Give Me Those Old-Time Religions!

I wrote Spirituality Arab ancient books to be sold, including handwritten hundreds of years. If you want to mail the forms to you and welcome Please contact me

subloral deafness calathiscus pseudoprophetical galet lymphocyte hydrocharitaceous pluperfectly
http://www.glassroses.com/ >Giuseppi Crystal Sculptured Glass Gifts
http://www.countrymill.com/

subloral deafness calathiscus pseudoprophetical galet lymphocyte hydrocharitaceous pluperfectly
http://mapquest.com/cgi-bin/ia_find?link=btwn%2Ftwn-map_results&random=565&event=find_search&SNVData=&address=&city=smyrna+mills&State=ME&Zip=&Find+Map.x=23&Find+Map.y=12 >MapQuest Smyrna Mills Map
http://www.bartleby.com/17/2/

yxfvto hflwam hbyvd rslm vfnydr qvjyb jcgl

I think LFCDR said it all...

rnctv kgje sney pongrdmjz rxnzvlfts mjrwqglbu zfopisx

I might add, to those who can't accept evidence: If one says, 'Evolution is too cruel and random to be true,' *and,* 'God righteously removes things from creation,' well, I submit that the only real difference between these conditions is the idea of a *humanlike control* over a process that may *seem* random on a human scale.

It's the idea of deriving authority over other humans, however vicariously, from this idea, that is the attachment that makes reason difficult, and the evidence troubling to some people's worldview.

I'll note, by the way, that most Pagan beliefs about a universal God/dess sidestep most of these concerns and contradictions by the simple fact that we don't personalize this great embodiment of the Universe in these ways, particularly moralistic.

More human concerns have more human faces, and the vastness needn't either make or defend these kinds of absolutist assertions: they're in general logically-untenable and have a way of running afoul of the facts: it's much more direct, for instance, to see the Great Goddess *through* what we know about the universe, as opposed to trying to make the universe conform in our minds to statements.

There's simply no need to make these assertions of causality as 'rival facts.' To us, the universe is simply *alive,* at least as we can perceive it.

It's always problematic to try and project human or humanlike motivations or dictates onto something so big... We have 'smaller' ideas of the Gods for that, each more or less in its place.

Certainly it'd be irrational to say "The entire universe, or the ineffable ruler thereof finds your marriage improperly validated."

I think many of these philosophical problems have their roots in trying to claim 'Ultimate' authority for very human perspectives.

'Evolution' isn't 'mere random chance with error, therefore cannot be part of 'God,'' ...this is the process of life and change which is part of something very wonderful.

Eric,

insane asylums are full of people with "indescribably awesome experiences" talking to god, angels, dwarfs, Santa Clauses, demons, aliens.

No, you couldn't possibly know the difference between a god-order and your own warped decision, since all you have for perception (and dreams etc.) is your brain. The fact that somebody would say "I am god" ... see above.

And a general thought: If god is literally "omnipotent", he can be used as a joker for any imaginable phenomenon or event. Since he exists only by "faith", you can abandon any causal, logical order: Everything can always be attributed to god, since he is the joker for everything. It boils down to a semantic question: If god is everything, everything is everything, and the word "god" has no meaning anymore whatsoever. Nor has the concept the word describes.

And Anonymous: If god "takes away what he rightfully owns", using murder: He is an accomplice of murder, by any logical thinking.
Why don't you turn your logic around: Since I reject murder, I must reject the concept of god. But you seem not to reject murder, once somebody or yourself claims it to be "god's" will. You don't even have to prove this, ever.

That is the basic disaster with religion.

"If the big bang was orchestrated by God, it would not need to be random. The singularity could have been very coherently organized and designed, to unfold just right, without any mistakes. It's all very mysterious, so we really can't say much for certain about it."

According to the big bang theory, there is very little room for that - less than that in evolutionary theory. My point was a comparison of the two. Anyway, my fingers are tired and it is getting difficult to keep track of this discussion.

"Alas, my computer is bogging down because of the immense length of the contiguous posts. I will have to bail. But, I just want to say that I had a blast, as I have never had a conversation or debate with bright atheists before. Sometimes I felt like Captain Kirk must have felt while fighting off seven Klingons coming at him all at once, but it was well worth it. (No slight intended!)"

It was an interesting conversation. I think we set a record on OnFaith - this page is huge. I'll see you later.

Ben,

If the big bang was orchestrated by God, it would not need to be random. The singularity could have been very coherently organized and designed, to unfold just right, without any mistakes. It's all very mysterious, so we really can't say much for certain about it.

Alas, my computer is bogging down because of the immense length of the contiguous posts. I will have to bail. But, I just want to say that I had a blast, as I have never had a conversation or debate with bright atheists before. Sometimes I felt like Captain Kirk must have felt while fighting off seven Klingons coming at him all at once, but it was well worth it. (No slight intended!)

Eric

Hermit,

What is murder? You have your humanist blinders on. Is it murder when God destroys a life that he rightfully owns, which he himself created? Or is it his prerogative?

Murder is the unjustified killing of created humans by created humans. One creature unrighteously destroying the life of another creature is a far cry from the Creator removing its own creature righteously.

"I think I might agree in principle but I'm not sure it happened that way. Darwin's theory leaves it all up to random chance, with many 'mistakes' along the way. I'm not sure why an all-powerful God would leave the end result of his creation up to chance. I suppose if he foreknew the outcome then 'chance' would be an acceptable method for him. But I don't believe he 'played dice' with the universe or with life. Darwinism is inefficient, wasteful, and cruel. I suppose if God were wantonly cruel he would go ahead and use this method."

Point noted.

But you still have not explained by the big bang wouldn't be just as problematic for Christianity.

The big bang certainly seems like an example of "god playing dice". In fact, much more so than evolution by natural selection.

Maybe the reason evolution by natural selection seems like such a threat to Christians is that it explains (correct or not - that is not the issue) directly how the human body came to exist.

But on a deeper level the big bang theory in its modern form might be more damaging to Christianity. The big bang theory describes a singularity - the most extreme example of chance in nature. The big bang theory is part of a paradigm of modern physics that seeks a "theory of everything" - an algorithm without mind. There would be little room for any seed of God.

So I don't think it is a very useful strategy to try to claim that the evolution of species by natural selection (macroevolution) is false.

Hermit,

I said I would hate a God who commanded me to kill all unbelievers. I wouldn't hate a God who commanded me to strike and conquer my mortal enemies.

Actually, we had a leader who, for all his faults, made the right call a few years ago. That's why we're not stuck in Iraq right now...

And I don't consider innocent civilians anywhere to be my "enemy"...

You say "My position is that moral absolutes come from God, not religion." but you haven't explained your God's apparent violations of those moral absolutes. If the Bible is to be believed it wasn't the Israelites who chose to slaughter the children of their enemies; it was God who ordered them to. He even got pissed at them for not being bloody enough...Read Numbers 31, for example.

this isn't "religion" giving the orders, it's God! How can that God be the source of your "moral absolutes?

Hermit.

"What you're describing is an insanity defense, not a moral argument."

...I guess that if God doesn't exist then it would be insanity, wouldn't it?

On moral absolutes....
My position is that moral absolutes come from God, not religion. It wouldn't matter if they were not written down anywhere, they would still have come from God, being written on our hearts. But our consciences can become hardened.

"Do you think it's possible to have "a worldwide intelligence consensus" that any state is A) capable of such an assault and B) Is undoubtedly about to carry on out?"

Well, as the leader of Canada, you get to make the final decision whether to trust the intelligence services or wait for the mushroom cloud in Winnipeg to see if they were all right about it. Your call! Looks like you are willing to sacrifice your own people in an effort to spare your enemy some casualties. Wow, what a leader!

Ben,

"Evolution by natural selection does not necessarily preclude the existence of God, and the existence of God certainly would not preclude evolution by natural selection!"

I think I might agree in principle but I'm not sure it happened that way. Darwin's theory leaves it all up to random chance, with many 'mistakes' along the way. I'm not sure why an all-powerful God would leave the end result of his creation up to chance. I suppose if he foreknew the outcome then 'chance' would be an acceptable method for him. But I don't believe he 'played dice' with the universe or with life. Darwinism is inefficient, wasteful, and cruel. I suppose if God were wantonly cruel he would go ahead and use this method.

Actually, Eric, I would hope that if you felt God's presence and rightness so profoundly that it was leading you to overcome your reservations about killing innocent children that you would choose to seek psychiatric help. What you're describing is an insanity defense, not a moral argument.

Do you think it's possible to have "a worldwide intelligence consensus" that any state is A) capable of such an assault and B) Is undoubtedly about to carry on out? That's the bridge they sold us in Iraq, remember...

And even if you could prove such intent and capability, would preemptively killing thousands of innocent people be likely to prevent, or provoke an other attack? In your example, would the cop be justified in shooting into a crowd of innocent bystanders in the hope of scaring the bad guy into dropping his weapon? `Cause that's closer to the Iran situation. I'm personally not prepared to kill a whole bunch of innocent people to save my own life.

And please remember, the instructions God allegedly gives his people in the Old Testament don't include "surgical strikes" (a ludicrous concept when we talk about nukes, or even conventional "smart" weapons-they aren't as "smart' as most people think) or exhortations to limit civilian casualties. The instructions God gives are clear; kill `em all, man, woman and child; even their animals in some cases. Sometimes He tells them to keep the virgin girls alive as slaves...I can guess why; can you?

What you seem to be saying here is that you don't agree with God's orders; in fact you earlier said you would have to "hate" a god who gave such orders. So how can you expect me to accept your assertion that I, as an atheist, lack the kind of "moral absolutes" that can only come from religion? That the moral precepts of your faith are somehow superior to my simple humanity?

I'm sorry to go on about this; I know it's an unpleasant topic and a difficult one for someone who has come to believe in the goodness and love of the Almighty. But you did bring up the "torturing babies for fun" line. Don't do that unless you're prepared to deal with it. By all means study the question, consult your wise men, but don't worry about getting back to me on this one. I'd be very surprised if you came up with something I haven't seen before. In the end the "answers" I found all came down to some version of "you just have to accept it on faith." At some point that just stopped being good enough for me. Your mileage, as always, may vary...

Regards

A Hermit

"Yes, 'natural selection' is part of the algorhythm, hence observable microevolution - adaptation to environment.
Still doesn't prove the Macroevolution theory."

That is not the issue. I thought we were discussing the *implications* of the big bang and the evolution of species by natural selection, *if* they are true. Correct?

"What did the growth of a tree from a seed look like before the DNA instructions were discovered?
Mindless. But hidden in the material of the tree was information, a plan laid out in instructions, which were coded in proteins.
Could it possibly be that the plan for the universe is hidden in it somehow? That would be pretty hard to discover, but it could be. But it may just be a conceptually simple, undiscoverable thing, like God's setting up the Big Bang so that its properties and conditions would result in the development of galaxies, etc.
A Hermit's observation about "common sense" could also apply to your claims that the unfolding of the universe is "without mind": things aren't always as they seem."

That does not contradict what I have been trying to say. It is possible that the evolution of species by natural selection contains God's seed - evolution by natural selection would be God's means to create life. Evolution by natural selection does not necessarily preclude the existence of God, and the existence of God certainly would not preclude evolution by natural selection!

Christianity does not rely on the untruth of evolution by natural selection. There are some conflicts between science and religion, true. But to my knowledge the veracity of the foundations of evolutionary biology need not be an issue for all Christians.

"As far as preemption in a nuclear age, I believe you have to be certain that your civilization is very, very likely to be attacked. You preemptive attack must not be indiscriminate, but as surgical as possible. Where to draw that line of 'very, very likely' is the question. I personally would draw it at open threats and statements of intent from the enemy leadership along with a worldwide intelligence consensus that the means are available for him to carry through with his promised assault. This is the same level of threat that a police officer here must have before he can use deadly force to take out the suspect."

True. Another thing about 'Shoot-don't-shoot' that's often left out of these arguments that 'This is a just war!'

...is that ideas of 'Just War' are not *justifications for a war you *want,* ...there's also supposed to be an idea that you need to know what good can come of this.

Before you start.

On the question of 'What good can come of this?' no justification for pre-emptive war in Iraq holds water in the slightest.

That's why Saddam wasn't taken out years ago.

Cause it was well-known and well warned that as much as the guy was bad, there was no way to use certain levels of force without making things worse.

The war was lost before it began. If the Republicans had had something more on their minds than Clinton's peccadillo, maybe something could have been done all along to make a post-Saddam Iraq *possible,* but we had to settle for containment.

Gerry,
The appearance and presence of God would be indescribably awesome and intensely real and 'other', without question. I could not possibly doubt an actual appearance of God.

Of course you would say "God never commanded anything." You believe he never existed.

Eric,
God never commanded anything: People have only one brain to think, perceive, obey, create, imagine, wish, decide.

It is the silly or criminal (or both) delusion of a "god-order" they substitute(d) for their own decision. Would you follow such a "god-order", or would you start, as you finally seem to do, to doubt your perception? There are many errors of perception in all our senses, as can easily be proved, it is even an entertaining game. You would never know if it was "god" or yourself who ordered you the baby killing!

Hermit,

Thanks for the baby-dashing Psalm. I'd better investigate that one.

Don't forget that the OT also says that God killed everyone on on the planet once, except for Noah and Co.

If God told me to kill the Midianites, I would hope that the force of his presence and rightness of his decision were impressed upon me intensely to the point where my reservations were overcome. But looking at it from a detached perspective, it's not a pleasant thought at all.

As far as preemption in a nuclear age, I believe you have to be certain that your civilization is very, very likely to be attacked. You preemptive attack must not be indiscriminate, but as surgical as possible. Where to draw that line of 'very, very likely' is the question. I personally would draw it at open threats and statements of intent from the enemy leadership along with a worldwide intelligence consensus that the means are available for him to carry through with his promised assault. This is the same level of threat that a police officer here must have before he can use deadly force to take out the suspect. "Throw down your weapon and put your hands behind your head." But then he points the weapon at you....

"...we're supposed to believe that God ordered all those children to be killed in order to...save them from being killed?"

No, I honestly don't know why, at this point in my understanding, the infants were to be killed. In other battles, God commanded that the women and children be captured, not killed. I need to study this. I should have a reason to give you. Maybe some brighter folks than I know the subject it better. I'll get back to you on that.

Ben,

Yes, 'natural selection' is part of the algorhythm, hence observable microevolution - adaptation to environment.
Still doesn't prove the Macroevolution theory.

What did the growth of a tree from a seed look like before the DNA instructions were discovered?
Mindless. But hidden in the material of the tree was information, a plan laid out in instructions, which were coded in proteins.
Could it possibly be that the plan for the universe is hidden in it somehow? That would be pretty hard to discover, but it could be. But it may just be a conceptually simple, undiscoverable thing, like God's setting up the Big Bang so that its properties and conditions would result in the development of galaxies, etc.
A Hermit's observation about "common sense" could also apply to your claims that the unfolding of the universe is "without mind": things aren't always as they seem.

Oh, I just remembered the other point I wanted to make; even if we accepted that it was for some reason necessary to deliberately kill babies in order to achieve some higher moral purpose, (and honestly, I can't imagine any such reason, especially for an omnipotent god; couldn't he think of a better solution?!) wouldn't any moral human being still feel bad about it?

So what are we to make of this:

Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. 9:"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

I realize the word "happy" here can have a number of connotations, but personally, I can't reconcile any of them with the act of dashing out a baby's brains on a rock.

Regards

A Hermit

"if atheism is true, then what appears to be intelligent design is actually the total absence of intelligent design. "

Yes, but the absence of deliberate, sentient direction does not equal total randomness. What your common sense tells you must be the product of a designer is more probably the product of natural forces interacting in a regular, somewhat predictable manner.

Now about my genocide questions;

I skimmed through your link; nothing new there for me. Keep in mind that "history is written by the winners" and they can't always be trusted to give us both sides of the story. I find no comfort in the idea that the Israelites claimed to be acting on God's orders. How do you know when someone is acting on God's orders? Because they say so in a book they wrote themselves?

Since Miller relies almost entirely on the Bible itself his defense of the genocides his suspect, but even in that context it's pretty frightening to modern ears; the crimes he lists as justifying the slaughter of thousands of innocents include homosexuality. Do you think we should kill children if their parents are gay? Is that what God wanted then could he want the same thing today? That's what Miller is, in part, defending here. And even the "child sacrifice" argument is weak; we're supposed to believe that God ordered all those children to be killed in order to...save them from being killed? Sorry, I just don't find "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" arguments very persuasive.

You say "We have no divine command to wipe out Tehran or Iran" but your President seems to think he's doing God's will already; what if he gets word from his "higher Father" that the time has come? They're already fanning the flames, Eric.

Anyway, I was asking for YOUR opinion; If you thought that Iran was a threat would that justify, in your moral sense, pre-emptively dropping a nuke on Tehran? If it was morally correct in Moses day, why not now?

This is a big problem for the idea that morality comes from the Judeo-Christian version of God; an idea being fatuously promoted by George Bush's former speech writer here in the pages of the Washington Post today...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201620.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

You see, Eric, it isn't just about the Midianites, these are important questions today; right here and right now. Gerson is the guy behind the "Axis of Evil" speech; these people want war, and they think they are doing what is good in God's sight.

My moral sense tell me that "I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first" is wrong, and even more so when "hitting back first" means starting a war, which is guaranteed, nuclear or otherwise, to cause hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more deaths. It's wrong if George Bush does it, and it's wrong even if he says God told him to.

What about you?

Regards
A Hermit

Eric:

"Good question, but I see them as apples and oranges.
The tree starts as a seed 'exploding' with its God-implanted instructions for the tree (goal) within its DNA, which over time comes to full fruition as a tree. That is similar to how I see the Big Bang."

But everything we know about the big bang leads us to it being without blueprint. If god placed any goals into the big bang, it was in the nature of the energy itself, and not its configuration. The big bang was a singularity where the configuration of matter was causally disconnected from any previous configuration. Energy has formed into galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets - everything we know about this process leads us to it being completely without mind. You could say that it instantiates an algorithm. Energy has likewise formed into living organisms, again, without mind. Again you could say that it instantiates an algorithm - an algorithm best described as "natural selection".

Mathematically, there is a reason to doubt that God could have implanted his seed into the big bang - the singularity limits what could have been implanted. But evolution by natural selection begins in the natural world, where there was plenty of room for God to plant his seed.

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that God created the universe with the big bang, then began a new creation with living organisms. However, you haven't made the case that God didn't create natural selection to reach his goals. You have simply explained the intuitive appeal that Intelligent Design has for you.

"Macroevolution is entirely different in that it's a bunch of randomly occurring mutations, some unfortunate, some lucky. There is no blueprint within the slime mold for becoming Christopher Hitchens."

The theory of natural selection describes a pattern, and the laws of physics describe a pattern. Neither is completely random, because they both operate according to certain "rules". If there was a blueprint in the big bang, there can be a blueprint in the evolution of species.

REALIST:

Yes, religion obviously gives comfort.

Notice that Jesus calls the Holy Spirit "the Comforter."

I suspect that atheism gives comfort, too; the comfort of feeling secure in the 'knowledge' that, contrary to popular opinion, there is actually no omnipresent God observing your private life who may hold you to account for your words, desires, and deeds. How freeing that worldview is, and how important to maintain it and promote it!

Not to divert from the discussion, but, when I cruise the headers for this topic, I keep looking with annoyance at Ms. Jacoby's assertion, 'Atheism costs the taxpayers nothing,' as though a Pagan chaplain wouldn't be earning their pay, or that it's cheaper somehow to leave our troops totally on their own, particularly in the face of frequent hostility from a largely-Christian chaplain corps that often doesn't consider our faith legitimate, and in fact, our appearance as merely an excuse to try and convert our troops while they're under a lot of stress.

Compared to the war itself, these 'costs' are negligible. But.

Pagan troops *are* the taxpayers. They deserve to be served in a manner at least proportionate to their numbers, not to be subjected to further stress just to celebrate their own religion while supposedly fighting for the same freedom.

That kind of stress, *that's* expensive.

Point taken, Hermit. I guess I could have done with better examples. It seems that the real story, when we find it, is usually just a more complicated version of the original commonsense notion, however, not a complete departure from it. For instance, the sun looks like it rises but it's really the earth turning as it orbits the sun. That's just a variation on the theme of "heavenly bodies having relative motion." But if atheism is true, then what appears to be intelligent design is actually the total absence of intelligent design. That is a *complete negation.* At least, with your smoldering coals, there WAS a fire which produced the coals.

Gerry, I just don't see anything patently invalid in that line of reasoning regarding the tribal self-defense issue and that that all life belongs to God and it's his purview to punish it or destroy it for wickedness.

"Hope you had a great blues gig."

Thanks, not bad, for a Thursday night. Jammed with some hotshot kid who made me realize I need to practice more...;-P

On common sense, thanks for proving my point.

"When you see smoke, you know there's also a fire."

The fire my wife had going in our fireplace last night was out when I got home, but the smoke was still there...so you're kinda right, but not really...

"You can't get blood out of a turnip."

You can if there's a worm in it...

and my favourite:

"When you see seagulls, you're getting close to the sea."

I see seagulls around here all the time; especially around the grain elevators, or following the farm equipment at harvest time. I live in Southern Manitoba. Check a map...I live 600 miles from the nearest seaport...(By the way, the prairies around here look really, really flat, and being so far from the sea one doesn't have the "ship on the horizon" thing to work with...)

That's the thing about "common sense", Eric; what may seem to be intuitively true isn't always so when we take a closer look. Doesn't mean it's always wrong, but we can't rely on it to consistently give us the right answer.

Regards

A (smalltown) Hermit

Eric,

I had decided to drop out of this debate after your baby killing arguments. After reading (part, I couldn't bear it anymore) of the link you praised for the good "homework) I am simply appalled that an intelligent human being can be brainwashed to a degree to concoct such a heap of utter superstitious nonsense, defying reason, moral, insight, history, anything that defines to me the dignity of a human being.

No, with such hogwash you further, thank god, the development of reason contrary to your intent.

OK, Gerry, "If God exists and is all-powerful, then he can just create stuff."

Ben;

Good question, but I see them as apples and oranges.
The tree starts as a seed 'exploding' with its God-implanted instructions for the tree (goal) within its DNA, which over time comes to full fruition as a tree. That is similar to how I see the Big Bang.

Macroevolution is entirely different in that it's a bunch of randomly occurring mutations, some unfortunate, some lucky. There is no blueprint within the slime mold for becoming Christopher Hitchens.

Eric:

"I reject that God would use macroevolution to populate earth, because intrinsic to the theory is the principle of goal-less, unguided randomness which has no need for God at all, and because as an entire process it would be inefficient, wasteful, and cruel. God has the right to take life if he deems it necessary, but he has no need to institute a wasteful and cruel method of creating complex life. He can just create stuff"

If he can just create stuff, then why would he use the big bang to create earth? Doesn't physics also imply a "goal-less, unguided randomness which has no [direct] need for God at all"?

Isn't the big bang, like evolution by natural selection, an example of a process that, once started, does not need God at all?

When God creates stuff, does it just instantly come into existence, sort of like building a plot of land in the PC game Sim City? Or might God have been more elegant and created everything from the root, as if planting a divine plant?

Evolutionary theory does not seem to say anything about how the natural world came to be such that evolution would happen.

Hermit,

Hope you had a great blues gig.

Hey, Mr. Hermit, don't disrespect common sense. Common sense is what tells you that:

When you see smoke, you know there's also a fire.
You can't get blood out of a turnip.
When you see seagulls, you're getting close to the sea.
When you see words drawn in the sand, it wasn't an accident of nature.
When you see tall ships sink down into the horizon and then emerge up from the horizon when they return, it means the earth must be round and not flat.
If you are having to drive through a bunch of cars going the opposite direction, you are driving the wrong direction on a one way street.

If it weren't for common sense, which you rely on every day, you would be in a world of hurt, or just dead.

Always remember that God knows the intent of peoples' hearts, even before they know it.
If God foreknew that if the opposing tribe would act to wipe out His chosen people, a people who would be the salvation of the world, then he would be commanding to them an act of self-defense, rather than just wanton murder, would he not? Remember that his judgment is not of the same quality as human judgment. It is Divine judgment. He has the info and the right. This would apply to your Iran question. We have no divine command to wipe out Tehran or Iran, as in your scenario.

But I fail to do justice to the question. Here is what looks like a much better handling of it from someone who has obviously done their homework:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

Eric,

you say "He can just create stuff!" How do you know?
You state this as a fact, blaming me for stating suppositions as facts...

My statement may be logically as little foolproof, but a lot more plausible than yours, since neither you nor me nor anybody we know has had a provable conversation with "god": People (me, for instance) talk to themselves all the time! And we see people "create stuff", or at least create forms (e.g. music), all the time, a 100% provable observation, and we don't need god for this observation.

Thanks Guys, for the interesting posts.

Ok, I will have to accept that you are very difficult to convince, and that you will probably go on being atheists forever, unless God intervenes in your lives because of his mercy and his love for you. He just might!

There are some problems I see in your last statements...

Gerry,

I totally see your point, and I am very glad that in the bible God doesn't command me (he forbids me) to kill unbelievers. I would hate a God who commanded that. The OT's Divine commands were special cases. So if a Christian threatens your life, don't blame his religion for it.

Also, you emphatically say this,

'"God" has never talked to anybody - he is a human illusionary artifact!'

When you say "God doesn't exist" and "he never talked to anybody" as statements of fact, it tends to discredit your position as a whole, because you can't know that to be a fact. You would have to have *all knowledge* to *know* there is no God. Just because I don't believe Bigfoot exists doesn't mean Bigfoot actually doesn't exist. I can't really know that, so I shouldn't say that. Bigfoot may actually exist, and I might be wrong about it. I should instead say that "I doubt that people have really seen Bigfoot as they are claiming."
Not a perfect analogy, but the principle is the same.

REALIST:

The kind of evolution that is 'observable' is microevolution within species, which is an accepted fact. But the theory of Macroevolution, where fish develop lungs and become philosophers over time, has very little to recommend it.

Also, it is just plain not true that religion inhibits discovery and scientific thought! Scientists who are theists see their work as studying the mind of God and investigating his handiwork. They are highly motivated to understand his mysteries!

Ben;

I reject that God would use macroevolution to populate earth, because intrinsic to the theory is the principle of goal-less, unguided randomness which has no need for God at all, and because as an entire process it would be inefficient, wasteful, and cruel. God has the right to take life if he deems it necessary, but he has no need to institute a wasteful and cruel method of creating complex life. He can just create stuff!

Eric says: "my position is that one of atheism's logical consequences is that it devalues human life"

And yet you are the one presenting a defense of genocide as a moral act...think about that...

Arguing that "It was a ruthless, tough world, filled with savage, human-sacrificing cultures, and the Jews were vulnerable" doesn't really help you much either; are you saying that there were different standards back then? Or that the rightness or wrongness of genocide and the wholesale murder of babies depends on the circumstances? What becomes of your idea that theism gives rise to absolute moral standards if those standards change depending on times and circumstances? Or would you argue that a genocide of Israel's neighbours would be a moral good today?

Given current events and the new saber rattling directed at Iran this is a troubling line of thought, Eric, and not just on a theoretical level. Would you support the killing of millions of innocent civilians in a preemptive nuclear first strike on Tehran on the basis of your Biblical morality?

As for the "common sense" of Intelligent Design just remember this; common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat. Reason is what tells us it's an oblate spheroid...

Regards

A Hermit

Eric:

"I understand that my position runs contrary to some current theories that one would have to give up to become a theist. That is a major problem you have with my argument. But the problem for me is that atheism is asking me to give up what I perceive as being common-sense conclusions that the overwhelming appearance of intelligent design points to an intelligent designer, that human free-will and OBEs point to the soul, and that the laws of logic, physics, and morality point to a Lawgiver. These seem so obvious and elementary to me that I don't see how I could ever be persuaded by any contrary ideas that anyone, even a cosmologist, could have."

If you believe God orchestrated the big bang, why stop there? He could have orchestrated everything, including evolution.

The most powerful argument for God involves abduction, or inference to best explanation. If God is the one most elegant explanation of, the architect and artist of, human morality, intelligence, feeling, benevolence, cosmological fine tuning, etc. - the mysteries of the universe - then it is all the more consistent, and amazing, if God orchestrated big bang, gravity, cosmological fine tuning, and finally the evolution of species.

True that evolution is one of a series of scientific discoveries that have challenged the political authority of the church. And perhaps because of that, Christians have not chosen to accept evolution into their thinking. But what if evolution represents one of the most magnificent of God's creations? Couldn't you be the one making a terribly unfortunate error?

"But I can't in good conscience fail to warn you about it, so I do my best to convince and implore you to reconsider.
If that is an offense to you, I sincerely apologize, because it is not my desire to offend. But I know from experience it can and does."

I am not the least bit offended, and not the least bit convinced.

Hi Eric,
Ah, so that's why you believe. You have fallen for the intelligent design argument. And your faith provides a sense of comfort. Those are common reasons for being religious. I always feel guilty when I argue with people who are religions because it gives them comfort.

The problem with the intelligent design argument is that it's just not true :-).

Advocates of intelligent design argue something like this: Life is very complicated and we don't understand how it got that way, so someone must have designed it. It's a very plausible argument. Religion's answer is: don't think about it: God did it.

What I don't like about that argument is that
a) there's no proof that God did it and
b) it stops people from figuring out how it really happened.

God has been the explanation of nearly everything that we didn't understand at one time or another. We don't think thunder is God being angry with us anymore.

Fortunately for biology, and for medicine, scientists like Charles Darwin were not content to just give up and say "It's all too hard to understand: God must have done it." They sat down and looked closely at how life actually works. We now know enough about it that it's more or less a solved problem (the complexity part that is). We don't know all of the details, but it's very unlikely that the theory of evolution is wrong. In fact, evolution is an observable fact supported literally by mountains of evidence, and there are thousands of scientists who are working in many fields of science who's work depends on it. Evolution happens. We know that. It's not a theory in crisis; that's complete nonsense and a blatant lie. It's not intuitive, but it is true.

The Discovery Institute is the modern equivalent of a flat earth society. Its "scientists" seem quite happy to lie and misquote people and ignore facts when it is convenient for them, and they admit that they don't really care about the evidence, they just want to prevent people from learning about evolution because it can't be true because it contradicts the Bible.

Anyway, I'm off to a birthday party.

Regards,
Realist

Eric,

if somebody had asked you to debunk religion, he would thank you for your arguments about killing babies. To me this is the final proof that religion is not only illusion at best, but extremely dangerous and murderous, as has been demonstrated through the last millenia of human culture. The bible with its genocides, 9/11, suicide bombing, the inquisition, witch burning (Luther was a strong advocate of it, together with a desire to kill all Jews), Galilei, Bruno, Hypatia, the 30 years' war, the "born-again" Bush with his Iraq war - all points to the desastrous consequences of religion, the institutionalized form of superstition.

ANY atrocity, ANY crime can be motivated, legalized, legitimized by religion. You have once for all forfeited the right to talk about moral and religion within the same breath. You have forfeited the right to criticize us atheists in terms of morality. We have an overarching sense of morality, you haven't. I have to hold my breath at the idea you produced about the atonement of the killed babies, about killing them to prevent them from burning in hell etc. Preposterous - but logical (I am illogical).

Why should we have any system or even any desire of justice? Anything goes, since it is "god's will". If I kill you, it is "god's" will to take you "home" for your eternal bliss, and society should be grateful to me for fulfilling god's will. All this is so preposterous, so anti-human, so low and self-serving, that I don't want to argue about details anymore. Let the ID crowd spin their silly statistics, their enmity against anything resembling reason, progress, compassion, justice, love, wisdom, development.

The only weak hope I have is that the statistics A Hermit produced about religion in the world will develop more in the direction of enlightenment. The fact that you love your "commonsense conclusions" of your religion certainly is no proof of its value - after you baby killing arguments it proves the contrary to me.

"God" has never talked to anybody - he is a human illusionary artifact! When god talked to Abraham (to kill Isaac), Moses, Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones in Guyana, or Bush, these people talked to themselves on the grounds of their historical and biographical consciousness, with all the disastrous consequences, grounded on the gullibility of their followers.

Ben,

I appreciate your constructive criticism. I understand the value in hearing atheistic arguments. I've been learning a great deal from many of you.
I understand that my position runs contrary to some current theories that one would have to give up to become a theist. That is a major problem you have with my argument. But the problem for me is that atheism is asking me to give up what I perceive as being common-sense conclusions that the overwhelming appearance of intelligent design points to an intelligent designer, that human free-will and OBEs point to the soul, and that the laws of logic, physics, and morality point to a Lawgiver. These seem so obvious and elementary to me that I don't see how I could ever be persuaded by any contrary ideas that anyone, even a cosmologist, could have.

I love my Christian faith, and I believe it to be true, for what I think are well-considered reasons. I feel I have only gained from my religion. From it I have had the most beautiful experiences of my life, and have assurance that I am loved by God and will be in heaven when my time on earth is through.
My feeling for you all is this; that I am concerned for the immortal souls that I believe you are... that one day you will have to answer to God for the sins you committed while in the body, sins that could be washed away from you right this minute, but you reject Jesus' atonement for them. I know this is just a silly, outdated idea to you, and it is your right to think so. But I can't in good conscience fail to warn you about it, so I do my best to convince and implore you to reconsider.
If that is an offense to you, I sincerely apologize, because it is not my desire to offend. But I know from experience it can and does.

Eric,

Honestly, I don't think you can argue in an atheist's terms very well. Hence, you are not convincing. Understanding how to argue for atheism would vastly improve your arguments for theism. I also think you have not fully realized the breadth and strength of the arguments for atheism.

You are going to need to abandon your argument regarding "Intelligent Design", because this argument asks people to simply abandon some very constructive and relevant theories. Or, if you would like, you can study evolutionary biology and criticize the conclusions scientists have reached.

But you are not going to get anywhere by saying, essentially, "it's wrong because of my theory is a simpler explanation". Intelligent Design doesn't help scientists to do research that allows us to understand the human body. It produces no information about the workings of the human body. It also conflicts with the evidence. Doesn't that trouble you a bit?

All points well made. I must admit I empathize with your points of view, because I've been there. Although if you have read most of my posts you probably know my position is that one of atheism's logical consequences is that it devalues human life. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say that an atheist's sense of the value of his own life to himself is devalued necessarily, but I think Godlessness and soullessness lead to the sad conclusion echoed in "Deteriorada" (Nat'l Lampoon, mid '70s):

You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.

Eric wrote:
"Oh, death is so horrible! So terrible! You atheists usually talk about death casually, as a "part of life" that everyone must go through. So what's the big deal, I say facetiously."

"If someone killed me and I was immediately in eternal, infinite bliss, I doubt that I would mind it at all, to say the least. No, I'd be thanking God."

Yes, you'd be thanking God along with all of the suicide bombers who are enjoying their eternity with their 72 virgins. Are they also right? There are lots of different heavens. People have invented thousands of Gods. Why do you think your particular one is any more real than any of the others?

Do you see why some of us atheists have a problem with religion? It devalues the only life that we can be sure we have. To an atheist like me, this life is precious; it's the only life that I have. I want to make the best of it. I want to be the best person I can in this life. I'm not prepared to sacrifice my life (or anyone else's) because someone wrote some stories in a book a thousand years ago. I couldn't think of anything less responsible.

"If Almighty God appeared to you personally while you were out walking, and commanded you by name to do a thing, it would be pretty darn impressive, don't you think?"

What, you mean like when he told GWB to invade Iraq?

If God want to tell me something, he knows where I live. But unless there's more to go on than some ancient stories, I'm sorry, but I can't believe it. If I'm wrong about your God then it's an honest mistake; I can only make the best judgement I can based on the available evidence. If he/she/it wants to punish me for it then I don't think he/she/it deserves any respect.

Whew! It's a good thing hell is only for the devil and his angels. You had me worried for a while there. :-)

Sorry if I'm getting a little sarcastic, but when people start justifying murder in the name of religion, I can't just let it go.

Regards,
Realist

Huh, I'm a little cranky tonight (well, for me, anyway). Must be overtired . . .probably should go to bed before I start fussing and whining . . . : )

" I don't mean 'accident' with any negative connotations; I mean 'accident' in the sense of *something not intended* ...and Mindless meaning "without mind." I don't use these terms in the perjorative sense which you have colored them with!"

I don't think we're the ones doing the coloring - rather, the common usage of these terms tends to involve some fairly negative connotations - generally neutral at best - something which is only exacerbated in religious anti-naturalistic discourse. Disorder, chaos, breakage or disaster, unwantedness, stupidity or animalistic degradation - yikes! You might want consider using terms like (for example) 'non-intentional', or 'without mind' or so on, if you wish to avoid such implications . . .

"On God commanding the killing of innocents:
If God commanded it, there are three important points, from the Biblical point of view, to consider . . ."

I'm not a big fan of the 'religion poisons everything!!!' school of criticism, but if you were trying to make a case for it, this would be an excellent example. Here religious belief works not to sanctify but to radically devalue life, sorta along what Jacoby was arguing re: the last question.

"God had ordained that the Salvation of the World (Christ) was to come out of the Jewish culture, the lineage of which had to be preserved over the millenia"

Sometimes I really wish Christians would just leave my people out of their messianic and millennial beliefs, y'know? My ancestors are not a means to your end.

"Oh, death is so horrible! So terrible! You atheists usually talk about death casually, as a "part of life" that everyone must go through. So what's the big deal, I say facetiously."

Hmm. Well, the state of being dead, we believe, isn't horrible & terrible in and of itself, we believe - there's no eternal torment (or anything - anything at all); indeed, often death brings a merciful end to suffering. What's terrifying about it is that it's an end to life; we stop *being* - yes, we continue on in all the ways we've touched the world, all the lives we've helped or hurt, all the things we've worked to build up or destroy, everything we leave behind - but we're not around to appreciate it. Of course, we're not around to be bemoan that fact either, or be sad about being dead - in a sense, one could say, death exists only for the living. Fear/avoidance of death is the shadow, the negative image, of our love and valuing of life - so that often it can be accepted only as an inevitable (though not, except in physical or mental anguish, especially welcome) part of that life. We don't believe there is some happy land beyond the grave: as a result, life for the atheist is often viewed as immeasurably precious and immediate. Justice delayed is justice denied. The child that suffers today will not be comforted in a divine embrace when night comes: although it is to our credit that we so deeply wish it could be so, the fact is that it is up to us to take them into our arms, to act now before they go forever beyond our grasp, into a place where there is no suffering, but also no joy.

" If you continue to stiff-arm God as a fictional nonentity, then how do you expect him to treat you when you appear before him on your last day? "

Any God at a lower level of emotional maturity than I wouldn't deserve my *respect*, let alone my worship.

I guess I can offer three things;

Oh, death is so horrible! So terrible! You atheists usually talk about death casually, as a "part of life" that everyone must go through. So what's the big deal, I say facetiously.

If someone killed me and I was immediately in eternal, infinite bliss, I doubt that I would mind it at all, to say the least. No, I'd be thanking God.

If Almighty God appeared to you personally while you were out walking, and commanded you by name to do a thing, it would be pretty darn impressive, don't you think? That's what happened to Moses, according to the Biblical account. It would be pretty hard to ignore that.

