All Comments (188)

I am tired of people telling me what God is.

I am also amazed that people have the audacity to believe they understand and know what God is.

God is a source of speculation only. Religous speculation has no place in politics. Not when people's lives and livelihood are at stake.

Thomas the Hallucinator Baum,

Well at least you follow in the footsteps of other hallucinating Christians to include the simple preacher man.

As a reminder:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/ carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (if you believe his "biographers") and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

TO HARRIS G THOMPSON:

You wrote, "Modernity makes religion look like the supernatural nonsense that it is. The future will giggle at our foolishness, the way we giggle at the witch hunts of the past and see what utter fools we once were."

I don't really think that you meant this the way it seems; I, for one, do not "giggle at the witch hunts of the past", these were real flesh and blood people, that in some cases were tortured and killed in the name of God by people that seemed to know nothing about God except for His Name.

As far as the 'Modernity makes religion look like...", we sure can get caught up in all the bells and whistles, can we not?

We have come up with some very fancy gadgets in modern times but has man, himself, changed very much?

With the explosion in the telecommunications industry we can communicate with people pretty much anywhere in the world, but do we really communicate or do we just exchange more and more information?

Talk about information overload.

We can call to the other side of the globe but do we talk to the people around us?

You also wrote, "Change, as somebody once said, is the only constant.", something to think about, has human nature changed very much lately?

As in, since we have been human.

Granted people's toys have changed a lot and some people are overwhelmed by gadgets.

Sometimes, we are so mesmerized by the whistles and bells of "modernity" that we can become blind to the rest of humanity.

By the way, God is real and He is a Being of Pure Love and He is a Trinity.

Also, God is not a He, a She or an It but I do use the male form of the pronoun because a pronoun comes in handy sometimes but I would like to mention that God-Incarnate was a Male, a Jewish Man.

Plenty of people speak about God and some even get His Name right but some of them don't seem to know anything about God except for His Name.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

As a latecomer to the debate on religion's continued existence, I believe Nic Brady has it right. Religion will go eventually. Stop religious indoctrination and religion will go the way of all superstition.
Modernity makes religion look like the supernatural nonsense that it is. The future will giggle at our foolishness, the way we giggle at the witch hunts of the past and see what utter fools we once were.

Change, as somebody once said, is the only constant.

Again, I apologize for off topic stuff, but what I wrote appears contradictory:

"The physics behind cold fusion are the laws of thermodynamics, which are universally accepted."

"There is no widely accepted theoretical explanation for it . . ."

To clarify: thermodynamics are the basis for calorimetry, which is the principal method used to confirm that cold fusion is occurring. Other methods include x-ray film, gamma ray and neutron detectors, mass spectrometers, and so on. These are based on conventional physics and chemistry. They confirm THAT a nuclear effect occurs, but there is still no theory to explain WHY it occurs.

Skeptics claim that these conventional instruments are used incorrectly, or that the signal to noise ratio is low, but they are wrong.

A few skeptics, such as Prof. Huizenga, the head of the DoE ERAB panel, claim that any experimental result which appears to conflict with established theory must be a mistake. In his book he closed by saying: "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat." This is a highly unorthodox view.

For more details PLEASE read original source scientific papers!!!

I apologize for off-topic comments but . . . another view wrote:

"In briefly perusing Wiki on the topic of cold fusion, it's easy to understand why there was so much initial interest."

I strongly recommend . . . make that, I beg you to read original source material written by experts, in addition to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article is biased, fragmented, confusing and inaccurate. There are well-written papers at LENR-CANR for the general public. In favor of CF: Storms, Miles and Hagelstein (HTML); anti-CF by the 1989 ERAB panel and 2004 DoE panel, S. Jones and Morrison.

"An endless supply of clean, low cost nuclear energy created at or near room temperatures. A very big deal indeed . . ."

Yup. It would solve the energy crisis overnight. I think it is closer to realization than the public realizes. It is mostly a matter of money. Experts at the NRL who developed other solid state devices such as the Aegis radar have estimated that it would cost only a few hundred million dollars to make cold fusion practical. They are working on cold fusion. See our U.S. Navy Special Collection.

"A number of more traditionally grounded scientists are seemingly of the opinion that cold fusion is a pipe dream and doesn't necessarily coincide with the known laws of physics after all . . ."

It is an experimental observation, not a theory. There is no widely accepted theoretical explanation for it, so it does not coincide or fail to coincide with anything yet. If we later discover that it does conflict with theory, that will prove the theory is wrong. It is fundamental to the scientific method that replicated experiments always trump theory.

"- experimental results have been notoriously hard to duplicate."

