So much for cause and effect. Jesus didn't will me into existence because he isn't alive. I think that is enough proof. It is true that nature displays order, but what else could it display?
I did not ask you what a conscience does I know what is does. The question is where did the human conscience come from?
I see that you dent the clear evidence that God exists. You are willfully rejecting the clear evidence of God's existence.
I would say that I could give you more evidence but you would still reject it because you have made a decision of the will to reject God's revelation and to assign creative power to inert nature.
Do you think that life could come from non-life? Do you really think that morality came from non-moral nature? Nature does not think nor does it know right and wrong.
June 5, 2007 2:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 14:22
Now Krusso, there is nothing within that post that I can disagree with. If God speaks to you, you should consider yourself lucky, because he left me and many I know in the dark. Good luck to you in your search for truth. If I had any reason to believe otherwise, I wouldn't think this way, but I haven't any proof of it.
June 5, 2007 2:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 14:19
Hey Luke,
Luke’s Third Post to Me
“I may sound like a jerk, but you have to realize that the same way that you are offended when people tell you that your religion is false is the same offense I take with the smug attitudes and comments about my system of beliefs (or lack thereof). I admit I don't know all the answers, but you can't do that, Krusso. This idea that you speak to God and know all the answers is nonsense. If everything is solid and you have the answers, then why are you still here? People like you have been pushing people to your idea of truth for far too long - and if you can explain evolution, then go ahead. If you can explain where the dinosaurs came from, go ahead. If not, then you really don't have the answers, do you?”
Luke I do not think you are a jerk I think that you are a valuable person who has questions. I know I still have questions and that I am still learning. I am not offended by the rejection by most in this world of what I believe to be true. I expect that response and I think that this message is worth being rejected for. My prayer is that people would turn to Jesus and be saved from their sin and given new life. I was once a very angry young man but Jesus changed my heart.
Why do you think it is nonsense that God speaks to me through His word the Bible?
Evolution is a theory that the majority of modern scientists assert is science. The problem is that the naturalistic theory of evolution has no empirical proof. Therefore, the theory of evolution is a philosophy or a belief system not science. I have no problem with believing things by faith but as I have stated before faith is only as good as your object of faith. If you believe in something that is false it cannot help you.
I do believe that there is change within organisms but that those organisms still retain their identity of what they are. In other words there may be many variations of cats but they are still cats. Can you name one organism that scientists have observed changing into another kind of organism? I am not talking about change within the kind like the cat kind, the dog kind, and the monkey kind. I am talking about cats changing into dogs or monkeys into men. Before you try it most will say, “Well of course not change like that takes millions or even billions of years.” In other words they have not observed it happening. This kind of thinking is not based in empirical proof but is based solely on faith.
Dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. In ancient Chinese art there are paintings that depict dragons which are dinosaurs. Where do you think they got the idea to paint these amazing creators? The dinosaurs are simply extinct just like other kinds of organisms that have now become extinct.
June 5, 2007 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 14:09
I can't have eternal life in Jesus Christ because I've already committed the unforgivable sin, so I'm damned regardless. How do you know that God speaks all languages? Did he tell you that? The fact is that either A) God did not create a perfect planet and it is under constant revision, B) That God made it so changes occur for some perfect order in the end, or C) He didn't create the universe because he doesn't exist. Can you site proof that he does, or is just that stuff that you find pretty is so pretty that someone had to make it? The limits to the scientific method are only the physical limits to how we can explore them. The difference is that science develops because new evidence is discovered constantly, while religion develops so it can defend the lack of knowledge and understanding in it's original text(s). I have a conscience just like most do because it is generally innate in human beings. Just like nurturing for the young is generally innate in many mammals doesn't mean that one mother isn't going to rip her baby to shreds. Conscience is a means to order society, and obviously, based on your religion's history, it doesn't prevent people from hurting each other. Value to who? Value to what? I don't see any evidence that God is within me. My parents had sex, and that is what caused me to be born. So much for cause and effect. Jesus didn't will me into existence because he isn't alive. I think that is enough proof. It is true that nature displays order, but what else could it display?