Jesus said that hell was created for the devil and his angels, not humans. Satan and his legion have no opportunity to repent and submit to God. Their fate is sealed.
You, as a human being, have the opportunity as long as you live to repent and turn to God. Your fate is in your own hands. If you continue to stiff-arm God as a fictional nonentity, then how do you expect him to treat you when you appear before him on your last day?
You had better be right about Him.

Eric wrote:
"On God commanding the killing of innocents:
If God commanded it, there are three important points, from the Biblical point of view, to consider:"

"Babies and children are covered by Jesus' atonement and so are guaranteed eternal life in God's blissful heaven, where every tear is wiped away and life is unimaginably beautiful and full of intense love.
(Also, many of them, depending on their cultural context, would have been sacrificed to that culture's gods, so in those cases they are not losing anything by being killed in another way.)"

"God, by taking them home, is sparing them from an eternity in hell which they would have reaped if they had grown up in the evil milieu of their culture and participated in it.
"
Don't you see that you are justifying the slaughter of innocent children based on the ravings of some savage bronze age people? That is madness!

So God (or his agents should kill children for their own good.) Don't you see that it is exactly the same justification as the 9/11 hijackers had for doing what they did???!!! Only their faith was stronger than yours. Does that mean that their God is the true God? They had no better "proof" that their world view is correct than you do.

God was really kind to spare the innocent children an eternity in hell by killing them wasn't he? Well who do you think created hell in the first place? What a great guy that God is!

Please think rationally about what you believe, and decide if it corresponds to reality.

Regards,
Realist

"It is strange to me how somebody, as the only possible alternative to his imagined god(s), can use the words "mindless" and "accident" for a universe of such inscrutable awe-inspiring greatness"

You guys, try to "lean in" to what I'm saying for a minute. I don't mean 'accident' with any negative connotations; I mean 'accident' in the sense of *something not intended* ...and Mindless meaning "without mind." I don't use these terms in the perjorative sense which you have colored them with!

On God commanding the killing of innocents:
If God commanded it, there are three important points, from the Biblical point of view, to consider:

Babies and children are covered by Jesus' atonement and so are guaranteed eternal life in God's blissful heaven, where every tear is wiped away and life is unimaginably beautiful and full of intense love.
(Also, many of them, depending on their cultural context, would have been sacrificed to that culture's gods, so in those cases they are not losing anything by being killed in another way.)

God, by taking them home, is sparing them from an eternity in hell which they would have reaped if they had grown up in the evil milieu of their culture and participated in it.

What was the purpose of the killing? The Jews were set apart from the pagan cultures surrounding them; God had ordained that the Salvation of the World (Christ) was to come out of the Jewish culture, the lineage of which had to be preserved over the millenia. Threats to the Jews' existence had to be dealt with. It was a ruthless, tough world, filled with savage, human-sacrificing cultures, and the Jews were vulnerable.

Other than that, you'll have to ask the professional apologists.

A Hermit, I don't mind being addressed as "A Hermit"! We seem to have very similar ideas...

I am a professional classical musician, and I am happy, maybe even proud of my "atheist soul", learning, scrutinizing, searching in playing, teaching, writing!

It is strange to me how somebody, as the only possible alternative to his imagined god(s), can use the words "mindless" and "accident" for a universe of such inscrutable awe-inspiring greatness, with laws (accident?) that in their combination produce an infinity of results, including your and my musical "souls" (in quotation marks)!

eric s says: "God didn't give me the right to decide to murder you, but since God (allegedly) brought you into this world by divine right, he has the devine right to take you out of it, if he sees fit."

OK, so killing babies is morally correct if God does it. That already makes not killing babies less of a moral absolute in your view than it is in mine...What about if God orders someone else to do it (and you know I could post numerous examples from the OT here.) Was it morally right for people to kill innocent children on God's orders? How is this

"Seems to me that Occam's razor would favor that the phenomena of "actual remote viewing of verifiable events, on-site, apart from the viewers physical presence" is that they are cases of "actual remote viewing of verifiable events, on-site, apart from the viewer's physical presence."

Only if you can demonstrate that such a thing has actually happened, and can't be explained by errors (or deceit) in reporting, misinterpretations, later interpolations or embellishments of a story, etc. etc. Those are all simpler explanations, requiring the positing of fewer propositions than the magical out-of-body hypothesis.

---------

"You say it was not intentionally caused, therefore you must believe it was a random occurrence without mind or volition behind it."

I wouldn't characterize it as an "accident", and "not intentionally caused" is not the same as "random". There's a lot of randomness, and probabilities and other stuff. Maybe that's not a lot different than what you're saying, it's just that I wouldn't use the words "mindless accident" to describe it; it sounds like you're suggesting I think it's no big deal, or just a simple matter not worth thinking about. I felt that was an unfair characterization.

------------

"I thought you had to have 'soul' to be a good blues player! ;-)"

Well, I didn't say I was good, just that I enjoy it...;-)

Regards

A (swingin') Hermit

God didn't give me the right to decide to murder you, but since God (allegedly) brought you into this world by divine right, he has the devine right to take you out of it, if he sees fit.

Seems to me that Occam's razor would favor that the phenomena of "actual remote viewing of verifiable events, on-site, apart from the viewers physical presence" is that they are cases of "actual remote viewing of verifiable events, on-site, apart from the viewer's physical presence." Trying to get that out of the dying brain seems to be the stretch.

Have a great gig. (Hey wait - I thought you had to have 'soul' to be a good blues player! ;-)

Either the creation of the universe was random and mindless, or it was intentionally caused by a mind. I see no other alternatives. You say it was not intentionally caused, therefore you must believe it was a random occurrence without mind or volition behind it.

All your other points are very well taken.

JYHUME; "For me, skepticism is a battle cry for humility (is that an oxymoron?). It instructs us not to proclaim the veracity of that which we don’t know, can’t possibly know, and can’t possibly demonstrate to others."

That sums it up for me. Excellent comment.

-----------------------

Eric, let's look at what Susan Jacoby was actually saying in her essay. Here's the quote:

"there is no reason why paganism should not be afforded precisely the same constitutional protections, and allowed precisely the same privileges, as all of the other irrational religions American cherish so deeply."

Now, can you come up with a rational reason for giving one religion precedence over all others? Can you give us an empirical demonstration of the superiority of your version of faith over that of the Pagans (or the Hindus, or the Amish, or any other religion?)

Jacoby isn't calling you irrational here, she is pointing out that there is no rational basis for any religious belief which is sufficient for granting it special privileges in a rational, pluralistic democracy. You haven't been able to establish any rational basis for considering your particular religious doctrine as superior to all other modes of thought here. Your belief in your version of God is a matter of faith, not reason, and you cannot empirically show otherwise.

For a nice, concrete, empirical example of why this is important, just read today's news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071200943.html

"A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the Senate's morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors' gallery...For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god."

Did those protesters have a rational basis for demanding only monotheistic, Christian prayer in a public place? Can a Hindu be a good American? Is your religious belief more rational than his?

You're right that some atheists (and I might be guilty myself at times) don't give believers enough credit for really thinking about their faith, but in the end it is faith; the belief in something unknown, unknowable and indemonstrable in any rational sense.

If you find that fact offensive you might want to ask yourself why.

Regards

A Hermit

Eric; i think you have attributed Gerry's response to me. (I don't mind, it wasn't a bad response, but he might...)

Here's mine:

Eric says: "I have learned a great deal about atheists during my time in this forum."

I'm sorry Eric, but judging by the misrepresentations and strawmen you offer us here you haven't learned much at all...

Let's see, according to you:

"The atheist essentially says:

The universe is a mindless accident but it takes a genius to understand its secrets."

When have I said any such thing, Eric? (and remember, you're talking to me here, not to some imaginary atheist stereotype that exists only in your head.) The Universe is the product of natural forces doing what they do, and even the greatest genius can't possibly understand it all. There's no good evidence that it was the product of deliberate design, but I wouldn't describe it as "just an accident;" it's all too awe inspiring to reduce it to such an epithet. On the other hand, people who claim they have "the only rational" answer in the form of "God" are just making things up and pretending to have answers they can't possibly have.

--------------

"90% of the world’s population are not atheists, but they are all mistaken."

It seems to me that most people just go along with whatever religion they were raised in. We could all be wrong, but those people who claim they have THE EXCLUSIVE TRUTH as a product of divine revelation are most wrong of all. It would appear that most people around the world really don't think about it much:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13764

Polling Data

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? - Religion is very important to me in my daily life.

World

Agree 48%

Disagree 52%

By the way, most people, for most of the history of the world have not believed in the contemporary American Christian version of God, either. So what does that do for your numbers argument?

Also, if you think that i was trying to "minimize an opposing minority opinion ... on the grounds that it's not mainstream in scientific thought" then you weren't reading very carefully. Go back and read it again...http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

"Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. WE DID NOT WISH TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC INTO THINKING THAT SCIENTIFIC ISSUES ARE DECIDED BY WHO HAS THE LONGER LIST OF SCIENTISTS...

That said, one should consider the likelihood that the vast majority of people who make it their life's work to study biology get the fundamental principle of evolution wrong. That seems like a small probability to me, so I give more weight to their opinions than I do to yours. They could be wrong, and the minority could someday prove it. It's happened before; Darwin did it, Pasteur did it with germ theory, Wegener, Dietz and others with plate tectonics; but they all did it with hard work and actual research, not with lists of names.

--------------

"It is wrong to torture babies for fun, but there are no moral absolutes."

OK, here's where you really piss me off.

Of course there are moral absolutes; and I wouldn't just draw the line at torturing babies. This is the biggest of all the lies people like you tell about atheists; that we have no moral principles. In fact, I would argue that my moral principles, being based on reasoning, empathy, compassion (which springs from the acceptance of my own human fallibility) and careful examination of the issues instead of a rigid adherence to the legalistic, authoritarian, insular regulations of a group of ancient goat herders, are more consistent than they were when I was a Bible thumper.

Is it wrong to torture babies, Eric? Ask your God...

Exodus 12:29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle."

or how about this gem:

Psalm 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Is torturing and killing innocent babies always wrong, or is it OK when God (or people acting on God's orders) do it? Which of us is closer to an "absolute value" on the acceptability of torturing babies, Eric; little old atheist me, or your baby-killing God?

-----------

"Empiricism is the only way to truth. This philosophy itself has not been empirically validated, however."

JYHUME answered this one pretty well. Empiricism is the only tool we have which is equally accessible to all of us and can be consistently shown to give us reliable, useful answers. It won't give us absolute answers to all questions, but I don't want to live in a house or drive over a bridge that was engineered using faith or divine revelations. I want someone to do the math. Same goes for public policy; I want to live in a society that advances by reasonable methods not by the whims of some theocrat, and in my personal life I would rather live by reason and willingly admit ignorance when I don't know the answers, than pretend to have a special source of mystical knowledge.

That doesn't mean I sit down and calculate every aspect of my life; I don't need to be empirical in my love of my children, in the pleasure I find in good literature and art, in the transporting joy of making music ( In fact, I gotta Blues gig tonight; I'll work for four hours setting up gear, playing, and then tearing down, I'll be exhausted tomorrow, and all I'll get for it materially is a free meal and a sore back. It's totally irrational, and I can't wait!); but none of that requires faith in supernatural entities; just good old fashioned humanity.

----------

"People have seen real events remotely while out-of-body, but their brains were just hallucinating.
or,
NDE/OBE reports of remote viewing are not to be believed because they come from people who can be lying or mistaken. Anecdotes are not empirical evidence. People who think the NDEers are mistaken are not themselves mistaken, even though their opinion was not arrived at empirically."

Anecdotes are never empirical evidence, Eric. There are alternative explanations here, (things like Ketamine production, anoxia, false memories, continuing sensory input during coma states, etc. etc.) which are consistent with known natural laws and require fewer "leaps of faith",unwarranted entities and appeals to magic than "God did it". In the absence of better evidence, the rational response is to apply Occam's Razor and not assume the most fanciful explanation is true, or accept every wonderful story we here as true on its face. Open mindedness is one thing,gullibility is another. Show me some real evidence and I'll change my mind, but I just haven't seen anything that approaches the kind of empirical rigour I'd expect from a serious investigation of the question. Maybe I'm missing something, I could be wrong, but I ain't seen it yet and the kind of conjectures offered by people like Habermas don't come close.

In any case, you seem to be favouring the mystical explanation without giving due consideration to the naturalistic alternatives. This is another case where the most that can be said is "we don't really know", not to assert confidently that "God did it" is the most reasonable explanation.

Now, see if you can spot the differences between what I (and the others who replied to your list) are actually saying and your list of stereotypes, and then come back and tell me if you've really "learned a great deal about atheists" here.

Regards

A Hermit

JYHUME

Thanks for that. I wholeheartedly agree.

My own position is that, although it is explicit in Christianity that God is a fact and that everyone lives in some kind of relationship to him, it is absolutely wrong (and un-Christlike) to force allegiance to God. That can't be done, really. I much prefer persuasion.
I see nothing wrong with free expression in matters of belief, even when it's an expression of anti-belief.
What got me into this discussion was Susan Jacoby's (and others') calling theistic beliefs "irrational." That always gets my hackles up. I wanted to point out that her version of what is reasonable is not the only version out there, and that intelligent Christians have their own reasons for believing atheism to be fundamentally irrational in certain ways.
I support what I believe is your God-given right (or whatever kind of right you want it to be) to believe any which way you want to, and come down on any side of the God argument you wish. That is part of our American ideal as well.

But when atheists keep calling us 'irrational,' they should expect a response. It's really insulting and demeaning. Call us 'wrong,' call us intolerant, etc. But 'irrational' I do not accept. That's when I will call the atheists 'irrational' in return, so that they know how it feels. We all have feelings (I think). Maybe that's not very nice of me.

A couple of things I would like to say.

Christopher Hitchens is an amateur. We could probably condense his book into a 2 page pamphlet on how to insult traditions that you don't understand. What a waste of paper.

Basically, empiricism means establishing truth by experiment. This could mean many things. It is not the sole basis of science.

We also use deduction, induction and abduction in science, philosophy and sometimes in religion. Abduction is the most likely to lend credence to theism. Intelligent design is a failed attempt at using abduction to demonstrate a divine origin of species.

Eric:

Speaking for myself at least, I think if we could all agree upon that much we will have come a long way. For me, skepticism is a battle cry for humility (is that an oxymoron?). It instructs us not to proclaim the veracity of that which we don’t know, can’t possibly know, and can’t possibly demonstrate to others. You are correct to say that some loud-mouthed atheists overreach a bit in their statements. But that may just be a reaction to the world they grew up in. As you’ve indicated, religionists are by no means an oppressed minority. Historically and to this day, I’d say quite the opposite is true.

Most atheists and skeptics that I know (myself included) are rather humble in their beliefs. They just ask that laws and public policy decisions not be based upon private, mystical beliefs that cannot possibly be demonstrated. They also tend to ask probing questions about extraordinary claims. The problem is that most religionists that I know (you may be an exception?) think that their beliefs are absolutely correct for all people, everywhere, for all time. They therefore feel justified in imposing rules (and scorn) upon those who disagree. Since this has been the historical norm, today’s skeptics and atheists really get their hackles up every time someone comes at them with a strong claim of divine certitude.

Hermit,

Would you mind telling me why you say that Christopher Hitchens is an insufferable boor?

C.H. is probably the most well-known atheist, and his name means "Christ-bearer." Kinda ironic. ;-)

JYHUME

I agree with you. God is not a "shared truth" in the sense that His existence is agreed upon by all. If that is all atheists are arguing for, then they should say it that way. But I don't hear many atheists saying to the rest of us that our belief 'may be actually true but not obviously true.' In the absence of a way for us religionists to demonstrate God to you in a way that would suit you, you are instead telling us our beliefs are mistaken, and until we can satisfy your criteria, you will continue to say this to us.

Am I correct in the above?

“Empiricism is the only way to truth.”

Not quite right. Empiricism is the only way to “shared truth” about the world we live in. That is of course, aside from pure logical deductions, which are simply internal manipulations of a rule-driven system. Nothing new is really learned from this.

Truth is notoriously difficult to pin down. I have no access to your dreams, visions, revelations, and imaginings. You have no access to mine. Neither of us has access to the next guy’s. That’s a problem. We will never agree which of us has the “true” visions, and which are just figments of the imagination. My visions may seem very real to me, but I’ll never convince you of that. The only shared truths we can all agree upon are those that can be demonstrated, empirically.

In the past 400 years or so, we’ve given up alchemy and mysticism (revealed, private, magical knowledge) as the best way to acquire knowledge of our world, in favor of science and empiricism (observed, public, demonstrable knowledge). The advantages of empirical science are born out in the explosion of our power of prediction, explanation, and ability to manipulate the world around us. All this without imagining ghosts in the machine. Science advances our knowledge, while mysticism fails, precisely because it is publicly accessible.

The burden of proof does not lie with the atheist and skeptic to empirically disprove the existence of god(s). That would be logical nonsense. For the existence and nature of god(s) to be accepted as shared truth, it must be demonstrated. So far, we’ve seen no such thing.

Hermit,

You must know that by '"mindless" accident' I didn't mean that there are no minds within the universe. Please!

You also know that I don't hold to empiricism as a means to proof of God; I have only my abstract reasoning, inference from what exists, and deduction support my 'God claim.' But did I read an atheist's post on this forum who claimed that empiricism is The Standard of truth. I will drop that one from my list of 'atheist statements' if that one doesn't really apply to atheism.

If consensus doesn't ever imply correctness, then I will drop that one, too. Just don't minimize an opposing minority opinion yourself, on the grounds that it's not mainstream in scientific thought (which you did).

If you think debating about whether God exists or doesn't exist is not a theological matter, I just don't understand that. And when I say 'illogical,' etc., I am not being desperate at all. I am just stating what I see, same as you do. I really actually see your view as being illogical.

Eric,
you seem to lose your mind in your last enraged answer to the very balanced A Hermit post.

There are so many errors in your last post, I don't know where to start. Let's see:

1. The number of people who think something has no bearing WHATSOEVER on the facts. 100% of people thought the earth was flat (there still seem to be some idiots who think that). So simply drop this argument!

2. When you define what atheists think it starts really getting funny: "I have learned that atheists claim logic and reason for themselves when it comes to theological matters". Atheists do not reason about theological matters, except to show the contradictions existing in the system. Throwing in things like "irrational, illogical, self-contradictory" etc. into the debate is only a sign of your desperation: Silly accusations without any basis.

3. I have never heard an atheist say the universe is mindless. I have a mind, and I belong to the universe, and I am an atheist. Of course you can say I have no mind, but that would be your problem, not mine.

4. The fact that 90% of people believe in deadly contradictory myths is no argument for me to join such a "mindless" crowd.

5. Although nobody ever has told me not to torture babies, and although I am an atheist, I have never tortured a baby, not even for fun.

6. Empiricism is one way in given circumstances, but not the only way to arrive at a valid conclusion. Abstract reason is also available, like in mathematics, where you arrive at valid conclusions without empiricism in many cases. So stop to argue that all atheists always claim that only through empiricism you can arrive at a truth.

7.Your philosophy (religion) has never been empirically validated, btw. Nobody has ever had a valid proof of god. It is a matter of belief. If there were proof, it would not be a matter of belief (or faith) anymore, it would be a simple perception, like the fact that the sky is blue, and the discussion would end abruptly.

8. All we have is the infinitely complex brain to perceive, to think, to believe (yes: to believe, or what organ do you use to think?), to decide, no matter what sort of experiences are at stake.

"There is no scientifically valid statement we can make about what preceded the Big Bang."

I don't think that's exactly right. We can make valid statements (mostly in the form of mathematical models); what we can't do (yet and maybe never) is claim a high degree of confidence in the reliability of any those statements. Especialy statements unsupported by any mathematical reasoning, like "I know God did it..."

Regards

A Hermit

Hermit,

I actually think that numbers do matter in many things.
It seemed as though you were making the point that the small number of votes by biologists against Darwinism said something important about the validity of their position. If this is correct, you have little reason to be pissed off at me. I merely echoed your own statement to you, and called it hypocritical, because atheists are a small minority too. But when it comes to atheism, you seem to have the attitude that the small numbers are just a matter of it being lonely at the top.

Here's what you said:

"The Discovery Institute's list represents a tiny minority, most of whom aren't even biologists, so I don't know why you think their opinions should outweigh the opinions of the overwhelming majority of biologists."

You were saying in essence that so few biologists have signed the list that their participation is rather irrelevant to the subject of Darwinism, were you not? And then you got pissed off when I showed you as having said that numbers matter. Where's the hypocrisy?

I have learned a great deal about atheists during my time in this forum. I have learned that atheists claim logic and reason for themselves when it comes to theological matters, but their positions seem as illogical, self-contradictory, and irrational as can be.

The atheist essentially says:

The universe is a mindless accident but it takes a genius to understand its secrets.

90% of the world’s population are not atheists, but they are all mistaken.

It is wrong to torture babies for fun, but there are no moral absolutes.

Empiricism is the only way to truth. This philosophy itself has not been empirically validated, however.

People have seen real events remotely while out-of-body, but their brains were just hallucinating.
or,
NDE/OBE reports of remote viewing are not to be believed because they come from people who can be lying or mistaken. Anecdotes are not empirical evidence. People who think the NDEers are mistaken are not themselves mistaken, even though their opinion was not arrived at empirically.

A Hermit @July 11, 2007 10:04 AM: 'We really can't say with any confidence what conditions preceded (or perhaps more correctly exist outside) the Big Bang, so my point is that it is a fallacy to claim that one can know that "God did it".' Correct. There is no scientifically valid statement we can make about what preceded the Big Bang.

Oh yeah, I just noticed the commented where I posted this got "moderated"...

Here ya go, Eric; here's the point:

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

"Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. WE DID NOT WISH TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC INTO THINKING THAT SCIENTIFIC ISSUES ARE DECIDED BY WHO HAS THE LONGER LIST OF SCIENTISTS...

(emphasis added - A.H.)

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend. "

------

They also have a T--Shirt, and a "Steve Song"; let's see the Discovery Institute beat that...;-)

A Hermit

"Was that petty of me? I thought it was a rather witty way of pointing out the hypocrisy of your discrediting a minority opinion on its numbers."

The hypocrisy is all yours, Eric. You bring up the alleged "thousands" of alleged "scientists" who have signed some silly political statement as if that helps your failing argument, then when I point out the silliness of that position you act as if I'm the one arguing that numbers matter?

You're starting to piss me off.

A (cranky old) Hermit

In a somewhat related story, the Catholic Church is now opening up the old wounds of the protestant/catholic divide by re-declaring themselves the only institution having “the fullness of the means of salvation.” The Protestants will trot out all of their old indignation:

Who the bleep do they think they are? They have no special connection to god, and no evidence upon which to base such a conclusion! Those self-righteous, self-serving, elitist…

And of course, they’ll be correct. The Pope and his council have no evidence upon which to base such a conclusion; it’s entirely self-serving. They make a metaphysical claim based on nothing. But these internal disputes can be tricky, because they expose the weakness of the entire system. As we’ve been discussing here already, religious beliefs are not based upon evidence (nobody seems able to produce independent evidence for the supernatural at all!). Rather, they rest upon interpretation and faith. This is precisely why there will never be a single, universal religious belief. There is simply no way to independently confirm or disconfirm someone else’s beliefs about the supernatural.

So bringing it back to military chaplains, if we need any at all, then by all means don’t give privileged status only to certain more “established” groups.

Eric,

never mind the debate about the library details, that was not my point: Fact is, that Christianity delayed human knowledge (Hypatia lynched!) development for about 1500 years, until Kopernikus, Kepler, Galilei, Bruno, et al. re-discovered, against huge Christian resistance (Bruno burnt at the stake!), the ancient knowledge. It was not before 1992 (!) that pope John Paul finally conceded that Galilei was right, he even found some words of regret (not excuse!) about Bruno in 2002!

All of Galilei's and Bruno's mentally challenged enemies had "faith" in "eternal truths", maybe even much more so than the most pious Christians can muster today. The geocentric world image was, and still is firmly grounded in the bible! So the bible is the word of god?

The number of people believing something has no bearing whatsoever on its factual truth.

The Seattle obscurantist creationist crew with their "scientists by night" makes a nice bunch of "thinkers" together with those mentally challenged enemies of Galilei! Do we have to wait another 400 years until some pope or similar authority in Seattle casts doubt on Creationism?

2 + 2 = 5

"I thought it was a rather witty way of pointing out the hypocrisy of your discrediting a minority opinion on its numbers."

General-population belief/nonbelief in deities (as opposed to, for example, religious studies) isn't a field where expertise particularly matters - said expertise's certainly not easily measurable, and by the standards of various empirical-based sciences arguably doesn't exist. (Which isn't to say that expertise in ritual tech, etc. doesn't exist, but that's social or psychological practice). What A Hermit's talking about, on the other hand, is (evolutionary) biology, an actual science where you need to get degrees and such, and expertise is more or less measurable and real and decidedly important. In that light, it's quite telling that most of the people on the list aren't actually biologists (would you, in the absence of any other info, listen to an ecologist or organic chemist re: a systems engineering issue?). They do have some people with relevant expertise, at which point we hit several more issues (which also apply to the others). For example:

The statement is infamously worded in such a way that no biologist actually disagrees with it as stated (as apart from the ritualistic use it's being put to) - one rough equivalent might be something like: 'We are skeptical of claims for the ability of classical mechanics to account for the behavior of all systems. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged" (and even beyond that, scientists are supposed to be skeptical of claims, and to encourage careful examination of the evidence). This probably sucked up a number of politically naive folks, especially before ID creationism and the Discovery Institute's machinations became so depressingly familiar. Indeed, Wikipedia points out that "From interviewing a sample of the signatories [the NCSE] found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed" - looking at the NCSE material, it sounds like some of these criticisms may have involved highly technical academic quibbles, not disagreement with common descent or an embrace of some brand of creationism. (and of course, even demolishing "Darwinism" would say nothing whatsoever about the validity of intelligent design.

Many of the others seem (as far as can be determined) to have come to this conclusion via religious faith, not science.

Finally, it's interesting that, afaik, none of those folks are connected to well-known and -respected work, even in areas not directly connected to evolutionary theory. They seem to be decidedly lesser lights.

In contrast, the vastly overwhelming majority of biologists understand that evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology - although certainly not completely understood, along with gravity, etc.)

Hermit

Was that petty of me? I thought it was a rather witty way of pointing out the hypocrisy of your discrediting a minority opinion on its numbers.

I swear I read something a while back that said "thousands" had signed the list.... Oh well, better check my figures before I use them.

Hermit I agree this would be an awesome topic. Heck, forget about a topic for On Faith let's get an interdenominational conference (including Atheists, it would be nothing without Hermit there, free thinkers, secularists, the whole gambit).

And I wouldn’t keep it at the usual suspects, we need new blood in there too.. Ah it is but a dream so let’s go with the On Faith topic after all.

I don't suppose it'd help the atheists and others, when considering our civil rights, to note that Pagans don't actually claim a rival quasi-science as some reason to try and exert authority over other people?

It's kind of not in our worldview.

Not to spoil any general mudfights or anything. Very amusing.

But, really. If we want to tell you we think it's a bad idea to spew exhaust and bullets till the self-fulfilling 'End of the World,' we won't say, 'Our book says don't do this.'

We might say, "Umm. Breathe. Look at what you're doing. What do you expect to happen?"

Freaky weather we're having, lately, ennit?

"A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%."

Now you're just being petty, Eric. Shame on you.

"The key is not converting everyone to one belief, but coming to consensus or at least some understanding of ideas or concepts that span most beliefs. Believe it or not there are some that cut across religions and yes even the theist/atheist divide."

Thank you Rob! I wonder if we can get the On Faith people to open a forum on that topic. Are there things can we all agree on, just as Human beings looking for a way to get along in this world?

Hmmmm, I guess I'm talking too much...

Am I still being "moderated", or can I speak again?

Oops, I take it back; DI actually has over 700, there's a later update here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732

Still can't keep up to the "Steve's" though, and still not the "thousands" you told us about, Eric. You won't convince me of the superiority of your reasoning by getting stuff like that wrong...

Regards

A Hermit

Hermit,

A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%.

What was your point?

Eric says: "It's interesting to me that thousands of scientists so far have signed the "Scientic Dissent from Darwinism." Have you seen that?"

Yes I have, Eric. Are you familiar with Project Steve?

The Discovery Institute's list represents a tiny minority, most of whom aren't even biologists, so I don't know why you think their opinions should outweigh the opinions of the overwhelming majority of biologists.

Contrary to your assertion, only about 600 people have signed the Discovery Institute's list, according to their latest update, not "thousands".

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/dissent_from_darwinism_goes_gl.html

Project Steve has more than 800 signatures, just from scientists named Steve (or Stephanie.) (Check out the "Steve-O-Meter" at the bottom of the page)

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

What was your point?

Regards

A Hermit

"Please - moaning and ridicule are worthless."

I agree! I wish the Discovery Institute would stop . . .

Wikipedia's entry on the DI's little list is pretty good, for anyone interested -see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

Gerry,
I found this on Wikipedia...

Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the destruction of the Library:

Caesar's conquest 48 BC;
The attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century;
The decree of Theophilus in 391;
The Muslim conquest in 642 or thereafter.
Each of these has been viewed with suspicion by other scholars as an effort to place the blame on particular actors. Moreover, each of these events is historically problematic. In the first case, there is clear evidence that the Library was not in fact destroyed at that time. The third episode is attested by no ancient authors, and was more or less "deduced" by Edward Gibbon from a single vague sentence written by Paul Orosius that did not refer to the Serapeum at all.[9] The fourth episode was not documented by any contemporary source, although some maintain that the final destruction of the Library took place at this time.[10]

Dan S,

Please - moaning and ridicule are worthless.

Hermit,

I have heard the atheist arguments and I just think they're wrong-headed.
I guess we'll all learn the truth one day, but until then we won't be able to see eye-to-eye.

"You can ridicule it all day long, but the list of scientists still keeps on growing...."

Like the nose on the Discovery Institute's face . . .

I am quite sure they have employed a bunch a scientists to build their ludicrous creation museum in Kentucky. What does it prove? Thousands of scholars only a couple of hundred years ago, as a matter of fact all of them, with maybe two or three exceptions were adamant about the earth being flat.

(The old Greeks had already known that the earth is a globe, but the Christians destroyed all Hellenistic knowledge by destroying the huge library of Alexandria, and then destroying what then was the culture of the world! Temples, thousands of statues were destroyed to install the new Christian official religion! Do you see any difference to the destruction of the Banyam statues by the Muslim lunatics in Afghanistan?) They burned Giordano Bruno at the stake as a heretic in 1600. He knew the real truth, not the Christian then "eternal Truth" of the flat earth!

You can ridicule it all day long, but the list of scientists still keeps on growing....

"(It's interesting to me that thousands of scientists so far have signed the "Scientic Dissent from Darwinism." Have you seen that?)"

Oh lord.

Ben said “The problem with Christianity is that it is relatively rigid. Tradition is generally rigid. We need more flexible thinkers in this world.”

I am a theist and I couldn’t agree more. This is not just an issue with Christianity, but most organized religion in general. If we want to evolve our spirituality the next step is new ideas about God. For Atheists the next step would new ideas about life since they don’t believe in God. To evolve as a society we all need to keep looking at our state of existence and how we operate in life be it a theist or atheist perspective.

To A Hermit’s last post I think it speaks well to what this thread has uncovered. You can not scientifically prove God. There is some level of a Leap of Faith whether that is via reading scripture, religious/spiritual teacher, experience or study of other scholars that pushes a theist over the edge into believing.

Any religious text does not have unanimous consensus of it being ‘the truth’. For instance you either believe Bible is factual, partially factual or not. You either believe a living person has spoken to God (Neal Donald Walcsh) or not. You either believe something you experience in deep meditation is your mind playing tricks on you or something else. You either believe the religion you are taught as a kid or not. It is always a personal choice.

The key is not converting everyone to one belief, but coming to consensus or at least some understanding of ideas or concepts that span most beliefs. Believe it or not there are some that cut across religions and yes even the theist/atheist divide.

Hermit,

I don't know what was in that particular book 25 years ago, but the edition I have is updated, and it is called "The NEW evidence...." So it must have more than what it had then.

I was also referring to the scientists who are on the ID side. They are pretty bright, and they think the evidence is very good. You seem to know better. That's all I was saying. Sorry for being snotty. (It's interesting to me that thousands of scientists so far have signed the "Scientic Dissent from Darwinism." Have you seen that?)

No need to get snotty, Eric; I'm telling you the truth here. At one time I was an earnest believer, looking for answers, looking for justifications for the faith I had embraced all my life. I had questions and I was hoping that smarter people than me could help me find them.

I remember coming across McDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" about 25 years ago and thinking "That's it? That's the best we can do?" I certainly wasn't invested in "resisting the idea of God" at the time; quite the opposite in fact. I was looking for confirmation. I certainly didn't find it in McDowell's book.

I don't know that I'm smarter than anyone else, but I took the time to look at both sides, and read arguments from more than one perspective, and spent a long time thinking about it myself. I know the McDowell's of the world think their arguments are very strong and that they're very clever, but so do Jeff Lowder, Farrel Till, Richard Carrier and other critics. Maybe before coming to a conclusion you should take a hard, honest, impartial look at the counter-arguments and then decide for yourself which argument is more reasonable, instead of relying on people's opinions of their own cleverness.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

I'm sorry, Eric, if I sound dismissive, but it's not like this stuff is news to me. Tossing out book titles (especially old books that make the same old arguments that I first dealt with a long time ago) just doesn't move me much.

Regards

A Hermit

"That's very honest. I suppose it represents the attitude of many atheists.
It is quite similar in sentiment to Satanist Aliester Crowley's writing, and his infamous maxim, "'Do What Thou Wilt' is the whole of the Law.""

Personally, I am very much bound by tentative ethical truths. I feel bad when I hurt another person, not because of any ultimate truth, but because I wish to make the best of my life, and I must carry the image and the feeling of my actions for as long as I am here. I am fairly considerate. I do not rebel against the idea of being an ethical, socialized person. If there is any rebellion in me, it is against limitations and for what I consider to be the wholeness, empowerment, and truth.

The problem with Christianity is that it is relatively rigid. Tradition is generally rigid. We need more flexible thinkers in this world.

"At this point the conservatives of all ages are thoroughly dishonest: they added lies."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Eric,

I am in complete cognitive consonance with my natural and reasonable view, with the quest to learn more exciting new possibilities but by no means any (temporary) "eternal truths".

Wow, Hermit,

I assume you are much smarter than every Christian apologist or ID scientist, because they all think that the arguments they present are very strong, and are building up as time progresses!

As long as you are personally invested in resisting the idea of God, you will resist all arguments supporting theism. Cognitive dissonance can be very unpleasant!

AMviennaVA:

"Actually, we know the HOW and the mechanics following it. What we do not know is WHY. Often we confuse the two, but they are very different."

A WHY question might be reduced to a "HOW did we ever come to ask such a question and HOW could it be answered?"

The "HOW did we ever come to ask such a question" part could be answered, if you wish, with "some intelligent being with a purpose did something that deserved questioning", or something along those lines. Or it could be answered "natural selection and culture evolved such that we often ask questions with assumed teleological answers". That might not sound like an answer to you, but it might be the closest thing to an answer.

The "HOW could it be answered" part would demand a straight-forward answer about how the Truth might be determined, in light of contemporary knowledge.

"Actually, we know the HOW and the mechanics following it. What we do not know is WHY. Often we confuse the two, but they are very different."

I wasn't clear I guess; we'd been having a discussion about what conditions may have given rise to the Big Bang, and whether that event required an intelligent first cause or whether some natural explanation was at least as plausible. We really can't say with any confidence what conditions preceded (or perhaps more correctly exist outside) the Big Bang, so my point is that it is a fallacy to claim that one can know that "God did it".

Regards

A Hermit

"There are many, many books which do a rigorous analysis on that subject, such as "When Critics Ask," "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," "Reasonable Faith," "The Case for Christ," and plenty more."

Actually the weakness of arguments like those presented by Strobel and McDowell is one of the things that led me to really begin questioning the validity of the Christian faith, so thanks but no sale here. Been there, done that, moved on.

Regards

A Hermit

Eric S - when listing books about Christianity and the Bible, don't forget "Misquoting Jesus" and "Who wrote the Bible," They were written by scholars,who unlike the the christian apologists' books you mention, were not trying to make a "case" for anything but the facts.

Eric S - when listing books about Christianity and the Bible, don't forget "Misquoting Jesus" and "Who wrote the Bible" They were written by scholars,who unlike the the christian apologist's books you mention, who were not trying to make a "case" for anything but the facts.

Terry,

"This argument for and against atheism somehow seems off the mark when the original question pertained to paganism..."

In the global sense the argument is VERY relevant. Paganism and atheism face the same hostility from religions that make exclusive claims to universal truth, such as Christianity and Islam. As I see it, paganism says there is more than one valid answer to the question of deity, while atheism says the question can only be answered empirically. I suspect Cal Thomas and Chuck Colson lump paganism and atheism together precisely because both systems oppose the idea of exclusive truth. So the argument about atheism is partly about making the world safe for paganism.

"belief complexes are just a manifestation of your own personal and may we say ego-centered metaphysical pre-disposition."

Valid point. The problem is that exclusive truth claims encompass not just the supernatural but the natural. The empirical approach is the only proper approach for natural phenomena. Otherwise we end up with hateful notions about natural events being rewards and punishments from deities.

A Hermit @July 10, 2007 5:59 PM: "we cannot make any confident, empirical claims about how the Universe came into existence".

Actually, we know the HOW and the mechanics following it. What we do not know is WHY. Often we confuse the two, but they are very different.

eric s @July 10, 2007 4:17 PM: "You believe! Not know." Precisely.

As someone said a long time ago: Since 'God' is all-powerful, there can be either 1 or none. And I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that there is 1.

I have found all the 'proofs' in either direction to be deficient.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated @ July 10, 2007 4:08 PM:

You recommend I buy a particulare book. WHY?

From your excerpts, the author has a particular ax to grind.

Does God Exist? Which God?
I think it's very unlikely that any of the Gods that people talk about exist. I'm almost certain the answer is NO.

I'm especially doubtful about the Abramic God(s) because those religions are so self-contradictory and nonsensical.

I also don't believe in Zeus. Eric, does Zeus exist YES or NO? If you understand why you don't believe in Zeus, then you will understand why I don't believe in God.

I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I don't have any more reason to belive in God that I have to believe in the tooth fairy. At least there is a lot of evidence for the tooth fairy, which is more than I can say for the existence of God.

Regards,
Realist

Jihadist

Considering you write very intelligent posts, why not write in English since ordinary mortals like me understand as little Latin as Indonesian or Malay? If you wrote in Indonesian or Malay at least all the people in your home country could understand.

Eric,

The old "knowers" were similar knowers as Bush, whom god talked into the Iraq disaster, according to his own report. God "talked" those old knowers into similar genocides, by similar reasons. Why should anybody attribute an additional ("divine") veracity (Bush's, e.g.?) to anything told or written thousands of years ago, or even today? What reason would you have to believe me, if I stated that I am a prophet of god, have talked to him and he "proved" to me the validity of the bible or any other "supernatural" publication? None whatsoever, "thank god", even if I used dozens and dozens of bible quotations to prove my claim.