This is a myth. Most of the qualified researchers who have done the experiment succeeded. It is difficult, but so are most experiments, especially in solid state surface effects and catalysis. It takes several months and anywhere from $100,000 to ~$20 million, depending on the type of experiment. It works 100% of the time in major labs such as Mitsubishi. The success rate has always been far higher than things like cloning (<0.1%) or transistors circa 1955 (<10% for many devices).

"This idea has such potential for creating vast wealth that you would think private investors would be jumping all over the idea . . ."

Unfortunately not. Two reasons:

1. It is still at the fundamental physics level. A "force of nature" cannot be patented. It is like discovering fission.

2. There is a great deal of misinformation circulating about it, and even top decision makers often read only the mass media distortions, and not the original source peer-reviewed journal papers. So they have no idea what is claimed, or what results have been achieved. This is like trying to judge evolution after reading only Creationist literature. The mass media, Sci. Am. and Wikipedia descriptions are extreme caricatures written by people who know nothing about the subject -- people who BRAG that they have not read any papers! If the research really was as bad as they describe it, no sane scientist would believe a word of it.

Thanks for your response Mr. Rothwell. In briefly perusing Wiki on the topic of cold fusion, it's easy to understand why there was so much initial interest.

An endless supply of clean, low cost nuclear energy created at or near room temperatures. A very big deal indeed, not to mention the potential for creating more than a few billionaires overnight!

This is quite in contrast with the fabled hot fusion process, which remains out of reach for all practical purposes based on the lack of technology and vast energy requirements involved.

A number of more traditionally grounded scientists are seemingly of the opinion that cold fusion is a pipe dream and doesn't necessarily coincide with the known laws of physics after all - experimental results have been notoriously hard to duplicate. Government funding has been hit and miss......

This idea has such potential for creating vast wealth that you would think private investors would be jumping all over the idea - maybe even some petroleum industry money (they don't care about oil, they care about a perpetual cash cow).

Interesting idea anyway - maybe we'll hear more about it down the road when we start filling up over at the Hydrogen Shell or Citgo depot.

another view wrote:

"In googling Jed Rothwell we find that not all is necessarily well in his world. He is not universally admired . . ."

Of course! Cold fusion is controversial. No one involved in it is universally admired. Many people oppose it, and think that the researchers are wrong, and that I am wrong.

". . . and apparently has no scientific credentials....

None whatever! I never claimed to have scientific credentials (except undergraduate mid-level physics and biology). On the other hand I have written papers reviewing Miles and McKubre, and a book with some technical content. You can read them and judge for yourself whether I know what I am talking about.

Actually, the only way you can judge anyone's work is by reading it, because even credentialed professionals sometimes make serious mistakes. Someone who claims that "Prof. X is right" or "experiment Y is wrong" must provide a detailed analysis to support his views. Once you have the analysis, the author's credentials become irrelevant; the analysis must stand or fall on its own merits.

" . . . his literary efforts regarding cold fusion are a joint effort . . ."

Yes. I always list co-authors and editors.

". . . and do not past muster with certain adversarial science-based factions that find fault with the physics behind cold fusion."

All sides are science based. Our author database lists roughly 2000 cold fusion researchers and they are all professional scientists in mainstream institutions. I would not list them otherwise. Many of them are distinguished scientists such as Nobel laureates, the head of the Indian Gov't Atomic Energy Commission and so on.

The physics behind cold fusion are the laws of thermodynamics, which are universally accepted. No one finds fault with them. Some critics claim that there are experimental errors, but the errors they cite are not in evidence. For example, they claim that helium-4 has only been detected at background levels, whereas the data shows that it has often been detected at much higher levels. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam

"It's always good to get the whole story.

Yes. That's why I have uploaded 600 papers on cold fusion, including nearly all of the peer-reviewed papers that attempt to disprove cold fusion. (There are only about a dozen.) My library is the largest and most complete anti-cold fusion collection on the Internet. The University of Utah has a larger collection of both pro and con documents which is off-line. I am trying to bring more of it on line

In googling Jed Rothwell we find that not all is necessarily well in his world. He is not universally admired and apparently has no scientific credentials....his literary efforts regarding cold fusion are a joint effort and do not past muster with certain adversarial science-based factions that find fault with the physics behind cold fusion. It's always good to get the whole story.

My brother knew a guy who lived with a girl whose aunt had a nephew who dated this woman whose friend was related to the Frenchman whose neighbor had lived next door to the grandfather of a butler who saw Napoleon having sex with Josephine. Or so he said. But now he's dead.

Dear Anon:

"1. There are no mysteries in stats. Lots of mistakes, but the only mysteries are instrument errors, and they don't mean much."