June 5, 2007 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 14:09
Hello Luke,
Luke’s First Post to Me
“My manmade theory of Naturalistic Evolution certainly has some facts involved, rather than the ancient superstitions in your manmade belief system. Remember, God didn't write the Bible. What language does he speak? English? Or some soul language? I have faith that I have no soul, and that when I die, my matter will still exist (which is PROVEN, mind you), but my consciousness will not.”
What are the facts of evolution as it pertains to the origin of the universe, the animal kingdom, and humankind?
God speaks all languages because He is all-knowing. He used the agency of man to communicate His word the Bible. Do you think that would be too hard for the all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present God?
“I have faith that I have no soul, and that when I die, my matter will still exist (which is PROVEN, mind you), but my consciousness will not.”
Can the scientific method (observation and measuring in repeatable experiments) account for everything that exists?
Luke’s Second Post to Me
“What about the unfortunate souls that happened to die before the Bible got to them? Do they just go to hell by default? What does God tell you happened to them?”
All people that have ever lived in the past, who live now, and who will ever live in the future could, can, and will see that God exists by all that He has made. His created order exhibits His creative genius. All people know that they have broken God’s law by the conscience that God has placed within them. In other words all people knowingly do wrong (sin) because their conscience is a witness to that truth. You conscience demonstrates that you are accountable for your actions. Where did your conscience come from? Can you prove to me that you have a conscience with the empirical method (science)? All people have evidence within them that God exists and in the external world. To say there is no God is like saying a painting does not have a painting. I would say that you are more complex than any painting even the most renowned. You have value because you are made in the image of God. I pray that you would understand this truth so that you may have eternal life in Jesus Christ.
June 5, 2007 1:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 13:33
Original sin as per many contemporary Catholic theology professors:
"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon])is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin.
Original Sin is therefore only symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.
Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.
Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.
Baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics of
Catholicism.)"
June 5, 2007 12:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 12:03
I may sound like a jerk, but you have to realize that the same way that you are offended when people tell you that your religion is false is the same offense I take with the smug attitudes and comments about my system of beliefs (or lack thereof). I admit I don't know all the answers, but you can't do that, Krusso. This idea that you speak to God and know all the answers is nonsense. If everything is solid and you have the answers, then why are you still here? People like you have been pushing people to your idea of truth for far too long - and if you can explain evolution, then go ahead. If you can explain where the dinosaurs came from, go ahead. If not, then you really don't have the answers, do you?
June 5, 2007 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 11:37
Explain this, Krusso. What about the unfortunate souls that happened to die before the Bible got to them? Do they just go to hell by default? What does God tell you happened to them?
June 5, 2007 11:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 11:29
My manmade theory of Naturalistic Evolution certainly has some facts involved, rather than the ancient superstitions in your manmade belief system. Remember, God didn't write the Bible. What language does he speak? English? Or some soul language? I have faith that I have no soul, and that when I die, my matter will still exist (which is PROVEN, mind you), but my consciousness will not.
June 5, 2007 11:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 11:27
Krusso.
Original sin is one of the issues I have with Christianity. That concept just doesn’t sell with me. Do we want to have that long discussion?
As for created in God’s image, absolutely. That is actually something I take almost literally. We are not separate from God. A very simple analogy, God is the ocean and I am a drop of water. I am made of the same stuff as him but can not do things on the same scale, unless I do. But with out enough understanding I can not.
To me that is what made Christ different. He did not have the illusion of being separate from God because he was not separate from God and he knew this. That was how he was able to do what he did.
June 5, 2007 10:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 10:20
Luke,
I speak to God all the time in prayer and He has answered my prayers for 20 years now. He speaks to me and all who believe through His word the Holy Bible. I walk by faith in Him who gave me life. All people have faith in something. Is your faith in the manmade theory of Naturalistic Evolution?
June 5, 2007 9:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 09:22
Krusso, I would suffice to say that since God has never spoken to me or anyone I know, that God has a relationship of apathy and stagnation. We are the kings of our domain. Who has spoken to God? You? Did he say "Check this out...Gays are bad, atheists are dumb, evolution is dumb, the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool you...anything like that?
June 5, 2007 7:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 07:52
Jihadist,
Nothing changes with respect to your "wishy-wash" comments and absense of correction of the critical issues of your Koran aka Book of Death.