Quotations from the bible are valid only inside the religious system, they may corroborate each other, but prove nothing concerning the "system" itself, the particular religion. They are ergo invalid.

Christians write Christian books: They argue inside the system, without any additional evidence from the outside of the believing flock.

And I repeat: If there were the slightest evidence for a supernatural being it would have revealed itself to everybody, and there would not be any "On Faith" discussion. The discussion itself is proof that we talk about a "virtual reality". Scholastic discussions about virtual reality could be fun, but alas they have proved to be a disaster, evident through history and presence.

JYHUME,

"So the question remains: by what clear criteria can you use to determine which if any of the many pre-modern, self-proclaimed “knowers” of the divine that you will accept, and which you will reject? Since you have no direct communication with the divine yourself, and claims of revelation are impervious to outside evidence, is anything left for you beyond feeling and intuition?"

On the veracity of the Bible/Gospel authors and their claims: There are many, many books which do a rigorous analysis on that subject, such as "When Critics Ask," "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," "Reasonable Faith," "The Case for Christ," and plenty more. You would have to read some of those books or others in the apologetics category to get the answer you are looking for.

Eric S:
“The "claims I make about God" are the claims the authors of the Bible made, who claimed to have the positive knowledge of God which I lack. I believe they actually DID have that knowledge, direct from the Source.”

So now we get to the heart of the matter. You are willing to accept as rigorous evidence the mystical experiences of others, thousands of years old, hearsay passed orally and transcribed through multiple people and interpretations. Such visions and divine messages are not subject to any independent scrutiny, test, confirmation, or repetition. Yet you “believe” it anyway. So the question remains: by what clear criteria can you use to determine which if any of the many pre-modern, self-proclaimed “knowers” of the divine that you will accept, and which you will reject? Since you have no direct communication with the divine yourself, and claims of revelation are impervious to outside evidence, is anything left for you beyond feeling and intuition?

I could never accept ancient hearsay and anecdote as serious and rigorous evidence, particularly not for a strong claim of the supernatural. To me, that would be the height of absurdity. I find it telling that texts such as the bible expend so much energy attempting to counter the doubters and skeptics. It suggests to me that such claims of visions and miracles were seen as highly dubious even at that time, in the pre-modern world!

I’ll check out your website when I get the chance, but I doubt there will be any arguments I haven’t encountered before. We’ll see…

"There is no predetermined limit or ultimate Being that limits what I or anyone else can do. The purpose of Christianity is to hierarchically impose certain moral responsibilities onto society. In so doing, it fills peoples' minds with imaginary limits."

That's very honest. I suppose it represents the attitude of many atheists.
It is quite similar in sentiment to Satanist Aliester Crowley's writing, and his infamous maxim, "'Do What Thou Wilt' is the whole of the Law."

It also brings to mind Romans 1:20-32.

"There cannot be a God because if there were one, I could not believe that I was not He."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Personally, there is nothing more comforting than looking into myself. Even the companionship of another person is an indirect way of understanding my self. One way I can describe it is to compare it to the feeling of taking a walk, in the middle of the night, alone, after a satisfying day.

The only myth I could believe is one that does not diminish or subdue me. One that does not say "2+2=5" or "your purpose is to serve others".

Whatever is not determined by me is either determined by someone else or not determined at all. There is no predetermined limit or ultimate Being that limits what I or anyone else can do. The purpose of Christianity is to hierarchically impose certain moral responsibilities onto society. In so doing, it fills peoples' minds with imaginary limits.

Many Christians feel that their imaginations roam free. But the influence of Christianity was never correlated with intellectual or technological progress. Enlightenment philosophy is not derived from Christianity. The "God" that Einstein and Stephen Hawking speak of existed in concept well before Christianity.

While I am not too good to believe in myths, or to be superstitious, I am not willing enough to impose limits on my thought processes in order to believe in the Christian god. I am not willing to actually distort my thought processes to accommodate a myth.

Lastly, it is often claimed that in our hearts of hearts, atheists believe in god. But my observation is that in this world, there does not seem to be many genuine Christians. It seems that in modern Christianity, God is just something that happened a long time ago and it doesn't have much relevance in our day to day lives. Most ideas of evangelicalism sounds just like postmodern new-age psychobabble to my ears.

If you didn't like my arguments, you might find these debate audios entertaining. They are of Dr. Bill Craig debating atheism with several atheist heavy-hitters. I just discovered this page, and I haven't heard the debates yet.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=debates_main

Dan S,

Whether you say "no belief in God" or "belief in no God," they describe the same thing, as far as I can tell, even though they are different formulations.

Do both of them apply to you, or only one? I am curious.

As far as werewolves, if 70% of my culture believed in werewolves, and I didn't, then, yes, I would be able to say I have both "no belief in werewolves" and "a belief that there are no werewolves."

On the veracity of the Bible/Gospel authors and their claims: There are many books on that subject, such as "When Critics Ask," "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," "Reasonable Faith," "The Case for Christ," and more.

Professor JD Crossan is an On Faith panelist because he is one of the top NT/Biblical scholars. Evidence of this are his 25 books of various aspects of the NT.

"Googlizing" will not suffice. One must read historical Jesus books to see the reality of what really happened 2000 years ago in Palestine.

Professor JD Crossan is an On Faith panelist because is one of the top NT/Biblical scholars. Evidence of this are his 25 books of various aspects of the NT.

"Googlizing" will not suffice. One must read historical Jesus books to see the reality of what really happened 2000 years ago in Palestine.

"And I think you all are "believers" too, imho."

Ok. Hey, it's a free country. On the other hand, I don't think this really describes the basic atheist lived experience (although there may be people best characterized as actively (dis)believing theistic ideas). This baseline is what is expressed in formulations as 'atheism is a lack of belief in God or Gods', or whatever. You probably have a lack of belief in werewolves - do you feel this state is best described - at least the majority of the time not directly relating to questions of werewolf existance, if any - as an active disbelief in werewolves?

"I believe they actually DID have that knowledge, direct from the Source. "

Ok. Why?

Th ID (Intelligent Design) argument for God's existence is not new. It is even given in the Bible, by Paul in his letter to the Roman church. He seems to have had atheists in mind when he wrote it...

"For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities— his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Rom. 1:20

JYHUME, (and A HERMIT and CRAIG)

"So, I'm a bit confused now. Are you saying that anyone claiming to have knowledge of god is a fool or a liar? It seems that you have made all sorts of claims about this unknowable god-thingy..."

I don't know that God exists. I think it's the rational inference from what we know exists. I am a "believer." The "claims I make about God" are the claims the authors of the Bible made, who claimed to have the positive knowledge of God which I lack. I believe they actually DID have that knowledge, direct from the Source. And if they DID have positive knowledge, then they were not being foolish or lying when they claimed to have that knowledge. I am a believer, not a knower. They were the knowers.

And I think you all are "believers" too, imho. You believe in a negative, like the villagers did in the Aesop's fable when they actively believed the boy to be lying about the wolf when he was really telling the truth. I don't think it's impossible to believe a negative without really knowing that negative to be true.

When I was using the term "fool," I was referring to the hard type of atheist who disallows any possibility for a Deity or Deities, which I think most of you are not.

CRAIG,

The intent of the Veritas Forum's NDE lecture has no bearing on the factuality of the contents of the lecture. You can check out all the facts presented from the sources given in the lecture, who themselves are not part of Veritas or any other Christian organization.

This argument for and against atheism somehow seems off the mark when the original question pertained to paganism....if anything, compare paganism to christianity and see who wins??! Of course nobody, because such comparisons are fraught with pre-conceived predilections 'for or against'. Paganism or pantheism is perfectly valid as a religious belief system, pre-dates christianity, and monotheism is in no way superior...and you can argue until the cows come home and throw in a catalog of experts but you will never make your case. For example, to state that an historical person named Jesus is the one and only manifestation of an avatar or personification of Godhead is ludicrous - there have been many. For example, the most notable in the Hindu faith is Krishna of the Bagavhad Gita...he delivered his revelation of the Ultimate Truth on a battlefield to his devotee Arjuna. When Arjuna requested a vision of God in his ultimate form as Godhead, it proved to be unbearable and he begged for release (remind anyone of Elijah in the old testament?). I'm just amazed at the lengths that folks will go to in order to prove that their position is superior and true, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.....belief complexes are just a manifestation of your own personal and may we say ego-centered metaphysical pre-disposition. It has a lot to do with where and how you're born and raised, among other things....let's face it, blogs like this prove that we like to hear ourselves talk about our favorite topics (oh, all right, me too). You can prove your religious beliefs to yourself (through meditation and contemplation) and you can potentially experience the Godhead yourself. I believe many have done so....but trying to make your case by approaching the ultimate reality through religious doctrine and dogma, expert testimony, and alleged historical occurances is absolutely a dead end. We've all tried it in our own way, I am sure. Atheists are understandably put off by preaching - they've been there and done that as a rule. I would sooner embrace pantheism myself if I had to make a choice, because of the inevitable duality that is generated by taking the monotheist creator vs. creation position...pantheism states that the life energy is in all and everything and rules nothing out either in this life or the life beyond. Christianity states that nothing in the realm of Spirit is possible without accepting a savior, and thus, salvation by proxy. Buddhists believe that everyone 'saves' themselves with a direct apprehension of ultimate reality...should this occur, one is transformed once and for all. However, you have to get their all by yourself....this could take lifetimes!! In the end, an a-theist will seldom if ever be convinced or converted by a theist, because they've already made that journey and come up short. In reality not everyone needs religion - it's only the religious that fail to get that message.

This argument for and against atheism somehow seems off the mark when the original question pertained to paganism....if anything, compare paganism to christianity and see who wins??! Of course nobody, because such comparisons are fraught with pre-conceived predilections 'for or against'. Paganism or pantheism is perfectly valid as a religious belief system, pre-dates christianity, and monotheism is in no way superior...and you can argue until the cows come home and throw in a catalog of experts but you will never make your case. For example, to state that an historical person named Jesus is the one and only manifestation of an avatar or personification of Godhead is ludicrous - there have been many. For example, the most notable in the Hindu faith is Krishna of the Bagavhad Gita...he delivered his revelation of the Ultimate Truth on a battlefield to his devotee Arjuna. When Arjuna requested a vision of God in his ultimate form as Godhead, it proved to be unbearable and he begged for release (remind anyone of Elijah in the old testament?). I'm just amazed at the lengths that folks will go to in order to prove that their position is superior and true, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.....belief complexes are just a manifestation of your own personal and may we say ego-centered metaphysical pre-disposition. It has a lot to do with where and how you're born and raised, among other things....let's face it, blogs like this prove that we like to hear ourselves talk about our favorite topics (oh, all right, me too). You can prove your religious beliefs to yourself (through meditation and contemplation) and you can potentially experience the Godhead yourself. I believe many have done so....but trying to make your case by approaching the ultimate reality through religious doctrine and dogma, expert testimony, and alleged historical occurances is absolutely a dead end. We've all tried it in our own way, I am sure. Atheists are understandably put off by preaching - they've been there and done that as a rule. I would sooner embrace pantheism myself if I had to make a choice, because of the inevitable duality that is generated by taking the monotheist creator vs. creation position...pantheism states that the life energy is in all and everything and rules nothing out either in this life or the life beyond. Christianity states that nothing in the realm of Spirit is possible without accepting a savior, and thus, salvation by proxy. Buddhists believe that everyone 'saves' themselves with a direct apprehension of ultimate reality...should this occur, one is transformed once and for all. However, you have to get their all by yourself....this could take lifetimes!! In the end, an a-theist will seldom if ever be convinced or converted by a theist, because they've already made that journey and come up short. In reality not everyone needs religion - it's only the religious that fail to get that message.

If there was any evidence of the existence of god(s), this whole discussion certainly would not happen. God would be obvious, and everybody would have to agree. It is a human artifact, and we can discuss it ad infinitum without any result. A believer in the impossible cannot be convinced of the possible. The discussion itself is a proof of god as a human fantasy, as a joker for the limits of our (changing) knowledge.

"Only a fool or a liar would claim to know a thing he doesn't know.""

Echoing jyhume here (nice catch...); I've been pretty consistent, I think, in pointing out that we cannot make any confident, empirical claims about how the Universe came into existence. Eric, on the other hand, has asserted that a god is the only rational explanation for our existence and that he knows this with great confidence. So which of us is behaving more like the fool or liar in Eric's question?

Regards

A (maybe foolish but usually honest) Hermit

Eric S: "For NDE validation, listen to this lecture and tell me what you think...
http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/447"

Frankly, I'd rather have some information from a site who's stated goal is not to discuss the "relevance of Jesus Christ to all of life." In other words, I'd like validation from an unbiased source.

Eric S:
"Yes, it is foolish to claim to state that there is no God. Only a fool or a liar would claim to know a thing he doesn't know."

So, I'm a bit confused now. Are you saying that anyone claiming to have knowledge of god is a fool or a liar? It seems that you have made all sorts of claims about this unknowable god-thingy...

"So, be careful, those who gave qualified No's, when you call yourselves "atheists." You are actually agnostics who lean towards atheism but are not certain of it."

Now you're just being childish, Eric. I've explained my understanding of the term "atheist" to you before. I take an agnostic approach to knowledge; ie I don't accept claims of divine revelation (gnosis), but rely on the consistent, observable,reliable, replicable tool of reason. if there is not enough empirical evidence and sound reasoning to support an existential proposition (whether it be gods, leprechauns, unicorns angels, demons, Thor, Zeus or Yaweh) I do not feel obliged to adopt a belief in that proposition. I have not yet seen any such evidence for the existence of gods, therefore I am without a belief in the existence of God(s), therefore I am an atheist. I do not utterly reject the possibility that a god or gods of some sort exist, but I have to conclude that they probably do not, and if they probably do not then I don't believe in them. If I don't believe in them then I am not (a-) a believer in gods (theist).

I've thought about this for a long time, Eric, please don't presume to lecture me about whether or not I really mean what I say, especially with ridiculous demands for answers to simplistic "yes or no" questions. I'm not sure what it is you think I should be "careful" about here, but I assure you I have thought carefully about all of this; I'm not just plucking words out of the air without considering their meaning.

By the way, here's a good article on the anthropic principle. I'm still crunching my way through it, but so far it looks pretty sound to me...

The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism
by Michael Ikeda and Bill Jefferys

http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html

Regards

A Hermit

Dr. Crossan is in the "unbeliever" camp. He denies the deity of Christ. Go ahead and read his book, but first be aware of his personal convictions.
He does not represent Biblical Scholarship.
He does represent a particular camp within Biblical Scholarship.

Yes, it is foolish to claim to state that there is no God. Only a fool or a liar would claim to know a thing he doesn't know.

You believe! Not know.

Same here.

Amviennava,

A better take on Jesus and God:

As per Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist,

from his book, "Who is Jesus", 1996, co-authored with Richard Watts. Go to www.amazon.com to buy a copy.

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son (i.e. filicide) in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices (i.e. filicide) in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

The question is pointless for a variety of reasons. Such a simple question may satisfy simple people, but it will not satisfy everyone.

First of all, before you can ask such a question, and hope to have any kind of reasonable response to it, you must first discuss the concept of God. And even a very limited discussion would become quite long, tedious, and complex.

I think religious arguing is pointless, because people do not form their religous beliefs based on arguments with people trying to convert them or change them. The development of belief is a mysterious confluence of experiential contingencies, moderated and filtered by the acuity of ones senses, and the dexterity and inteligence of ones mind.

The emergence of belief is something that comes to you as you mature; it seeps into your mind, and is sculpted and formed by your own personal doubts, and by your own psychological reactions to doubt and its consquent fears. The emergence of belief is something mysterious, as mysterious as just about any other aspect of our lives. You cannot argue me out of mine, nor I argue you out of yours.

Eric S.

You say an atheist is a fool, and then you cite a bunch of silly and absurd rationalizaions for this statement.

If a person is an atheist, then so what? How is that any skin off your nose? It bugs you but why? It is your interior problem, your own fear that compels you to label atheists as "fools."

People believe as they will, according to the workings of their own minds. How is the way that you think so superior to others?

There was one other qualified "Yes" - someone "Tony S." I wonder if he can provide a more qualified reason for why God exists...?

"A qualified 'no' vote leaves room for the possibility of a god."

Eric, my qualified "no" is based on the principle of empiricism - while I do not rule out the possibility of the divine, there is insufficient evidence for supreme beings. It should be acknowledged that if the divine exists, all the world's religions may be wrong about it/them. The divine may not even be a conscious being.

"If someone says there is no God (and many do), he is being a fool, because one would have to be omniscient to know that. He would have to be God in order to know that there is no God. He is not God, so he is therefore being a fool. The psalmist was right."

You have a point in strictly logical terms. Still, the idea of calling someone a fool because of his religious beliefs is deeply offensive. That's no different from "intimations that theists are akin to thumb-sucking, fantasy-prone children," to quote one of your earlier posts.

eric s: Does God exist? YES

So Eric, it seems that the consensus is that there is no god, and you are wrong.

But guess what, I don't care that you are wrong and indeed I hope that your belief and faith makes you happy.

Eric S.,

"So, be careful, those who gave qualified No's, when you call yourselves "atheists." You are actually agnostics who lean towards atheism but are not certain of it."

How do you figure? By that reasoning, are those who answered with a "yes" agnostics leaning towards Christianity? By your reasoning in the paragraph above that, do you not also have to be omniscient to know there is a God?

Sorry to just chime in here, but I've been reading this all afternoon waiting for the question to change.

The results are in on the Yes or No question.

Thank you all for your responses.

The word "atheist" means, "without God," the same way "asexual" means "without sex."

I see that there was one unqualified "YES" vote and the rest were either 'qualified "NO"' votes or philosophical abstentions.

A qualified 'no' vote leaves room for the possibility of a god.

A strict atheist says that there is no god. In fact, there was one atheist poster recently (somewhere) who quoted a Psalm which says "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
Then he followed that with, "The wise man says it out loud."

That man is a true atheist. The responders to my question are uncertain on the matter; their qualified "no's" left the back-door open.
That is far less foolish than the 'hard "NO"' atheist's position.

If someone says there is no God (and many do), he is being a fool, because one would have to be omniscient to know that. He would have to be God in order to know that there is no God. He is not God, so he is therefore being a fool. The psalmist was right.

So, be careful, those who gave qualified No's, when you call yourselves "atheists." You are actually agnostics who lean towards atheism but are not certain of it.

Anyone

Eric s @July 10, 2007 11:55 AM: I am not familiar with some of the contradictions you listed:

God: Alpha *and* Omega - Yes. God exists outside of time.

Human free will/absolute sovereignty of God - Yes. We may act in any way we choose; and suffer or enjoy the consequences.

Jesus: Fully Man/fully God - As man, to show the way to God.

One God in three persons - Not 'persons', manifestations.

King of Kings was suffering servant - To preach humility (this is a recurring theme).

Obedience equals freedom - Being obedient to God means freedom from the 2nd death.

Fear God/Love God - Not quite: Love God/Fear the Wrath of God.

Surrender of self means gaining of self - Ties back to humility, though the hermits (unlike on this blog) took it to extremes.

Most powerful God lived as helpless infant - See above under 'Jesus'

God's Perfect Justice concurrent with God's Perfect mercy - What is the contradiction? Justice is the application of the Law tempered by mercy.

Christ’s submission to death was Christ’s victory over death - Yes. It is the 2nd death (permanent separation from God) that must be avoided.

Apparent Failure of Messiah’s mission was the fulfillment of Messiah’s mission - What is the issue? Some Hebrew teachings expected a warrior for the Jews, but we got salvation for everyone.

Mary's Virginity/Mary's Pregnancy - Again I do not understand the issue; unless you insist on anthropomorphism.

The Death on the cross of the Immortal God - See under 'submission to death'

Most humble on Earth are most exalted in heaven - Yes. Arrogance is the surest way to lose 'it'.

Most real reality is most unapparent reality - Sorry. You lost me here.

Salvation comes from the Jews/salvation rejected by the Jews - Jesus was Jewish, but the Jews refused to follow him. Unfortunately the root of anti-semitism since then.

The sinless God-man becoming the sin of all men - Again, you lost me here. 'Absolving' yes, 'becoming' no.

"I want to ask you all for a response to a "yes or no" question.

Does God exist? Please answer only either "YES" or "NO."

Thank you."

C) Sure, why not. Sometimes I appreciate the concept of God, and use it. Stephen Hawking and Einstein sometimes put God to good use. The God of Abraham? No, he doesn't exist. An eternal, unchanging Being? I highly doubt it.

Sorry it isn't as simple of an answer as you were looking for. I understand that in Christianity and Islam it can be said that you either believe, or you don't. If that is your question then, deep in my heart, I definitely do not believe and my answer is "NO".

Are we really just brains in vats, with all of this merely an illusion? Answer YES or NO only.

Are you (the reader) the only actually conscious person, with everyone else being philosophical zombies, who merely act as if they had interior selves while lacking any sort of internal life altogether? Answer YES or No only.

Are you actually a very, very well-designed robot (built by people) and programmed to believe you're actually a biological human? Answer YES or NO only . . .

Eric says: "the proud athiest is projecting his own human greatness on reality, albeit in a negative way, by saying, "It is Man who is the measure of all things, so if Man didn't create a thing, then no other could have created it." That is a form of projection that you are committing. You are the proverbial pot calling the kettle "black.""

I guess you haven't progressed much from the days when you took comfort in ridiculing other people's ideas, Eric. That "little box" you describe is your own invention; it doesn't resemble anything I've had to say here, and if you're honest you'll see that.

Human reason doesn't come close to giving us the whole truth, but human reason is really all we've got. You can pretend that you're privy to some kind of divine revelation if you like, but truth is you're no better than the rest of us; you have no special source of wisdom. You're another human being trying to make sense of the world, just like I am. But I'm willing to admit to my human limitations and accept that human reason still leaves us with more unknowns, more mysteries than answers. You mock your caricature of the "proud atheist", but you are you the one who claims special knowledge; special insight into "truths" that can only be known to those who accept your conclusions without questioning your reasoning. But your claims of revealed truth are no more valid than any of the other conflicting religious revelations out there.

The great advantage of reason is it's requirement that we admit ignorance when we don't know the answers, instead of inventing mythical beings and getting offended when other people don't accept them at face value.

Man is not the measure of all things, but it is only we who are doing the measuring. We need to be able to find things we can agree on, and reason is the only thing that consistently allows us to do that. We can replicate experimental methods, we can examine empirical evidence, we can test logical propositions and come to agreements about their value, but divine revelations are immune from all that. They are entirely subjective, untestable, and so much a product of our own desires and biases that any challenge to them is almost inevitably taken as a personal assault.

As for projection, I am projecting nothing. I am admitting ignorance of the ultimate nature of the Universe; you're the one insisting that it must be something like us and that this whole, vast mysterious universe, with its trillions of worlds and billions of years of history was created the way it is just so we could live in it. That's where the anthropomorphizing occurs. Strikes me there's a lot more of of human hubris in that belief than in the atheistic conclusion that we are just little bits of the universe which are briefly self-aware and that all the rest of all that vastness would go on existing whether we were here or not.

You can believe in God if you like, but please don't come around telling me that this belief is based on reason; that it is in fact the "only rational explanation" and then get all touchy and accuse me of pride and small mindedness because I try to test the quality of that reasoning.

Regards

A Hermit

Mea culpa re: double-posting - connection very slow and wonky, thought I had stopped the first post, and missed it when previewing. {Hangs head in shame}

"Does God exist? Please answer only either "YES" or "NO.""

Will the Sun come up tomorrow? Please answer only either "Yes" or "No."

(Personally, for Eric's question, my certainty is in the other direction, towards the negative, but the issue's the same, imho.)

The following question was posed:

Does God exist? Please answer only either "YES" or "NO."

It is sort of a dumb question. On an issue as complex as this, no nuance or sophistocation is permitted? I guess that is fine for some people. Obviously, that is fine for lots of people.

But what if I would be one of those people for whom it is not "fine?"

(I know; I am just asking for personal insults to be directed at me, and to be called a bunch of mean-spirited names, by all the people who think I should have said "YES").

Yes Eric, I believe God exists.

"What you fail to see is that the proud athiest[sic] is projecting his own human greatness on reality, albeit in a negative way, by saying, "It is Man who is the measure of all things, so if Man didn't create a thing, then no other could have created it."

To be honest, Eric, this seems more akin to what you're doing, although slightly reversed:

(from above) "In my opinion I have given a very good, simple reason in my argument for Intelligent Design . . .I wrote and maintained computer systems for 20 years, and as complex and difficult as those systems were, they were nothing compared to the nearly infinitely nested, incredibly logically complex systems which comprise our universe. For me to imagine that these just appeared as happenstance would go against every grain I have as a systems designer."

Here we're reducing reality to an exalted but still fundamentally human scale (very understandably, to be fair, the hard part is trying to not do so): we know that little computer systems are made by humans, therefore Great Big Systems must be made by a Great Big System Designer. The idea "if Man didn't create a thing, then no other could have created it" doesn't seem to have anything to do with general atheist thought. (Indeed, it seems not implausible that we may be routinely creating life from scratch before the century's out, but that doesn't make the idea that life was created any more convincing in the absence of any evidence).

Rather, the crux here seems to be 1) no evidence for an other creating it, 2) a commitment to *methodological* naturalism (often against a historical backdrop of the various supernatural claims re: physical phenomena being surplanted by naturalistic explanations - ie, it *works*, and 3) that the one complexity-producing system supposedly requiring an IDer which we understand to any significant extent (the evoluton of biological diversity) can be explained very well without invoking said IDer (which, however, doesn't in itself say anything about said IDer's existence).

If by “God” you mean a being beyond all possible comprehension, then I am unable to comprehend any basis for a yes or no answer.

Sorry.

So in practice, no god exists in my experience.

Which God? The God described in the bible? That would be "No".

More generally my answer is "I don't know". If some entity with infinite intelligence existed outside or inside this universe then the last thing that being would care about is what us puny humans do in our boring and trivial lives. Surely an entity with infinite intelligence would not care what you or I are thinking or doing, now, or ever.

Neither Intelligent Design nor Creation Science are part of traditional or standard Christianity; they are the "add-ons" of recent and modern Born-Again-Christian-Evangelicals.

They say that a world so complex and varied as ours must have an "Intelligent Designer," that designer being God. But that is not an argument. God MUST be, is not an argument to convince other people; it is an agrument to convince oneself.

Sience is based on our impressions of order of the natural world. Evolution is a scientific explantion of the existence and variation of life forms. There are no scientific observations of God's existence.

That fact should not make science the enemy of relgious people. And this fact also should not negate any person's religious belief, if it is well-founded. Religious "faith" is, by definition, not scientific. If "people of faith" must re-engineer science to match their own theologies, then what faith do they really have? A thin and frail faith, if any.

I want to ask you all for a response to a "yes or no" question.

Does God exist? Please answer only either "YES" or "NO."

Thank you.

"What you fail to see is that the proud athiest[sic] is projecting his own human greatness on reality, albeit in a negative way, by saying, "It is Man who is the measure of all things, so if Man didn't create a thing, then no other could have created it."

To be honest, Eric, this seems more akin to what you're doing, although slightly reversed:

(from above) "In my opinion I have given a very good, simple reason in my argument for Intelligent Design . . .I wrote and maintained computer systems for 20 years, and as complex and difficult as those systems were, they were nothing compared to the nearly infinitely nested, incredibly logically complex systems which comprise our universe. For me to imagine that these just appeared as happenstance would go against every grain I have as a systems designer."

Here we're reducing reality to an exalted but still fundamentally human scale (very understandably, to be fair, the hard part is trying to not do so): we know that little computer systems are made by humans, therefore Great Big Systems must be made by a Great Big System Designer. The idea "if Man didn't create a thing, then no other could have created it" doesn't seem to have anything to do with general atheist thought. (Indeed, it seems not implausible that we may be routinely creating life from scratch before the century's out, but that doesn't make the idea that life was created any more convincing in the absence of any evidence).

Rather, the crux here seems to be 1) no evidence for an other creating it, 2) a commitment to *methodological* naturalism (often against a historical backdrop of the various supernatural claims re: physical phenomena being surplanted by naturalistic explanations - ie, it *works*, and 3) that the one complexity-producing system supposedly requiring an IDer which we understand to any significant extent (the evoluton of biological diversity) can be explained very well without invoking said IDer (which, however, doesn't in itself say anything about said IDer's existence).

Eric S:
“Man is the measure of all things.” Indeed. But for our consensus of perception, what else have we got?

I can’t quite tell if you’re making a philosophical claim that we exist in a capricious universe that is not bound by rules, whether deterministic or probabilistic. Is that a rejection of all scientific inquiry, or am I misreading you?

As I said before, the ‘rules’ are adjusted from time to time as we learn more, but a new rule must be applied consistently. You’re claiming special exception in one case and one case only: god. If black hole singularities are real and don’t fit neatly into the current rules, then the current rules are adjusted to take them into account.
You’re claiming that god is by definition the single exception to all rules. That is, by definition, story-telling.

Regarding OBEs, as others have said before, there’s a Nobel committee with a cash prize ready and waiting. The funny thing about these “studies” is that they are always anecdotal “accounts.” Just like ghosts, fairies, special powers, and ghoulies of all types, souls seem to run and hide every time a legitimate controlled experiment comes their way. There’s very good reason why anecdote is not accepted as strong scientific evidence for a phenomenon.

Nonzero,

"Do you also believe in ESP and UFO and witchcraft? Aren't you just making things up as you go now? i guest at this point reason stops - it's like the professor at the black board writing a long set of equations and then puts in a box that says "a miracle happened" and then shows the results."

On the contrary, it is unreasonable to assume that bodiless observation of actual real-time events happening in remote locations is nothing more than a brain-based hallucination. It is you who stops reasoning when you assume that position.

Eric you are no longer using logic and reasoning so the conversation cannot go anywhere. If anyone, no matter how infinitely intelligent, knew what will happen at the moment time began until infinitely thereafter then things that happen are predetermined.

Free will means you can make choices that are not predictable, not even to an infinite intelligence.

I think the below essay captures part of what Jihadist is saying. For a response, see Also sprach Zarathustra. (But Jihadist seems to assume that all atheists are of the Bertrand Russel sort.)

Of atheism, Francis Bacon

I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind; and, therefore, God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism doth most demonstrate religion: that is, the school of Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus: for it is a thousand times more credible that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions or seeds unplaced should have produced this order and beauty without a divine marshal. The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it; for none deny there is a God, but those for whom it maketh that there were no God.

It appeareth in nothing more that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man by this, that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others; nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects; and, which is most of all, you shall have of them that will suffer for atheism, and not recant; whereas, if they did truly think that there were no such thing as God, why should they trouble themselves? Epicurus is charged, that he did but dissemble for his credit’s sake, when he affirmed there were blessed natures, but such as enjoyed themselves without having respect to the government of the world; wherein they say he did temporize, though in secret he thought there was no God. But certainly he is traduced, for his words are noble and divine:

Non Deos vulgi negare profanum; sed vulgi opiniones Diis applicare profanum.

[It is not profane to deny the existence of the gods of the people: the profanity is in attributing to the gods what the people believe of them. (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, X.123)].

Plato could have said no more; and although he had the confidence to deny the administration, he had not the power to deny the nature. The Indians of the West have names for their particular gods, though they have no name for God: as if the heathens should have had the names Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, &c., but not the word Deus, which shows that even those barbarous people have the notion, though they have not the latitude and extent of it; so that against atheists the very savages take part with the very subtlest philosophers. The contemplative atheist is rare; a Diagorus, a Bion, a Lucian perhaps, and some others; and yet they seem to be more than they are; for that all that impugn a received religion, or superstition, are, by the adverse part, branded with the name of atheists. But the great atheists indeed are hypocrites, which are ever handling holy things, but without feeling; so as they must needs be cauterized in the end.

The causes of atheism are: divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism. Another is, scandal of priests, when it is come to that which St. Bernard saith,

Non est jam dicere ut populus, sic sacerdos; quia nec sic populus, ut sacerdos

[One can no longer say ‘as the people are, so is the priest,’ but rather ‘as the people are, so the priest is not’].

A third is custom of profane scoffing in holy matters, which doth little by little deface the reverence of religion. And lastly, learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion. They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature. It destroys likewise magnanimity, and the raising of human nature; for take an example of a dog, and mark what a generosity and courage he will put on when he finds himself maintained by a man, who to him is instead of a God or

melior natura

[a better nature (Ovid, Metamorphoses, I.21)];

which courage is manifestly such as that creature, without that confidence of a better nature than his own, could never attain. So man, when he resteth and assureth himself upon divine protection and favor, gathereth a force and faith which human nature in itself could not obtain; therefore, as atheism is in all respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself above human frailty. As it is in particular persons, so it is in nations: never was there such a state for magnanimity as Rome. Of this state hear what Cicero saith;

Quam volumus, licet, Patres conscripti, nos amemus, tamen nec numero Hispanos, nec robore Gallso, nec calliditate Poenos, nec artibus Graccos, nec denique hoc ipso hujus gentis et terrae domestico nativoque sensu Italso ipsos et Latinos; sed pietate, ac religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod Deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus

[We may admire ourselves as much as we please, Senators, yet we cannot match the Spaniards in number, nor the Gauls in bodily strength, nor the Carthaginians in cunning, nor the Greeks in art, nor indeed our own Italians and Latins in the homebred and native good sense characteristic of this land and nation. But in our piety, and in our religion, and in our recognition of the one great truth that all things are ruled and ordered by the divine will of the immortal gods—in these things we have surpassed all peoples and nations (A Speech Concerning the Response of the Soothsayers, IX.19)].

Eric: "It could mean that the brain/soul connection is altered by doing so, resulting in a true soul-separation from the body."

Do you also believe in ESP and UFO and witchcraft? Aren't you just making things up as you go now? i guest at this point reason stops - it's like the professor at the black board writing a long set of equations and then puts in a box that says "a miracle happened" and then shows the results.

Hermit - regarding your comment, "If we insist on seeing people as stereotypes we'll never hear what they're really saying."

Yes! and more the reason for lovely non-believers like you and me to come out of the closet.

Eric S - you say, "true Christians know that giving up your own personal sovereignty and placing your being in the hands of a God that is totally beyond human understanding is a leap that can be quite uncomfortable to our willful nature!"

Maybe, but I'd think that promise of an eternity in heaven makes up for any earthly discomfort.

Also, you say - "As a former atheist, my "comfort" was all in ridiculing the disconcerting idea of an all-knowing God, denying his existence, and dissing his people."

As a recent atheist, I take no comfort in any of those things.

Nonzero,
There you go again, bringing God down to your own level.

God knows *before" the creation of the universe what my free will choices will be. That in no way requires that he willed me to make my choices. He also knew that he would create the universe within which I would make those choices. But all of this foreknowledge takes place timelessly, in the Godhead. If you are going to continue anthropomorphizing by bringing God down to your own level and assigning your own limitations to him, then you will never, never accept the possibility of any of this.
Your bright intellect (and mine) is like a candle flame held against the sun. Your opinion of God is absolutely irrelevant to his reality (or unreality, for that matter). Go on denying his existence if you wish, reveling in the supremacy of your limited reason.

JYHUME,

Atheists won't accept anything that won't play by their rules. Man is the measure of all things.

There are lots of things in the created order that violated human preconceptions when they were discovered. Invisible radio waves that go through solid objects. Black hole singularities don't play by your rules, either. How many dimensions beyond our conscious experience have been mathematically discovered? I could go on and on.
Out of body experiences are either *actually* out of body, or they are illusory. The accounts of OBE's are real-time, real-place, on-site remote viewing of actual events. They include travel to places thousands of miles away in an instant, and observation of what family members, fo example, are doing. These aspects of OBE's show that they are not illusory. If they can be triggered by stimulating the brain in a certain way it does not mean that the phenomenon is a brain-based hallucination of sorts. It could mean that the brain/soul connection is altered by doing so, resulting in a true soul-separation from the body.

If god knew what your reply would be before you replied then god knew what my reply to your reply would be as well. And if god is all powerful then God didn't know these things 5 minutes ahead of time but God knew it at the beginning of time - the big bang.

If that's the case then everything was predetermined the instant the big bang happened and we are neither sinners nor saints but we and everything else in this universe were created that way at the instant of the big bang.

That makes you nothing more than a flesh based computer, you behave according to a program written when this universe was created.

Now if you can eliminate an all knowing god - then perhaps you have free will and the capacity for good and evil, and morals, and love, etc.

Hmmm

Eric S:
btw, out-of-body experiences have been induced under clinical conditions by stimulating the temporal-parietal junction of the brain (responsible for perception of body orientation). Upon stimulation, awake and conscious patients perceived themselves floating above the room, and above their own body as well as the others present. It would seem to me far simpler to explain OBEs through neurobiological means, rather than postulating disembodied yet intact souls traversing alternate planes of existence.

Eric - do you think god knew what your reply would be before you replied?

Eric S:
I agree; these contradictions do not make sense. Whether these are cases of ad hoc argument, or they are simply intended to convey some metaphorical meaning, is difficult to discern but there is still no reason to believe that they are in any way a description of physical reality.

And this business about god existing outside of and not subject to space and time is meaningless. To pick up on A Hermit’s earlier critique, that is the ultimate ad hoc argument. When confronted with the implausibility of a grand claim, the response is some form of “Well, my god doesn’t play by your rules.” If not for the ‘rules’ that we all live within, there is nothing to know and nothing to talk about. There is no way to even begin to conceive of this god, let alone debate its characteristics. From that point forward, you’re just making stuff up. Either god exists in our world, with its rules (making god detectable), or god doesn’t. In which case…nothing. The rules, per se, may be adjusted from time to time, but they must be applied consistently for any conversation to have meaning. “Special pleading” isn’t playing fair. Existence outside of existence is a nice rhetorical device, but it doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps this is due to our human limitations, but it’s a fatal flaw in any discussion of god.

Oh, please, Hermit!

The light paradox was a tool to maybe get you, for a brief moment, out of your little atheist's box labeled "HUMAN REASON, THE ONE AND ONLY ARBITER OF TRUTH."

What you fail to see is that the proud athiest is projecting his own human greatness on reality, albeit in a negative way, by saying, "It is Man who is the measure of all things, so if Man didn't create a thing, then no other could have created it." That is a form of projection that you are committing. You are the proverbial pot calling the kettle "black."

Conversely, I believe in God, who is infinitely greater than myself, who I can't see with either my eyes nor my limited mind. Nor can I have an accurate conception of him. That does not in any way sound like an image of myself that I am projecting onto reality, which is what you are suggesting.

Actually Eric, it's the theists who are guilty of anthropomorphizing the argument. You see a mystery in nature and fill it with a God created in your own image.

And the difference between the wave/particle paradox and the biblical stories is that there are actual empirical measurements of light and its behaviour.

Nonzero, and others -

Atheist arguments sometimes sound good on the surface. The problem with this one is that one is anthropomorphic.