How little you know, and how sure you are of it. Quantum theory has it that there are limits of knowledge that are not "instrument errors" as you so quaintly put it.

Got it? Does that bother you? You want more? Study physics and make your own theories if you can; while you swim through the Luminiferous Aether.

Dear DZ,

I am sorry to hear of your loss. I remember your posts around last Christmas. Your love for her and hers for you is what mattered then, and it is what matters now. Peace be with you and yours at this time; and always.

Nic Brady wrote:

"People have washing machines, and nice glossy bathrooms, all over the UK, and central heating is everywhere too."

Is it everywhere now? That's changed since I was there in 1970.

"I said me father remembers the 'first', (ok 'early' might be a better word) radios, cameras etc. Why so picky?"

Not picky . . . just time traveling and fact checking with the Sears catalogue. It is a shame I cannot place an order for a 100-piece Carlsbad China Set for $13.95. That would be time traveling with panache!

No doubt your father did remember the first radio he encountered. People were astounded by radio, and rightly so. I'll never forget the first time I saw a computer, or the first time I programmed one. People who have grown up with computers will never experience the same sense of wonder.

"Google Toothbrush."

Now THERE is an example of a sentence that wouldn't have meant anything in 1990, and it describes an action ("googling") that would have seemed like black magic a century ago.

Now you have me wondering how people brushed their teeth in premodern Japan . . .

I cannot resist commenting on speed123's remark. He says it is about "secular humanism" but I believe he has in mind physics and other science, because there are no "stats" or "figures" in secular humanism:

"What is mysterious about your cold stats, facts and figures which you think you can explain our entire existence with?"

Answers:

1. There are no mysteries in stats. Lots of mistakes, but the only mysteries are instrument errors, and they don't mean much.

2. This stuff explains how we got here, of course -- with evolution. But if you are looking for a deeper explanation, a purpose, The Meaning of Life, a sense of wonder or what have you, tough luck. As a source of inspiration or purpose, a physics textbook is about as useful as an-line Guide to Microsoft Word. People sometimes gab about the beauty of understanding the cosmos, but to me, knowing how the stars work doesn't seem any more uplifting than understanding how to clean a 1968 Volkswagen carburetor.

3. Religion doesn't work either. It doesn't inspire me -- it creeps me out. It is not inspiring or uplifting; it is mostly about groveling and feeling guilty about having sex, of all things. It is even less useful than the Guide to Microsoft Word, because on rare occasions the on-line help actually addresses your question, and the invocations it recommends have been known to work, whereas God never answers, as Mother Theresa discovered but would not admit.

4. The Meaning of Life, if you must know, was explained clearly by Macbeth just before he was skewered by Macduff:

Life is a tale told by an idiot
Full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

Got it? Does that bother you? You want more? Though luck, too bad, and Grow Up. Study existentialism and make your own purposes if you must.

Jed.
This is actually all irrelevant, but my folks were working class people and we lived in a working class neighborhood in a working class world. I didn't want to waste time and words describing every detail,, my point is that that kind of life is now gone. People have washing machines, and nice glossy bathrooms, all over the UK, and central heating is everywhere too.

I did visit my aunt during ww2 in another town and she had an indoor bathroom and hot running water,and maybe even a toothbrush, I forget.But her house had been built in 1937. She was no doubt better off than my folks.

I said me father remembers the 'first', (ok 'early' might be a better word) radios, cameras etc. Why so picky? Dates are not relevant to my point. He was a boy around the turn of the 20th century ,and the world is a totally different place now from what it was then.
So it's fair to conclude that the world of 2108 will be quite different from the present world. And so on and so on. And things will change and among those changes will be the end of religion.

Google Toothbrush.

Byebye

nic brady wrote:

"In my own lifetime alone (I'm 74) things have changed enormously. . . ."

Yes, my parents grew in the 1920s, and said the same thing. Actually, I think the pace of progress has slowed down. My late friend Chris Tinsley made a convincing case that fundamental progress stopped around 1950. We have made incremental improvements to things like jet aircraft, transistors, lasers and IC lithography, but nothing radically new has been invented since then.

"My mother used to wash clothes with a washboard in a sink. The lavatory was outside. We had no bathroom. (and no toothbrushes). . . ."

No toothbrushes?!? That seems a little odd. In England the lavatory was often built outside but it was a flush toilet, whereas privies (outhouses) were still common in the U.S. countryside until the 1950s. As a matter of fact, my country house still has one, and so do most of the houses in the countryside in Japan, in Hiroshima and Yamaguchi prefectures, where I often go.

"My father was born in 1898 and remembered the first crystal radios,the first automobiles,the first movies,the first radios, the first cameras, the first airplanes, the first flush toilets."