Faith, war and realism revisited again:
Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?
Jihadist, can we trust you??
June 5, 2007 12:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 5, 2007 00:08
Hello Rob,
The Bible says that we humans are made in the image of God. When God says that He is not speaking of our physicality but that we have emotions, self reflecting intellect, and a will, but there is another way that we are made in His image and that is the way we can have a relationship with God. God has always had a relationship of love. God is three persons yet one God. He has had this relationship from all eternity. The most profound thing about being made in the image of God is the way we humans can have a relationship with Him once our sins have been washed away by faith in Jesus and His sacrifice and resurrection from the dead.
June 4, 2007 11:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 23:19
Ben... I am a Saint Paul boy myself. Minnesota is well represented then!
Ghostbuster... sorry to make you use your brain... my bad.
Priver, I agree on death. I think even more is revealed to us there, but for some reason the thrill of the hunt (understanding while we are here) just has this certain pizzaz to me. It's like don't spoil the surprise or don't read the last page of the book before you get to the end I guess.
I loved the quote 'the universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action'.
good night all
June 4, 2007 11:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 23:13
...and the problem with you Mr. Adams is that you make me use my brain late at night after I've already shut it off for the evening!
I'll definately look into that website you posted.
God in a box eh? Sounds like one of those late night infomercials. Seriously though, that is a frequent topic of conversation among all the christians I've ever know. I think could write a book on that topic myself.
June 4, 2007 10:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 22:52
JIHADIST
Mistyping in haste or lapse of memory?
E.M. Cioran - The certitude that there is no salvation is a form of salvation, in fact it is salvation. Starting from here, one might organize our own life as well as construct a philosophy of history: the insoluble as solution, as the only way out.
June 4, 2007 9:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 21:07
Rob Adams:
You write of a phenomena that appears to have some roots across all cultures. People in abrahamic religions have claimed that their god spoke to them or that they have a living relationship with Jesus. Shamans in distinct cultures, over the centuries have used the information obtained through meditation/trance/etc to heal people. The experiences are remarkably similar, even across continents. I think you're really on to something here. This appears to be some sort of mystical experience that is common to all people. Whether it's a mass delusion or some sort of interaction from something larger is really up to the individual to decide. Since it's based on personal experiences, it isn't ever going to be codified and broken down in a scientific manner.
If someone has such an event and they think it's all in their mind, and doesn't act on the information given and someone is hurt by their nonaction, that is something they will have to live with. But if something is received this way and acted upon and someone is helped by it, is it a bad thing?
What you describe is what those who follow an earth based spirituality tend to seek out. I had a teacher once tell me 'the universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action'.
As a pagan, I don't separate out creator and created either. There are more people who feel that way than you might think. We see the processes of our minds as just as natural as eating or sex. That's why for us, all are sacred, because all of it comes from Nature. From what I've heard the numbers of people who think this way are growing, too. It's not about rejecting science at all either. It's about using all of our capabilities in equal balance and measure. Something we don't really do much of in this day and age.
Where does that leave the bible in all this? I have no idea. It's my feeling that the bible might be an attempt to describe such events. But some people are so insistent on the inerrancy of the book and words themselves that they don't necessarily see that in there, and so they start insisting that their way is the 'only truth'. And then people start dying over it.
But when I look at the world, at nature and at everything on it, and see divinity everywhere, I can't help but marvel at the wonder and mystery of it all and the possibilities.. I want to learn as much as I can about what I may be able to do to promote education and understanding. Am I going to die? Of course. But when I see death, like birth, life, sexuality, healing as a sacred process, I'm not afraid to die anymore. I'm more afraid of dying before I've done everything I want to.
I think we're all searching for something that may be right inside us all along. Sort of like Dorothy in Oz.
June 4, 2007 7:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 19:05
Ben
You live in Minneapolis? Very cold in winter.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and the two links you gave. It is most useful.
Frisco and its environs seem to have more restaurants in the world per square mile. Better food then even New York I think. Can't still sleep well in local time though.