The God of the Bible is outside of time and space, two things which he created. From our vantage point, they began at the Big Bang.

Since God is not subject to time at all, there is no conflict between his willing his action freely and knowing what his action will be.

This is as strange as the fact that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time. That's something that I read once, but I don't understand. The Bible teaches that the things of God are very paradoxical, like the nature of light. We are finite; he is infinite.

Allow me to digress a bit:
Atheists accuse Christians of being attracted to their religion because it provides a level of comfort, but true Christians know that giving up your own personal sovereignty and placing your being in the hands of a God that is totally beyond human understanding is a leap that can be quite uncomfortable to our willful nature!
As a former atheist, my "comfort" was all in ridiculing the disconcerting idea of an all-knowing God, denying his existence, and dissing his people. At bottom, all that was all about maintaining my own comfort zone. I had to leave my comfort zone in order to become a Christian.

Like light's particle/wave paradox, I don't understand these Biblical paradoxes either:

God: Alpha *and* Omega

Human free will/absolute sovereignty of God

Jesus: Fully Man/fully God

One God in three persons

King of Kings was suffering servant

Obedience equals freedom

Fear God/Love God

Surrender of self means gaining of self

Most powerful God lived as helpless infant

God's Perfect Justice concurrent with God's Perfect mercy

Christ’s submission to death was Christ’s victory over death

Apparent Failure of Messiah’s mission was the fulfillment of Messiah’s mission

Mary's Virginity/Mary's Pregnancy

The Death on the cross of the Immortal God

Most humble on Earth are most exalted in heaven

Most real reality is most unapparent reality

Salvation comes from the Jews/salvation rejected by the Jews

The sinless God-man becoming the sin of all men

Jihadist says:

"I'd rather reread Emily Dickinson's poems than to pore over again on reading materials on nuetrinos. I'd rather listen to the etudes of Beethoven rather than reread Christopher Hitchens. I'd rather look at an Aurora Borealis rather than reread Richard Dawkins."

I'm in complete agreement, especially on that insufferable boor Hitchens, but what has that to do with the existence of Gods? Just because I don't believe in a deity don't think that means that I have no appreciation for art or beauty or the products of human emotion.

This seems to be a common misperception about atheists; that the absence of faith in God makes one a cold, insensitive geek who sees everything in strictly clinical terms. Well, that's just another stereotype, like the Bible thumping fundy Christian and the backwards ignorant Muslim. If we insist on seeing people as stereotypes we'll never hear what they're really saying.

Regads

A Hermit

And as a consequence of the above - the only way you can have free will is if there is no God. Any existing entity that knows everything you will ever do precludes you from having free will because no entity can know what your actions will be unless they are predetermined - hence you cannot have free will.

I on the other hand have free will :)

Here’s a riddle for all you theists.

You believe that God is all-knowing and knows everything that has been and will ever be. If you were to pray to God and God answered your prayer then even before you pray God knows you will be praying and knows the outcome of that prayer. In other words – God knows what God will do. So God knows what God will do forever, hence God has no free will because if God had free will then it would not know everything that will ever be.

Such a God is nothing more than a computer that can examine all logic pathways of a computer program and predict all outcomes because it knows all decision points.

God is like a computer application and you are a thread it controls.

You have no free will and neither does God.

Jihadist,

Once again, please reply although with the "no escape clauses" in your book of death and with the Malaysian Islamic "police" squads reading your e-mails, is what you say have any truth in it???

If it were not for the "bred to kill", koranic crazies, we would need significantly fewer military personnel and therefore significantly fewer chaplins of any religion or pagan cult would be needed.

Jihadist, you should emphasize the eradication of these "bred to kill" crazies in your liberal Islamic commentaries. Until you do, we unbelievers will continue for our own safety to adhere to the following principle:

Gators vs. Muslims-- Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims it depends but with the koran as their operating manual, we cannot trust any of them. The recent conduct of the seven Islamic doctors in Great Britain proves the point.

Ben - read "Constantine's Sword" too. I haven't read it, but hear it's quite good - quite thick too, will keep you busy for a while.

Soja - regarding your view that "Referring to God in the masculine is merely a convention" -- how does this affect the Christian teachings of God being the father of Jesus, Mary's immaculate conception, God sacrificing his only begotten son and Jesus sitting at the right hand of the father in heaven?

"What has Big Bang and Intelligent Design got to do with as to whether there should be Pagan Chaplains in the US military?"

Valid question, Jihadist. For your answer, read the Cal Thomas and Chuck Colson entries. They seem to oppose even the existence of Paganism. They want to see everyone convert to Christianity. Everything I've read about Intelligent Design suggests a similar agenda - an attempt to convert people to theism by trying to scientifically prove the existence of a creator deity.

Soja,
You say that God's gender is "merely a convention". I think many Christians would disagree with you. The problem I have with Gods is that there are so many of them. Each denomination and each Christian has a slightly different God and that's just amongst the Christians. Each person's God matches their personality and cultural biases. God is so conveniently vague that he, she or it can be anything to anyone.

As a atheist, I find it takes a lot of effort to disbelieve in so many different Gods. I can't keep up with them all. :-)

Christians like yourself who actually think about what the Bible says realize that much of it is nonsensical. You pick and choose the good bits of the Bible, ignore the really bad bits and re-interpret the vague or bizarre bits so they make more sense.

Your concept of God does not seem recognizable as the Bible God and it seems abstract enough as to be indistinguishable from a non-existant God. As Delos McKown said, the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

What I find hard to understand is if your religion is based on the Bible and you realize that much of the Bible doesn't make sense, why do you stubbornly cling to your religion? I put it down to indoctrination. Is that not true?

Regards,
Realist

Jihadist,

"the gibberish of abstractions upon abstractions" is the basis for your modern life, for the computer you put you "gibberish" thoughts in writing. And for an amateur mathematician like me it is a source of pleasure, similar to the pleasure people have in solving crossword puzzles. People are different, aren't they?

Soja,

evolution of the human mind granted people even to become believers like you, who can make such statements like:
"God even gave man the free will and intelligence to say God was man's invention."

Man invented god(s), thousands of them. We seem to live close to the end of a period in the human evolution where this is appropriate, even necessary.

Some great discussion going on here between Eric, Ben, Jihadist etc.

It's always a pleasure to read Hermit's clear and logical arguments.

I might actually put in a comment on the topic at hand:

I think they should get rid of all of the chaplains and replace them with trained qualified psychologists. That would be much better use of taxpayers funds. It wouldn't violate the constitution and there would be no argument about which chaplains the army should provide.

Regards,
Realist

Waaaaay back Anonymous wrote (4 July 2007 1:01 PM), "God was invented when people invented God."

Man was invented when God invented man. God even gave man the free will and intelligence to say God was man's invention. God is not threatened by man's intelligence you know. Look at the mind boggling Universe He created. Any human rival in sight to duplicate His work?

The unpopular word morality if understood in the sense as religions understand them is not that bad. God wants all human beings to be happy, including the weak ones. Morality is nothing but caring for the happiness of ALL - do not hurt yourself or another. Religions merely ask that we do that because we have a duty to care for ALL of God's creation. It is put forward as a law because we could end up waiting a looooooog time before all human beings FEEL like caring about the happiness of the weakest among us.

PS: Referring to God in the masculine is merely a convention. Humans who get caught with the gender of God (as logical as concluding oxygen has a gender), and make such thoughts an issue for debate (or atheists who accuse theists fools for attributing a gender to God) are simplistic to say the very least.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Jihadist,

your crucial statement is:
"I am comfortable with my belief in God."

It is the comfort, the coziness, the feeling of security of religious belief(s) that makes them so attractive. Freethinking is much less comfortable, more risky, but much fuller of surprises, learning, developing, new insights. It is a much richer source of joy than the eternally repeated old religious slogans (any religion), for nothing but the sake of safety.

BTW: I am a musician, and of course I love music, adore and feel the beauty of nature, but also of unlimited, unbiased thinking (unbiased by any religious prejudices or prescriptions!).

It is not either/or, but both/and!

Ben

Been a while since I talk with you here. I'm not much of an On Faith conversationalist. But as a meeting was postponed and I am slightly bored ..

No one really ever accused believers of not having any imagination. Too much it seems, and leading to creation of God and religion too according to atheists. Except for the literalists and inerrantists who have no imagination, no courage and need an anchor and a compass to both hold them in place and to lead them.

Science, for me, explain, clarify, and demystify many things, including rainbows. Knowing how a rainbow actually is formed does not detract one from continuing to wonder at its beauty.

Knowing how the earth is formed, about the Big Bang, about evolution, makes one wonder in amazement at the sheer logic and naturalness and sequence of life here on earth and in the universe, by as yet not fully known nor grasped force and power that form it, that originate it, a.k.a God to believers. I'm talking like a Muslim eh.

So we need logic and reason. Where logic and/or mathemetics works perfectly, it is beautiful and sublime, not the gibberish of abstractions upon abstractions of algebra in some instances, but as music, a mathemathical expression in notes like philosophy is in words.

Yes, science is wonderful, but I'd rather reread Emily Dickinson's poems than to pore over again on reading materials on nuetrinos. I'd rather listen to the etudes of Beethoven rather than reread Christopher Hitchens. I'd rather look at an Aurora Borealis rather than reread Richard Dawkins.

So, yes, I know all the scientific basis, the logical reasonings, the rational explanations as espoused here, but am rather blase to them. I am comfortable with my belief in God. If this belief is a "delusion", then it is very grand and great and I am a happy believer. By the way, Edmund Burke said, "Religion, not atheism, is the true remedy for superstition":)

All the best.

Well, at least I'm glad this has provided you a subject of interest, Ben.

More's the pity, but this constant having-to-rehash-defenses-against hostility really kind of didn't give this topic much of a chance to talk about a lot of interesting stuff it *could* have.

Which may be part of the point of the hostility.

But, we're not going anywhere. Not really. :)

Paganplace:

"Out-replication isn't the only survival characteristic, you know, Ben. Not in the long view. :)"

I completely agree with you.

As a result of this thread, I have purchased the book "Christianizing the Roman Empire" and plan to read one or two more books about the years 100-400 ACE.

To be honest, I tend to view present-day Paganism as a kind of postmodernism. So I will do some research to perhaps correct that view.

And to Jihadist - When or if we remove the blocks to progress in science presented by theism, the imagination will be allowed to roam free.

Out-replication isn't the only survival characteristic, you know, Ben. Not in the long view. :)

Christianity, Bobo the Clown, science, Madonna, the toothfairy, and Paganism are compared on an equal basis. Monotheism out-replicates paganism, and so has more relevance. The toothfairy is prettier than Bobo the Clown, so she wins. Madonna is always number one. Reality and history are considered boring. I chose computer science.

Jihadist,

To reiterate my previous comments since you did not respond:

If it were not for the "bred to kill", koranic crazies, we would need significantly fewer military personnel and therefore significantly fewer chaplins of any religion or pagan cult would be needed.

Jihadist, you should emphasize the eradication of these "bred to kill" crazies in your liberal Islamic commentaries. Until you do, we unbelievers will continue for our own safety to adhere to the following principle:

Gators vs. Muslims-- Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims it depends but with the koran as their operating manual, we cannot trust any of them. The recent conduct of the seven Islamic doctors in Great Britain proves the point.

Eric:

"For NDE validation, listen to this lecture and tell me what you think..."

Kinda don't have to.

(Did I mention this particular incarnation hasn't been particularly *smooth* in some respects? :)

It was pretty animate for the biological version of 'Windows is Shutting Down,' I must admit, but not essentially inconsistent with that idea.

It's OK. :) OK?

....and did Cicero, a Pagan not said: Superstitione tollenda religio non tollitur?

What has the Democratic Presidential candidacy of Hilary Clinton got to do with the price of chicken in Bangkok?

What has Big Bang and Intelligent Design got to do with as to whether there should be Pagan Chaplains in the US military?

Pagans, as breathing, living citizens, taxpayers and voters in the United States are less important than Big Bang and Intelligent Design? Or by their beliefs and minority status, are unimportant to be considered on their rights and concerns?

Mike,

To answer that question well would take a book. There are Christian books which answer that from a Biblical perspective, and the same is true for other faiths. It is up to the seeker to make the best choice, once they have affirmed for themselves that God is real. The Intelligent Design arguments can make for a first step away from atheism for people who are receptive to them. ID doesn't argue for a particular faith.
I personally don't think your gem-encrusted toasters idea has much going for it, though. ;)

With all of the arguments in favor of intelligent design theory I skimmed over on this page tell me, which of these arguments gives any reason for one religion over any other?

Why is Christianity "more" right then Islam? Or Shaivism? Or my own belief that two omnipotent, gem-encrusted toasters have created a vast, matrix-like illusion which has engulfed all that is and will be in a prevailing ignorance of the "real" world?

To All

Since WHATEVER it is that exists, is necessarily a part of the Totality - surely no part of it could create the entire Whole of existence! The infinite Universe is eternal, without beginning.

Charles S.

To All

Since WHATEVER it is that exists, is necessarily a part of the Totality - surely no part of it could create the entire Whole of existence! The infinite Universe is eternal, without beginning.

Charles S.

To All

Since WHATEVER it is that exists, is necessarily a part of the Totality - surely no part of it could create the entire Whole of existence! The infinite Universe is eternal, without beginning.

Charles S.

I quite agree that under the constitution, the military needs to accommodate all Americans. And in fact, I had thought the military already was accommodating pagans, and that even the Satan's church had won the right through the courts to have their own military chaplain.

But I disagree with the point taken from Freeman's book that Christianity's repression of paganism and rationalism was such a bad thing. The end result of Greek philosophy was the decadence of the Greek and Roman empires. The lesson from history is that it is not the mind of the human being that is our main problem but the will.

Greek philosophy did not do nearly as much benefit for the human race as did the spread of Christian theology: mainly, the completely new sense of respect for life, as seen in several unprecedented ways: the creation of hospitals, care of the dying, burying the unburied dead, rescuing babies left to die on hillsides. These were a direct result of nothing other than the belief that humans were made in the image of God and that God had incarnated as a man. And in more modern times, post-Enlightenment rationalism has led to Darwinism-based genocide (study the history of Rwanda and other parts of Africa) and the tens of millions murdered by the atheist regimes of China and the Soviet Union, performed in the name of "scientific" certainties. We can be thankful that God has done for us what we could not do for ourselves; changed the human will. Recommended: The Word in the Desert

Craig,

Thanks for clearing up some misconceptions on terms.

For NDE validation, listen to this lecture and tell me what you think...
http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/447

"...the rules of physics existed long before there were minds."

The theist says, before there were "human minds."

That we are not required to know them seems irrelevant to the question of origins.

Ben,

The "anonymous" post above was from me, Eric. My biocomputer neglected to inform me that I hadn't included my name.

Anonymous (Eric?): "Are you trying to tell me that there is some strictly physical explanation for the phenomenon of Remote, instantaneous out-of-body travel and INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED, DETAILED WITNESSING of actual physical events and places, in time and space? This I gotta hear."

Well, first I'd like to hear some solid evidence for these independently verified detailed witnessed things, but other than that, yes. :)

"I thought "empirical validation" meant proof, in which case a theory would no longer be a theory but would have been fact. Sorry if my terminology isn't up to par."

No, nothing in science is ever "proven". The best we ever have is a theory that hasn't been disproven yet. Theories are not facts... they *explain* facts.

"So I guess Intelligent Design of the universe qualifies as a theory."

No, because a theory must be testable (falsifiable), and ID rests on the untestable assumption that a designer exists.

"There is plenty of reason to think that (nonphysical) rules of physics and laws of logic, which we can apprehend with our minds, which are themselves built as logical systems, may have possibly originated from a Mind."

Logic, maybe, but the rules of physics existed long before there were minds.

"I disagree, on logical grounds, with your assertion that it is somehow more logical to assume that these laws and rules, (systems, if you like), which themselves require intellect to comprehend, have themselves no origin in intellect."

But it's not *required* that anyone comprehend them. We still don't know exactly how gravity works on a quantum mechanical level, but that doesn't stop me from falling down the stairs. The universe doesn't care whether anyone understands it; it just goes. :)

Ben,

I love that line - "computationally complex, robotic chunks of (pork like) meat."

I admire your open-minded free-thinking... you seem to be a real free-thinker, worthy of the title, and not just a closed-minded skeptic masquerading as a free-thinker.

You say we are not machines, that we are more than that. I agree. Individual and sociological experience militates against the materialist, biomechanical view of the human being. Yes, the meat-computer view accounts for some things like embedded biological imperatives, but there is so much more to our lives than that. My main point is that the materialist view cannot qualitatively account for the rest of human experience.

If you wish to refine some of theistic and atheistic thought in order to humanize the atheist's mechanistic view of the human person, I am afraid there is no getting around a necessary admission, to some degree, of the nonphysical and extracorporeal into the human equation. And with that comes the unsettling implication of spirituality as an existential reality, rather than just a comforting, sentimental fantasy for some.

Anonymous,

And you would allow your enemy to define you?

The Hebrews were Pagan during most of their history. Many Gods were honored along side of Yahwey for a long time...

However Jeremiah 44:16 notes the continuing popularity of the Queen of Heaven: "As for the word thou hast unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not harken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then we had plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven, and poured out drink offerings to her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword, and by the famine. And when we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we alone make her cakes or worship her or pour out drink offerings to her, without our menfolk?"

terra )o(

Ben; Thanks for the excellent comments. Well said.

Eric S.

"Ben,

I must say again that I appreciate your gentlemanly approach to debating points with a Christian. No Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Tooth Fairies, or other intimations that I and other theists are akin to thumb-sucking, fantasy-prone children.

I read over your last post and I will have to ponder it for a bit longer because there are some foreign concepts there for me to chew on.

Later....Eric"

Probably none of us has a completely true or fully detailed explanation for the concept of Self. Even if one of us is correct, that does not mean that other positions are absolutely false or useless. There are probably personal reasons that led each of us to our positions.

My main point is that the atheist's view of consciousness need not be a dismal view. We are not just robotic ants, where squishing one ant means basically nothing. We are not machines. I do not wish to throw away 2000 years of thought - I just seek to refine it so that there is not such a dichotomy between seemingly double-thinking Christians and atheists who seem to view humans as computationally complex, robotic chunks of (pork like) meat.

I might respond again to this thread tonight, but starting tomorrow I should get back to work :)
Nice talking with you.

AMviennaVA:

"Ben @July 9, 2007 11:48 AM: We are essentially in agreement: What preceded the Big Bang has no effect on what followed. We may construct any model we wish about the (physical) universe prior to the Big Bang. Unfortunately there is no way to verify it. That is what I meant by saying that science can make no statement about it. In other words, if it cannot be observed, or its effects cannot be observed, it is outside the purview of science."

We are almost in agreement. I did anticipate such a response, and I should have said something about it. True, we cannot observe anything before the big bang. But we cannot observe the moments just after the big bang, either. Nonetheless, we can construct models about it. As you said, we can be pretty sure it happened.

There could be a limited number of possible ways the big bang could have happened. We could determine some of those ways by determining the nature of matter and energy itself. Isn't that how we know that the big bang even happened? Of course, we know that the universe is expanding. But we also know that at the moment of the big bang, everything was bound into a very small space. That alone may help us to determine what possibly happened before the big bang.

In information theory, there is a concept of information entropy. The more the entropy, the less we know. A mathematical singularity is analogous to total information entropy.

Information entropy applies to some set of possible worlds. Even though we may have no information about which possible world is true, we can still figure out what the possible worlds are.

Mass and energy may have a limited number of possible configurations. Or there may be a limited number of categories of configurations.

Anonymous-

You'll be relieved to hear that we modern Pagans keep our human sacrifices to the least possible necessary.

Aut enim filios suos sacrificantes aut obscura sacrificia facientes aut insaniae plenas vigilias habentes

14:23. For either they sacrifice their own children, or use hidden sacrifices, or keep watches full of madness,

The madness of these ancient Pagans was stopped by the Israelites! Justice was done and God forbid such an evil to return.

Give Me Those Old-Time Religions! - Yeah lets bring back child and women sacrifices at the hands of Pagans who worship idol Gods! Susan, you are amazing light of truth...

Ben,

I must say again that I appreciate your gentlemanly approach to debating points with a Christian. No Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Tooth Fairies, or other intimations that I and other theists are akin to thumb-sucking, fantasy-prone children.

I read over your last post and I will have to ponder it for a bit longer because there are some foreign concepts there for me to chew on.

Later....Eric

Thanks E Fav...glad I wasn't the only one irritated by that mistake.

FYI - BCE means "Before the Common Era" and CE means "Common Era."

Considering we all use the same calendar now, but we're not all Chritian, not mentioning Christ seemed more inclusive.

Tonio,

That was a typo. I meant to say, "If a religion is true...."

That was exactly my point as well. If ESP is a fact, believing it is true does not somehow enhance its reality. Same for the converse (if ESP is not a fact).

Belief is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of something. I think you agree.

"If religion is true, then faith in it does not make it true. It simply is objectively true."

There is really no single entity as "religion." Instead, we have competing religions that make conflicting claims about the supernatural.

Part of my point is humans cannot know anything that isn't evident. We must assume that "reality" is only those things that are evident, or things that will or can be made evident. Any claims about non-evident reality are simply speculation.

wiccan: :)

Ben @July 9, 2007 11:48 AM: We are essentially in agreement: What preceded the Big Bang has no effect on what followed. We may construct any model we wish about the (physical) universe prior to the Big Bang. Unfortunately there is no way to verify it. That is what I meant by saying that science can make no statement about it. In other words, if it cannot be observed, or its effects cannot be observed, it is outside the purview of science.

For example, we can envision a contracting universe, instead of an expanding one. If that is the case, then the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can also be envisioned as reversed, in which case Time travels in the reverse direction. (For a while that was the basis of the 'oscillating universe' models). Very interesting exercises, but ...

Tonio,

If a religion is a man-made fiction, then faith in it does not make it objectively true.

If religion is true, then faith in it does not make it true. It simply is objectively true.

"AMviennaVA:
wiccan @July 4, 2007 2:59 PM: Julian the Apostate (from Christianity) did not become emperor in 361 BCE (Before Christ Era). Instead it was in AD (Anno Domini - Year of Our Lord), or if you prefer CE (Christian Era).

Posted July 9, 2007 9:20 AM "

I know! My Bad! (Hangs head in shame)

If that s.o.b. Julian hadn't got himself killed, I wouldn't have to worry about it! :-)

"And, of course faith doesn't make something true."

Eric, that doesn't make sense to me. Any supernaturalistic religion claims to have a true definition of the natural world, postulating deities that create the universe and cause events to happen. So these religions are trying to define reality for the entire human race.

Eric S.

"First, let's define a "self." A self is an independent entity with an identity, who is a free agent."

I will add that this definition implicitly assumes that Self is not in some part an illusion.

"The important question here, I think, is, "What is the brain?" The view that equates "Steve" with his brain hinges on whether or not the *brain itself* has self-consciousness and free will, in which case it is not a mere machine. (Normally we would say that “Steve” has self-consciousness and free will, not his brain.) If the brain is not a machine, but is a self-conscious entity with identity and free will, then if we were to look at Steve's brain, we are actually looking at Steve."

I would say that the brain is not a machine or a tool. Machines and tools, from an anthropological point of view, are things that humans and other animals create. Science does not "explain away" consciousness because consciousness represents the very hard problems about what Self is, regardless of whether Self is physical or not. In my view there is no simple or easy physical description of Self.

"The brain is either a machine for use by the Self, or it IS the Self. There is no middle ground available.
Which is most likely?"

I partly agree. For the purposes of our discussion, we are concerned with whether or not there is some non-physical, independent causal agent that has a one-to-one relationship with Self. But I have not stated that there is a physical, (somewhat) independent causal agent in the brain that has a one-to-one relationship with Self. Maybe there is not.

(To get slightly off topic, there are certain aspects or definitions of Self that most people can agree are best described in non-physical and non-spiritual terms. The concept of Self is how society identifies people and distributes power. The concept of Self can even identify dead people who no longer have brains. And Self could include various illusions. That is possible.)

"The brain is a *living* computer, and is therefore not exactly like a nonliving, man-made computer. But can a computer of any kind, even a living computer, be self-conscious? Can it consciously exert its will?"

Before answering to the next portion of your post, let me give you my answer to the above questions. It is theoretically possible, from a materialist's point of view, for a computer to be conscious. However, in my view, human consciousness depends on our embodiment in a human society. Our consciousness is developed through education, communication and interaction with other humans, as well as the environment. I am not sure I would have a concept for "I", had I not been taught the signifier for it.

"The neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield had extensive experience stimulating areas of the cerebral cortex of epileptics with electrical current, and was able to evoke memories and cause the movement of limbs and digits in his patients as well as syllabic vocalizations. He said that "There is no place where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide." From his years of brain research he became convinced that individual free will exists independently of the physical brain. "

Firstly, let me say that it is fallacious to assume that every aspect of consciousness has a certain location in the brain. Decision and belief are parts of human culture and society that our brains happen to wrap around somewhat successfully. There are parts of the brain that "do language" - natural selection resulted in the vocal apparatus and the ability to make sounds and communicate, so language is at least partially "hardwired" into our brains. But I would bet that there are no parts of the brain that simply "do decision making" or "hold belief". Such activity could be the result of the activity of several or more components of the brain.

I also think it is possible that certain aspects of Self are independent of the human brain. They are actually dependent on human culture or society itself. Many aspects of Self are not directly cognitive, such as the fact that we give each other names. Such is the result of social interaction as well as of the brain herself.

I think the quote you added to your post below includes the strongest of your claims, so I will focus on that.

“Studies of how the brain analyzes sensory input lead to the same conclusions. The electrical responses of nerve cells in the visual areas of the brain to various visual stimuli have been studied extensively. Ganglion cells in the retina respond to highly specific visual patterns. Cells in the visual cortex that receive connections from the retina (by way of the lateral geniculate body) respond to complexes of the patterns that activate the retina.
Thus, each successive stage in the visual system synthesizes and integrates the patterns to which the previous stage responds. All visual information is, therefore, ultimately encoded in complex sequences of electrical responses in the highest level of visual cortex. Herein lies the catch. The brain is only capable of encoding visual information. There must be an "I" distinct and aloof from the physical brain that interprets the code. When we look at an object, we perceive the object. We don't perceive sequences of electrical changes. We do not "see" nor are we even consciously aware of the action potentials, sodium currents, and other components of the Morse Code of the brain. There is, therefore, a non-brain entity that translates patterns of electrical changes into conscious perception.
The argument that perhaps another area of the brain (e.g. association cortex) is doing the translating is untenable since these other areas have the same physical and biological properties as visual cortex, and are therefore also only capable of encoding information in sequences of electrical activity.”

You have gotten to the core of the issue, in my opinion. There are two aspects that I see in the above quote:
1) It is as if someone said, "We have searched for the Self in the brain, but we have not found her there. She must be somewhere else."
2) There is also what looks like a claim that our thought processes are impossible if they only involve the brain, because there is no place in the brain where it all comes together.

Regarding the first item, maybe you should change your concept of Self instead of making a strong ontological claim. That is not to say that Self is not in any way causal. That is not necessarily to say, in my opinion, that Self is simply something that the brain "does" (if so, then it would seem that Self is not in any way causal).

To the second item, I would say that there does not need to be a place where it all comes together. Your above quote illustrates the fact that certain areas of the brain perform certain aspects of visual perception. Nothing ever completely comes together into a "picture in the brain". The "codes" of visual perception don't necessarily need to be decoded - I guess there probably has to be some format for certain components of the brain to understand it. (Actually, human vision in the brain is a series of topologies. So although there are codes, the codes are non completely unintelligible in their raw form. But my argument doesn't depend on that.)

Let me ask you, informally, whether you know if all of your thoughts or perceptions always come together. I can't take the thought in this sentence and very easily fit it into one bite-sized idea that fits into a moment's reflection (especially since this sentence is self-referential and therefore more complex than the average sentence). When I say "Perception exists.", what I consider to be my Self doesn't entirely have a chance to interject. For instance, the aspect of my personality that questions that very statement would probably be too slow to respond. Or perhaps I have examined that statement before and decided on my view (there are parts of the brain that "do memory"). Thereafter, the memory of that decision has influenced any statement to that effect.

Again, there are probably some aspects of Self that are illusive or completely social in nature.

I need to get back to my work but I will check back later tonight. Thank you for the discussion.

Michael,

You have faith in many things based on evidence. Don't kid yourself. Faith doesn't have to be blind faith. You have faith in a friend or your wife because you have observed something about their character which leads you to believe that you can trust them with something.
And, of course faith doesn't make something true. You are not saying anything that profound here.

"I believe that it is less reasonable to say that it is the physical, finite brain which willfully "creates" a free will entity/identity."

Let's look at that for a second; on the one hand We have evidence of the existence of brains (we all have one), and the electro-chemical activity in those brains and the associations between that activity in specific parts of the brain and specific human actions, emotions, memories and physical functions. We also can observe that when the brain ceases function the "self" that was associated with that particular brain no longer does anything. So it seems reasonable to me to conclude that the "me" that is thinking about all this is a product of that activity also and does not exist indepeneantly of the physical brain. The exact nuts and bolts of those processes are extremely complicated and not fully understood even by those who study these things as their life's work, but that understanding is steadily improving.

You postulate that because we don't fully understand all of this, and because things can't create themselves, the "me" doing the thinking must exist separate from the physical brain, as a product of giant super-brain that existed before time and space, which can't be measured or detected by any physical, material means and which (contrary to own argument) created itself.

But I'm the one who's being unreasonable?

You also misrepresent my skepticism about the NDE stories. I didn't say anyone was lying, just that there other, simpler, explanations for the way these stories come about. Read up on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, for example. Memory is a tricky business, and the suggestibility of people experiencing intense physical trauma shouldn't be discounted.

I also am not "opposed to the idea of a soul", I just don't think the evidence so far warrants adopting a belief in the soul; at least not on empirical, rational grounds.

Regards

A Hermit

Eric S: Susan, and many others, refer to religion as irrational, because that is exactly what it is, your neck hairs not withstanding. From dictionary.com: Irrational: Not endowed with reason.

Ask any god-fearing individual what faith means - nowhere in the definition would the words rational, logic, reality, or knowledge would occur. But faith would - from dictionary.com: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Just because you think something is true, and others believe, have faith that it is true, does not ever make it true.

I feel sorry for those who cannot take basic criticism from others. Faith is irrational - ther is no denying that. God is merely an imaginary friend for adults. One that I dont need, for sure.

Tonio,

You ought to listen to the lecture before you pass your judgment. The researchers are agnostic cardiologists, surgeons, pediatricians, etc. Who began hearing first-hand accounts from patients, and then conducted further interviews to *see* if the accounts were veritical, not to get an affirmative.

"The only alternative view possible is Hermit's, which is the 'They're all either lying or mistaken about their experiences' bias."

Or perhaps the story changed as it was passed along, which is what happens with urban legends. Or Habermas heard what he wanted to hear.

Tonio,

There IS no physical explanation for that particular phenomena, so naturally Habermas doesn't present it. The only alternative view possible is Hermit's, which is the "They're all either lying or mistaken about their experiences" bias. If you are opposed to the idea of a soul, then you will only allow the latter.

Hermit,
The bible teaches both libertarian human free will andGod's sovereignty. This is at the root of the dissent between Calvinism and Arminianism. This does not give me trouble, though. Is light a particle, or a wave? It is both at the same time. How can that be? It seems to defy our logic. Is one God three persons? That's hard to grasp, but we are talking about either "fiction" or a reality that is of the Infinite, which we cannot comprehend with our finite minds.
But I believe that it is less reasonable to say that it is the physical, finite brain which willfully "creates" a free will entity/identity.

Also, if first-person testimony and independent corroboration is not good enough for you, then you must have a really hard time being on a jury.

I never said Habermas was deliberately lying. His variety of Christianity believes that everything that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible is false. Such a belief is hostile to the principle of empiricism. I suspect that Habermas is so intent on pleasing his god that he is ignoring or misinterpreting contrary evidence without realizing what he is doing. I emphasize that the aspect of attempting to please an all-powerful authority is the important distinction.

The "free will" argument is a big red herring as far as I can see,. After all, to follow your reasoning, if all of our "selves" are created by your version of God then we can only "will as the brain who created it wills it to will", meaning we have no free will of our own. Free will is never an absolute; there are too many things we don't have control over, and we have free will only in context of the choices available to us. We have brains that are very good at analyzing those choices and picking what appears to be the best one.

My mistrust of the NDE "researchers" is based on my past reading of similar work; I have confidence in researchers who use good experimantal methods, control for extrinsic variable, quantify their results and invite criticism and replication. In my experience, people like Habermas colect anecdotes, repeat them and call that research. It just aint the same...

Regards

A Hermit (in a Crowd of Hermits)

Tonio,
Christians are commanded by God, in scripture, not to lie, and to never resort to deceptive means to win converts. Habermas would be willingly sinning against God if he were knowingly presenting falsehoods while representing God's interests.

Hermit, good to hear from you, and I see you are likely not posting from America. Where are you? Hope you liked your Hermit Convention. Do they all get together in one place and then avoid one another? ;)

If the self *is* "the brain's behavior," as you say, then it is the brain creating the self. The brain is primary and the self is secondary.
If the brain is acting on programming when creating the self, then it is not doing so as a free agent, in which case the self being created has no free will.
If the brain is creating the self by its own free will choice, then it is the brain which is the "self of the self" and is therefore the primary self. It could also be argued that the free will choice of the brain to create the self cannot create a self that has free will independently of the brain's free will, because conflicts of will could occur. The self created by the free will choice of the brain can only will as the brain who created it wills it to will. Therefore it is not a self. The brain is the self, as sort of the "mand behind the curtain."

Also, you distrust the NDE researchers' methods and conclusions, and the integrity of the experiencers and their testimony. That is simply a choice you have made, which does not have any bearing on the truth of the matter.

"I don't 'empirically know' that God designed the universe and brought it into being, that's why I have to remain a "believer" rather than a knower."

That relates to the point I was making earlier - believers insist that their gods have universal sovereignty, and that belief is not enough for others to accept that sovereignty.

"In debate, such an argument commits the 'genetic fallacy' and is a bad debating tactic."

You would have a point if (assuming I'm correct about the nature of Habermas' Christianity) he didn't believe to his core that he was charged by God to win converts. That relates to my earlier point about Divine Command. An atheist scientist wouldn't necessarily have the same compulsion. I'm sure there are a few of those scientists that want to spread atheism, but that desire is probably not as strong because they wouldn't be afraid of what God would do to them if they refused to win converts.

Tonio,

The fact that he wants to convince people that Christianity is true does not mean that what he presents as NDE evidence is false.

In debate, such an argument commits the "genetic fallacy" and is a bad debating tactic.

There are many atheist scientists who want to convince people of atheism, but we don't discount their arguments or evidence because of their position, but only on the merits of their arguments.

Eric, Ben.

Self can be a complex position depending on ones opinions. For instance I believe that the notion of self is a dichotomy. We are both separated yet united. Self is the perspective of me the individual but in reality we are also part of the whole, including on the conscious level. The default is me but with concentration, meditation being my tool of choice, you can identify yourself as part of the whole.

You have been talking about concrete facts or theories supported by facts. Obviously proving being part of the whole is hard from a scientific perspective. Yet there has been scientific study (mass transcendental meditation lower crime rate). I wouldn’t consider the scientific study complete but it suggests that there could be something to the concept of part of the whole at least from a consciousness prospective.

The study sited above also is interesting from the stance of free will. Apparently there are external forces, mass meditation, that can influence the actions of others at a subconscious level. This of course does not prove God but leans towards we are more than our bodies. When you gather a more true understand of self (my opinion) I see that as a possible step to finding God from a experiential standpoint. You can’t prove that to others, but the individual can convince themselves.

Ben, per our conversation on multiple time lines, I do agree there is no observable ‘outside’ force in terms of creation.

As for out of body experience the Monroe institute has done plenty of scientific research and development. Monroe could have an OOBE at will naturally. They measure his brain patterns during these episodes and developed hemi-sync technology that allows some people to simulate those brain wave patters which produce an OOBE. I find that fascinating. Now does that mean the brain as a tool can work like this on itself or does it work in concert with different energy levels or consciousness as a whole? I am of the opinion that the brain plugs into the whole

Oops, Tonio,
That "anonymous" poster was me.
Eric

"And I'm always very skeptical about stories like the tennis-shoe-on-the-roof out of body experience you describe."

I'm even more skeptical because Habermas works for Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, which has an explicit agenda to convert people to Christianity. Reminds me of the time I was searching for dinosaur books for my children and I almost bought "Dinosaurs by Design" by Duane Gish.

Tonio,
"Ultimately there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know." (how life and the univers began)'

I agree. I don't "empirically know" that God designed the universe and brought it into being, that's why I have to remain a "believer" rather than a knower. But my belief in an Intelligent Designer is my carefully considered inference from what *is* empirically known.
The atheist looks at what is empirically known and infers from it what he often calls the "only intellectually sound position," that the phenomenological universe is either the product of blind naturalistic forces or is self-existent.
The agnostic does not favor one inference over the other.

"The brain is either a machine for use by the Self, or it IS the Self. "

As usual there is at least one other possibility (I'd say probability) which you have ignored. The "self" is a product of the physical brain. It is not the brain, but neither is it something which exists independently of the physical brain. 'Self" is the brain's behaviour.

And I'm always very skeptical about stories like the tennis-shoe-on-the-roof out of body experience you describe. When exactly did this observation take place? When was it first reported,and by whom? Was this a spontaneous account, or was there any coaching or leading questions which come to be "remembered" in later conversations (eg Q. "While you were "out of body" did you notice the tennis shoe on the roof?" A. "Why yes, yes I did...")

You might think I'm being too picky, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not second hand anecdotes.

Regards

A Hermit

AMviennaVA:

Right, which is a scientific statement about the configuration of the matter and energy that preceded the singularity. But the mathematics only apply if there was mass/energy before the singularity. So you are making a scientific statement that the configuration of the mass/energy before the big bang, if any, has no causal relationship with the configuration of the mass/energy now. That is a far cry from "science makes, and can make, absolutely no statement about what preceded it".

Also, I see no reason that we could not apply the conservation of mass/energy and hypothesize that matter or energy existed before the big bang. If we could recreate an analogous physical instantiation of a mathematical singularity, we would have physical evidence and thus could make a scientific statement about whether mass/energy preceded the big bang.

Ben,

To respond….

"It seems that you are trying to shift the burden of proof onto my position. But I am making fewer ontological claims than you are."

Sometimes a particular view can make too few ontological claims to account for things. It is those views which have alotta 'splainin to do, I think.

"Why does Self need be non-physical? The challenge is for you to explain, logically and coherently, the difference between a physical Self and a non-physical Self. What is the logical difference?"

OK… I will try.

First, let's define a "self." A self is an independent entity with an identity, who is a free agent.

The important question here, I think, is, "What is the brain?" The view that equates "Steve" with his brain hinges on whether or not the *brain itself* has self-consciousness and free will, in which case it is not a mere machine. (Normally we would say that “Steve” has self-consciousness and free will, not his brain.) If the brain is not a machine, but is a self-conscious entity with identity and free will, then if we were to look at Steve's brain, we are actually looking at Steve.