I don't know about cameras, but photographs were widespread by the 1860s. Most Civil War soldiers carried them. Simple "brownie" cameras for personal use were introduced in 1900 and were wildly popular in the U.S.

"I was interested to read the other day that toothbrushes weren't mass produced until 1938."

I assume you mean mass-produced with machinery. They did have them, at least in the U.S. and France . . . maybe not the U.K.?

I happen to have an eclectic collection of women's magazines, school textbooks, encyclopedias, catalogs, dime novels and whatnot from the late 19th and early 20th century, in English and Japanese. I don't know where it all came from, but anyway, turning now to page 800 of the 1908 Sears Roebuck Catalogue, "The Great Price Maker" we find tooth paste, tooth powder "genuine . . . for cleaning, beautifying and preserving the teeth, hardening the gums, and keeping the breath sweet; warranted not injurious . . ." and a selection of tooth brushes, mainly imported from France and Japan, ranging from 8 cents to 18 cents apiece.

One of them says "directions for use are given with each brush" so perhaps they were not so common.

Regarding cameras, this catalogue has a large selection of cameras, film and plates on pages 670-682. Following that is a page of magic lantern equipment and supplies featuring the Gloria model from Nurenberg, Germany ($6.85), and then 40 pages of firearms: rifles, shotguns, pistols, ammunition, etc.

"We are in a new world which gets newer all the time. The past would be alien to us; the future too."

Yes, indeed. See Arthur C. Clarke's masterpiece "Profiles of the Future." The Millennium edition available in the U.K. has a very nice thank you note to me in the dedication. See also my e-book, "Cold Fusion and the Future" which is recommended by Arthur Clarke and many prestigious professors:

http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm

You can read this in Portuguese or Japanese if you get tired of English. I threw some new stuff into the Japanese version, and I cut out a few of egregious insults to the Japanese nation. Although I did leave the part about flirting under the covers in a Japanese kotatsu (a heated table covered with a blanket) in chapter 4. (And if THAT teaser doesn't bring in readers, I don't know what will.)

Jed Rothwell;

I enjoyed your response, and you may well be right.

But I think what impresses me is change. Things change. In my own lifetime alone (I'm 74) things have changed enormously. My mother used to wash clothes with a washboard in a sink. The lavatory was outside. We had no bathroom. (and no toothbrushes). We had no fridge, no phone, no TV, no car. We had a radio and a gas stove in the kitchen, and coal fireplaces in the 2 rooms downstairs and in the 3 bedrooms upstairs. We did have electric lights, and had previously had gas lights. This was in a large town in southern England, and we were like everybody else.

My father was born in 1898 and remembered the first crystal radios,the first automobiles,the first movies,the first radios, the first cameras, the first airplanes, the first flush toilets.

I was interested to read the other day that toothbrushes weren't mass produced until 1938.
And they weren't in general use until after WW2, because the military issued toothbrushes to the men and after the war they returned home and kept the habit of cleaning their teeth.

We are in a new world which gets newer all the time. The past would be alien to us; the future too. Change continues at a pace all around us. Religion has nothing like the position in society that it once had. The groupthink changes. People learn more and have access to information our ancestors couldn't even dream of.

I like to think religion will join astrology, alchemy, witchcraft and palm reading as good examples of the superstitious practices from the infancy of our species.

Thanks for the conversation.

Nic Brady wrote:

". . . In terms of whether people will believe in religion and the supernatural in the future, I would say absolutely not.

I say that because the future is a very, very long time. A hundred years ago religion had much more authority and influence that it does today,and a larger percentage of people believed than believe now. In a hundred years time, it will be that much weaker again, I would think."

Well, perhaps the decline will continue asymptotically toward zero. But I doubt it. I expect a significant fraction of the population will be religious indefinitely. As my mother used to say, no trend lasts for ever or the world would be knee deep in televisions.

People will always have good reasons to be religious, such as:

Many people have a natural affinity or instinct for religion. They include even some highly rational, scientific, well-educated people such as Nobel laureates in physics. Religion is quite rare among them but not unheard of.

No matter how much technological progress we make, people will always suffer from excruciating misfortune such as lost love, disease, old age and death. At least, I hope people will always grow old and die, because an immortality pill would be a death sentence for progress. Some people will always find that religion comforts them in dire circumstances. (Others, like me, will find that in dire circumstances religion grosses them out.)

In a sense, technology and prosperity enable religion, just as they help preserve obsolescent and quaint customs. You wrote: ". . . superstition will fall by the wayside along with all the other quaint old customs." Because we have great wealth we can preserve inefficient and backward technology such as sailboats, absurdly large SUVs, 19th century mansions, and a few steam locomotives, Jamestown and the like.