You noted : "Daniel Dennett wrote, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, of evolution by natural selection being an "acid" that dissolved religious or creationist views of the world. The folk wisdom of most people is heavily influenced by science - often indirectly and destructively. So it seems to me that something needs to replace the areas of religion that are degraded by new knowledge. Or Christianity needs to adapt quite a bit. Isn't there a point at which a religion cannot adapt to new knowledge anymore?"
As you know, nature abhors a vacuum. It also always seem like once one's mind has a gap due to displaced beliefs, one find other beliefs to fill it up. Likewise, once one's soul has a hole due to lost faith in anything, one finds a filler that may be despair, cynicism or new hope and faith. Only one knows how many times in one's life one weave in and out of gaps in the mind and holes in the soul.
E.M. Cioran said - "The certitude that there is no salvation, in fact is salvation. Starting from here, one might our own life as well as construct a philosophy of history : the insoluble as solution, as the only way out."
Or something like that if I remember that offhand correctly which do apply to atheists if they agree to that characterization for unbelief or non-belief. As a believer, of course I have a different kind of certitude - that there is a God, and there is salvation of the human race if we do the right thing here on earth. Rather naive, presumptious and blindingly hopeful:)
You will love John Gray's "Straw Dogs -Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals". It's a short book, less than 250 pages, including appendices, but it really perk's one's mind up and make one think in new ways on human existence whether one agree with Gray or not.
I am partial to thinkers who are mavericks or controversial in their respective fields, be it Hannah Arendt in philosophy, or Joan Robinson in economics.
As he is a professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, John Gray's perspective is from the Judeo-Christian heritage and intellectual tradition. He contend, among other things, that unbelief is a move in a game whose rules are set by believers; that atheism is a late bloom of a Christian passion for truth; that nearly all philosophies, most religions and much of science testify to a desperate concern with salvation of mankind. I love the last paragraph of his book (if I recall it correctly) asking - can we not think of the aim in life as being simply to see?
Ben, it has been a delight talking with you here. I have to focus on work completely for the week.
Best regards
PS - I had the best filet steak ever in Minneapolis. Not in Chicago, Kansas City, Houston, or Dallas.
June 4, 2007 6:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 18:23
Krusso.
It seems you are my new best posting partner.
I am saying that God is BOTH personal and abstract, both the creator and the created. I know that doesn’t jive with contemporary belief.
Our senses are but one tool to help us determine our beliefs. For me my senses got me moving to explore that I am more than my body. They have helped me reaffirm a belief in God.
We can know there are things other than our 5 senses. I have heard and felt things while meditating that were not me.
There are things I just feel I know are right. Faith. It is just different than other people.
My spiritual journey continues daily.
June 4, 2007 6:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 18:00
Luke and Rob,
Are you positing that nature is God? Are you saying that the natural world is all that there is? Are you saying that the only things we can know are through our senses?
Faith is only as good as the object of faith. Remember that the universe is winding down and that you are going to die.
June 4, 2007 4:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 16:55
Luuuke…. Come… to the dark side.
Now you are thinking my friend! Kidding of course, it is all about interpretation and one’s definition of God. In Christianity he is an entity a personal God if you will. Buddhism is more aligned, though not exactly, with what you just said. Buddhists help me out here… Norrie where are you. Who else wants to help with the Pantheist view (all-encompassing immanent abstract God).
I actually believe God is both.
Either can serve the purpose of furthering one’s spirituality. Many say that their concept/definition is correct. You will need to determine for yourself which definition serves your purpose.
My purpose is a quest for ultimate truth… or at least more truth and understanding. That way I can hopefully accomplish two things. Evolve my spirituality which theoretically will serve me better when I leave the Earth. Secondly I believe that an evolved spiritual understanding can help us in the here and now. I guess there is a third reason which is hopefully I can be better than I was yesterday.
Luke if you still have questions, try the Dagoba system… look for a little green guy named Yoda. :)
June 4, 2007 4:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 16:40
What if God isn't an entity? What if he is a consciousness that exists in every speck of the universe? I personally think there is a better explanation that no man, dead or alive, has or will ever know of.
June 4, 2007 3:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 15:57
Luke.
The short answer to why God put us here; through us he can experience something that he is not, which is separate from anything. Through our illusion of being separate he can experience being separate, though we really aren’t separate, but on a conscious level we appear to be separate.