The brain is either a machine for use by the Self, or it IS the Self. There is no middle ground available.
Which is most likely?

The brain is a *living* computer, and is therefore not exactly like a nonliving, man-made computer. But can a computer of any kind, even a living computer, be self-conscious? Can it consciously exert its will?
The neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield had extensive experience stimulating areas of the cerebral cortex of epileptics with electrical current, and was able to evoke memories and cause the movement of limbs and digits in his patients as well as syllabic vocalizations. He said that "There is no place where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide." From his years of brain research he became convinced that individual free will exists independently of the physical brain.

Here is a clip from an article I found which argues for the soul, which had an interesting point at the end…

“Studies of how the brain analyzes sensory input lead to the same conclusions. The electrical responses of nerve cells in the visual areas of the brain to various visual stimuli have been studied extensively. Ganglion cells in the retina respond to highly specific visual patterns. Cells in the visual cortex that receive connections from the retina (by way of the lateral geniculate body) respond to complexes of the patterns that activate the retina.
Thus, each successive stage in the visual system synthesizes and integrates the patterns to which the previous stage responds. All visual information is, therefore, ultimately encoded in complex sequences of electrical responses in the highest level of visual cortex. Herein lies the catch. The brain is only capable of encoding visual information. There must be an "I" distinct and aloof from the physical brain that interprets the code. When we look at an object, we perceive the object. We don't perceive sequences of electrical changes. We do not "see" nor are we even consciously aware of the action potentials, sodium currents, and other components of the Morse Code of the brain. There is, therefore, a non-brain entity that translates patterns of electrical changes into conscious perception.
The argument that perhaps another area of the brain (e.g. association cortex) is doing the translating is untenable since these other areas have the same physical and biological properties as visual cortex, and are therefore also only capable of encoding information in sequences of electrical activity.”

Ok, I'm back....
In addition, there are the independently validated first-person accounts of near-death experiences (NDE) of many people whose identity/consciousness left their physical bodies and witnessed remote earthbound events, on-site, in a very detailed way - events which were later corroborated. One example of this phenomenon was a woman who had a NDE in the hospital, who, after returning to her body, described a blue tennis shoe sitting on a comb on the hospital roof, which turned out to be there, exactly as described. The many accounts of remote, on-site observations of events given by the NDE experiencers to doctors who research this phenomenon are full of detail which is later carefully and independently corroborated. The NDE accounts detail visual observations of the medical staff's words, thoughts, and resuscitation procedures, perceived from a vantage point above the patient's body, while the patient had no brainwave activity. And, as I mentioned, events in remote locations are also typically observed, reported, and confirmed. Such cannot reasonably be attributed to dreams or hallucinations. If the brain is the self, how does it become invisible and fly around with the added functionalities of supra-sensory sight and hearing?

Please hear this lecture given by Dr. Gary Habermas http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/447
who wrote a comprehensive book on the subject of verifiable NDEs.

Ben: What I am saying is that the 'Big Bang' represents a mathematical singularity. We cannot make a scientific (based on mathematics) statement of what (if anything) preceded it.

Well, actually, saying that it is impossible for science to recreate, physically, the uncertainty that existed at the moment of the big bang is not a scientific statement at all. It is just an absolute statement.

And is it impossible to recreate, physically, the uncertainty that existed at the moment of the big bang? You seem to be making that very scientific statement, AMviennaVA. You are actually making a lot of very absolute statements about science.

AMviennaVA:

"Hermit & Eric & others: The 'Big Bang' is as proven as science can prove something. Please note that science makes, and can make, absolutely no statement about what preceded it."

Actually, you seem to be making a scientific statement about what came before the big bang. Aren't you saying that whatever configuration of mass/energy existed before the big bang, if any, had no causal relationship with the configuration of mass/energy that exists now? And while we are at it, doesn't conservation of mass/energy allow us to at least hypothesize that there was a conservation of mass/energy throughout the event? We might be able to simulate the big bang in order to test our hypothesis in the future. Is that impossible?

Tonio: What I find very interesting, and some very troubling, is that the sequence of events in Genesis is accurate, from the Big Bang on to snakes appearing after humans. But I am very troubled when SOME take especially the timeline literally.

"A common mistake both sides of the dispute make is to forget that science tries to explain HOW things run and Religion tries to explain WHY things are the way they are. As long as religion stays out of the 'how' there is no conflict; as long as science stays out of the 'why' there is no conflict."

AMviennaVA, that's my objection to Genesis when read or interpreted on anything resembling a literal basis. The same goes for any religion's creation story.

Hermit & Eric & others: The 'Big Bang' is as proven as science can prove something. Please note that science makes, and can make, absolutely no statement about what preceded it. Also please note that as best we know, the universe will continue to expand till the figurative 'end of time'. We cannot find sufficient matter to expect a contraction. As best we can determine, mathematically the universe is infinite and open.

Likewise science makes, nor can make, any statement regarding God. A common mistake both sides of the dispute make is to forget that science tries to explain HOW things run and Religion tries to explain WHY things are the way they are. As long as religion stays out of the 'how' there is no conflict; as long as science stays out of the 'why' there is no conflict. The answer for both is 'Because ...' and each can fill whatever they wish in the '...'

"For me to imagine that these just appeared as happenstance would go against every grain I have as a systems designer."

Eric, it's a mistake to present that alleged explanation as the only alternative to the Christian explanation. As A Hermit said earlier, "happenstance" misrepresents the non-theistic position. The simple answer is that no one knows know how the universe began or how life began. (The complex answer rests on the scientific principle of empiricism.) Ultimately there is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know."

wiccan @July 4, 2007 2:59 PM: Julian the Apostate (from Christianity) did not become emperor in 361 BCE (Before Christ Era). Instead it was in AD (Anno Domini - Year of Our Lord), or if you prefer CE (Christian Era).

Eric,

"I answered you that sentience was not what they aquired by disobeying God's warning about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was the knowledge of Good and Evil that they acquired."

By "sentience," I meant the awareness of moral choice (the Tree you mentioned) and of death (the Tree of Life). I acknowledge that I might be using the wrong word.

I wonder if the "separation from God" concept originated when that awareness developed in humanity through evolution. Specifically, the awarness of one as an individual, which animals may not have. My theory is early humans experienced the sense of individuality as a sense of aloneness, as extreme isolation, compared to what came before. Combined with the awareness of moral choice and death, this may have seemed like an eviction from paradise. I'm suggesting that the memory of a pre-awareness time might not have been a conscious one - it may have been inherent in our brains, or it may have been a cultural memory.

If all that is indeed what happenned, my issue with Genesis is the notion that humanity brought this on itself.

"What I then proposed as the 'upside' of that harsh consequence was that the bliss of heaven and God's presence can now be appreciated as being blissful, since humanity has had the 'benefit' of having experiencing unhappiness. That just logically follows, although it is not explicitly stated in Genesis."

How so? I don't understand how one makes that logical conclusion if one reads Genesis as literal history and not as allegory. I should mention that my first exposure to Genesis was in the first volume of a children's Bible series in my doctor's office. The treatment of Genesis never included that conclusion you mentioned.

Keith,

In response to your statement;
"You don't know anything about that hypothetical cause beyond its universe-causation; sure, it *could* be some kind of deity, but then again, maybe it's not. You've given no good reason to think that it is."

You say that I have given no good reason. In my opinion I have given a very good, simple reason in my argument for Intelligent Design.

I wrote and maintained computer systems for 20 years, and as complex and difficult as those systems were, they were nothing compared to the nearly infinitely nested, incredibly logically complex systems which comprise our universe. For me to imagine that these just appeared as happenstance would go against every grain I have as a systems designer. Anyone who has a mother knows that a creature (or a creation) bears the marks of that which originated it. It's a ubiquitous principle which we are all familiar with. So, to abandon that familiar principle when evaluating the amazing logical systems existing in nature at every single level of existence seems an unneccesarily pessimistic sophistry.... but a very self-serving sophistry if one is opposed, for personal reasons, to the idea of a transcendent Creator.

http://www.milpagan.org/media/statistics.html is the cited source of the # of Pagans in the US military. A Defense Department reference would be the only real source of accurate information.

But let us do the math anyway: 4300 Pagans/6702 military bases (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm) or less than one Pagan per base on average.

There are probably more Pagans working for Wallmart. Maybe they should add a few Pagan chaplins to the "welcomers".

And there are probably a heck of a lot more atheists in the military. Another positive for atheism. No chaplins required!! (as per Susan's observation)

And with so few Pagans in the military why are we discussing this issue?????

Tonio - (and Ben below)

I answered you that "sentience" was not what they aquired by disobeying God's warning about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was the knowledge of Good and Evil that they aquired. Yes, God 'punished' or 'cursed' them by changing their circumstances in a way that signified a removal of himself and his benefits from their lives. Just one of these removed gifts was eternal life. In the context of their new harsh circumstances, their children were later born.

What I then proposed as the "upside" of that harsh consequence was that the bliss of heaven and God's presence can now be appreciated as being blissful, since humanity has had the 'benefit' of having experiencing unhappiness. That just logically follows, although it is not explicitly stated in Genesis.

Ben,

I appreciate the challenge, and I will get back to you on that, soon, when I have more time.

Keith,

I want to also respond soon to your comments, when I have time.

You guys are a tough crowd, and I don't know if you will ever accept the things I am saying now, but at least it's a fun challenge for me because some of you are really pressing me.

Rob:

"Sorry for the late response, but it seems you Eric and A Hermit have been doing quite fine without me. Good conversation.
Ben getting back to out discussion of time I can understand going with the assumption that we need to look at linear time since that is what we can observe. What exactly do you men by creations when you say “We still note that there are no creations along any axis that we can observe.”
In your last paragraph you say “Thus we are left with the assumption that god continues along his own axis of reality, unseen in our system of nature. And we still lack a basis for any eternal, unchanging nature of Being. No consistent, modern replacement exists, to my knowledge, for the ancient basis of eternal Being”
This struck me that perhaps one of the issues when looking at God is this limitation of linear time. Assume we could prove the theory of multiple time lines. It would not prove or disprove the existence of God but it would certainly call into question many of our current understandings. It probably creates more ‘problems’ for dogma than for the atheist community. Actually I think that would be a good thing it would force people to explore the concepts of God even further. But in the end there is still no ‘better’ argument for God from an observable point of view unless you could look into different time lines and go back to the time of Christ and see for ourselves! Alas that seems a relatively distant feat right now.
While the time phenomena is extremely fun to discuss, it doesn’t really get to the crux of ‘finding’ God. In some distant future perhaps our science will be something that can get us there, but the focus on consciousness seems to be a more fruitful pursuit right now. That seems where your conversation with Eric has gotten to as well. However even a more complete understanding of self may just prove I am more than my body and by itself may not prove God exists it. It sounds like I have talked myself into becoming an atheist… aaaah! LOL Kidding of course I have nothing against atheist. I actually appreciate the logic they at least attempt to apply to the arguments.
I do agree with atheists that you can not use logic to get to God, at least not with our current understanding of the universe. I think there is a point where a theist saw, read, heard, felt something that resonated with them that made them take that leap of faith. From a scientific perspective they formed a hypothesis that God existed.
The ‘facts’ about God are the ancient religious writings and/or people who have spoken to God. It then depends on how much stock you put in these ‘facts’."

By “We still note that there are no creations along any axis that we can observe”, I mean that in the multi-dimensional space that we observe, including both physical space and any other continuous or discreet attribute that you can demonstrate exists, I note no arguably externally caused things. The only possible externally caused thing is the existence of this space in the first place. This is true regardless of whether time is the independent variable. Thus we see no "creations" along any of our physical, temporal, or non-corporeal axes.

The eternal basis of eternal Being previously supported the notion of an eternal and perhaps omnipresent, unchanging Being. The reason for this is that there was seeming evidence for a potentially infinite series of "creations" - storms, seasons, etc. - throughout both time and space. However, we now observe that such "creations" are not "creations" at all.

Your idea that we can abstract away time and consider any moment or position to be effectively "eternal" does not seem to provide any evidence that there is a god. Again, continuous, repetitive, seemingly infinite evidence of "creations" provided somewhat logical ground for the idea of eternal, unchanging Being - it was an inductive as well as an abductive argument. But now we know that there are no "creations" other than, perhaps, the existence of the universe in the first place. The creation of the universe provides abductive evidence for the existence of god, but not the inductive evidence that would allow you to say that the relevance of god continues forever and wherever.

The problem I have with multiple timelines, multiple universes, etc., is that there are other compelling explananda for the explanans. Sure, multiple universes or multiple timelines may explain seeming "fine tuning", but there are other features of reality that could potentially explain it.

Imagine someone who wins the lottery. One might say "There was very low likelihood of his winning had he not fixed the lottery for himself, so I think he cheated". However, that would be to make the claim that anyone who wins the lottery is likely to have cheated. Replace "winning the lottery" with "fine tuning", and "he cheated" with "god" or "multiple universes".

We don't have any evidence for multiple timelines or multiple universes. It is an interesting idea, but there are lots of those.

To continue on everyone’s latest threads...

As a non religious theist, I don’t follow a particular religion; I look at original sin as a story to illustrate the difference between good and evil. We live in a relative world. We would not know hot from cold and similarly good from evil. Good and bad (evil) are relative moralistic terms.

The fact that we look at good and evil as black and white instead of shades of grey is what causes us the grief.

If you look at though shall not kill for example. Would it be ok to kill in this instance? A person is trapped under a 500 pound beam in a burning building and will die but will die horribly. There is no else around but you and you have a gun. You kill the person now so they do not suffer horribly. Is that bad? There is an endless list of examples one can come up with to make this law absolute.

Where I side with the atheist’s arguments is the logical analysis of religion. The argument I really dislike from some fundamentalist Christians is that just because you don’t like the message doesn’t mean it is wrong. It is not that I don’t like it that I am sinful low life human not worth of salvation but by some favor from a benevolent being. That just doesn’t seem to be the proper interpretation to me. There are numerous interpretations of how inclusive the list is to get into heaven. So people are left to decide which interpretation is correct.

To me the biggest suggestion that exists in the universe that logic should be applied to idea of God is the universe itself. The mechanics and logic of the design of the universe are precise and immense. So why then would the human connection to God be so illogical and filled with emotion. Where I think I differ from atheists is just because man has done a poor job of truly defining God I don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. I continue to search.

If Einstein had waited for empirical evidence to form some of his theories we would not have gotten as far as we did thanks to his theories. We couldn’t even test some of his theories until after his death yet he proceeded with the augments in his head.

Eric S:

"Yes, it is a causailty, but more importantly it is a type of causality that is a conscious willing to cause an effect. I "make the choice" to lift my arm, then I "will it" to happen. It will then happen, if the equipment is working right. Our intuitive understanding of this is that there is an "I" which wills or chooses to lift the arm, or not lift the arm. How that "I" which "wills" to choose 'a' over 'b' could be a strictly physical process happening in a biocomputer is a very elusive concept to me and others, to say the least.
It seems to me that the materialist is putting the cart before the horse by holding to that explanation of free will causality."

I claim that consciousness may possibly be explained in detail, in physical terms. (Of course, I also feel that the notation of the physical sciences are inadequate to relate folk wisdom regarding Self to physical descriptions of brain processes.) You seem to be saying that that is not possible. It seems that you are trying to shift the burden of proof onto my position. But I am making fewer ontological claims than you are. Logically, I am agnostic. (Although, intuitively, I am vastly more confident in the explanatory power of materialism.)

I can understand that in arguing for theism, you have the Kalam Cosmological Argument (the first cause argument), intelligent design, and other logical (and refuted) arguments in your favor. But most of your seeming arguments for the existence of a non-physical Self are actually appeals to taught or intuitive notions of Self.

I believe there is one logical argument in your favor:
We notice a feeling of Self. We don't have a complete or detailed explanation of what that Self is. Therefore, we may posit the existence of a simple, non-physical Self that directs everything. I will admit - that is an intuitive and attractive explanation (though one that you haven't stated). However, assuming you agree with that argument, I have a question for you. Why does Self need be non-physical?

The challenge is for you to explain, logically and coherently, the difference between a physical Self and a non-physical Self. What is the logical difference? Otherwise, we are left with the assumption that self is non-physical.

Another feature of your arguments for the existence of a non-physical Self that I have noticed is that you just can't imagine how physical processes could give rise to Self. What you seem to be saying is that physical processes are not complex enough or powerful enough to give rise to the seemingly ineffable qualities of self. If you cannot explain the logical difference between a physical self and a non-physical self, maybe it is time for you to scrutinize your position.

Ben.

Sorry for the late response, but it seems you Eric and A Hermit have been doing quite fine without me. Good conversation.
Ben getting back to out discussion of time I can understand going with the assumption that we need to look at linear time since that is what we can observe. What exactly do you men by creations when you say “We still note that there are no creations along any axis that we can observe.”
In your last paragraph you say “Thus we are left with the assumption that god continues along his own axis of reality, unseen in our system of nature. And we still lack a basis for any eternal, unchanging nature of Being. No consistent, modern replacement exists, to my knowledge, for the ancient basis of eternal Being”
This struck me that perhaps one of the issues when looking at God is this limitation of linear time. Assume we could prove the theory of multiple time lines. It would not prove or disprove the existence of God but it would certainly call into question many of our current understandings. It probably creates more ‘problems’ for dogma than for the atheist community. Actually I think that would be a good thing it would force people to explore the concepts of God even further. But in the end there is still no ‘better’ argument for God from an observable point of view unless you could look into different time lines and go back to the time of Christ and see for ourselves! Alas that seems a relatively distant feat right now.
While the time phenomena is extremely fun to discuss, it doesn’t really get to the crux of ‘finding’ God. In some distant future perhaps our science will be something that can get us there, but the focus on consciousness seems to be a more fruitful pursuit right now. That seems where your conversation with Eric has gotten to as well. However even a more complete understanding of self may just prove I am more than my body and by itself may not prove God exists it. It sounds like I have talked myself into becoming an atheist… aaaah! LOL Kidding of course I have nothing against atheist. I actually appreciate the logic they at least attempt to apply to the arguments.
I do agree with atheists that you can not use logic to get to God, at least not with our current understanding of the universe. I think there is a point where a theist saw, read, heard, felt something that resonated with them that made them take that leap of faith. From a scientific perspective they formed a hypothesis that God existed.
The ‘facts’ about God are the ancient religious writings and/or people who have spoken to God. It then depends on how much stock you put in these ‘facts’.

"Let me speak biblically for a moment. Please bear with me. I know how distasteful it can be for atheists."

Eric, the only distasteful part is the notion that any scripture is the literal or inspired word of deity.

Your interpretation of Genesis is completely alien to me. I don't understand how you derived that from the raw text. Almost every other Christian I've encountered has explained the general story this way: "Adam and Eve disobeyed God, so God punished them by taking away eternal life from them and their descendants." It never made sense to me to saddle all of humanity with the guilt for a crime that only Adam and Eve committed.

Tonio, we did do something greviously wrong - we ate an apple that a snake told us was really good. That condemned us to eternal pain. Makes me really think about eating Granny Smiths - I might be condemning the entire human race!

Eric S.: Even if you accept that the universe must have a cause to bring it into being--a premiss I don't accept, but whose intuitive appeal I certainly understand--all that gets you is a cosmic "on" switch. It doesn't get you a conscious entity; it doesn't get you an entity that answers prayers (or even listens to them); it doesn't get you a moral entity; it doesn't get you an entity that cares about sin, or about human behavior at all; it doesn't get you an entity that judges who goes to what afterlife; heck, it doesn't get you an afterlife at all. In short, it doesn't get you the Biblical God, or Allah, or any other deity; all it gets you is the aforementioned cosmic "on" switch, a hypothetical cause of the universe's existence. You don't know anything about that hypothetical cause beyond its universe-causation; sure, it *could* be some kind of deity, but then again, maybe it's not. You've given no good reason to think that it is.

If you want to define "God" as "the cause of the universe's existence"--nothing more, nothing less--well, OK; but it's a confusing use of terminology, since what we usually think of when people use the word "God" isn't merely a universe-causer but also a prayer-answerer and moral lawgiver and presider over an afterlife and judger of who gets into which afterlife--that sort of thing. A better name for this putative cosmic "on" switch might simply be "First Cause," which doesn't imply anything about prayer, morality, sin, redemption, an afterlife, churchgoing, Biblical or Koranic veracity, or anything else typically associated with the word "God."

Keith Brian Johnson

Craig,

"...there are perfectly good explanations for near-death experiences that don't require a soul."

Are you trying to tell me that there is some strictly physical explanation for the phenomenon of Remote, instantaneous out-of-body travel and INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED, DETAILED WITNESSING of actual physical events and places, in time and space? This I gotta hear.

"NO scientific theory is accepted without empirical validation."

I thought "empirical validation" meant proof, in which case a theory would no longer be a theory but would have been fact. Sorry if my terminology isn't up to par.
A theory is often an inference from the evidence, or something based on a calculation.
So I guess Intelligent Design of the universe qualifies as a theory.

"Now, you are free to suppose that the rules themselves came from God, but as yet there is no objective reason to think so."

There is plenty of reason to think that (nonphysical) rules of physics and laws of logic, which we can apprehend with our minds, which are themselves built as logical systems, may have possibly originated from a Mind. If you disallow that possibility, you are engaging with an orthodoxy which has blinders on.
I disagree, on logical grounds, with your assertion that it is somehow more logical to assume that these laws and rules, (systems, if you like), which themselves require intellect to comprehend, have themselves no origin in intellect. That view seems as much an irrational human projection upon reality as any.

Ben

"To me free will is something like causality, does that seem correct to you? It depends on your definition."

Yes, it is a causailty, but more importantly it is a type of causality that is a conscious willing to cause an effect. I "make the choice" to lift my arm, then I "will it" to happen. It will then happen, if the equipment is working right. Our intuitive understanding of this is that there is an "I" which wills or chooses to lift the arm, or not lift the arm. How that "I" which "wills" to choose 'a' over 'b' could be a strictly physical process happening in a biocomputer is a very elusive concept to me and others, to say the least.
It seems to me that the materialist is putting the cart before the horse by holding to that explanation of free will causality.

Tonio,

That is also a misinterpretation of the fall of man.
Let me speak biblically for a moment. Please bear with me. I know how distasteful it can be for atheists.
It wasn't 'sentience' that they aquired, it was the knowledge of good and evil. Up to that point they had lived in blissful ignorance, in 'a kind of' perfect relationship with their creator. I say 'in a kind of' perfect relationship because it was missing one very important thing; they lacked the understanding of evil that is a necessary ingredient to the understanding of good. In a sense, they were totally spoiled and therefore could not really appreciate what they had. Because they did not understand the badness of evil and darkness, they could not know the goodness of their own situation. Their life with God had no value to them. Perhaps that's why it was so easy for them to disobey his command. It is interesting to note that the reason they ate from that tree is that they "wanted more." I guess they felt something was missing from their lives. And they were right!
When Adam chose to disobey God, he gained the knowledge of evil (by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), and that knowledge had definite consequences. It completely transformed their existence. Afterwards, their children were born into the context of their transformed existence, a context where life was tenuous, death was a reality, separation from God was a constant, and human evil could be expected. However, the upside to this is that God and his heaven can now be truly experienced as being The Ultimate Good for anyone who chooses to experience it. And thanks to God, we can experience this Ultimate Good, because He and His Beloved Son suffered the Ultimate Bad so that we could.
Without the fall of man, God and his goodness would not be able to be experienced as good. The full dimensionality of the experience would not be comprehended or even felt.

"please move that erroneous description of the sin nature to the recycle bin and empty it! Whoever told you that was way, way wrong"

Thanks for the clarification, Eric.

My larger issue is that Genesis, even when read metaphorically, seems to put a very negative spin on human sentience. It suggests that humans did something egregiously wrong by acquiring sentience, that it makes us cursed above all other creatures.

And lastly, Eric, there are aspects of Self that are completely social. When a person dies, she lives on in the thoughts and dreams of others, or perhaps the literature and pop culture of a society. In those ways, people can become immortal. I know that this is (perhaps) different from the Self we were discussing above, but it shouldn't be overlooked when trying to understand what Self is.

To add to my last post. At the beginning I stated that "physics does not have the notation to effectively describe the relationship between neural activity and the sensory aspects of consciousness" and "Self is a sort of physical process, though not one that is currently described in physical theories".

What I meant is that physical science (I should not have said physics) does not yet include very detailed theories of Self. Because of this, there seems to be a disconnect between the physical self and the mental self. But there is nothing about the physical world that implies a physical Self would not be a causal agent.

Eric S:

"To answer your question,
"Do you think that there is a reason that a personality, soul and all, could not be a purely physical embodiment. Is there something either impossible or shameful about this?"

I do see it as being impossible, because an individual consciousness is mainly

1. an observer
and
2. the subjective phenomena of consciousness being observed

If both the observer and the contents of consciousness are logically preceded and creat6ed by the electrochemical activity in the bio-machine's predetermined circuitry, then both the observer and that which he observes have no independent reality. They are both strictly the effects of the physical brain "putting on a show." If the experience of the SELF as the seat and experiencer of consciousness is itself a mechanically-produced but very real-seeming mirage, rather than an independently real entity, then every aspect of the self, including what it "sees" as being it's ability for free-will choice, is ultimately illusory. Illusory free will is no free will at all."

Thank you for your explanation.

Contemporary physics does not have the notation to effectively describe the relationship between neural activity and the sensory aspects of consciousness. Self is relatively unexplored. I don't think science proves that Self is not a causal agent. And I don't think Self is something that is a result of physical processes - I think Self *is* a sort of physical process, though not one that is currently described in physical theories.

One difference between our views is that yours seems to imply that science could not possibly explain Self in great detail, whereas mine implies that such is at least possible. Both views certainly allow that Self is a causal agent, regardless of whether the universe is deterministic. Determinism does not preclude causality. To me free will is something like causality, does that seem correct to you? It depends on your definition.

Regarding the seemingly ineffable qualities of Self: Perhaps at a later time I will try to write about my views on this. For now, I am wondering what logical difference it makes if Self is physically embodied, instead of, if you will, non-physically embodied.

Eric S: "On the subject of evidence for the soul, hear this lecture:"

The trouble with this example is, there are perfectly good explanations for near-death experiences that don't require a soul.

Eris S: "If quantum level particales appear to be formed "out of nothing" they could be forming out of a spirit dimension full of being, or directly emanating from the invisible God who is creating them."

That's all possible of course, but now you are just inventing undetectable things to support your model.

Eris S: "I am puzzled as to why some scientists who are awed by the intricacy and beauty behind the natural world we take for granted maintain that there is no supernatural intelligence who brought it about."

It's not that it's taken for granted, it's that there is no reason to assume otherwise.

Also, consider, for example, snowflakes. Someone estimated that about 10 to the 24th power snowflakes (a 1 followed by 24 zeroes) fall on the earth every year. Each of them is an intricate 6-sided crystal of water molecules aligned in an orderly arrangement; some of them with beautiful and amazing internal patterns. We're still figuring out what exactly the rules are in a lot of cases. Now -- does God personally design every snowflake, or are there perhaps some natural "rules" that cause the water molecules to align *themselves* in that way?

Eric S: "You are reading this post, and you know automatically that it had a (semi) intelligent author who designed it. It did not arise by mere chance."

It could have. :) The thing is, no one says the natural world is the product of mere chance. The way it seems to work is that there are certain laws and rules (of chemistry, physics, quantum mechanics, etc) that produce the effects we see in the natural world. Now, you are free to suppose that the rules themselves came from God, but as yet there is no objective reason to think so.

Eric S: "Seems to me that many scientific theories are accepted without empirical validation."

NO scientific theory is accepted without empirical validation. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a theory, by definition.

Tonio

Oh, please move that erroneous description of the sin nature to the recycle bin and empty it! Whoever told you that was way, way wrong. It's a claim about ordinary human experience which doesn't correspond with what everyone knows to be ordinary human experience.

"What it does say is that human nature is tainted by an inherited 'sin nature' which a person cannot be rid of while in the body...Of course, it has always been obvious that everyone is capable of morally good actions."

Eric, the concept of "sin nature" has always been described to me as "if given a choice between a sinful action and a non-sinful action, humans will always choose the former." That description conflicts with your otherwise laudable statement that everyone is capable of morally good actions.

"Hermit convention" ...seems contradictory. ;)

oops, that was me with the book recommendation...

Can't stay, big Hermit convention today...

On the subject of morality, here's a good book for you Eric:

Can We Be Good Without God?: Biology, Behavior, and the Need to Believe
by Robert Buckman

http://www.amazon.com/Can-We-Good-Without-God/dp/1573929743

That screed that tries to make a witch out of Christ is an abomination and a complete crock. Every point it tries to make is a sweet-sounding distortion. I won't dignify it with a refutation. Deny Christ if you wish, but don't liken him to a follower of Wicca. That's really piling it on.

""But I have never seen a person actually lose "faith" in atheism."

"I am one of them. It happens. C. S. Lewis and Lee Strobel are a couple of notable others."

Hee, you could count me in there, too. Never lost my 'faith' in *science,* (in fact, I still apply some pretty rigorous ways of science to a lot of what's called 'supernatural:' the choice is *not* between 'blanket disbelief and indiscriminate credulity.')

...but I did lose my self-definition as atheist, (Hey, what are you doing with that magic, Paganplace? "Being very, very, Jungian." :) )

...when I stopped seeing *religion* in the terms that certain religions and atheisms set out for us.

I mean, it's fair enough that there's some confusion: frankly, I may have grown up with Gods and spirits in my own personal X-files, ...there was a lot to look into: but I actually didn't for the most part *connect* spiritual experience with that stuff they said in church, that connected to neither science nor my experience of spirit. It seemed something outside of and contradictory to reality...

It called itself 'What Religion Always Is,' and portrayed the old ones as horrible twistings of its own preconceptions.

If you don't believe them, then *don't believe *that.**

Not about me, anyway. :)

Thank you for your response, Ben. I will give my thoughts in a sec. But first.....

Tonio,

I have been a serious Christian for about ten years so i can say with certainty that the view you have of the Christian doctrine of original sin is incorrect. You wrote:

"Christianity itself has a pretty low view of humanity, at least Original Sin. It claims that humans are not capable of moral behavior on our own, that we always need the intervention of deity to act morally."

The doctrine of original sin does not preclude the "natural man" from behaving morally without the aid of God. What it does say is that human nature is tainted by an inherited "sin nature" which a person cannot be rid of while in the body, even if that person is "born again" of God's Spirit (to borrow a term from Jesus).
When the Bible speaks here and there about man not being able to do good, it is of course meaning do good untainted with selfishness, living a truly Christlike life, living by the sermon on the mount without fail, never breaking any of the 10 commandments. Of course, it has always been obvious that everyone is capable of morally good actions.

Ben,

To answer your question,
"Do you think that there is a reason that a personality, soul and all, could not be a purely physical embodiment. Is there something either impossible or shameful about this?"

I do see it as being impossible, because an individual consciousness is mainly

1. an observer
and
2. the subjective phenomena of consciousness being observed

If both the observer and the contents of consciousness are logically preceded and creat6ed by the electrochemical activity in the bio-machine's predetermined circuitry, then both the observer and that which he observes have no independent reality. They are both strictly the effects of the physical brain "putting on a show." If the experience of the SELF as the seat and experiencer of consciousness is itself a mechanically-produced but very real-seeming mirage, rather than an independently real entity, then every aspect of the self, including what it "sees" as being it's ability for free-will choice, is ultimately illusory. Illusory free will is no free will at all.

"(If I understand you correctly....) That sounds good on paper, until you look at history and see that real ugly stuff also happens under secular human authority, without attributing it at all to the aiding of divine purposes."

Well, if Pagans thought paper was *enough,* we'd worship out of a book, too. :)

The paper end is well-covered by our Constitution.

There's more to life.

Something simpler, actually.

Ok, just for craps and giggles, I found this and thought I would post it on here... Perception is Reality and what I perceive to be true for my reality may not be yours... so, enjoy the read:
----------------------------------------

Thirteen Reasons Why Jesus, If He Were Here Today, Would Be A Witch

No single one of these reasons prove the Witchiness of Jesus, but
taken as a whole, they make for a compelling case!

1. Jesus criticized the hypocrisy and legalism of the religious
status quo, and chose to embrace an alternative spiritual path. (Matthew
23:1-36.) In Jesus' day, the religious establishment included the
Pharisees and Sadducees, dominant factions in first century Judaism. Jesus' alternative path followed the radical teachings of his mentor, John The Baptist. Nowadays, in Europe and the Americas, the status quo is mainly Christianity; the path of the Goddess - Wicca - is one of the most compelling of available spiritual alternatives. Many people who embrace Wicca have the exact same criticisms of Christianity that Jesus is said to have had about the religious establishment in his day. Hyprocisy, legalism, blind obedience of the rules to the point of ignoring spiritual values like love, trust, and freedom. These are the problems Jesus attacked in the official religion in his day, and that many Wiccans today see in the religious status quo of our time. Perhaps Jesus, were he here today, would join Wiccans in criticizing mainstream religion and trying to find an alternative way.

2. Jesus was a psychic healter. (Luke 6:19; John 0:1-12.) Luke
comments that "all in the crowd were trying to touch him, for power came out from him and healed all of them." And John recounts how Jesus made a magic healing paste by mixing his saliva with soil from our Mother, the Earth. For Jesus, healing was a central part of his spiritual identity. Witches, likewise, rely on herbal wisdom, natural foods, and psychic practices like Reiki to bring healing and comfort to themselves and their loved ones. Sadly, the Christian religion rarely encourages its followers to take responsibility for their own healing, but rather colludes with a medical establishment that keeps people passive in regard to their own wellness. Jesus the healer has much more in common with Wiccan healers than with church-going "patients."

3. Jesus acknowledged the divinity within each person. (John
10:34-36.) All he was doing was quoting the Psalms, but Jesus emphasized it: "You are gods." Throughtout the Bible, Jesus uses mystical language to illustrate the essential unity between humanity and divinity. How sad that the church founded in his name lost that sense of human divinity, and has instead stressed the "fallenness" and "separation" that keeps humanity alienated from the divine. Incidentally, this is an indirect affirmation of Goddess spirituality, as well - for if we are gods, as Jesus quoting the scriptures insists, then both men and women partake of the godly nature. Implying therefore that God emcompasses both the masculine and feminine dimension of life. So the "God" whom Jesus worships incorporates both the God and the Goddess as revered by Wiccans.

4. Jesus lived close to nature. (Matthew 8:20; Mark 1:12-13, 3:13;
Luke 4:42; John 18:1.) Jesus took a vision quest in the wilderness; he
loved to pray in the mountains, slept in gardens, and made a point of
telling his followers that he had no house to live in. Frankly, it's hard to imagine him driving an SUV or worshiping in an air conditioned
church. If Jesus were here today, I suspect he would live in an ecologically sustainable intentional community, and he would advocate a sacred duty to the Earth with the same zeal with which he advocated care for the poor and the downtrodden.

5. Jesus believed in magic. (Matthew 7;7-11.) Only he called it
prayer. "How many of you, if your child asks for a fish, will give them a stone?" "If you ask for it in my name, it will be done." Church-goers
often see magick as a different from prayer, because prayer is timid and uncertain: "Not my will, but thine." By contrast, magick assumes that the Divine Spirit loves us and wants to bless us in accordance with our highest desires. When Jesus prayed, he prayed with confidence, not timidity. And he taught his followers to do the same. Nowadays, magick may have fancy window dressings (light this candle, recite this incantation, etc.) but it still comes down to the same thing: making a request for spiritual blessings. Jesus' vision of prayer is like Wicca's vision of magick: it is based on trust and love, unlike the prayer of church religion, which is based on fear, self-criticism and self-doubt.

6. Jesus could command the weather. (Matthew 8:23-27.) Witches have
a long-standing reputation for being able to conjure up storms and
otherwise control the weather. Jesus, like any accomplished weather-witch, possessed a similar set of skills. He did this both actively (like when he calmed the storm out in the Sea of Galilee) and indirectly (as he was dying, he caused darkness to reign in the middle of the day).

7. Jesus had a profound relationship with the elements. (Matthew
14:22-26; Luke 3:16; Luke 8:22-25; John 9:6.) Jesus could walk on water; he could command the wind; he baptized with fire, and he used the soil of the Earth to make healing pastes. His spirituality was primal and grounded in the power of the elements. Modern-day Christianity is abstract, sterile, and anti=septic. It is a religion of books, words, and mental concepts. But Jesus, like most modern-day Wiccans, found vitality in the energies of the natural world.

8. Like a shaman, Jesus could channel spirits. (Mark 9:2-8.) One of
the most profound stories in the Bible is that of the transfiguration,
when Jesus conjured the spirits of Moses and Elijah. To his followers,
this demonstrated Jesus' authority as a spiritual leader. Later on,
Jesus tells his followers that they will do greater works than his (John 14:12); ironically, though, Christianity does not permit its followers to invoke or conjure spirits. But invocation of benevolent spirits has been a part of shamanic spirituality since the dawn of humankind, and modern-day Witches follow in this shamanistic tradition when they Draw Down The Moon and The Sun, calling the spirit of Goddess and God into their circles.

9. Jesus was comfortable with sensuality and eroticism. (Luke
7:36-50.) One night, while dining at a respectable home, Jesus received a sensuous foot washing from a woman, who used oil and her hair to wipe the teacher's feet. The host and the other guests were scandalized, but
Jesus saw it as a perfectly lovely expression of affection and hospitality. In fact, when comments were made to Jesus, he responded by saying basically, "What's your problem?" Alas, the religion that bears his name has evolved into an erotically-repressed spirituality, more like Jesus' uptight host than Jesus himself. Paganism and Wicca, meanwhile, are spiritual systems that celebrate sensuality, sexuality, and the basic goodness of pleasure. Jesus, who got criticized for being a pleasure lover himself (Matthew 11:19), would no doubt be at home in Wicca's celebration of the goodness of nature and the body.

10. In his own way, Jesus practiced the Wiccan Rede. (Matthew
5:21-22; Matthew 22:33; John 8:32.) The core ethical principle in Wicca is the Rede: "if you harm none, do what you will." There's two components to this teaching; non-harm and freedom. It's a basic principle; you have spiritual freedom, but not to the point of harming yourself or others. Compare this to several of Jesus' teachings. Matthew tells us that Jesus was so committed to the principle of non-harm that he regarded the intent to do violence as bad as violence itself. Meanwhile, John quotes Jesus as saying "Truth sets you free." But what is the truth that sets us free? The truth of love, trust, healing, and divine grace; in other words, the universal truths that can be found in any spiritual path. The opposite of harm is love. "Harm none" is another way of saying "Love your neighbor as yourself."

11. In his own way, Jesus advocated - Perfect Love and Perfect Trust.
(Matthew 5:48; Luke 6:32-36; Luke 12;22-34.) John quotes Jesus as
saying "Do not let your hearts be troubled" and "love one another as I have loved you." Throughout the Gospels, Jesus says "Do not be afraid." He suggests his disciples "become like little children" - in other words, be trusting and open-hearted. It's such a simple message, and today Wicca embodies the spirit of perfect love and trust; indeed, traditional covens require the phrase "Perfect Love and Perfect Trust" as a password to gain entry into circle. Christianity, meanwhile, preaches a message based on perfect anger and perfect fear: God is wrathful, and unless a person is fearfully obedient, he or she will be tortured for eternity. That's the opposite of what Jesus stood for. Love and trust leads to healing and liberation, whereas fear of judgment leads to depression and spiritual passivity.