"We can't remain superstitious forever. We're too smart."

Wealth and progress allow us to act stupidly and not pay the price. For example, we are wasting hundreds of millions of barrels of oil converting food into ethanol fuel. (Ethanol is an energy sink: it takes 1.2 joules of oil energy to produce 1.0 joules of ethanol. Also 20 gallons of the stuff uses up as much food as an adult eats in a year.)

Today, many people have no clue how technology works, and in the future I expect their numbers will grow. Years ago, I knew a charming, devout, not-too-smart young woman whose car stopped by the side of the road. She got out and prayed for it 10 minutes, hoping it would start miraculously. It didn't so she called a tow truck. I think her response was decidedly modern -- it was late 20th century. There were, of course, many devout and uneducated women circa 1935, but they were used to unreliable cars such as Model T Fords. They understood that cars often break and must be fixed by a mechanic, not God. They had more realistic expectations and more practical knowledge of technology because they had to. Many of them were quite ignorant of how automobile engines worked, but they knew that engines often fail to work. Nowadays, things like engines and computers work flawlessly for years and people may get the impression that they work by magic.

DZ - actually, your answer was pretty interesting - Thanks.

Arminius:

When my parents met in 1945, my father was a very militant atheist, and my mother was a young earth fundamentalist. They figured it out and made it work quite gloriously for 53 years.

It is not my business what you believe. Your posts, over the months, have clearly demonstrated kindness, a certain gentleness and a very open mind. That's all I ask for in anyone.

DZ,

As E Fav knows, I have no problem with non-believers unless they claim I am delusional or somesuch. He never has, and I am sure that neither you nor Meg would insult me like that. It happens that I was an atheist/agnostic (depending on how grumpy I was) for over three decades. I came back to religion because of a profound - to me - spiritual experience. This is the only thing which would ever have drawn me back to the church. It helps to explain why I am never in anybody's face about it.

A loss of a loved one hits like a truck, a big one, to be sure. Family and friends are essential to the healing.

Arminius

You don't have to be a theist to be convinced of the liklihood of the survival of consciousness following biological death. There is considerable research these days to bolster the myriad anecdotal claims of after-death survival.

If one is convinced of the primacy of consciousness as a human attribute that is self-existent and independent from biological brain functions, then it would seem worthwhile to investigate the matter rather than by default fall into the material realist trap of believing 'this is all there is'.

Naturally the considerable weight of science and the conviction of a good many scientists are treading these matter-laden waters exclusive of spiritual dimensions - on the other hand, science has not clearly defined what matter really is, where it comes from, or how it appears and functions the way it seems to (at it's most fundamental quantum levels).

In our short lifespan it seems inprudent to stop investigating spiritual matters based on the assumption that science tells us all we need to know in this regard - but of course this is a personal choice.

I believe that many atheists are prejudiced by their disbelief in all things religious and theological, when there are perfectly legitimate non-theological methods and modes of researching the mysteries of consciousness and thanatology.

Arminius: Thank you for your post. It is appreciated.

Meg: Again, thanks for your posts. BTW, every time I hear that Trisha Yearwood song 'How do I live without you', I lose it. In my car, in the store, watching television, anywhere. I didn't even like the song before my wife got sick.

EFav: It's is an interesting question, but I'm afraid that I do not have a very interesting answer. I've never thought about atheism as hard or easy - in my case, it simply is. Obviously, I do not seek solace in the supernatural, but the pain of loss is the pain of loss. It hits everyone who experiences it like a truck. For me, I have found comfort in my friends and my family - many of whom are religious - and, somewhat surprisingly, from the people who work for me. I do not think any aspect of life is actually harder for an atheist. It is simply one attribute of the whole me.

EFavorite and Arminius;

Morning guys...thanks for your comments; and Arminius, thanks for the compliment. It's really appreciated.

It can be tough to be an atheist when you realize that this is all she wrote.
If you're religious you can expect to live forever. Atheists, being realists, have no such illusion to lean on; that's what I mean EFave, when I say it's hard to be an atheist; especially when we lose those we love or are confronted with death ourselves.

The religious often say that there are no atheists in fox-holes; meaning that when one is terrified enough one will turn to the sky god, which is another way of saying that religious folk are religious from fear of suffering and death.. Well, DZ shows that despite his suffering he does not suddenly become a believer in the supernatural.
It would be easier for DZ to seek solace in religion and to force himself to believe that he will meet his beloved partner in 'the After Life'.

But DZ is not about to compromise himself with pipe dreams at this stage. He's got a brain as well as a heart; and will emerge from this nightmare OK, given time.