That’s the latest, greatest answer I know of… but I don’t think it is the end. I think that is about as far as we can go to understanding the ultimate truth at our current stage of evolution. My 2 cents anyway, to each his own.
Luke you are correct in that humans do share a common root system. Good will, compassion and love seem to be the common themes I see across religions. We don’t have to do it because God will be angry or because God says that is what to do. We do it because one should observe that it works.
As for religion and the varying definitions of God, truth, rules etc; Two things really. As I posted to Ghostbuster how do you put the all and the everything into a box? As you even said of course we make him like is otherwise how could we understand him. One definition is not sufficient. God is too grand for that in my opinion. Secondly the message comes to us in difference forms as we each have our ways of comprehending. Religion is a tool and each variation works differently for each person. Choose the tool that suits you best, or choose none at all.
Regardless of which religion a person has been raised on you can tell the people who understand they are more than their bodies, they understand spirit and understand that it transcends an individual religions.
We all have lots to learn.
June 4, 2007 3:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 15:47
What are you doing other than being smug with your ignorance? I am arguing with the idea that homosexuality is us spitting in God's face. If he didn't want people to be gay, he wouldn't have made them that way. I am arguing that everything that God does is good (do I even need to fight how ridiculous this argument is?) - good for who? Not for me. If God is out for me than I am out for him too. Luckily, I don't have to, because he doesn't affect me, because he doesn't exist. I don't believe that there is a God who affects things in this world at all. Krusso, why did he make other planets and galaxies? Why aren't you stoning people? Your faith is a mix of what the Bible says and what you can live with and nothing more. What I believe isn't diluted through time. The understanding only grows deeper. Of course I am passionate about it - I was lied to until I discovered the truth on my own.
June 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 15:38
Luke,
Again I see a lot of passonate anger on your part but no answers. You need to do more than just be outraged.
Again, On what basis are you attempting to argue with me? Are you asserting that nature is all that there is? That all we can know is through the empirical method?
June 4, 2007 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 15:26
Ghostbuster.
There are about 10-12 books in all. www.cwg.org.
If people approach it with and open mind they will find it an interesting read. If you are really set in your religion you may not find it of much use, it may actually irritate you.
The thing I liked best is it does say in there do not even take this as absolute. Walsch says well then aren't we just making it up as we go along. God's response is you are making it all up as you go along anyway. When we create our own reality, which is actually the illusion we call corporal life. How do you put something omnipotent, the all and the every thing into a box?
There are some shots at confinements of traditional religious practices/beliefs, but if you look past that and really consider some of what he says it will make you think. There are things that are contradictive to standard beliefs and things that overlap.
Even if you don’t believe he actually speaks with God you may find it an interesting read.
The problem with you Ghostbuster is your mere presence on this site now puts the stupid tune in my head!
June 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 14:53
Hey Rob,
I think I've heard the name Walsch. How many books are in the series? Where can I find a quick synopsis on his works (besides Wiki)?
I realize I can just look up these answers for myself but I haven't chatted with you in a while so I though I'd say "hey" while asking.
GB
June 4, 2007 1:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 13:59
Rob, I appreciate your approach as a response to my atheism. It is true that there are things we experience as humans that can't be written off as mere delusions - they do have value. However, I think that the argument of the existence of God is silly - ofcourse we have to make him like us, or how would we ever understand him? Look at it this way, however. What was God's purpose for making us? Would it matter if he never did? Not at all - and that is what brings purpose into question. Does the universe need to exist? Nope. Also, doesn't experience shape belief as well? Why does a book or school of thought have to dictate our actions? Where is the compassion in not wanting to harm someone just so God isn't angry with you? Why not avoid harming them because you care about their well-being or wish them well? Why is it that Pagan and Eastern religions and philosophies contain inate feelings of compassion and love while Western organized religions and philosophies need some damning hand to push them along? I certainly don't need misanthropia to run my life. I don't need solace in the pain of others - where is the love in that? Why not the realization that human beings share a common root system, and that we are stronger when our principals and ideals don't consume good will and compassion?
June 4, 2007 1:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 13:50
Luke.