12. His enemies accused Jesus of being under the influence of demons.
(John 8:48; John 10:20.) It's an old tactic. When the people who have
religious power want to dismiss their critics, they accuse the critics
of being demonically possessed. That's what the Pharisees said about
Jesus, and nowadays that's what the religious right say about Wicca. Jesus was someone who loved the average person on the street, but had little patience for religious bigotry and self-righteousness. No doubt Jesus would feel he has more in common with Wiccans than with the
fundamentalists who attack them.

13. Jesus was killed, unfairly, for his "blasphemy." (Mark 14:63-64.)
Thankfully, Wiccans nowadays don't get burned at the stake. But tens of
thousands of people - mostly women - did get killed in Europe for the
"crime" of Witchcraft. Even if these people weren't Witches, the fact
remains: they were brutally murdered for religious reasons. Well -- so
was Jesus. Modern day Wicca looks to the victims of the Witch burnings as heroes of the Goddess faith, just like Christians see in Jesus their
own spiritual hero. Jesus, meanwhile, was the kind of man who would
rather side against the killers and the executioners. Given the fact that, throughout history, far more Christians have killed Witches than vice versa, it's easy to see Jesus embracing the Goddess, working to heal her children, and calling those who bear his name to repent of their violence.

In the promo for my podcast (The Secrets In Plain Sight), I have a slogan which I wish more people would take to heart: "Religion is like underwear: What works well for me might be inappropriate for someone else, including you."

And that's the point that a lot of people need to get!

Where chaplains in the military are concerned, this much I can say from my years of wearing a uniform - those were the times when I needed my faith the most. And it is was when I was denied the ability to pursue my faith in accordance with my needs that I began looking elsewhere. It is especially in the military that a one-size-fits-all religious mentality is proven to not work. The military chaplaincy needs to be able to support all faiths.

And outside of the military, all faiths need equal rights. As a Wiccan and a Pagan, I claim no more rights than any other faith, with one exception. While I do claim the right to give answers to those who come to me seeking knowledge, I do not claim any right to impose my faith on others. In simple terms, I reserve the right to keep my door open, but you won't see me knocking on yours.

Eric, Ben's point about the personality being a purely physical embodiment is an excellent one.

"From the Christian viewpoint, that seems like a pretty low view of the human being."

From my viewpoint, Christianity itself has a pretty low view of humanity, at least Original Sin. It claims that humans are not capable of moral behavior on our own, that we always need the intervention of deity to act morally. I might appreciate that view if "deity" was a metaphor for one's conscience instead of a conscious being, but Christian doctrine rejects such metaphors.

Eric S:

"Since we have been talking general atheism, there is something that puzzles me. I would like to hear from an atheist with a robust explanation of libertarian human free will, from their worldview. I would appreciate this explanation, because according to the materialist atheistic view, the human being is a (soulless) biological machine, whose consciousness and sense of self are produced by physically-based firings of neurons and chemical reactions. It has been said that the human being is a kind of "computer made of meat," which arose accidentally by blind natural processes over millennia. From the Christian viewpoint, that seems like a pretty low view of the human being. I'm not sure how a soulless computer made of meat can really have libertarian free will, since it's thought-life and sense of self, which includes the perceived ability to excercise free-will choice, are the result of its determined neural activity. A computer with free will seems like a contradiction to me."

A computer is not considered to have free will, in my opinion, because it is not socially embodied. To me, free will is mostly the belief in the sanctity of the human decision making process.

Decisions that involve social commitment are usually considered to also involve free will.

I also think it is possible to differentiate between clouded judgment, pathological behavior, and rational decision making. There should be a pragmatic, yet carefully considered approach in making such judgments.

The problem with a "just so" belief in the sanctity of the human decision making process is that when aspects of the process are explained scientifically, they tend to lose their status. We end up with special categories of criminal behavior that are considered deviant, and other categories that are considered symptoms of mental illness.

The problem many people have with a materialist explanation of consciousness is that humans are, unfortunately, compared with "machines" that supplant labor. A brain is a "computer", a person is a "mechanical" piece of "meat" (previously hanging in a large meat locker). Do you think that there is a reason that a personality, soul and all, could not be a purely physical embodiment. Is there something either impossible or shameful about this?

I have been meaning to read Hubert Dreyfus's What Computers Still Can't Do. Check him out on Google, he is very interesting, and can explain why a computer generally doesn't have free will and isn't conscious.

Another book is Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. Understanding why we punish people for making certain decisions could shed some light on the question of free will. I read that recently. If you just read the reviews of those two books (or read some randome pages from google) you will get an idea of where I am coming from. I hope that explains my current position regarding the question of free will.

Just curious...
Since we have been talking general atheism, there is something that puzzles me. I would like to hear from an atheist with a robust explanation of libertarian human free will, from their worldview. I would appreciate this explanation, because according to the materialist atheistic view, the human being is a (soulless) biological machine, whose consciousness and sense of self are produced by physically-based firings of neurons and chemical reactions. It has been said that the human being is a kind of "computer made of meat," which arose accidentally by blind natural processes over millennia. From the Christian viewpoint, that seems like a pretty low view of the human being. I'm not sure how a soulless computer made of meat can really have libertarian free will, since it's thought-life and sense of self, which includes the perceived ability to excercise free-will choice, are the result of its determined neural activity. A computer with free will seems like a contradiction to me.

PaganPlace wrote: "Some people say that the 'moral universe,' (really a God) treats a loving gay relationship the exact same as it does mass murder. That's neither moral, *nor* the universe."

That comment highlights my point. It's a moral universe full of moral issues. We can't escape moral issues. Morality is an inescapable part of human existence. That's all I meant by, "We live in a moral universe."

PP also wrote: "This is why Pagans keep ideas of religious authority, if any, well-subordinate to observation of the effects of our intents and actions."

(If I understand you correctly....) That sounds good on paper, until you look at history and see that real ugly stuff also happens under secular human authority, without attributing it at all to the aiding of divine purposes.

Ben -
Thanks for the book recommendation. I suppose people "lose their religion" all around the world. Maybe they relax their own rules a bit. I dunno.

"But I have never seen a person actually lose "faith" in atheism."
I am one of them. It happens. C. S. Lewis and Lee Strobel are a couple of notable others.

Eric S:

"We live in a moral universe"

The moral universe is seen through the lens of theism. Isn't that actually the purpose of living your life as a Christian, to see and understand the world according to god? If a theist's proverbial lens should break, is it easy for him to find another lens to replace it?

It is not unique to theism that when a personal rule is broken, all of the other associated rules go tumbling down. I suggest you to read an interesting book (this is not about religion), called Breakdown of Will.

Atheists could be susceptible to the same scenario - where a set of personal rules break apart. But I have never seen a person actually lose "faith" in atheism.

But, no, Eric, we don't live in a 'moral universe.'

Some people say that the 'moral universe,' (really a God) treats a loving gay relationship the exact same as it does mass murder.

That's neither moral, *nor* the universe.

"I don't think people need religion to make many good moral choices, although religion can be a good input for doing so."

Can be. It can also be great cover for those who've decided they'd like to be *immoral* without being questioned... Or a great way for people to rationalize that the effects of their actions are for a 'higher good' even when they hurt people.

This is why Pagans keep ideas of religious authority, if any, well-subordinate to observation of the effects of our intents and actions.

Ben

We live in a moral universe, so we have to deal with morality issues, whether atheist or theist. I don't think people need religion to make many good moral choices, although religion can be a good input for doing so.

Eric S:
"So...I'm not saying that an atheist Must automatically be a degenerate, but if he chooses to be one, it is easier for him than for a believing Christian, because in his own framework he will not be held accountable by the Deity for his actions, nor has he broken any Divine Law.
Of course many atheists choose to be very decent people by society's standards. I was one of those atheists."

Are you saying that the purpose of theism is to make people follow the rules? I might I agree with you, but I would add that the rules of western civilization were not invented by Christianity.

The problem is that if a Christian depends on Christianity as a guide, but loses faith in the existence of a god, (s)he might lose faith in ethics and morality as well.

The challenge to Christians is to either transform Christianity so that it does not rely on miracles that a growing number of thinkers deny, or take a less literal approach to religion.

(I prefer a much more secular approach, of course.)

GWBush
I believe there's weapons of mass destruction somewhere in Iraq.
I believe there's a God.

Wanna try best out of five George.

Just for fun, here are the original Commandments; (this is the only passage in the Bible, by the way, which claims to list the commandments written in stone for Moses):

Exodus 34:10 "Here, then," said the LORD, "is the covenant I will make. Before the eyes of all your people I will work such marvels as have never been wrought in any nation anywhere on earth, so that this people among whom you live may see how awe-inspiring are the deeds which I, the LORD, will do at your side.

11 But you, on your part, must keep the commandments I am giving you today. "I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.

12 Take care, therefore, not to make a covenant with these inhabitants of the land that you are to enter; else they will become a snare among you.

13 Tear down their altars; smash their sacred pillars, and cut down their sacred poles.

14 You shall not worship any other god, for the LORD is 'the Jealous One'; a jealous God is he.

15 Do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of that land; else, when they render their wanton worship to their gods and sacrifice to them, one of them may invite you and you may partake of his sacrifice.

16 Neither shall you take their daughters as wives for your sons; otherwise, when their daughters render their wanton worship to their gods, they will make your sons do the same.

17 "You shall not make for yourselves molten gods.

18 "You shall keep the feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days at the prescribed time in the month of Abib you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you; for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt.

19 "To me belongs every first-born male that opens the womb among all your livestock, whether in the herd or in the flock.

20 The firstling of an ass you shall redeem with one of the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The first-born among your sons you shall redeem. "No one shall appear before me empty-handed.

21 "For six days you may work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; on that day you must rest even during the seasons of plowing and harvesting.

22 "You shall keep the feast of Weeks with the first of the wheat harvest; likewise, the feast at the fruit harvest at the close of the year.

23 Three times a year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the LORD God of Israel.

24 Since I will drive out the nations before you to give you a large territory, there will be no one to covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD, your God.

25 "You shall not offer me the blood of sacrifice with leavened bread, nor shall the sacrifice of the Passover feast be kept overnight for the next day.

26 "The choicest first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD, your God.

"You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with them I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

---------------

I hope Eric will forgive me, but I just don't find much in that passage that I can use as a basis for moral behaviour in the world of the 21st century...

Regards

A Hermit

I see Tonio and Luke have pretty soundly dealt with the moral superiority argument. Thanks guys...

On the subject of gender, yes, it's MISTER Hermit to you...;-)

Or, since everyone else here is using what at least looks like a real name, mine is Mark. I'll answer to either, and I've been called worse...

Tell you what, Eric, I'll see if I can find a little time to check out your Veritas site and you go read some essays at http://infidels.org/library/ . Don't know about you, but I'm guessing I won't hear anything new. But, as always, I could be wrong...

Be Well

A Hermit

People who have not been exposed to cultures other than their own are more likely to believe in the universality of their own culture. Speaking only one language also makes this much more likely. It often requires a new vocabulary to change one's viewpoints regarding ontological matters.

It is often claimed by Christians that all religions worship the same god. Polytheism might be seen by some as just another way of worshipping the eternal Being. I have heard some Christians say that Buddhists worship the same god as Christians, which is laughable in my mind. Not all religions are theistic, and Buddhism doesn't seem to recognize any external, eternal Being at all. I always thought that different religions are quite different ways of looking at the world, and that art and science were highly related to, though not the same as, religion.

Why is theism considered to be such an integral and necessary part of everyone's life by many theists? Isn't it suspicious when scientists write books that argue for the existence of a "god gene" or "religion gene"? Doesn't it sound suspiciously like something that a theist would like to believe? Do people believe that in the short history of religion, natural selection has resulted in a "religion gene"? Or would people like to believe that nature inherently and specifically selects for religiosity? If so, wouldn't a gene with broader or less specific effects be more likely to exist in nature? For instance, a gene that selects for a hierarchically imposed set of rules that are tied to emotion? And if something of the sort even exists, why would some decide to call it the "god gene"? "God" is not a very universal way to describe the various sorts of things that people have had reverence for around the world for thousands of years.

So regarding polytheism, I say bring it on. Let us have more variety in our religions, so that the spell, and the perceived universality, of monotheism, is not quite as strong.

Luke,
I am in total agreement with you, and thanks for the kind words.
I would hate it if I found out that a Christian became a Christian because they need help being a better person. Personally I have never of heard of that to be a motivation towards Christ. Yes, the personal realization that "there is a God and I am a sinner who needs His forgiveness" is indeed an important and common motivation toward Christ, but I think that is a different kind of thing than needing extra layers for the upkeep of an external morality (which could sound like splitting hairs to some).

Eric, even if you don't have Christian brothers and sisters, you have atheist brothers and sisters who wish you well.

Tonio,

Point well taken.
What would Jesus do? Murder the innocents? Kick the lesbian daughter to the curb?
(That will stir up a whole 'nother can o' worms here, I know.)

Your points are worthy of a very deep philosophical discussion of theology, which I unfortunately don't have time for, but the Veritas Forum has many audio lectures by various theologians on topics like that (as well as atheism). It might be stimulating for you to explore the site if you want to sharpen your skills for battles with more heavyweight theists than myself.

Hello, are there any Christian brothers and sisters out there reading these posts? Feel free to chime in at any time if you have anything helpful! :) I guess there aren't any. ;(

By the way Eric, I by no means think you a fool. You seem a very compassionate and decent human being, and I find it admirable that you are a theist despite being obviously capable of morality without theism. I don't want you to think that I am bashing your point, I am simply trying to understand.

I understood your argument - that your framework is stronger in the upkeep of morality because it has more layers. What I'm saying is that it doesn't say much about a person if they need those extra layers for the upkeep of morality. I agree that theistic beliefs do have more layers in their framework - I just think that the framework is somewhat of a Catch 22. The framework provides more layers of "conscience security (is that a good way to put it?)", but the fact that one would need it proves that he doesn't have the capacity for morality. I hope I am being clear.

Eric, that disincentive works both ways in theism because of the aspect of pleasing authority. A Muslim suicide bomber's conscience might tell him that murdering innocents is wrong, but he believes that his god has ordered the deaths of those innocents. A Christian who kicks his lesbian daughter out of his house might be bothered by his conscience, but he believes that his god is more important than his daughter.

Perhaps creationists and intelligent design advocates need to think more longitudinally as regards the projected development of scientific thought, particularly when comparing it to religion as a cultural artifact - religion is thousands of years old and yet tends to change not at all over time despite it's many forms. Differing beliefs, doctrines, basic tenets all remain fixed in stone while science, in a mere hundred years has evolved to the point of quantum mechanics and quantum theory (whether you happen to like particles or strings is a personal preference I guess). In any event, quantum thinking now provides the basis for explaining the singular event of the Big Bang - or was it a singular event?? Inflation theory is currently a favorite paradigm employed by Big Bang theorists, and according to how you interpret that grand Cosmic start-up moment, it could in fact happen over and over without beginning or end - universes simply created endlessly and eventually dieing out as all things must(sounds suspiciously like Buddhism to me).

But here's the point - this is where science and physics is after a mere hundred years of working the bugs out of atomic theory...where will it be in another 100 or 1000 years? I've often wondered what far more advanced civilizations 'out there' think of these matters?
Surely the statistical evidence for the distinct probability of other advanced life forms is pretty overwhelming....maybe we're somewhere midway between the ameoba and the most advanced galactic life forms (if they have forms) - I mean, who can really say? Our science is very young for a people with about 7,000 years of civilization under our collective belts. We've just barely gotten started really.

We're still evolving and we don't have all the answers - what fun would that be anyway? We may still have another 15 billion years left in this universal cycle alone....why get impatient??

Luke,

Again, a misunderstanding...
What I tried to say was that given IDENTICAL moral consciences, and IDENTICAL desires to violate it, a theist has more levels of disincentive against doing so than an atheist does. Fair statement?

That isn't such a great argument, Eric. Tightening the framework around what you feel is right and wrong may mean that it is easier for you to "feel bad" about what you've done, but it doesn't say much for the framework in the first place. You shouldn't need shame and the "eye of God" to piece together your framework for morality. If you can't formulate morality on your own, either from tools such as the Golden Rule, or (possibly) innate feelings of compassion and good will, then it is simply you who cannot function without that framework. It says much less for the morality of theists than atheists.

Hermit
I am seeing that my communication is not precise enough. I meant no smear. Please refer to my reply to JWEST directly above for a clarification. I am sure you are a fine individual, the way you describe yourself (I was about to say man, but I really don't know what your gender is!).
eric

JWEST,

People of all stripes do bad things, not just atheists.
What I meant by my remarks is that:

a. The conscience exists.
b. People violate their consciences.
c. When an atheist violates his conscience, he is violating his conscience, and possibly civil law. If he breaks a civil law, it is better to do it away from the eyes of law enforcement to avoid penalty.
D. When a sincere Christian (or a similar theist) violates his conscience, he sees it as having violated Almighty God's Holy Law in the full view of Almighty God Himself.

Having been on both sides of the theoligical fence, I know that there's a big difference in the relative weights of c and d.

So...I'm not saying that an atheist Must automatically be a degenerate, but if he chooses to be one, it is easier for him than for a believing Christian, because in his own framework he will not be held accountable by the Deity for his actions, nor has he broken any Divine Law.
Of course many atheists choose to be very decent people by society's standards. I was one of those atheists.

"That is one benefit of atheism. You can sear your conscience and think of it only as a relic of training and convention, and then sin away!"

That's a nasty little smear, actually, and kind of undoes the kindness (which I do appreciate, by the way) of your good wishes in the following post.

I don't know if you were an immoral jerk with no conscience when you were an atheist (and I'm curious to know if your atheism was an actual, considered philosophical position or just the kind of indifference to these things one often sees), but I assure you I'm not. In fact, I think my moral behaviour has improved since I let go of faith. I am not as judgmental, I am more ecologically aware, I have greater empathy for others as human beings just like me, regardlss of their ethnicity, faith or sexual orientation. Mostly I have simply benefited from the necessity of thinking for myself, instead of just accepting some archaic set of do's and don'ts.

Morality is not just a matter of "training and convention" it is an essential aspect of human behaviour; we are social animals and by necessity have evolved patterns of innate behaviour which contribute to our ability to live with one another and survive as a species. As we progress we improve on these behaviours; we need to be able to recognize their natural origins and consequences to improve upon them, something which is not possible if we just adopt the Ten Commandments as written and think that's good enough.

Which Ten did you have in mind, by the way? The original ones in Exodus 34 which enjoin us not to boil a goat in its mother's milk, or the later, non-stone-inscribed versions popular as lawn ornaments at American courthouses? I'd like to know how one rationally decides such matters...

I guess we don't have much left to talk about if you're left resorting to gratuitous hints of my moral depravity instead of trying to show, logically and rationally, why you find my existential arguments to be fallacious. A familiar end to many a conversation with a theist, I'm afraid...

regards

A Hermit

Eric, part of the problem is how one defines of "Judeo/Christian morality." Neither religion has an exclusive claim on moral values. Plus, there is much in the Old Testament that goes against my sense of morality, such as stoning of adulterers and homosexuals, or requiring fathers to sacrifice sons to prove loyalty.

"If there is no God, then all is permissable," said Dostoyevski, I think. That is one benefit of atheism. You can sear your conscience and think of it only as a relic of training and convention, and then sin away!

Eric, Why do you think the absence of a god in our lives automatically leads us to bad things. We are not out stealing money from the poor to enrich ourselves as christians do daily. We don't necessarily lie, kill, cheat, steal, commit adultry declare wars cause god told us to and everything else you tag on us because we don't think like you. You have a problem. You need to take a long hard look at your belief and see where it stacks up in the world of doing bad things. If what you say is true then there should be very little crime because 90% of America is supposedly christian. That must mean atheist are very busy people doing all the bad. Get a life and get real. I for one don't see how seemingly intelligent people come to these conclusions.

I guess one reason that I embrace Judeo/Christian morality is because my own conscience is so aligned with it that I have no problem accepting the Bible's tenet that the human conscience (which can be silenced as an act of will) is there and says what it says because God put it in our hearts as a reflection of Him.

But if the dictates of your conscience is at odds with Judeo/Christian moral tenets then I can see why you would reject that view.

Eric,

The notion that atheism is about denial of the conscience is ridiculous, and I'm not even an atheist. I know of no atheist who advocates such a thing. (I describe myself as an agnostic pantheist.) The conscience has nothing to do with deity. Some people use "God" as a metaphor for their consciences, but theistic doctrines do not allow for that view.

"If God's 10 commandments somehow conflict with the dictates of your true conscience, then you will have no problem violating them and will discount anyone's attempts to persuade you of moral absolutes from on high. But if his commandments are in agreement with the dictates of your conscience, then you should have no problem with them, unless you are wanting to violate them."

That somewhat close to my stance. Submission to authority, including an alleged authority figure of a supreme being, is not following one's conscience. Even when the authority's orders are in agreement with the dictates of the conscience, that agreement is irrelevant. Pleasing authority involves the subversion of the conscience - the person is so focused on what the authority wants that he stops listening to his conscience.

Hermit,
For all your obvious intelligence, I am finding your arguments to be as fallacious as you do mine. I'm afraid we'll just have to call it a day. But it's been fun for me.
May God bless you richly, and I really mean that, even knowing that to you it's probably a worthless sentiment.
Best regards,
Eric

Tonio,
You have a good point on the Divine Sovereignty issue.
If God's 10 commandments somehow conflict with the dictates of your true conscience, then you will have no problem violating them and will discount anyone's attempts to persuade you of moral absolutes from on high. But if his commandments are in agreement with the dictates of your conscience, then you should have no problem with them, unless you are wanting to violate them.
Personally, my conscience agrees with the 10 commandments and the sermon on the mount. I don't always want to follow them, however. This is when I have to listen to my conscience.

"If there is no God, then all is permissable," said Dostoyevski, I think. That is one benefit of atheism. You can sear your conscience and think of it only as a relic of training and convention, and then sin away!

"But a difference between you and me, a former atheist, is that you see the the evidence as being insufficient and I don't. If you require God to show you his face in order for you to accept him, it ain't gonna happen in this life."

Eric, you might have a point if you didn't define your god as having universal sovereignty. Theists claim that everyone must obey their gods. But the only "evidence" for such claims is the word of the theists themselves. No offense, but that sounds like tiger repellent. There is no reason to accept such claims without evidence.

Eric (not anonymous!) says: "My bad! I didn't mean to say that a particular god is the only rational explanation. I was trying to make the point that the Creator of the universe would logically have to be Infinite Being, without a beginning, and that it is not plausible that the universe spontaneously came into being from the context of a condition of total nonexistence. I used my God in the sentence to make my own point but I did not need to name him specifically. Brahman or Allah would also qualify, I suppose."

Well we're getting closer, but you're still not there yet. First of all, as the articles at various links I've posted suggest the possiblilty of the Universe coming into existence from a state of non-existence isn't as entirely implausible as you suggest. But even if it was there are other possible conditions of an infinite, uncaused nature which do not fit any of the kinds of intelligent, purposeful "god" entities in your argument.

As for your faith being based on objective reasoning; you have admitted that it is, in the end, a subjective feeling that you have. The attempts to rationally explain that belief are inadequate; God cannot be shown to exist in an objective, empirical manner the way Sri Lanka or a bat's sonar (to use your examples) can. At least I've never seen anyone do it.

And Tonio makes the point about why this is so important in his comment above..."Theists claim that their gods have universal sovereignty over the human race. The subjective faith of those theists is not sufficient evidence for everyone else to accept that sovereignty." Thanks Tonio!

On to the beach...a good idea; it's too hot and stuffy in this office...;-)...I still maintain you are the one making the error here. Yes, when I encounter something that is deliberately made I can distinguish it from a naturally occuring artifact. You are the one who is making the mistake by failing to make any distinction between the deliberately designed heart drawing and the naturally occuring ripples. If we adopt your point of view it's all the product of design!

Complexity, by the way, is not evidence of intelligent, purposeful design. In fact the opposite id true; one of the hallmarks of good design is simplicity. Back to the beach; we see two piles of pebbles; one of them is a pile of natural stones washed up by the waves, the other is a pile of marbles a child has left behind. How do we know one is the product of human manufacture and the other is not? Simplicity. The pebbles are of varying sizes, and although worn smooth by the waves they vary in shape; some flatter, some ovoid, of varying sizes, mass and mineral composition. The marbles, on the other hand, are of uniform size, shape and composition; they are SIMPLER than the naturally occuring objects.

You're right, we do recognize intelligent creation when we see it. And we can make the distinction between the deliberately created and the naturally occuring. When I look at the evidence I see a natural world which is plainly the product of natural forces; there is no serial number on it, no date of manufacture, no signature,no uniformity like we'd see from manufactured artifacts.

And you're right, I'm not "just a soulless biological flesh-computer who, after a short, meaningful life, disappears into nothingness." I'm a Human being, part of teh natural order of things, a little peice of the Universe briefly looking back at itself, a product of what Carl Sagan called "Star Stuff" who will shortly return to being "star stuff." That's all I need to be.

If there is a life beyond this one I can't imagine it will be much like this one. If it is I'll be pleasantly surprised I suppose, but I don't need the idea of it to make this life worthwhile.

Regards

A Hermit

Tonio,

I realize it's a big "if." But a difference between you and me, a former atheist, is that you see the the evidence as being insufficient and I don't. If you require God to show you his face in order for you to accept him, it ain't gonna happen in this life.
Seems to me that many scientific theories are accepted without empirical validation. And speaking of your philosophy of empiricism, does the philosphy itself pass the the test of empiricism? If it doesn't, then it saws off the limb it sits on. It is a self-contradictory position.

Eric,

Your "if" question is misleading. Although theists define their gods as outside empirical science, the whole concept of reality is based in empiricism. Or more correctly, the only reality we can address is the one we perceive through our senses. It's not a denial of reality to reject a claim based on insufficient evidence. Like A Hermit, I don't rule out the possibility of the divine, but I see no reason to believe in any religion's gods. Any claims about gods should be evaluated empirically.

Wow... I'm amazed at the comments from this one article.. Reminded that everyone wants to believe the way they want to believe, and most are too close-minded to think that there might be a different way.
I was raised Southern Missionary Baptist - my grandfather had his own radio broadcast and a large church. I got a crash coarse on religion from my grandparents who hated the questions I asked. Ahh.. the ignorant "why" questions of children!
By the age of 13 I had begun researching other religions.. I wanted to understand how other people thought, why they reacted the way they did and sourced their religion for their reasoning. That was when I discovered that, what I felt in my heart and soul to be honest and true, most fit with the witch/pagan beliefs.
So today, at 35, I honestly tell the world that I am a Witch, I am Pagan and I am VERY proud of this. I accept others beliefs and I accept that others have just as much right as I do to believe whatever WHATEVER they choose. Who am ** I ** to tell them that they are WRONG?? I am a small peon human animal on the face of a large ecological system called Earth.
I wont debate the whole "God being real" issue.. but I will say this much: When my checking account gets low, I can pray that more money appears in my account in order to cover my bills... but so far it hasn't happened. Something from nothing.. They say that nothing in this world is free.. Something from Nothing hasn't been proven to me.
And for those who would like to know, my husband (who is also a witch btw) and I own a pagan store. The whole community knows about it and those who accept us come to shop in our store, those who dont accept us dont come to shop. Do we care one way or the other - naw. Why should we? People will do as they feel to be true in their hearts.
People will be people - period. You have just as many criminals and child molesters who are Christians as those who dont believe as Christians do. We are as we choose to be - regardless of faith/religion/beliefs. You make a choice every day to either go rob a bank to get money or go to work to make money. You may not realize you make these decisions, but that does not change the fact that they are made.
I am a Pagan Witch and I am proud.. and I dont care what others think of me. I know who I am, I know that I am a good person and I help others - and knowing who I am and what I believe in is what gets me through the trials and hills of life.

BTW Paganplace: love reading your posts! :)
Daniel: if you want to meet a pagan, see if there are any pagan meetings in your area. Try looking for your area on www.witchvox.com because believe me, WE ARE EVERWHERE. :)
Susan: Thank you for the article that has stirred up people to comment.

Blessings to everyone,
Melissa

Sure, you have the right to operate within your own self-chosen mental framework. All I said was that *IF* the creator God exists, then you too are part of his creation - and your self-chosen "reality" would be in conflict with Reality. And you would retain the right to deny Reality forever, in favor of your own version, if you so chose.

"I understand that your life has great meaning to you without theistic belief. But if theism is correct, your life has ULTIMATE meaning far beyond what you currently accept."

To be blunt, I decide the meaning of my life. No doctrine or belief system will decide it for me.

Hermit,
I looked at my prior statement,

"The God of the Bible is eternal and infinite, and had no beginning. He therefore had no cause. God was (and is) the Existence behind existence. There is no other rational explanation for the cause of the universe."

...and I see how it reads. My bad! I didn't mean to say that a particular god is the only rational explanation. I was trying to make the point that the Creator of the universe would logically have to be Infinite Being, without a beginning, and that it is not plausible that the universe spontaneously came into being from the context of a condition of total nonexistence. I used my God in the sentence to make my own point but I did not need to name him specifically. Brahman or Allah would also qualify, I suppose.

As for your claim that my belief is subjective primarily but buttressed by rational arguments... When I look back, I see it as being the reverse. The "knowing in my heart" that I referred to was the very last chapter in my theism. As a former atheist, assenting to God meant a long process of accumulating head knowledge, and that took a long time. I could only have come to intellectually accept the existence of God by having my objections overcome, and the more I learned, the more they were. I finally came to a point where I could no longer not believe. Only later came the heart knowledge I spoke of.

On this quote of yours,

"I'll just point out that a lot of your arguments (on photons, complex natural systems, etc) are just projection; you are making the error of assuming that because the observer of a thing is intelligent the thing being observed must be product of intelligence."

You say I am making an error. I don't buy that. I again use the beach analogy, in case you didn't see it before...which illustrates that what you call an error is just the operation of common sense.
We recognize intelligent creation when we see it. If you were walking on the beach and you saw some ripples in the sand, you would know them to be products of random wave action. But if you saw a big heart drawn in the sand that said, "Jason loves Britney" you would infer that what you were seeing was deliberately created by an intelligent agent. Atheists are essentially looking at the human-drawn heart in the sand and calling it a pattern made by waves.

Tonio,

I understand that your life has great meaning to you without theistic belief. But if theism is correct, your life has ULTIMATE meaning far beyond what you currently accept. You are not just a soulless biological flesh-computer who, after a short, meaningful life, disappears into nothingness.

Secularism is for adults.

Dennis Middlebrooks,

To reiterate my comments to Susan:

"Having five Catholic Supreme Court justices is signficantly better than having five Nazi or Muslim Supreme Court judges. And did you criticize the Supreme Court makeup when it was all-white? (before your time?) All male? All Protestant? All what-ever?

By the way, there is a new Catholicism afoot. You need to read the books by Professor Crossan, an ex-Catholic priest but still a very good Catholic with respect to the basics. Ditto for Father Edward Schillebeeckx. Considering the talents and education of the five Catholic Supreme Court justices, I am sure they have.

Just a reminder about Catholicism/Christianity's foundations:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his 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/Greek/Roman populatons.

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (physical resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions and so noted as such in many Catholic university theology classes. "

And some added commentary previously sent to Tonio:

"See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901270.html for a review about the five Catholic Supreme Court justices recent rulings.

For a long period of time there were no Catholics on the Supreme Court because of religious prejudices. That is genereally no longer the case. Like with most US Catholics, the Supreme Court Justices probably are not followers of the "rules" of "celibate", old white European males and make their own decisions about things like fetal deaths, birth control and obligatory Sunday Mass. "

"In the end you must admit that your belief in God, although you may buttress it with rational arguments, is ultimately a product of subjective faith, not objective reasoning. And maybe that's all you require, but I was never happy with it."

Good post, A Hermit. Your statement above leads to another aspect of subjective faith that you didn't address. Theists claim that their gods have universal sovereignty over the human race. The subjective faith of those theists is not sufficient evidence for everyone else to accept that sovereignty. From my standpoint, the empirical standard for evaluating such claims should be even higher than for notions about gods causing natural events. That's because the claims ask people to ignore their reason and their consciences, and to accept control over their lives by people who claim to be proxies for the gods. (And the theists don't even agree among themselves about what their gods want from the human race.)

"We need more Susan Jacoby's. About 100 million more."

Amen to that, Dennis; excellent point about the supreme court.

Eric:

I am an atheist (someone who has no belief in the existence of gods) because I take an agnostic approach to belief. In other words, if there is insufficient evidence and no good reason to believe something I withhold belief. I do not deny the possibility that gos exist (or leprechauns or Unicorns either) but I see no reason to believe in them. Frankly, I've seen a lot more empirical evidence for sonar and Sri Lanka than I have for God's existence. You admit here, finally, that your belief in God is subjective; and that's been my point all along. You started out telling me it was the ONLY RATIONAL CONCLUSION, but that would make it objective, not subjective.

I'm not going to go through that whole list of arguments right now, I need to get som work done today, I'll just point out that a lot of your arguments (on photons, complex natural systems, etc) are just projection; you are making the error of assuming that because the observer of a thing is intelligent the thing being observed must be product of intelligence. There is no logical basis for this assertion. You are confusing the act of observation with the object itself; they are not the same. Our system of describing a thing is the product of our intelligence, the thing itself need not be. Hurricanes are complex systems; understanding them requires intelligence, but they are the product of natural forces, not intentional sentience.

Also, Euthyphro is a little more challenging than you might think: arguing that goodness is part of God's nature is no different than admitting that goodness can exist independently of God. How do you judge whether God's goodness is good? Was it morally good of the Old Testament God to order the genocidal massacres of the Canaanites? Would such genocide be morally defensible today by claiming divine orders? (By the way, Euthyphro is a fictional character in one of Plato's dialogues; you can read it here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/p/plato/p71eup/introduction.html)

On the "fine-tuning" argument, life is a lot more resilient than you seem to think; it survives everywhere from the Antarctic to superheated thermal vents on the ocean floor. If conditions were different life AS WE KNOW IT may not exist, but some of other form of life probably would. Saying the environment was designed to fit us is like saying that the pothole I drove through this morning was purposefully designed to fit the puddle that was sitting in it...

And don't for one moment think that love, beauty, morality or truth mean any less to me because I see them as products of our Humanity. If anything they are more precious to me because of that. I experience those things as a human, in the context of my relationship and interactions with other human beings. God is not necessary for me to feel love, to discover truth, to appreciate the beauty of the natural world or of human achievement, but humanity, my own and others, is. I have seen no reason in my life to attribute any of these things to an unseen supernatural entity.

Anyway, putting all of that aside, I want to ask you again; do you now at least admit that your initial statement, that the Judeo-Christian version of God is the ONLY rational explanation for the existence of the Universe was wrong? I realize you feel subjectively in your heart that its the best explanation, but that's not the same as "the only rational explanation", is it? In the end you must admit that your belief in God, although you may buttress it with rational arguments, is ultimately a product of subjective faith, not objective reasoning. And maybe that's all you require, but I was never happy with it.

Regards

A Hermit

"The fool says in his heart 'There is no God'." - Psalm 14:1
"The fool says in his heart 'There is no God'." - "The wise man says it out loud "Aaron 1:1

Imagine that the president of the USA saw the light and converted to atheism and was funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to freethought groups under "executive authority". Do you think that the Supreme Court would rule that the Catholic League for Civil Rights or some other religious group protesting this misuse of federal funds would have "no standing" to challenge the president's expenditures?

If you do, there is a bridge over the East River in New York with nice gothic arches that I would like to sell to you.

The "Vatican Quintet" on the Supreme Court is dedicated to eradicating all traces of secularism in the United States and to fostering Christianity as our national creed. They will never rule against the interests of their church and organized religion in general.

We need more Susan Jacoby's. About 100 million more.

"I am puzzled as to why some scientists who are awed by the intricacy and beauty behind the natural world we take for granted maintain that there is no supernatural intelligence who brought it about."

Because theistic doctrines claim that their deities are forever beyond empirical science. To explain natural phenomena using such a being violates the entire principle of empiricism. I see it as a lazy way out, a desperate attempt to avoid having no explanation for the phenomena. That's like a storyteller getting a character out of a tough spot by making a magic wand appear out of nowhere.

Also, supernaturalism leads to the inevitable conclusion that the deity uses natural events as punishments or rewards for humanity, like Pat Robertson's hateful claim that Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath on the supposed sinfulness of New Orleans.

Your "dumb accident" language is really a straw man, an implication that life has no meaning unless it was created by a supernatural intelligence. That's patently false. Each of us creates our own meanings for our own lives. The intricacy and beauty of the natural world would still inspire awe no matter how they came about. I like the philosophy offered by the site Jhuger.com: "Our world is not a conjurer's trick. Knowing how it's done doesn't make the magic go away."

Hermit,
It sounds like you may be more of an agnostic than a positive atheist who asserts that "there is no God." Is that correct?
I guess I can't say I "know" that God exists in the same way I know that I exist. It's more like the way I "know" Sri Lanka exists or bat sonar waves exist. And I "know" in my heart that God exists, but I know you won't buy that. It's too subjective to be considered.
Like I said, I can't show you God. But I think the negative view regarding deity defies reason. I guess I could be wrong about it, but I would be very surprised.

I just want to reply to some of your comments above:

"Euthyphro's Dilemma":
The Christian understanding is that God "says it is good" because He *is* goodness, without possibility of evil. He is not just passing on something he likes which he calls "goodness." Goodness is that which emanates from his nature and he cannot act against it. Euthyphro apparently wasn't up on his Judeo/Christian theology.

"...the "fine tuning" argument is meaningless. It is not the environment that is made to suit us, it is we who have evolved to suit the environment."

The fine-tuning argument points out that if only one of the many universal constants were altered just a hair, life would not be possible. In a life-precluding universe, there is no possibility of "life evolving to suit the environment."

"...these "laws" (of physics, logic, etc.) are just our observations of a system..."

Exactly. Systems are logical constructs. We attribute the existence of a computer system or any other man-made system to an intelligent cause. But when we see a working logical system that is not man-made, we call it self-existent. How inconsistent of us.

"Photons, not intelligence."

The intelligence of the phenomenon of light is awesome. Einstein said he could ponder light all day and night.

"Science consistently reveals natural causes for natural phenomena."

It is the *cause* of the "natural causes for natural phenomena" that I am interested in here.

"Like Morality, these (truth, beauty, compassion, love) are Human constructs"

Give me a break, Hermit. You are much smarter than that.
- Truth is that which corresponds to reality. If I say you are 5 years old, that is not truth. The truth is that you are a certain age right now, and only that age. Truth is not a "human construct."
- Beauty has been shown in studies to be appreciated by newborn infants. Not a "human construct."
- I saw real tears and words of compassion from my 3-year-old daughter for a wounded butterfly. Not a "human construct."
- Love feels good no matter how young a person is; they didn't decide it to be that way, it just IS that way. Even animals feel and enjoy love and affection. Please don't tell your loved ones that your love for them is an aquiescence to a human convention.