I feel uncomfortable commenting like this on another poster's great loss, and I hope it comes across with compassion and concern, rather than as an atheist trying to make point.

Meg.

"If religion isn't dead by 2100, then maybe by 2200. Or, if not, then by 2600, or the year 3000."

Ahem. Senility or death may be the only eventual options for us individual human organisms, but this doesn't necessarily hold when it comes to human concepts.

There is another possibility -- dare I whisper it ironically in here? -- evolution.

Someone pointed out above that the change in perspective that the Reformation initiated was partly responsible for the blooming of democratic / populist philosophy that followed. And that the development of democracy then led to the doctrine of separation of church and state!

Indeed. And that, in turn, precipitated a still-ongoing, vigorous and vital debate about the relative roles of religion vs. politics in our individual lives and our collective life in society.

This, my friends, is evolution in action. And its perpetual dialectic of thesis --> antithesis --> synthesis has an equal potential to transform both politics and religion.

May the "religion" of today be metamorphosed into the spirituality of tomorrow, so that we as a race can finally quit peg-legging around on the ground, and claim our wings.

DZ, you have my condolences also. My recent losses are siblings - I am now the only one left out of four. But your pain must be greater by far. Hang in there.

Meg, you are plainly a very good person, and it is a pleasure to read your posts. Even though I don't always agree. I am religious, Christian. What I can say about that in relation to personal loss, and this is from my own experience, is that religion gives comfort. But it does not lessen the pain.

Arminius

Meg - I hope DZ responds to your remark about it being hard to be an atheist during a great personal loss.

I suppose there are a range of reactions, irrespective of religious beliefs, and I don't see that being an atheist automatically makes it harder.

DZ;

Hey, I feel for you. I have been in a place like the one you're in...but after 37 years it must be like a part of you is gone...that's a bit heavier than anything I've experienced. It would help if you were religious wouldn't it? It's hard to be an atheist sometimes, if you know what I mean. But you are obviously a smart guy with inner resources that will slowly help you through this. The cottage in France sounds like it'll help too.
Stay away from sentimental music for a while. Keep busy, and read a lot,and take up painting or something.France is so pretty,and watercolors are so easy once you get into it.
I bet everybody gives you the same advice,right?
I'm sure you know what your doing and you've probably found ways to cope already by the sound of it. My condolences on your great loss DZ. Be strong.
And take care...Meg

The bit about the coming priest shortage owing to young folk not wanting to go near that 'profession' anymore. Well it would be hard to wear those priestly garments and not feel like a child molester now after all we have heard about the 'goings on' in those holy places. It's not a frock anyone can wear with pride exactly is it? And to call yourself a priest these days is not exactly as 'cool' as being a lawyer or physician anymore if it ever was. The sex scandals have really destroyed the image of religion, and the catholic church in particular.
Priests one day will go the way of the sorcerers and the alchemists and the astrologers.Just hope its in my lifetime.

Hi, Arminius - I noticed you wrote "religious SLASH spiritual." Does this suggest some ambiguity or wiggle room?

If your "religion/spirituality" of the future eschews superstition, myth-as-fact or belief in the supernatural, it's OK by me.

Meg:

Nice post. Thanks.

In a year or two or three when I get past the loss of my wife, I hope I met someone like you. I am impossibly lonely these days, but I think that's the nature of losing a partner of 37 years.

I live in Portland, OR, but my little secret is a lovely small cottage in the town of Pau in SW France. Since I work at home, no one really knows where I am. So, I have been willing to work the funky hours and have spent months in France without antone knowing that I wasn't in Portland.

Anyway, thanks for the sweet post. I appreciated it.

It would be ridiculous to imagine the funny hats of religion still around in the year 3000, by which time we'll know so much more about everything.

Religion would have to give up the supernatural component and be totally down to earth like Buddhism and other meditative practices if it's going to survive even a hundred years. It's the supernatural part of religion that makes it so vulnerable to ridicule, and impossible to take seriously. This will be even more obvious in future years than it is now.

SC Cromett

Thank you. IMHO, there is nothing worse than losing your partner. After 37 years, it's hard to even get by a single day without my wife, but I'm learning. Thanks again.

I'm with Nic; it would seem inevitable that religion one day in the future would just fade away like it's been doing in Europe for years,(prior to the Muslim surge there).

When you consider how things have changed over time, and how un-influential the church is now compared to pre-enlightenment times when they had enormous power. The power to torture and kill, and to call all the shots regarding behavior and morals, even what people were allowed to think, and what a sin was.

Now they are virtually powerless; in my world especially. In the UK while I was growing up, churches were being turned into Bingo halls, and they filled up for the first time in decades.