I understand your position. I am an independent when it comes to spirituality; I take what I find useful from various religions, my own experience and research. I have seen or read too much to not explore further. I believe if you explore you will find there is something more. Now what you find is up to you. We all come to our own conclusions on spirituality and religion.
Luke there are a plethora of definitions of what God is, what he does and how he operates. Just because there seem to be a bunch of ‘bad definitions’ doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. It just means we don’t understand right now.
One of my biggest draws to the idea that there is at least something else beyond this body and beyond this life is documentation (proof?) of near death experiences, particularly in children, out of body experiences (read any of the books by Robert Monroe, see the Monroe institute as well) and things I have heard and felt during meditation experiences. There is more than just our bodies.
When I explore those I couldn’t help but be interested in what all the fuss about God is. Even myth came from some sort of truth at some time. My first interest was these people who have allegedly talked to God are the most interesting. I think a number of people who have. The one that caught my eye was Neal Donald Walsch from the Conversations with God series. That will likely drive a number of the Christians crazy, but that’s ok we can still be friends
The reason that one caught my eye was one it is current, he’s alive we know what has been written down. It is written in our time in our understanding for our culture. The issues I have with ‘typical’ scripture is the authenticity and interpretation. I don’t want to start a thread on that because that is a monster discussion on its own. However by reading Walsch I have become interested in what other religions have said in the past.
First I find the common themes, which there are, and two I want an understanding of all religions since religion helps shape belief and thus people’s action and that shapes our world.
Again I don’t want to debate here Walsch versus typical scripture because that is a large discussion. The point is this long exploration of mine has shown me too much to not explore any of it. There are a multitude of opportunities and tools for us to use to explore spirituality or in your case the discover if there is indeed more.
Find your own path my friend and then find your own answers. There will be many people there that will help you along the way if you so desire.
Peace.
June 4, 2007 12:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 12:38
That is the problem Krusso, you don't KNOW anything. You just accept what you don't KNOW as fact. Where is your evidence? A single book. God doesn't allow anything. He doesn't do anything? How can you believe in something so inept and careless? So regimes that kill millions are right? You think you are innocent by ignorance? You think that irresponsibility is just fine because God only does what is right? You don't buy a dog, tell it not to take food from the table, and then leave the room and expect it not too. You just do what you must believe your God did - fill us with shame and hatred and anger to justify our actions. Bravo! Perpetuate sin by condemning it! Great job! I do have a better explanation. The universe did not need a reason to exist. It just did. You are confusing cause and effect with purpose (which is very common in your faith). It didn't take an Einstein to make a plant - it took a seed (with no brain or central nervous system). Also, who has the monopoly on consciousness? Isn't is just as valid to say that the universe wanted to create itself? Why do invisible men have to make everything?
June 4, 2007 11:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 11:20
Jihadist,
I thought I would add some more to my response. My last post was kind of long, so I just had to stop at a certain point.
Regarding the language of science - I think it is a mark of a good scientific thinker to feel the connections of all inferences being considered. There needs to be deep understanding, and there should not be an engineering mentality of "lets just do this." At the same time, there needs to be flexibility.
It seems like the most famous scientists are generally those who recognize and capitalize (in some ways) on shifts. Godel and Einstein are two good examples.
But there are many others with very valuable things to say. For example, Judea Pearl wrote what I think is the most interesting book on causality. He is a computer scientist. I don't think any lay people will read his book.
One thing you have explained well to me is that there is a reason science is not as popular as religion. That is because science does not relate well with most people. Because of that, I should not expect people to speak in scientific terms. And I should not expect science to ever replace religion. You are completely right about that I suspect. Hitchens is not going to convince any believers. I doubt Hitchens would convince me either, judging by my reaction to the few pages of "God Is Not Great" I read in the bookstore a few days ago.
Daniel Dennett wrote, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, of evolution by natural selection being an "acid" that dissolved religious or creationist views of the world. The folk wisdom of most people is heavily influenced by science - often indirectly and destructively. So it seems to me that something needs to replace the areas of religion that are degraded by new knowledge. Or Christianity needs to adapt quite a bit. Isn't there a point at which a religion cannot adapt to new knowledge anymore?
Here is where I don't have any ideas.
June 4, 2007 1:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 01:14