"If I, as an atheist with no belief in God, can appreciate these things (and I assure I do, more profoundly as an atheist than I ever did as a Christian) then again God is not required here."

You say that with such assurance that your ability to appreciate the beauty of the created order is not a gift to humanity from the Creator.
If it is, it doesn't matter if you believe it is or not; you still have the God-given ability.

"We know a lot more about consciousness today than we did int he past, and even if we don't fully understand it it's pretty well established that consciousness is a product of activity in our brains."

I refer you to the lecture on evidence for the soul: http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/447

On the subject of being arising from strict nonbeing, please see the above post to Craig.

Craig,

Oh, I forgot to mention the complex coded information in DNA.

On the subject of evidence for the soul, hear this lecture:

http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/447

When I said Being cannot arise from strict nonbeing, I meant a condition of absolute nonbeing where all is nonexistence. In such a condition (which is an impossibility because nonbeing cannot *be*) there would not exist even the positive potential for being. If quantum level particales appear to be formed "out of nothing" they could be forming out of a spirit dimension full of being, or directly emanating from the invisible God who is creating them. At very least, they are appearing in the context of a universe that does exist, not within a condition of strict nonbeing.

I am puzzled as to why some scientists who are awed by the intricacy and beauty behind the natural world we take for granted maintain that there is no supernatural intelligence who brought it about. For them, an explanation of the opposing view is necessary. If you look at the website "Veritas Forum," there are likely some audio lectures by scientists which do precisely that. Maybe I should investigate that myself. But for now I will say that "you don't get blood from a turnip." You are reading this post, and you know automatically that it had a (semi) intelligent author who designed it. It did not arise by mere chance. We recognize intelligent creation when we see it. If you were walking on the beach and you saw some ripples in the sand, you would know them to be products of random wave action. But if you saw a big heart drawn in the sand that said, "Jason loves Britney" you would infer that what you were seeing was deliberately created by an intelligent agent. Atheists are essentially looking at the human-drawn heart and calling it a pattern made by waves.

But really, if you want a better explanation than I have given, look on Veritas Forum. There are tons of excellent lectures to listen to there. MP3s too.
I am pretty sure they also have excellent debates between prominent atheists and theologians which you would definitely find entertaining.

Eric says: "I don't think my stance is irrational simply because I can't dissect it to the nth degree for you."

No, but if you're going to assert that your stance is the only rational conclusion possible you better have some pretty solid reasoning to back it up. Let's have a look...

"I will list a handful of things I believe reasonably point to an intelligence behind the universe:

__________

"* The existence of past, present, and future demands a starting point"

Which we have pretty much agreed is the "Big Bang", yes? A Natural event, not requiring, or displaying evidence of, a guiding intelligence.

__________

"*Finite universe which had a beginning, implying causation"

A beginning does not have to imply imply causation, as Ben has demonstrated above, and even if it did causation does not imply sentience or conscious intent. Thunderstorms have beginnings and causes, too, but no-one designs them, unless I'm wrong about Thor, that is...;-)

__________

"* Scientific discoveries consistently reveal the appearance of an astonishing degree of intelligence in the design and exact, multifaceted fine-tuning of the natural universe, all necessary to produce and sustain complex, conscious life"

I disagree. Science consistently reveals natural causes for natural phenomena. Not spirits, or sprites, or gods or goddesses. The perception of intelligence is just psychological projection, and the "fine tuning" argument is meaningless. It is not the environment that is made to suit us, it is we who have evolved to suit the environment.

__________

"* Being cannot arise from strict nonbeing"

An unsubstantiated assertion; contradicted by the aforementioned vacuum fluctuation. In any case, as we have already established, we just don't know what existed prior to (or outside of) the "Big Bang"; mathematical models suggest a variety of theoretical possibilities, from the 'Big Bounce" to the "steady state" to multiverses, to "spacetime foam" none of which require sentience, consciousness or intent.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

__________

"* Solid compiled proof for the reality of the human soul"

Sounds like another whole argument; I'd ask for examples but I'm afraid we're already way off topic. I'll just say the "proofs" I've seen haven't been all that solid...and you can't use one unproven speculation to back up another.

__________

"* The persistent enigma of consciousness"

The existence of mystery is not proof of God's existence, just of the limits of our perceptions and knowledge. We know a lot more about consciousness today than we did int he past, and even if we don't fully understand it it's pretty well established that consciousness is a product of activity in our brains. Again, lots of evidence here of a natural process, not requiring an external, supernatural source.

__________

"* Laws of logic

* Laws of physics"

These are evidence of our intelligence, since these "laws" are just our observations of a system which yields consistently reliable analysis in the first case and of the way the Universe appears to operate in the second. I'll repeat what I said earlier; our observation of the Universe cannot be inferred as an analogue of the Universe; it's just our attempt at a description of how the Universe works. I can also describe how a bicycle works; doesn't mean the bicycle is intelligent...

__________

"* Light"

Photons. Not intelligence.

__________

"* The existence of moral absolutes (a moral law)"

The evolution of human social interaction. God is again not required here; see Euthyphro's Dilemma; ie Is that which is good, good because God says it is, or does God say it is good because it is inherently good? If the former, than morality is arbitrary, not absolute; if the latter than it exists independently of God and cannot therefore be proof of God's existence.

__________

"* The astonishing miracle of human intelligence"

An astonishing example of evolutionary adaptation; a process to some extent observable in the behaviour of other primates. Again no Gods required.

__________

"* The ability of the human psyche to comprehend and appreciate the goodness of truth, love, beauty and compassion"

Like Morality these are Human constructs, meaningful only in a Human context. This is proof of our Humanity, not of God's existence. If I, as an atheist with no belief in God, can appreciate these things (and I assure I do, more profoundly as an atheist than I ever did as a Christian) then again God is not required here.

__________

"The miracle of existence which is our universe, and everything in it, is merely a dumb accident according to the atheist."

Not at all; it is an astonishing, awe inspiring, mind boggling, humbling mystery to which we do not, and may never, have the answer. You are misrepresenting the non-theistic position. The absurdity here is not in admitting ignorance, as the honest atheist does; it is in claiming to know the answer; indeed to have a personal relationship with the answer, when there is no evidence to support it.

Given the enormity of the question, asking for a detailed explanation from you is not absurd; you are making an extraordinary claim. You have said that you know the answer to the mystery of the origin of the Universe, and claimed that you arrive at this answer by a process of logical reasoning. Indeed, you have claimed more than once that the Judeo Christian conception of God is the ONLY rational explanation possible. It is certainly not absurd than to ask to see the reasoning that led you to this conclusion. If you can't produce the reasoning; and as you can see I can't accept the above list of assertions as such, than it is absurd of you to continue to insist that you are in possession of the only rational conclusion here.

Regards

A Hermit

EriC S: "* Scientific discoveries consistently reveal the appearance of an astonishing degree of intelligence in the design and exact, multifaceted fine-tuning of the natural universe, all necessary to produce and sustain complex, conscious life"

There are a few problems with this. One is the anthropic principle, which says: of course the universe looks designed for us to live in it. If it were different, we wouldn't be here to marvel at how it seems designed for us! If you were a fish in a pond, would you think the fact that you were surrounded by water was evidence of fine tuning?

Another problem is that you are assuming that the purpose of the universe is to produce life, which is a pretty big leap.

Eric S: "* Being cannot arise from strict nonbeing"

This is false, at least on the quantum level. Particles are being created from nothing all the time.

Eris S: "* Solid compiled proof for the reality of the human soul"

I'd like to see this. This is Nobel Prize material.

Eris S: "The miracle of existence which is our universe, and everything in it, is merely a dumb accident according to the atheist. That is, frankly, an absurd conclusion, and anyone needing a detailed explanation for WHY it is an absurd conclusion is just pulling the wool over their own eyes."

Well, I need a detailed explanation of WHY it is an absurd conclusion.

Eric S: "In my view, atheism is like the child who imagines that he is hiding from his parents by covering his eyes."

Nah, that only works for the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. :)

I think in war, it is necessary to provide soldiers with whatever maintains their mental health, within reason. If that means pornography, bible studies, Ayn Rand readings, or even a little bit of hashish during R&R (which could truly dampen traumatic memories), then we need to pass laws that allow these things without violating anyone's rights. There must be an egalitarian system.

If I was at war, I would want the services of a psychiatrist, and I would want hashish after a traumatic experience (no, I am not a hashish eater, but I think I would be after fighting in a war). I would want mental health services of the same quality as the religious services for other soldiers.

Mary c. All religions keep mankind in a state of separation ..you are eternal spirit and always have been .. but when anyone becomes identified with their physical body(temple) is is the down fall of that soul.. this is the original and only sin all the rest are man made.Jesus was killed because he taught the same thing! the kingdom is not here or there BUT IS WITHIN YOU(Luke 17:21) all religions keep humans in the GREAT SEARCH but never finding GOD you dont have to find god outside of yourself JUST RETURN TO WHAT YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN...but ONLY HAVE FORGOTTEN do more research read the gospel of Thomas and eastern spiritual schools (not religions)this IS the teachings of ALL the great world teachers, Jesus, Buddha,Yogananda,Emerson, Krishnamurti, Eckhart, Nostradamus,Lao Tzu St. Thomas and many others. very sincerely

Jihadist,

Just think of the money the US taxpayers could save if the Muslim world could come to grips with the historic reality of their book of death!!!!!

Terra Gazelle

You explained : "Wicca is a Anglo Saxon word...it is a religion that uses magick, it came to England in the 5th century, Pagan england. It is pronounced Wi-cha or Witch. From Witchacreaft to Witchcraft.I love the word...Witch."

Thanks. I love that word Witch too, and all associated with it, including bewitching as a compliment to a woman.

In the discussion on whether there should be Pagan chaplains, some randon thoughts and nutshell points to thrash or stretch:) -

- Believers of all persuasions still are the majority in the US, have more votes and pay more taxes. So, they have more say on chaplains.

- Believers are believed to be the cause of wars and hence, should be allowed to fight in battles in the name of God/Supreme Being/Great Goddess King/President and country.

- Believers should have chaplains of their respective religious persuasions to pray before battle, to be given the last rites when dying or dead according to their beliefs when fallen in battles, and to be counseled by their respective belief's chaplains in the aftermath of battles.
As for atheists, we can always have counsellors trained in psychiary for therapy for the same purpose of willing into battles, and steeling after the horrors of battles.

- If it make no sense to have Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist or Pagan or Mormon chaplains due to their minority status and small numbers in the US military, we can always economise by forming belief exclusive groups of troops, say, the 1st All Pagan Airborne Division, or the First All Buddhist Marine Battalion.

And or course, the US military can afford chaplains of all religious persuasions and beliefs, including for Bahais and Jains and Scientologists, if the US military redeploy the budget for just one less submarine, one less aircraft carrier, one less Stealth bomber, one less nuclear warhead for chaplains. And even then, the US military will still be the mightiest.

Military hardware over people? Even atheists would be churlish to deny people going into battle on what gives them the greatest strenth to overcome their fears and grief of war. If some are the secular humanists they say they are, surely they have not forgotten the humanist part. Not all soldiers going into battles and wars and deal with the personal impact of battles and war with hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, bong and such. The God delusion is preferable over the drug delusion for many in this.

Chaplains for all of all religious persuasions, and counsellors for atheists.

Have a great weekend Terra.

Best regards as ever
J

Hermit,

I don't think my stance is irrational simply because I can't dissect it to the nth degree for you. I will list a handful of things I believe reasonably point to an intelligence behind the universe:

* The existence of past, present, and future demands a starting point

*Finite universe which had a beginning, implying causation

* Scientific discoveries consistently reveal the appearance of an astonishing degree of intelligence in the design and exact, multifaceted fine-tuning of the natural universe, all necessary to produce and sustain complex, conscious life

* Being cannot arise from strict nonbeing

* Solid compiled proof for the reality of the human soul

* The persistent enigma of consciousness

* Laws of logic

* Laws of physics

* Light

* The existence of moral absolutes (a moral law)

* The astonishing miracle of human intelligence

* The ability of the human psyche to comprehend and appreciate the goodness of truth, love, beauty and compassion

The miracle of existence which is our universe, and everything in it, is merely a dumb accident according to the atheist. That is, frankly, an absurd conclusion, and anyone needing a detailed explanation for WHY it is an absurd conclusion is just pulling the wool over their own eyes. As the saying goes, there are none who are so blind as those who *will not* see. Now, go ahead and call me irrational because I make such an inference, but I and countless others throughout world history hold that it is actually irrational to say that we must conclude that the astounding, infinitely multifaceted miracle of our reality must have arisen by accident, unless it can be proved otherwise.

In my view, atheism is like the child who imagines that he is hiding from his parents by covering his eyes.

'But here is another argument in favor of atheism, as opposed to either polytheistic or monotheistic religion. Atheism costs the taxpayers nothing. We really don't pick anyone's pocket. We don't need chaplains, churches, or astrologers, and we don't ask the public to foot the bill for faith-based initiatives.'

There are a lot of things I wouldn't support in the name of science, ie. 'Stem-cell research'. IMO, that's taking one life for another. You might say it doesn't involve killing one person, so really it involves only helping a person. But when it comes to chaplains, churches, or astrologers I see it only helping a person too.

"While I welcome the diversity, I think it makes the concept of the chaplain corps irrelevant and unworkable. There's simply no way the military can satisfy all religions."

I think that if you stopped thinking of 'no' and 'never' and 'all' and understood that the reality of *clergy* is *working it,* this idea would be less problematic to you.

The 'unworkable' is our business.

Those that get over the 'all's and 'onlies' can handle that end of the job, trust me.

This is mostly about policy, not theology.

Tonoi

Politicians. Many are in bed with these far right religious goups and will do anything to appease them. Just look at John Mcain who had go to kiss Pat Robertson's ring. Politicians will sell all out for their own gain. That is what will happen Money Power. These groups have it. I will away until later but I'd like to here more about this .

Eric says:

"Hermit, I can't at the moment explain WHY I don't feel that a sentient cause is exempt from my rule of causation other than it just seems obvious that an ultimate Creator would have to be uncaused, and that a non-sentient "Thing" creator would have to be finite by definition, because a thing is something defined by its boundaries."

I guess you need to ask yourself why this seems obvious to you. It doesn't seem obvious to me at all. You asked for my comments; I'll give you some more questions instead: Why would a non-sentient thing be finite "by definition?" How do you define God, by the way? Or is God undefined? If so, how is an undefined God different from no God at all? And why should we take your definitions as written?

And finally, since you now appear to be admitting that you have nothing more than a feeling to go on, can we take that as a retreat from your initial comment here, in which you denounced atheists for calling theism "irrational" and claimed that "It is only rational and logical to arrive at the conclusion that since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause..." and that therefore "...The God of the Bible is eternal and infinite, and had no beginning. He therefore had no cause. God was (and is) the Existence behind existence. There is no other rational explanation for the cause of the universe."

You've gone from the God of Bible (not just any generic deist god, but the Judeo-Christian God) being the only rational explanation for the existence of anything to a feeling you have that you can't explain. But if it's just a feeling it is not a conclusion based on reason, and therefore "irrational", while perhaps a bit rude sounding is not entirely an inaccurate description of the basis of your belief.

Regards

A Hermit

"There would never be volunteers it would cost the tax payer dearly not to mention religious freedom."

How would that be the case? Assume that all religions would be welcome, the civilians would pay their own costs, and firm rules against coercion and solicitation would be in place.

Tonio that was me jwest on the last post not anonymous

By the way, didn't mean to go all 'vet' on everyone. MWR stands for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation.. They usually run (or once did) the libraries, auto-hobby shops, swimming pools and other non-shooting parts of military bases.

Tonio..Yes indeed it had all to do with a the many evangelical groups in Colo Sprgs. Jim Dodson and the rest. This is what I was referring to in my last post. Give the fox the chicken coop. There would never be volunteers it would cost the tax payer dearly not to mention religious freedom. We don't need to give these groups excuses to raid the tax coffers at the same time forcing themselves on the military.

JWEST:
And regards to Tonio;
I did not mean to imply 'outsourcing' the chaplaincy. I'm calling for and end to the concept entirely. No one denomination, or church could pwn the spirituality of the soldiers, sailors, marines, than could a single car insurance company strong-arm their services over another. The GI’s themselves hold the decision. A hundred zealots could pack a dozen tents onto a base, but if the GI’s don’t voluntarily enter those tents, then the zealots are gonna be pretty bored. As ‘guests’ on the bases, just as the press corps already is, the zealots would have to obey the rules common to all. ‘No Solicitation’ . They can’t wander around the camp stuffing leaflets into Stryker vehicle and F16 windshields, or go door to door in the camps… These things are not allowed now among visitors, guests, contractors, etc. currently serving on military bases.
Sure they could set up a grand lobster buffet, a rock-band, and try to draw in passers-by, but that’s about it.
Denominations, various religions, would be treated exactly like private clubs are now. Able to rent meeting space from MWR, able to hold meetings within existing guidelines, but not allowed to force attendance or acceptance, and since none of the ‘isms would hold military rank or the presumption of sanction.
The military pays nothing. In fact the ‘isms would have to reimburse the MWR , etc for use of facilities. The same way franchises (McDonalds, Taco Bell etc) must pony up to open up on military property now.

JWest,

You're exactly right about the agenda of groups such as Focus on the Family. Without speaking for Densbtly, I don't think the proposal was for "turning the chaplaincy over to organized religious groups." The proposal called for volunteer "civilian missionaries, at their expense and discretion embedded with troops." Since these wouldn't be chaplains, no tax money would be involved at all, as I understand the proposal. I don't see this as the same as outsourcing.

Can there really be any such people as pagans?

I do not know any.

I thought that in the time of the early Christian Church, "pagan" referred to the Greco-Roman characterizations of religion. Didn't the Greeks believe in the superman-like Gods of Mount Olympus? And didn't the Romans believe in the "numina" spirits of abstract conceptions? like for instance, the numina of prosperity, or the numina of summer? and stuff like that?

And then later, didn't the official Roman Church apply the word "pagan" to the Germanic and Nordic barbarians, as well? And then later, wasn't it just a mean-spirited name to call anyone who was not a "good Christian," sort of like the Moslems now call people they don't like "infidels?"

In he Middle Ages people who might be misfits, or odd, or who had trouble complying with authority were persecuted as witches, and a whole belief system was invented about their powers of black magic and soccery, and their communion with the devil. These people were all said to be pagan. But this black magic, this soccery, is surely the invented delusions of orthodox relgious paranoia, which continues to this day.

I do not know anyone who identifies himself as a pagan. So, the whole pagan-thing is difficult for me to imagine. But, surely, to be a pagan or to be a participant in a "wicca" religion cannot be a serious thing, but must have some degree of irony and humor to it.

I believe that many people believe many strange things. Religious argument is fruitless and pointless, because people cannot be argued out of their beliefs. Most people will not change their beliefs, simply because you, or anyone, points out how "ridiculous" their beliefs are.

This whole question, about pagan chaplains in the military, is absurd. Why, really, should we have any chaplains in the military? I do not think that Christianity and the military, really mix very well. However, there are cultually entrenched traditions, which are not going to change, just because they give me heartburn.

Rob Adams:

"Ben made the comment that “There is no ultimate, unchanging reality. Reality is a System, and is always becoming.”. And later said “But I think the evidence may only support the 'uncaused' aspect, because there is no repetitive or ongoing "creation" that provides a basis for the 'eternal' or 'unchanging' aspects.”. Very interesting Ben, in one aspect I believe you are correct that reality is a system. However your conclusion of uncaused depends on what time frame you look at. If a person believed in reincarnation for example then the process becomes on ongoing. As well the aspect of all things have already happened makes repeatability a mute point. If I have both killed a man in one reality and did not in another what would be the requirement for judgment? I believed in Christ in one reality and in another I did not? The eternal result is then simply something that ‘happened’ that time around."

Interesting comments. I don't have much time here but I will make one comment on the above quoted paragraph. What I described was the ancient basis for eternal Being, which assumes that time is the paramount axis of reality.

When we make time to be equivalent to all other axes - physical distance, electron state, etc. - in our reality space, we still note 'beginnings' and 'ends'. These beginnings and ends may not be continuous along the axis of time, but that is not necessary. We still note that there are no creations along any axis that we can observe.

Thus we are left with the assumption that god continues along his own axis of reality, unseen in our system of nature. And we still lack a basis for any eternal, unchanging nature of Being. No consistent, modern replacement exists, to my knowledge, for the ancient basis of eternal Being.

I have to respectfully disagree with Densbtly on outsourcing the chaplains. Whereas I agree as I stated in a previous post that the chaplain serves two masters and that can be a little disconcerting to some soldiers, it is still better that turning the chaplaincy over to organized religious groups. Group like focus on the family and other hard right religious groups want nothing better than to run the military chaplaincy. For one thing the government would have to pay these groups, more wasted tax dollars, and give them all the power to literally lord over every person in uniform. The down side would be catastrophic. Complete control of our military by hard right wing christian groups using tax payer money. Now that would be heaven for some hell for most. By the way everyone knows that most of our politicians are too weak to go against these religious groups. I say let the military handle it themselves with all their rules in place to give everyone equality

JWest, why did the scandal happen at Colorado Springs and not, say, Annapolis or West Point? Was it simply the influence of the many evangelical organizations in that town? Do you suspect that the Pentagon was complicit in the scandal? While I agree with you about outside pay for chaplains, do you think that such scandals may be avoided by eliminating chaplains in favor of volunteer civilian missionaries?

Thanks Tonio!

I’ve given this more thought, and would like to re-present the notion, and expound.

I spent nine years in the USAF, during the cold war, and met and chatted with several chaplains, nice fellows generally. For a couple of reasons though I never fully confided in them. 1. They were commissioned officers. They were saluted, housed, and otherwise enjoyed the respect and comfort of the officer corps. This duality left me, a mere protestant enlisted grunt, a little less than comfortable confiding completely. 2. There were in my stationings, generally three types of chaplain, 1. catholic, 2. Jewish, 3. 'protestant'. As a methodist by upbringing, I often found myself lumped in with Baptist, AG, COC, etc. My dog tags read: "Protestant". So in my experience there have been, and are many denominations and belief systems not represented in the chaplain corps, nor could that be done to satisfy the needs of all the various faiths. Why not just do away with the chaplain corps, and go to a system much like the press. Civilian missionaries, at their expense and discretion embedded with troops as they can. Many of the protestant denominations would gladly pass a special plate or envelope to send volunteers into a war zone to 'support the troops'. These volunteers would not have the duality problem, the serving of two masters that is perceived as a hindrance to some G.I's. That way, congress, the supreme court, nor even the executive branch would have a hand in the picking, choosing, and rating of faith.

I feel the need to also point out that quite a few military bases, stateside, are near cities, or at least have sizable support communities within a short distance that already have many, many denominations represented. Many of these towns have, in fact, BECAUSE of the diversity within the military base, more options than comparably sized cities. The need for G.I. Chaplains in these areas is much less than say a foreign soil / combat zone deployed unit. In those years that I served, I tended to avoid the Chaplain protestant services, as they were trying to tend to a pretty diverse flock and thus had to avoid many denominationally based sticky points. Baptism itself was a real bother.
At one base overseas (Japan), there was no Jewish Chaplain, the numbers just wouldn’t support one. No real problem. There were within the community of that faith stationed there, two or three that had within that faith the proper credentials/standing to conduct the appropriate services and rituals. As many times as not, they would not even use one of the two or three ‘chapels’, they would simply meet in one of the homes. This was also true for some of the other denominations and faiths, if there wasn’t a chaplain that fit, they would work it out amongst themselves, and I think I recall that a small clutch of LDS’ers were able to get regular visitations from their missionary system to tend to their needs. (BTW, at that time I was well acquainted with some mormons, also a very non-violent group., they tended to be serving their country as medics, etc.)
I really don’t see this as far-fetched. I just passed a church sign this morning inviting people to come meet the ‘missionaries form the Ukraine’ that that church currently supports.. Trust me, ripping away the chaplain corps from the military will not create gaps in the GI’s faith needs.. this 'void’ will get filled very, very quickly by missionaries, volunteers, and stateside church coffers.
And don’t worry about the pagans as they are in the status quo. Like I said, faith is void of a vacuum. The only real debate in my mind is ‘should we continue to allow the tax-payer supported military, dictate, regulate, adjudge, and parse out faith support, and deny it to others.’

I spent 21 in the Army. During my service I came across a situation where I had to ask the chaplain if he was a chaplain or a major. It was no big deal but sometimes the rank gets in the way of the service provided. I do disagree with Susan on outside pay. This would give to much control of the chaplaincy to outside influences such as Jim Dodson. These religious extremism groups like his are trying to get control of the military as evidenced by what's happening at the Air Force Academy. Forcing cadets to proselytize with punishment if they don't. It's okay for the Air Force Academy chaplains to go after the "unchurhed" and try to force conversions. Jews were punished for being Jewish. Air Force commanders were involved and condoned this activity. This is still going on and there is at least one counter group ( Mike Weinstein ) fighting dodson, perkins and others trying to force their way into the military. This man's son was chastized because he was Jewish. As a prior military man I can see the benefit of having chaplains especially while stationed overseas to conduct religions rites and services. But they need to be controlled by the military and need to ensure a neutrality.

Part of the issue is that America has much more religious diversity than even 50 years ago. (One of the other threads discusses how the military didn't even have Jewish chaplains until the Civil War.) While I welcome the diversity, I think it makes the concept of the chaplain corps irrelevant and unworkable. There's simply no way the military can satisfy all religions. I prefer Densbtly's idea of civilian missionaries, getting the military completely out of the religion business.

If religion would just go away for a month we would have a 80% less violence in the world. Then when it came back all would see an 80+% increase in violence. Maybe then we could convince people of the destructiveness of organized religion.

Eric S.
I’ve been watching your dialog with interest, and would like to toss in an unsolicited thought.
“it just seems obvious that an ultimate Creator would have to be uncaused”
Is pretty much the key to it all. That statement is not debatable, disprovable, or frankly logical enough to be argued about.
It is an admission, that in spite of all the effort to justify, explain, or prove, that basically says, “I believe what I believe without question, or logic.” Which is fine. That in a sense defines ‘faith’. All discussion, pro or con, about whether god is created, self-created, or beyond the understanding of finite or infinite is moot. That you believe what you do, and by your own admission can not explain it is really the closing statement.
I have no battle with you, no bitterness, no argument. We(atheists), many of us are really just picking at the theist notion that religion, faith, etc. can be proven. We tend to pounce on, with a passion, those that pretend it is logical, proven or known to be fact.
We also wish to pin to the mat those that want apply a divine, superior, manifest set of rules and codes to those of us that do not subscribe to them.
We are really not so far apart, as it has been said many, many times, we simply believe in one less god than you.
I will for a tedious moment counter your ‘Near Death Experience’ parables. Death is generally accepted to mean the end of brain function. That a person’s heart starts beating, or brain activity hibernates or slows to a fraction, does not meet the standard of ‘death’. The brain can and does keep functioning, sometimes at marginal levels until irreparably damaged by decay. The lapse of time between perceived death, and actual death, even by qualified attending technicians, is not insignificant. It is not like turning off a light, which throws the entire room dark in milliseconds. It is more like the dying of a flame; in degrees, cooling down over time. If this were not true, reanimation would not be physically possible. Those that have experienced NDE’s are likely in a near-comatose, decaying state, and may in fact be subconsciously aware of surroundings, noise and activity. As to those that claim to rise out of their carcass and peer down on the scene, that is quite likely a dream-like interpretation of the events. This is a simpler explanation, thus more likely in our minds, because to believe that a person did indeed have an external consciousness while dead, requires a huge metaphysical universe to exist and be involved. Whether they are fairies, unicorns, angels, trolls, a cloaked guy with a scythe, all require things that can only be believed, not actually displayed or proven. NDE’s are only evidence for the ‘soul’ if one believes, through faith alone, that a soul exists in the first place. To the rest of us it is merely evidence that the actual process of dying takes longer than is commonly assumed.

A few of us in our excitement hijacked part of this thread so again my apologies to the Pagans! To speak directly to the question at hand I would have no problem with a Pagan chaplain or voting for one if they were ‘the best’ candidate in my mind.

There has been chatter on other panelist posts about Paganism not really being a religion but a set of beliefs with wide ranging definition. Regardless of whether that is true I think that is a mute point. Isn’t the concept of the chaplain to provide counseling to the troops?

To me that is a non denominational task.

I don’t think we can realistically assign a counselor for every denomination and one for the atheist. I saw somewhere a post on one thread where someone serving in the armed forces suggested these should be civilian volunteers, including the Christian chaplains.

"So...Ben, your point sounds like the "Deist" belief. Why should I believe that God is still relevant to us? One reason is that many people who are physically dead in the hospital room or the ambulance and then are brought to life again report to their medical technicians having been in a nonphysical body which enabled them to observe the activities, words, and even thoughts of the med techs, and even observe things happening in other locations, which were later verified. This is really powerful evidence for the soul. They also often report of being in the presence of God later in their experience. I have heard of one prominent atheist scientist who reported such an experience, who said that he felt very uncomfortable in the presence of a "red light" who he identified as "an entity who was in charge of the governance of the universe.""

I won't argue with those kinds of observations. My point is not to prove that there is no god, but to explain why, in the modern intellectual landscape, many philosophers, scientists and humanists have moved away from a belief in an eternal creator.

I did have a recurring dream that seemed very theistic once. In the dream there was a thrower, randomly throwing "balls" towards a catcher. The balls were either positive or negative, and the catcher randomly switched between positive and negative. The occurrence of a positive ball landing in the catcher while the catcher was negative, or vice-versa, seemed to signal imminent doom (I am not sure if that ever seemed to happen or not). Throughout the dream, I tried to understand this system. When I would come close to feeling like I understood it, I would literally jump forward in bed, and wake up in utter dread. That was quite a significant experience, one that I might have attributed to an external creator or deity, had I not given up such ideas. Theism is not even intuitive to me now.

I don't see theism as an entirely irrational paradigm. It certainly has it's good points. In answering some questions about human morality, truth, and miracles (if you observe them - I do not), it can be parsimonious.

But I think theism lacks a strong intellectual foundation, and it lacks consistency. It is relatively unchanging, and it cannot be built upon in the way that science or philosophy can. It cannot solve the complex problems that arise from a very high population on a planet with limited resources. In the intellectual realm, theism is a very problematic idea (as I illustrated in my above posts). In a sense, theism has become less relevant in modern times.

I do think Christianity has a role in western society that can't simply be erased. But we can't look to it to solve the hard problems of society anymore. It is like the monarchy in Great Britain - prominent in name only.

This is a nice discussion between Ben, A Hermit and Eric s. And yes apologies to the Pagans for hijacking the thread but it is too fun to talk about in my mind.

Ben.

Your comments are interesting since you are self described atheist. I am a theist, but am an independent when it comes to religion.

“If the self were something demonstrably separate from the body and material means of communication, then the lens of theism would certainly make a lot more sense. It might even be the most elegant explanation of morality and "free will".”

I would put forward that the evidence, though not conclusive proof, of out of body experiences suggests that indeed there is more than the body. See Robert Monroe’s experience and work on this. I found it fascinating. The other thing that leads me to conclude in a supreme being is people’s conversations with God. The true conversations are few and far between, but I believe there has been authentic dialogue with ‘the creator’, the latest being Neal Donald Walsch.

“In that case, every action by every human would be a new "creation",”

Absolutely correct! I believe we create our own reality in the physical world. It is like building a sand castle on grain of sand at a time. You can’t tell exactly what it is when you start or even part way through but eventually you build something you can recognize.

“The only creation left is the universe itself, and that was certainly a very long time ago. So in fact, if there is a creator, "He" does not seem to be unchanging. Everything in nature is a series of becomings,”

From my perspective you have again hit the nail on the head. I happen to believe that God is both the creator and the created and hence always changing. In some manner of speaking we do create God. Our understanding is incomplete and as we learn more we change our definition or understanding of God. Typically I think we are too slow to change our definition, but that is another thread for another time.

As A Hermit said “the argument that linear time demands a beginning doesn't do a thing for your God hypothesis since that is a hypothesis about something that must exist before or outside of time.”

As many scientists have hypothesized there concept of multiple time lines or in reality the fact that liner time does not really exist. Again nothing we can prove to date, but we are working on it! The idea that everything that can and would/will happen has already happened is a fascinating idea that opens up enormous possibilities. This is similar to the world is flat, then it is not dramatically changes our concept of reality.

Ben made the comment that “There is no ultimate, unchanging reality. Reality is a System, and is always becoming.”. And later said “But I think the evidence may only support the 'uncaused' aspect, because there is no repetitive or ongoing "creation" that provides a basis for the 'eternal' or 'unchanging' aspects.”. Very interesting Ben, in one aspect I believe you are correct that reality is a system. However your conclusion of uncaused depends on what time frame you look at. If a person believed in reincarnation for example then the process becomes on ongoing. As well the aspect of all things have already happened makes repeatability a mute point. If I have both killed a man in one reality and did not in another what would be the requirement for judgment? I believed in Christ in one reality and in another I did not? The eternal result is then simply something that ‘happened’ that time around.

God if he/she exists, I say yes, he is unbounded and can not be put in a box. In my worldview this makes room for all people both theist and atheist, Pagan and Christian. It makes us free, it lifts us up and opens us up to understanding more about God and thus allows us to live a life more like God and thus brings us closer to God. I think we cheat ourselves if we pin a definition on God and leave it there forever.

Until we can understand enough to KNOW what was before the big bang or KNOW what is in the afterlife then we are probably best served by continuing to explore and keep an open mind. The possibilities are endless.

A Hermit and Ben,
I have to say that I am pretty impressed with you guys. You are really pinning me down as no one has done before, which is good experience for me. I need to be able to back up my assertions to people at your level of intellect. I am no genius and I admit it is not easy for me. It may be easy for Christian philosophers like J.P Moreland and William Lane Craig, but I am just a simple layman. BTW, here is the URL to these philosophers http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/index.php
...if you care to hear some lectures by heavyweights, with titles like...
"The God Delusion? Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the Meaning of Life"

So...Ben, your point sounds like the "Deist" belief. Why should I believe that God is still relevant to us? One reason is that many people who are physically dead in the hospital room or the ambulance and then are brought to life again report to their medical technicians having been in a nonphysical body which enabled them to observe the activities, words, and even thoughts of the med techs, and even observe things happening in other locations, which were later verified. This is really powerful evidence for the soul. They also often report of being in the presence of God later in their experience. I have heard of one prominent atheist scientist who reported such an experience, who said that he felt very uncomfortable in the presence of a "red light" who he identified as "an entity who was in charge of the governance of the universe."
An interesting part of that story was that even after having this experience, he would not budge from his atheism. Shows that even personal experience may not move someone who is attached to their position.
I have other reasons for believing but I'll leave it at that for now.
Hermit, I can't at the moment explain WHY I don't feel that a sentient cause is exempt from my rule of causation other than it just seems obvious that an ultimate Creator would have to be uncaused, and that a non-sentient "Thing" creator would have to be finite by definition, because a thing is something defined by its boundaries.
I really can't go beyond this at this time, but I'd be interested in what your comments would be to these things.

Concerned, thanks for the link. You're right about the history of religious prejudice. And I'm certainly not suggesting that a judge who is an orthodox Catholic will always base his decisions on his religious belief.

My concern was with any extremist religious doctrine, such as Traditionalism, that doesn't acknowledge a separation between the doctrine and secular law. (I know a few Christians who insist that biblical law trumps secular law.)

However, I suspect that the Administration nominated the justices based mostly on their pro-life views. Perhaps the White House believed that a pro-life nominee who wasn't, say, a fundamentalist, would face less opposition in Congress. That's all guesswork, but I would welcome another explanation.

Tonio:
The military already has a system like MLB, in a sense. Some preferred, 'non-mainline' denom's and religions are blocked from representation by the 'majorities', at taxpayer expense. So what if a particular denom sends 100 zealots to each base... they can only tend to those that volunteer to seek them out... On military bases, solicitation,and many other behaviors is barred anyhow. The zealots could not stand in a soldier's path and pull him into a tent. The priests, rabbi's warlocks, whatever, would be allowed to rent/borrow space, that's all..

Tonio,

See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901270.html for a review about the five Catholic Supreme Court justices recent rulings.

For a long period of time there were no Catholics on the Supreme Court because of religious prejudices. That is genereally no longer the case. Like with most US Catholics, the Supreme Court Justices probably are not followers of the "rules" of "celibate", old white European males and make their own decisions about things like birth control and obligatory Sunday Mass.

Eric S:

The point is that the world no longer seems like a repetition of external causes, and thus there is no longer any reason to posit an eternal external Being behind reality. There is still a possible reason to posit an ultimate cause, because the existence of the universe is still unexplained. But there is no reason to assume that some cause is eternal or unchanging. An external, eternal, unchanging Being was not a bad explanation of reality when the world seemed to be governed externally in a repetitive manner. Previously, the 'eternal' and 'unchanging' aspects of Being were derived from the repetitive aspects of seemingly supernatural events ("creations" such as storms).

So the burden of proof is on you to provide a reason why there is an eternal, unchanging Being behind reality. I will admit, for the sake of argument, that there is some cause of the universe. I'll even say that the cause is god. But you need to explain why you think god is still alive and kicking in light of the fact that he seems to have met an untimely demise just as he created our universe (there is no evidence of any causes from without, external causes, supernatural events, in human history).

To reiterate, there was a reason, in the ancient world, to posit an eternal, unchanging Being. But in the modern world, we no longer seem to observe repetitive, externally caused events. We have corrected the error in reason that led the ancient world to posit an eternal Being. We are left with some of the intuitions associated with the idea of an eternal Being, but without any logical reasons to support it.

Densbtly,

"Why not just do away with the chaplain corps, and go to a system much like the press. Civilian missionaries, at their expense and discretion embedded with troops as they can. Many of the protestant denominations would gladly pass a special plate or envelope to send volunteers into a war zone to 'support the troops'. These volunteers would not have the duality problem, the serving of two masters that is perceived as a hindrance to some G.I's."

In theory, your solution sounds excellent. But I suspect that this would produce the same problems in the military that it has produced in Major League Baseball. The evangelical Christian ministry Baseball Chapel seems to have exclusive access to clubhouses, apparently at the request of players and their union. The Ryan Church scandal two years ago raised questions as to whether Baseball Chapel was promoting anti-Semitism.