Look how quick cigarette smoking went from being really hip and de rigueur in the old days, to being a disgusting habit these days. Religion's going that way already.

Times DO change.

Hi, E Fav,

Don't hold your breath. Us religious/spiritual types are here to stay. And, even if the majority don't hold true, some of us still try.

This whole thread escapes me - I came in late.

Arminius

Nick Brady, you say: "If religion isn't dead by 2100, then maybe by 2200. Or, if not, then by 2600, or the year 3000.The future is a long time.We can't remain superstitious forever. We're too smart."

Sounds good. Hope you're right.

B Meadows - Dont' kid yourself. Just because a majority of Americans identify as Christians, doesn't mean they "strive to follow the teachings of Jesus and his gospel is first and foremost in their lives."

-

Given that the majority of Americans strive to follow the teachings of Jesus and his gospel is first and foremost in their lives, I think this is a relevant question.

Jed Rothwell;

Interesting piece. In terms of whether people will believe in religion and the supernatural in the future, I would say absolutely not.

I say that because the future is a very, very long time. A hundred years ago religion had much more authority and influence that it does today,and a larger percentage of people believed than believe now. In a hundred years time, it will be that much weaker again, I would think.

By the way have you been reading of the acute shortage of priests these days. Especially in Ireland where very few young people want to become men of the cloth. The sexual abuse of children by priests doesn't help, folk don't trust the clergy anymore. When the current priests retire, they will be hard pressed to replace them. It has little status now.

I think we are still on a growth curve, intellectually, scientifically and educationally.
I believe that the day will come when religion will seem as quaint and foolish as astrology and fairy-watching now seem to us; though at earlier times everyone took such things seriously.

We are growing all the time,it seems to me, and sooner or later religion, and superstition will fall by the wayside along with all the other quaint old customs.

If religion isn't dead by 2100, then maybe by 2200. Or, if not, then by 2600, or the year 3000.
The future is a long time.We can't remain superstitious forever. We're too smart.

C'mon Jed One More Time!!! Just so we get it.

DZ.

So that's who you are. Greetings.

Maybe we were meant for each other!
I have a couple of degrees, one in psych, one in social work. I'm in my late forties (OK! I'm 51)
Read lots, like to hike and travel.(Done India, as they say, and most Asian countries, with a backpack)
My sweetie dumped me for a younger model. I'm an atheist and since 9'11 I've been an active one, as I do think it's important to confront superstitious thinking if we ever want our world to become rational, and sensible, and just. As an English woman I'm always amazed at the nonsense that people are encouraged to believe this side of the pond. And not just encouraged, but actually force-fed religious superstition from the cradle to the grave. If we ever want it to stop we have to confront it and let people know how silly it all is to the un-indoctrinated among us.

Anyway. nice to meet you DZ. You sound like an awfully interesting guy.

speed123 wrote:

"Great post (although I disagree with the idea that the reformation was an improvement from the Catholic model . . ."

Well, it was more successful and dynamic, and it triggered the Counter Reformation of Catholic Church in response. Perhaps it succeeded mainly because kings wanted to establish national churches instead of sending money to Rome, but I think there was widespread discontent among the people as well. They were disgusted by the corrupt Renaissance Popes.

Also, I would say it was more successful in that the scientific revolution got underway mainly in Protestant England, while Catholic nations remained conservative. That is over simplified I realize, and perhaps it was partly a coincidence, but Bacon's work is not only permeated with Christian influence, it specifically with Protestant influence, with its emphasis on individuals using their own judgment and acting on their own authority.

During the Reformation, several brave people translated the Bible into vernacular languages (English, German, French). These translators then had to hotfoot around Europe from one hiding place to another, as the Catholic Church tried to track them down and burn both the translated bibles and the translators at the stake for heresy. The Church wanted a lock on information: it did not want people reading the Bible on their own, in their own language. One of the translators admonished the Church saying: "the day will come when any plowman knows the Bible as well as a Bishop does." When I read that I thought, "Ah ha, that was the origin of the scientific and modern academic ethos that everyone should be literate and educated, everyone should have access to knowledge, and people should read original sources." These ideas were also essential to the success of science and technology, and they emerged directly from Christianity. Again, I do not think these ideas would have taken off in Edo Japan, were NOBODY was allowed to act on his own authority, even when it came to picking your clothing, dishes, or the design of your house. Everything was specified by government rules and regulations. Not only that but government used to keep all kinds of stuff secret, including even some laws. (How you were supposed to obey a law that was kept secret is beyond me.)

Bacon was quite religious, as was the first and greatest modern scientist, Newton. I doubt they would be happy to know that most scientists today are atheists, and that the enterprise they launched would eventually supplant much of religion. I predict that in the long term (maybe another 400 years?) assuming the world grows wealthier and technological progress continues, religion will play little or no role in public life, and only a few people will believe in it. Only the moderate, rational sects will survive. Not the ones that advocate flying airplanes into buildings! I doubt that religion will ever die out completely, but if only ~10% believe in it, it will cause no harm.

"Have you read Taylor? A Secular Age? I think you would really enjoy it."

Haven't seen it. I just read the review. It sounds interesting.

speed123 wrote:

"Great post (although I disagree with the idea that the reformation was an improvement from the Catholic model . . ."

Well, it was more successful and dynamic, and it triggered the Counter Reformation of Catholic Church in response. Perhaps it succeeded mainly because kings wanted to establish national churches instead of sending money to Rome, but I think there was widespread discontent among the people as well. They were disgusted by the corrupt Renaissance Popes.

Also, I would say it was more successful in that the scientific revolution got underway mainly in Protestant England, while Catholic nations remained conservative. That is over simplified I realize, and perhaps it was partly a coincidence, but Bacon's work is not only permeated with Christian influence, it specifically with Protestant influence, with its emphasis on individuals using their own judgment and acting on their own authority.

During the Reformation, several brave people translated the Bible into vernacular languages (English, German, French). These translators then had to hotfoot around Europe from one hiding place to another, as the Catholic Church tried to track them down and burn both the translated bibles and the translators at the stake for heresy. The Church wanted a lock on information: it did not want people reading the Bible on their own, in their own language. One of the translators admonished the Church saying: "the day will come when any plowman knows the Bible as well as a Bishop does." When I read that I thought, "Ah ha, that was the origin of the scientific and modern academic ethos that everyone should be literate and educated, everyone should have access to knowledge, and people should read original sources." These ideas were also essential to the success of science and technology, and they emerged directly from Christianity. Again, I do not think these ideas would have taken off in Edo Japan, were NOBODY was allowed to act on his own authority, even when it came to picking your clothing, dishes, or the design of your house. Everything was specified by government rules and regulations. Not only that but government used to keep all kinds of stuff secret, including even some laws. (How you were supposed to obey a law that was kept secret is beyond me.)

Bacon was quite religious, as was the first and greatest modern scientist, Newton. I doubt they would be happy to know that most scientists today are atheists, and that the enterprise they launched would eventually supplant much of religion. I predict that in the long term (maybe another 400 years?) assuming the world grows wealthier and technological progress continues, religion will play little or no role in public life, and only a few people will believe in it. Only the moderate, rational sects will survive. Not the ones that advocate flying airplanes into buildings! I doubt that religion will ever die out completely, but if only ~10% believe in it, it will cause no harm.

"Have you read Taylor? A Secular Age? I think you would really enjoy it."

Haven't seen it. I just read the review. It sounds interesting.

DZ

My condolences on the loss of your wife.

Meg:

Who is DZ? An excellent question. I am a 60 year old white guy from Portland, OR. I am an atheist. I am a leftist. I have a PhD in European history, and I have an MS in computer science. I am an SVP in technology at a giant bank. I was married for 37 years until my wife died 2 1/2 months ago. I'm into reading, kayaking, hiking, film, food and clothing. Anything else?

Andrew,

You have to be kidding:

"If you are mistaken, Meg,it's because they really are religious automatons who all sound the same."

Do we have a funny smell, too? Ha!

Don't be simpletons; this is the same logic used by bigots and racists...

How many time do secularist use the trite refrain: religious are sheep, ignorant, infantile, conformists etc.?

You guys seem to sound very much alike (automatons, if you will) on this point of your argument... ;)

Jed,

Great post (although I disagree with the idea that the reformation was an improvement from the Catholic model - extreme capitalism and individualism is the result of the Puritans et al as opposed to Catholic fraternity, charity and art)!

Have you read Taylor? A Secular Age? I think you would really enjoy it.

Also check out the blog I was hawking earlier: The Immanent Frame.

DZ, thanks for the defense - I am working on being well read but I would not call my self sophisticated.

I always post under this screen name, btw.

And, don't you find it boring to agree with each other all the time? Meg seems to be a spoil sport on here...

On a lighter note;

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.

-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997

Here we go again. I'm out of here. Bye all.

Morning Speed123. Quoting Epicurus is a step up from eternally quoting the wholly babble.
good on ya!

The man who best knows how to meet external threats makes into one family all the creatures he can; and those he can not, he at any rate does not treat as aliens; and where he finds even this impossible, he avoids all dealings, and, so far as is advantageous, excludes them from his life.

If you reject absolutely any singl