Apologies for the 'double paste'

I spent nine years in the USAF, during the cold war, and met and chatted with several chaplains, nice fellows generally. For a couple of reasons though I never fully confided in them. 1. They were comissioned officers. They were saluted, housed, and otherwise enjoyed the respect and comfort of the officer corps. This duality left me, a mere protestant enisted grunt, a little less than comfortable confiding completely. 2. There were in my stationings, generally three types of chaplain, 1. Catholic, 2. Jewish, 3. 'protestant'. As a methodist by upbringing, I often found myself lumped in with Baptist, AG, COC, etc. My dogtags read: "Protestant". So in my experience there have been, and are many denominations and belief systems not represented I spent nine years in the USAF, during the cold war, and met and chatted with several chaplains, nice fellows generally. For a couple of reasons though I never fully confided in them. 1. They were commissioned officers. They were saluted, housed, and otherwise enjoyed the respect and comfort of the officer corps. This duality left me, a mere protestant enlisted grunt, a little less than comfortable confiding completely. 2. There were in my stationings, generally three types of chaplain, 1. Catholic, 2. Jewish, 3. 'protestant'. As a methodist by upbringing, I often found myself lumped in with Baptist, AG, COC, etc. My dog tags read: "Protestant". So in my experience there have been, and are many denominations and belief systems not represented in the chaplain corps, nor could that be done to satisfy the needs of all the various faiths. Why not just do away with the chaplain corps, and go to a system much like the press. Civilian missionaries, at their expense and discretion embedded with troops as they can. Many of the protestant denominations would gladly pass a special plate or envelope to send volunteers into a war zone to 'support the troops'. These volunteers would not have the duality problem, the serving of two masters that is perceived as a hindrance to some G.I's. That way, congress, the supreme court, nor even the executive branch would have a hand in the picking, choosing, and rating of faith.

Ben: "There is no ultimate, unchanging reality. Reality is a System, and is always becoming" Like wow; that's heavy man....;-)

Sorry, had a little flashback there...Actually that's a very useful way of looking at it. The universe is constantly changing; it is a collection of events, which influence one another. The first event we are able to describe is the "Big Bang" and beyond that we can't even observe, so all is inference at best, and mostly speculation.

-----------

Eric says:

"I simply think it seems more reasonable to assume that mysterious qualities like consciousness and life were brought about in some way by a conscious, living being, rather than by unconscious, non-living processes."

Yes, you have made that assertion a number of times. What you haven't done is demonstrate WHY this should be taken as more reasonable. What is is about a proposed conscious first cause that makes it exempt from the "everything must have a cause" rule you insist must apply to all other possible explanations. And I'm sorry, but the reasoning behind the suggestion that "like must come from like"looks like the same kind of superficial, "common-sense" reasoning that led people to believe the world was flat. It sounds right, intuitively, but the truth is more subtle. Like comes from similar. Once you introduce that element of change you open up whole new fields of possibility. Go back billions of years over countless interactions and events (as Ben describes) and you can see that the first event can't be expected to look a whole lot the current ones occurring in this little corner of the Universe.

In any case, ther is nothing inherent in a conscious process which makes it any less subject to your causation rule. If you insist on applying that rule to other explanations you must apply it to your own, and I see you take a stab at it here, but you end up in the same place, except instead of one god you have a series of gods, ultimately springing from your new "proto-god" who is now subject to the same argument. And this is your idea of a "simpler" explantion?!

In the end, you are left with an argument from incredulity; you just cannot see how it could be other than your intuitive understanding. But this is not reasoning so much as a lack of imagination.

Truth is we just don't know what exists outside our Universe. It might be "nonexistence"; it might be other universes, it might even be God (although I haven't heard of anyone doing the math on that one); but to say that you know what it is, and that no other explanation is possible seems a little premature to say the least.

What we see in the natural world are natural processes. No one plans or designs the weather or ecosystems. We have developed an ability to observe and some techniques for describing these processes, and we call that sentience or consciousness, but to think that this process of description can be projected onto the universe itself and assumed to be at work in all things is backwards thinking. It is creating God in our image.

Regards

A Hermit

Actually, Rome was fully Christian by the time it was invaded by the Visigoths. Constantine called the Council of Nicea in 316 AD. Alaric and the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 AD. The "Pagan debauchery" was generally under Nero, Caligula, and Heliogabalus (sp?). Just shows what lead water pipes and inbreeding among the ruling classes can lead to.

Stated above:

>>And the word Pagan does not mean polytheism, but country person.

Wow, now these pagans even dispute Merriam Webster

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pagan

Like, who's wrong about you next, pagans?

Get real. Notice the reference to ROME in the M-W definitions. A society with pagans at the helm would fall flat on its face. Read about the debauchery of society before Rome fell....or keep your heads in the sand.

Concerned,

"Having five Catholic Supreme Court justices is significantly better than having five Nazi or Muslim Supreme Court judges."

Valid point. However, I assumed Susan wasn't criticizing the justices themselves but the possible motives of Bush for nominating them. My theory is that Bush hoped to establish an anti-Roe V. Wade majority on the court to please his party.

Do you know if any of the five justices are extremist Traditionalist Catholics, like Richard Mellon Scaife or Tom Monaghan or Hutton Gibson? That breakaway wing of Catholicism seems very reactionary and theocratic to me.

My larger point is it's not necessarily the religious affiliation of the public official, but the official's commitment to the First Amendment principle of government neutrality among competing religions. If a Wiccan judge had an agenda to establish a Wiccan theocracy, that would be just as wrong and dangerous as if an extremist Christian judge had an agenda to establish a Christian theocracy.

Mary Cunningham wrote: "Précis:

Atheism is cheap.

All religions are pretty bad but polytheism is no worse than them. Once was powerful and wicked (and widespread) but now is weak and silly. As an evangelizing atheist, SJ can tolerate a religion that is the latter. SJ rails against Supreme Court: names Catholics (have all been appointed by GWB? Think not. But SJ can't be bothered to look it up &, anyway,Catholics are all the same). Calls them Neanderthals. [This denounciation will probably raise a good response from atheists who avidly follow SJ's various rages and rants.]"

SJ this, SJ that. Funny you don't use her name yet have a fit when somebody doesn't use your full name. Typical christian.

The WEXNER ANALYSIS: How Israel convinced the US that they were one and the same
This is a research commissioned by Israel on the American people. I sent it out several times when it first appeared, but it wasn't really taken seriously then by American friends. I think that the situation may have changed now..., so here it is again.

http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=1789

The Luntz Research Companies & The Israel Project - April 2003

Israeli Communications Priorities 2003

ADC has obtained, and is publishing in full, a vital new Israeli propaganda strategy document for the period following the war in Iraq.

The document, entitled “Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communications Priorities 2003,” was prepared for the Wexner Foundation, which operates leadership training programs such as the “Birthright Israel” project which offers free trips for young Jewish Americans to Israel, by the public relations firm the Luntz Research Companies and the Israel Project. However, please note that the report’s suggested language is written in a distinctly Israeli, as opposed to a Jewish American, voice.

WEXNER ANALYSIS:
ISRAELI COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES 2003

OVERVIEW

The world has changed. The words, themes and messages on behalf of Israel must include and embrace the new reality of a post-Saddam world.

In the past, we have urged a lower profile for Israel out of a fear that the American people would blame Israel for what was happening in the rest of the Middle East. Now is the time to link American success in dealing with terrorism and dictators from a position of strength to Israel's ongoing efforts to eradicate terrorism on and within its borders. In the current political environment, you have little to lose and a lot to gain by aligning with America. With all the anti-Americanism across the globe and all the protests and demonstrations, we are looking for allies that share our commitment to security and an end to terrorism and are prepared to say so. Israel is a just such an ally.

THE NEXT STEP

The fact that Israel has remained relatively silent for the three months preceding the war and for the three weeks of the war was absolutely the correct strategy - and according to all the polling done, it worked. But as the military conflict comes to a close, it is now time for Israel to lay out its own "road map" for the future which includes unqualified support for America and unqualified commitment to an ongoing war against terrorism.

Perceptions of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are being almost entirely colored and often overshadowed by the continuing action in Iraq. Partisan differences still exist (the political Left remains your problem) and complaints about Israeli heavy-handedness still exist. Advocates of Israel have about two weeks to get their message in order before world attention turns to the so-called "road map" and how best to "solve" the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Developing that message is the purpose of this memo.

Author's note: This is not a policy document. This document is strictly a communications manual. As with every memo we provide, we have used the same scientific methodology to isolate specific words, phrases, themes and messages that will resonate with at least 70% of the American audience. There will certainly be some people, particularly those on the political left, who will oppose whatever words you use, but the language that follows will help you secure support from a large majority of Americans. These recommendations are based on two "dial test" sessions in Chicago and Los Angeles conducted during the first ten days of the Iraqi war for the Wexner Foundation.

ESSENTIAL CONCLUSIONS

This document is rather long because it is impossible to communicate all that is needed in simple one-sentence sound-bites. Yes, we have provided those on the pages that follow, but we have taken the space to explain why the language is so important and the context in which it needs to be used. If you only read two pages, these are the key conclusions:

1) Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. The worldview Americans is entirely dominated by developments in Iraq. This is a unique opportunity for Israelis to deliver a message of support and unity at a time of great international anxiety and opposition from some of our European "allies." For a year - a SOLID YEAR - you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people. Saddam will remain a powerful symbol of terror to Americans for a long time to come. A pro-Israeli expression of solidarity with the American people in their successful effort to remove Saddam will be appreciated.

2) Stick to your message but don't say it the same way twice. We have seen this in the past but never so starkly as today. Americans are paying very close attention to international developments and are particularly sensitive to any kind of apparent dogma or canned presentations. If they hear you repeating the exact same words over and over again, they will come to distrust your message. If your speakers can't find different ways to express similar principles, keep them off the air.

3) It DOES NOT HELP when you compliment President Bush. When you want to identify with and align yourself with America, just say it. Don't use George Bush as a synonym for the United States. Even with the destruction of the Hussein regime and all the positive reactions from the Iraqi people, there still remains about 20% of America that opposes the Iraqi war, and they are overwhelmingly Democrat. That leaves about half the Democrats who support the war even if they don't support George Bush.

4) Conveying sensitivity and a sense of values is a must. Most of the best-performing sound bites mention children, families, and democratic values. Don't just say that Israel is morally aligned with the U.S. Show it in your language. The children component is particularly important. It is essential that you talk about "the day, not long from now, when Palestinian children and Israeli children will play side-by-side as their parents watch approvingly."
5) "SECURITY" sells. Security has become the key fundamental principle for all Americans. Security is the context by which you should explain Israeli need for loan guarantees and military aid, as well as why Israel can't just give up land. The settlements are our Achilles heel, and the best response (which is still quite weak) is the need for security that this buffer creates.

6) The language in this document will work, but it will work best when it is accompanied with passion and compassion. Too many supporters of Israel speak out of anger or shout when faced with opposition. Listeners are more likely to accept your arguments if they like how you express them. They will bless these words but they will truly accept them if and only if they accept you.

7) Find yourself a good female spokesperson. In all our testing, women are found to be more credible than men. And if the woman has children, that's even better.

8) Link Iraqi liberation with the plight of the Palestinian people. It is likely that the most effective argument(s) you have right now are those that link the right of the Iraqi people to live in freedom with the right of the Palestinian people to be governed by those who truly represent them. If you express your concern for the plight of the Palestinian people and how it is unfair, unjust and immoral that they should be forced to accept leaders who steal and kill in their name, you will be building credibility for your support of the average Palestinian while undermining the credibility of their leadership.

9) A little humility goes a long way. You saw this with your own eyes. You need to talk continually about your understanding of "the plight of the Palestinians" and a commitment to helping them. Yes, this IS a double standard (no one expects anything pro-Israeli from the Palestinians) but that's just the way things are. Humility is a bitter pill to swallow, but it will inoculate you against critiques that you have not done enough for peace. Admit mistakes, but then show how Israel is the partner always working for peace.

10) Of course rhetorical questions work, don't they? Ask a question to which there is only one answer is hard to lose. It is essential that your communication be laced with rhetorical questions, which is how Jews talk anyway.

11) Mahmoud Abbas is still a question mark. Leave him that way. You stand much more to lose by attacking him now. But similarly, he is not worthy of praise. Talk about your hopes for the future, but lay out the principles you expect him to uphold: an end to violence, a recognition of Israel, reform of his own government, etc.

THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT WORDS: SADDAM HUSSEIN (STILL)

This document is about language, so let me be blunt. "Saddam Hussein" are the two words that tie Israel to America and are most likely to deliver support in Congress. They also just happen to be two of the most hated words in the English language right now.

Without being repetitive, Americans fundamentally believe that a democracy has a right to protect its people and its borders. Unfortunately, as a democracy, we tend to dwell on our failures (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.) more than our successes. It is essential for the long-term support of a strong military and a commitment to national security that we remind people again and again...and again that there are times when it is necessary to take preventative action and that military intervention is better than appeasement.

A WARNING

There are some who would say that Saddam Hussein is already old news. They don't understand history. They don't understand communication. They don't understand how to integrate and leverage history and communication for the benefit of Israel. The day we allow Saddam to take his eventual place in the trash heap of history is the day we loose our strongest weapon in the linguistic defense of Israel.

References to the successful outcome of the war with Iraq benefit Israel. While Americans don't want to increase foreign aid in a time of significant budgetary deficits and painful spending cuts, there is one and only one argument that will work for continuing Israeli aid (in four easy steps):

THE ISRAELI AID MESSAGE TREE

(1) As a democracy, Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend its borders and protect its people.

(2) Prevention works. Even with the collapse of Saddam's regime, terrorist threats remain throughout our region.

(3) Israel is America's one and only true ally in the region. In these particularly unstable and dangerous times, Israel should not be forced to go it alone.

(4) With America's financial assistance, Israel can defend its borders, protect its people, and provide invaluable assistance to the American effort in the war against terrorism.

This is important. All the arguments about Israel being a democracy, letting Arabs vote and serve in government, protecting religious freedom, etc., won't deliver the public support you need to secure the loan guarantees and the military aid Israel needs. All the language we have written in past memos will not work when it comes to U.S. tax dollars. You need a national security angle - one that clearly links the interests of both Israel and America:

WORDS THAT WORK:
SELLING ISRAEL AID (I)

"It was Israel who risked their pilots and planes in taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactors and thus thwarted his quest for nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

It was Israel who provided much of the intelligence that helped America defeat Iraq back in 1991.

It was Israel alone among Middle Eastern nations that supported America's successful effort to remove Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq.

We stood without you against the Saddam regime from beginning to end. Israel has been a key regional asset and military ally of the United States for more than 50 years. That relationship must continue, even and especially in the post-Saddam era. It is a partnership of democracies devoted to the war against terrorism and the fight for freedom."

As we have seen, the news cycle during and immediately following a war is is not a matter of idle curiosity, it is compulsory viewing. Even more than in Israel, where conflict has tragically been almost commonplace, war means a new and real threat to personal and familial security in America. And Saddam Hussein, dead or alive, still embodies that threat.

Americans have been thinking and talking about the war on terror for almost a year and a half now, and they have come to conclude that Saddam Hussein is a sponsor of world terror and is a particular threat to the democracies of the world. New and shocking revelations about the brutality of his regime are discovered daily, which only reinforces American support of military action. But the fact that Hussein was a direct threat to Israel is especially important. Israel opposed his cruel ambitions for decades - a decade longer than the U.S. Remind audiences that Israel and America have common values, but then stress that we also share common enemies.

But deterrence is only half the message. You really do need to emphasize your historic willingness to compromise and sacrifice on behalf of America. This may not play well among some Israeli politicians but it will certainly play extremely well in the States.

WORDS THAT WORK

Damn Bush and his proselytizing, faith-based initiatives!

Eric S
"God, by definition, is the *eternally* existent, Uncaused Cause of his creation"

As an atheist, I have no problem with this definition. Although I dont see why eternally is required. Being the supremely rational person that you are, if you cannot get something out of nothing, the Universe must have come from something. Since before the Universe there was nothing but god, god, or at least parts of god, must have become the Universe. So he did not need to exist once the Universe was created).

But why in god's name do you have to append those other qualifications to him? Like him only saving those people who unquestioningly pray to an undoubtedly remarkable man (note, man). Why do you have to make him this big white dude in the sky, looking down upon us every second? Note, your reasons for rationalizing the belief in god do not preclude me from believing that god is indeed just a flying spaghetti monster, or maybe as South Park suggests, a hamster. Or maybe he isnt even one god, but the pagans had it right all this while. Maybe it was a collaboration of gods/goddesses that created the Universe. Or maybe, just maybe, it was something beyond our imagination, like an undiscovered force (like gravity), that we have not been able to discover yet?

I'm not sure I get Ben's point. I apologize if I am being dense.

Hermit said,

"And you still haven't overcome, or even really addressed that initial, fundamental objection of mine; why should the requirement for a prior cause apply to non-sentient causes but not to your proposed sentient cause? There is nothing in the linear nature of Time since the Big Bang that makes such an exception logically necessary."

I thought I did, but maybe I didn't explain well enough. Maybe I can't, to your liking. I simply think it seems more reasonable to assume that mysterious qualities like consciousness and life were brought about in some way by a conscious, living being, rather than by unconscious, non-living processes. I say that this being is eternal and uncreated, because if this being were itself created, it would fall under the category of "Creation" just like the universe that it created. Then you get an infinite regress of creators who were themselves created, but even such a chain of Gods would have to have had a Proto-God who started it all. A Proto-God would have to be uncreated, ever-existing. I just eliminate the created Gods because a Proto-God would be all that is necessary for the universe to be created. I do not see how it can be a reasonable assumption that mysterious qualities like consciousness and life came out of unconscious, non-living, blind, random processes. I guess that's just somthing that is intuitively obvious to me. I am not sure why it is hard to grasp for some people. For my point, I don't care about the mechanics of how the universe was brought into being; I am only saying that, outside of the universe, there cannot be Nonexistence, and that there must be an existence of some quality, and it must be intelligent, because signs of intelligent design run all the way through the universe, from the subatomic to the universal. That seems to me to be the most simple, explanatory assumption that can be made.

Jahidist,
I am Pagan- a Wiccan, a Witch...

The Word Paganus means Country person... should I allow others to define who I am? would you?

Wicca is a Anglo Saxon word...it is a religion that uses magick, it came to England in the 5th century, Pagan england. It is pronounced Wi-cha or Witch. From Witchacreaft to Witchcraft.I love the word...Witch.

It is the Inquisition that made of the word something bad...it was not up until then. I am a Witch, it tells of who I am..I am a Pagan,a Witch and not defined by my enemies. No matter what we say, how we live there will be those who will not accept us. That is ok...let us have the guarenteed rights of America..they can hate me for my religion, that will not stop me from being who I am.

terra

Eric S:

This is not a simple topic at all, and my post way above regarding the origins of modern theism/deism is highly simplified.

"Also, I don't see why it's necessary that God come to an end simply because He is able to stop doing something he started. The stopping was his will as well as the starting, and it does not necessarily represent a change of mind or intent. And it is really getting presumptuous to say that God is not involved at all in His creation, because things aren't happening the way you want them to. Sometimes it can appear that way, though, even to Christians."

To answer your question, I need to explain my background assumption. It isn't really an assumption on my part, but there isn't time for me to explain it fully...

There is no ultimate, unchanging reality. Reality is a System, and is always becoming.

To explain further: When I say 'beginning', it isn't just the start of something. It could be the force of my elbow against my armrest, where the end is the change in the shape of the armrest. A beginning always has an end, and an end always has a beginning. A beginning could be an external creator, of course. This isn't the same thing as determinism, where everything has a cause. Cause is different from beginning.

When I say that there are no modern "creations", I mean that there are no modern events where it is justified to claim supernatural intervention - something too unreasonable to be considered a part of the system we call the natural world. The only conceivable modern "creation", in my opinion, is the existence of the universe itself. We can leave aside the question of whether the universe has a beginning or not.

However, the basis on which theism was conceived in ancient Greece was the repetitive/iterative nature of storms, wars, seasons, and other unpredictable events that did not fit very cleanly into anything like a scientific paradigm. By such observations, Parmenides basically claimed that change was not possible, because change would require the creation of an event, and "nothing comes from nothing". In other words, storms do not go away, then come back, on their own accord. There must be some essential being that accounts for their repetitive/iterative occurrences.

Christian theologians were highly influenced by the above string of reasoning, and also claimed that god was eternal, uncaused and unchanging. But in the modern world, the only "creation", the universe itself, is not repetitive or iterative. It is a one shot deal, and provides no evidence in support of the hypothesis of an eternal, unchanging, uncaused being behind it all. After all, we see no creations in our universe. The only creation possible is the existence of the universe itself (if that).

You can assume that there is an eternal, uncaused, unchanging being behind reality. But I think the evidence may only support the 'uncaused' aspect, because there is no repetitive or ongoing "creation" that provides a basis for the 'eternal' or 'unchanging' aspects. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is some eternal being behind all of reality.

Susan,

Having five Catholic Supreme Court justices is signficantly better than having five Nazi or Muslim Supreme Court judges. And did you criticize the Supreme Court makeup when it was all-white? (before your time?) All male? All Protestant? All what-ever?

By the way, there is a new Catholicism afoot. You need to read the books by Professor Crossan, an ex-Catholic priest but still a very good Catholic with respect to the basics. Ditto for Father Edward Schillebeeckx. Considering the talents and education of the five Catholic Supremen Court justices, I am sure they have.

Just a reminder about Catholicism/Christianity's foundations:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his 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/Greek/Roman populatons.

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (physical resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions and so noted as such in many Catholic university theology classes).

If it were not for the "bred to kill", koranic crazies, we would need significantly fewer military personnel and therefore significantly fewer chaplins of any religion or pagan cult would be needed.

Jihadist, you should emphasize the eradication of these "bred to kill" crazies in your liberal Islamic commentaries. Until you do, we unbelievers will continue for our own safety to adhere to the following principle:

Gators vs. Muslims-- Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims it depends but with the koran as their operating manual, we cannot trust any of them. The recent conduct of the seven Islamic doctors in Great Britain proves the point.

I think that chaplins of all faiths are needed in the military. I saw many chaplins risk their lives to stay with a wounded man, who was dying and had asked for one. I saw chaplins run from man to man with bullets whizzing everyone while the rest of us kept our heads down as much as possible. If an ahiest does not want a chaplin for last rites, than fine. But other soldiers may want one. And I dislike paying taxes that I consider a waste. Like for politicians of both parties. But like Pimps, pushers, and prostitutes. Politicians are a necessary evil unfortunately. And some would even put preachers and priests on that list too.

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 9:5).

WOW! Interesting. Ya.

"I should emphasize that modern American paganism--and most of the groups represented at the July 4 rally--seem more indebted to flabby New Age spirituality, old anti-rational pseudosciences like astrology, and a mishegass of rituals, authentic and inauthentic, drawn from a wide variety of polytheistic cultures, than to the rational side of classical paganism."

On the contrary, Susan, many modern Pagans are scientists, computer professionals, and others that deal in a logic-based reality every day. They just happen to realize that there is more to life than rationality. There are also many sub-groups of Pagan folk, such as Asatru (Norse Reconstructionists) and the Greek and Roman Reconstructionists, who are working to re-create the ancient religions of the Philosophers. Besides, as the Bard once said, "there is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your reality."

from Susan:
What does a chaplain do, for instance, if a solder confides that he has engaged in torture?

I will tell you as a Priestess and leader what I would tell him. For the good of his own spirit..to turn himself in, to take the punishment. We are responcible for our own actions.It might take counseling for him to be ready to take that action...but if he had come to me to open up to his guilt, then he was ready to face what he needed to. I would help him through it, but we are all responcible for what we do. No devil makes us do anything...

terra

Eric tells us: "There is a logical problem with a universe that is beginningless and eternal but operates within linear time. The fact that there is a present moment where things are happening depends on there having been prior moments where the precursors to the present moment's happenings occurred, and those prior moments (as well as each present moment) derive their position and continuity by a relation to the very first moment of time, without which no moment of time could exist. Linear time demands a beginning."

Yes Linear time demands a beginning. As you pointed out earlier the commonly accepted description of that beginning is the "Big Bang". But since we're talking about the origin of the Universe the question here has to do with how Time itself got started.

You seem to be stuck in a linear construction yourself; you're looking for a cause for the Big Bang in terms of an external actor creating or kicking off the whole process, but in doing so you are assuming a "time before time"; you're asking what happened before the Big Bang, when in fact the concept of "before" doesn't apply, since Time itself did not exist prior to the Big Bang. What we're actually talking about is what happened "outside" our Universe, not "before" it. The laws of physics begin to break down as we approach the Big Bang event, so it becomes difficult to even conceive of the conditions that may have existed prior to, or "outside of" the origin of the universe.

-------

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBB

"What came before the Big Bang?

"The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." "

--------

Now, God may be a more emotionally satisfying explanation for you personally, but it is not a better explanation in logical or rational or empirical or objective terms. There is no evidence of a divine, guiding hand in the Big Bang event itself and before (or more properly beyond or maybe outside) that event nothing is known, and it may be that nothing can be known, (although those whose mathematical abilities are better than mine say they can model some of the ideas about some of what may be out there.)

In short, the argument that linear time demands a beginning doesn't do a thing for your God hypothesis since that is a hypothesis about something that must exist before or outside of time. There is nothing in the Big Bang event itself that requires an intelligent, sentient cause. You are claiming actual knowledge of something of which you cannot possibly have any knowledge, offering no supporting evidence and claiming special status for your assertion by imposing arbitrary limits on alternative explanations which you then refuse to apply to you own explanation.

And you still haven't overcome, or even really addressed that initial, fundamental objection of mine; why should the requirement for a prior cause apply to non-sentient causes but not to your proposed sentient cause? There is nothing in the linear nature of Time since the Big Bang that makes such an exception logically necessary.

In fact, if we apply a version of your own argument we could argue that, if entities cannot come into existence except from a prior, simpler entity (eg Seeds grow into plants, eggs hatch into birds, etc) then the Universe itself had to come from a simpler model of itself, not an intelligent designer, which would have to be, it seems to me, more complex than its creation.

Ok, Just thinking out loud and starting to ramble here...

A Hermit

E N J O Y T H E R I D E , That's What! Ya.

It's True; LET THERE BE P H O T O N S.

P.S. We are in the "Warmth Of Eclat" as + "i" Phenomona. Uuu huuu.

"without which no moment of time could exist. Linear time demands a beginning."

Well, linear time is an experience: the mathematical fact is, there *are no moments.* Otherwise we're stuck back in Zeno's Paradox, where movement is logically impossible. :)

The Hindu notion of all manner of cycles of creation and destruction, and some nice Pagan ones of union of opposites and things arising like waves work very nicely with current physics, actually. The idea of this being an oscillating universe always was a sentimental fave of mine, but, well, what can you do. :)

Ah, it's OK, J, I suppose it's just a bit of a sore spot. I suppose I shouldn't have figured it was like you.

As for historical efforts of people to associate 'Pagan' with 'Anything Bad,' well, that's hardly a fair portrayal, but it's still what we're called. If we made up some other word, we'd still be called that. May as well just reclaim it, as a proud heritage, instead of being cowed away from it.

Do you stop calling yourself 'Muslim' just because some people try to say that means the same thing as 'terrorist?'

Same sort of thing, really.

It's even like LBGT people call ourselves 'Queer' as a group, because a) it says how we're unified by a common struggle, and b) It takes the sting away from the use as a slur.

I've always thought that 'reclaiming the term Witch' might have been a quixotic and counterproductive idea, (I don't really use it, too many of the cultures I used to live among actually were *taught* that's the English word that defines a malevolent practitioner, so it'd just have gotten in the way,) ...but, I think it's a reminder to us that we might well be treated that way by defamers and the disinformed.

To a certain extent, it protects us. We'd be called that anyway, may as well take it on.

I do like the term Neopagan, too, though. It's nice and descriptive, though it's not always taken as an idea involving both heritage and *progress,* but rather an idea someone made all this up whole cloth sixty years ago.

Hermit,
I think I explained why God is a better explanation way back up the posts, and I have copied it here:
"There is a logical problem with a universe that is beginningless and eternal but operates within linear time. The fact that there is a present moment where things are happening depends on there having been prior moments where the precursors to the present moment's happenings occurred, and those prior moments (as well as each present moment) derive their position and continuity by a relation to the very first moment of time, without which no moment of time could exist. Linear time demands a beginning.

This problem (I hope I have explained it adequately), as well as the mountain of evidence for the Big Bang, render the Bhuddist notion of eternal, uncreated universes invalid."

Ben,
I will look into the idea of the big bang being an ending as well as a beginning.
Also, I don't see why it's necessary that God come to an end simply because He is able to stop doing something he started. The stopping was his will as well as the starting, and it does not necessarily represent a change of mind or intent. And it is really getting presumptuous to say that God is not involved at all in His creation, because things aren't happening the way you want them to. Sometimes it can appear that way, though, even to Christians.
...Now I have a clambake to go to, but i will be back later to see what you have written.

Eric S

Paganplace

You stated as per my post : "You know, I really tire of people finding ways to refer to Paganism and Nazism in the same breath.

I object when people do this to Islam, I'd appreciate the courtesy of not turning around and doing it to us."

Oh, my friend. If the above is from Concerned or Frank Collins, both who are different but are homophobic and thinks other beliefs other than their own is ridiculous, I would have ignored it. You have misunderstood my post. I am on the side of minorities oppressed by the tyranny of the majority. The combination of Malay irreverence, irony, sarcasm and ellitical speech does not translate well sometimes.

If I offended you with my post, pardon me. I will be direct here and check my ironical, sarcastic and satirical impulse.

I was thinking of McCarthy, McCarthyism - the witch-hunts against communists in the fifties. I was thinking of the way pagans/wiccans are almost treated this way by the larger public in ways both overt and covert. I have read cases of pagans and wiccans being excluded from inter-faith prayers by the consesus of "accepted religions".

Now, this may or may not make feel better. Susan Jacoby also stated Christians, Muslims and Jews used "pagan" as a pejorative. Yes, and historical not for their beliefs, but applied to those who waged wars in a barbaric manner.

Tamerlane/Timurlame, a Muslim, who called himself "the Scourge of God", was regarded by Muslims whose peoples were raped and murdered, and lands pillaged and plundered by his army, as a pagan.

"Pagan" was used in the context of what is perceived as barbaric behaviors in war and peace as well as the religious beliefs of the perpetrators of barbaric acts. By that, Christians also call Muslims pagans, and Muslims also call Christians pagans in centuries past. Some still do today, not to actually use the word "pagan", but "barbarians", and "uncivilised" or "barbaric" in referring to each other.

I noted that American Pagans wants to be called Pagans with all the historical baggage and slurs associated with it. Why not consider having a different term -say Humanist Naturist? Neo-Polytheists? Yes, I know n***** is a pejorative and slur aganist Black Americans until Black Americans turn it around and use the N word as one compliment among themselves.

Best regards as ever
J

OK, one PS. Eric says: "But I have also asked you to explain why your "pet theory" is better, to your mind."

I told you, I'm not proposing a "pet theory." I'm big enough to admit that I don't know. Given the paucity of evidence surrounding the origins of the Universe and the enormity of the problem I think that's only honest answer to the question.

You're the one telling us you've not only got the answer, but that it's the only possible answer. It's up to you to back up that assertion.

Now I must run, they'll be starting the party without me...

A Hermit

Does life come from non-life? Well we were talking about cosmic origins, not life. If you want to discuss abiogenesis that's another whole kettle of prebiotic soup, but we can start googling up references to RNA, protein chins, self replicating non-biological systems, colloidal solutions etc if you like...;-)

Does intelligence come from non-intelligence? Evolutionary theory suggests it does. Human intellectual ability didn't spring forth fully formed, and we can see some of the stages of that development in the behaviour of other primate species.

But these are silly questions. There's no reason to assume that every antecedent stage must have the same characteristics as its descendants. Do bicycles come from not-bicycles? Is an egg a bird?

In any case, all I've asked is that you demonstrate why the proposition "nothing can come from nothing" must apply to the Universe but not to some (as yet undefined) entity called "God". You still haven't done that.

And entertaining as this all is, I really have to go. The other Hermits are having a clambake, and I don't want be more than fashionably late...;-)

Regards

A (social butterfly of a) Hermit

A Hermit:

I agree with you. I just think it is too easy to argue for theism. I wanted to try it once. Thank you.

Eric S.:

Read my post WAAYY above on the basis for modern/Christian theism. Basically, it does not seem too important whether some being created the universe if that being does not interact with the universe anymore. The basis for theism derives from the ideas of Parmenides, and repetitive, unexplained events such as storms, seasons, and volcano eruptions. If god can decide to create the universe, and then stop, then that is a change in "Him". Thus "He" must have an end. Everything in nature is a series of beginnings and ends. Beginnings are ends, and ends were beginnings. There is no eternal being. Nothing is eternal, in my view.

Hermit,
I've explained why theistic creation is the reasonable conclusion. Maybe you missed those posts. But I have also asked you to explain why your "pet theory" is better, to your mind. Your ideas are counterintuitive (life from non-life, intelligence from nonintelligence, being from nonbeing, etc.) so I feel that you bear the burden of explanation more than I.

Eric S:

I don't think this is highly relevant to the discussion, but there is a highly regarded hypothesis that the big bang was an end as well as a beginning. If the universe was at some point smaller than the Planck lenght, it would be physically impossible to know what occurred before that point. However, according to the theories regarding conservation of energy/mass, there should have been something before the big bang.

In other words, I don't think the "cosmologist community" absolutely supports the idea of an absolute beginning. Neither do "they" deny it.

"Isn't that what theists are doing, and have been doing?"

No, I think the theists are making leaps to conclusions which are not supported by the accepted facts. My question to Eric stands: WHY is the proposal of a conscious, sentient first cause more reasonable? It is not enough to simply assert that your pet theory is the best explanation; you have to explain why it is the best explanation. And you don't do that by saying the rules that apply to other explanations don't apply to yours; that's the "special pleading" fallacy which was the start of this whole distraction. (I'm spending waaaaay too much time here...)

Regards

A Hermit

Hermit, it's simple. Does life come from non-life? does intelligence come from non-intelligence? Does consciousness come from unconsciousness? Does being come from non-being? No, being always comes from being, and life always comes from life.
It is you that is positing the notion that somehow life came from non-life, and the other positive qualities of being and intelligence came from a state of the absence of those qualities. You are also apparently still asserting the eternal universe hypothesis, which is invalid. Not just my opinion, ask the cosmologist
community. So, it is you who are proposing the truly counterintuitive explanations, and so it is you who has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Well, Jozevz, I really can't argue with that...I wouldn't know how.

But I promise I'll try not to speak Freudiantly.

"Elegant, maybe, but it seems to me that at this point one is so far from traditional definitions of "God" as to render the whole discussion meaningless. there is no reason to call this proposed creative force "God" and imbue it with all of the theological baggage attached to that word."

It may be far from traditional definitions, but it is not too far from the ancient Greek definitions of the two generative gods. The creator need not be complex to give rise to a complex universe. "He" can be simple, yet still necessitate our existence. Science is contingent, and does not explain as much with as little.

In science, we don't always use deductive or inductive reasoning. Sometimes we use abductive reasoning for purposes of theoretical virtue. Albert Einstein did such a thing with his General Theory of Relativity, where some other physicists were still speaking of an ether. From a Wikipedia article: "Abductive reasoning starts from a set of accepted facts and infers to their most likely, or best, explanations."

Isn't that what theists are doing, and have been doing?

Paganplace;

Don't know how far I'd go with the consciousness of the Universe as a whole, but there's not much I'd argue with there. From the Affirmations of Humanism:

"# We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

------

# We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

# We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

# We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

----

# We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

__________________________________

This is not a dogma or a doctrine for me, but it expresses much of what I think pretty well.

Regards

A (humanist) Hermit

"a super-natural creative intelligence is the more reasonable cause for the beginning of the universe than the self-contradictory, "Nonexistence somehow begat existence," which is not reasonable at all."

Why is it more reasonable? Just because you say so? You're still running up against the problem of explaining where your proposed "creative intelligence" came from. You're also misrepresenting my position with the straw man "Nonexistence somehow begat existence," which bears no resemblance to anything I've said. There are mathematical models of space-time which exist outside or alongside this universe and in which concepts like time and space have different meanings.

What is about a sentient first cause that makes it more reasonable than a non-sentient one? How does such a sentience come into existence? Do you have any observational data to support the sentience hypothesis?

A (curious) Hermit

*bows* Don't worry about the 'hijacking,' Hermit, it can be a fun topic, at least sometimes. :)

Anyway, Paganism doesn't depend on any notion of 'intelligent design,' we just tend to believe the universe is alive and somehow conscious. Pieces of itself looking at itself, one might say. :)

It's really more about seeing 'Creation' as Goddess, and interacting that way, rather than trying to define 'God' as a ruler and maker, and refusing to see anything in the universe that doesn't fit that.

We *love* science. We also love myth and poetry and dance and song and experience and Spirit...

And in our world, they get along just fine. :)

"There doesn't need to be a creator of the creator, because the creator is the one simple algorithm of the universe, the ether."

Elegant, maybe, but it seems to me that at this point one is so far from traditional definitions of "God" as to render the whole discussion meaningless. there is no reason to call this proposed creative force "God" and imbue it with all of the theological baggage attached to that word.

Regards

A (inelegant) Hermit

Hermit,
I can't show you God, but a super-natural creative intelligence is the more reasonable cause for the beginning of the universe than the self-contradictory, "Nonexistence somehow begat existence," which is not reasonable at all.

Paganplace says: "We may see this all as Great Goddess, but this is very rarely in the sense of a strongly-anthropomorphized controlling agent, and certainly not an externalized one..."

A point in Paganism's favour, I'd say. It always seemed to me that if there is a deity most religious expressions of it make it too small. To define God in the all too human terms of the monotheistic religions is just "making God in man's image". Seem too confining consider all that's out there. Me, I'm content with being gobsmacked at the sheer enormity and variety of the natural world and the fact that I am, in effect, a little piece of the Universe looking back at itself.

Regards

A (tiny little) Hermit

""Even if our universe is one of many universes being generated, we are still left with the problem of what or who created the universe generating mechanism."

EXACTLY!!!!!! Even if that proposed universe generating mechanism is something called "God." You can't avoid the burden of proof by making exceptions for yourself.

Thanks for proving my point.

And my apologies to the Pagans for hijacking the topic...

Regards

A Hermit"

To be a "devil's advocate", if you will, I propose that theism is a much more elegant explanation of an array of features of the universe. Seeming fine-tuning, morality, and truth are most easily explained, in the most vivid language, by theism. By this logic, god necessarily leads to human life with all of it's richness. There doesn't need to be a creator of the creator, because the creator is the one simple algorithm of the universe, the ether.

Science, on the other hand, provides much more complex and contingent explanations. Scientists have not actually completely explained how we are here, now, the way we are.

Then again, I am atheist. But I just thought I would argue on the side of the theists for a moment.

"Even if our universe is one of many universes being generated, we are still left with the problem of what or who created the universe generating mechanism."

EXACTLY!!!!!! Even if that proposed universe generating mechanism is something called "God." You can't avoid the burden of proof by making exceptions for yourself.

Thanks for proving my point.

And my apologies to the Pagans for hijacking the topic...

Regards

A Hermit

Eric complains..."If you are being a "grownup" and conducting a "mature debate," I would appreciate it if you would refrain from condescending and patronizing jabs at me."

Sorry Eric, just trying to keep things lighthearted. Let's make a deal; I'll stop trying to be funny, and you grow a sense of humour, OK?

You said:

"The overwhelming consensus in cosmology is, and has been for decades, that the universe had a beginning. The body of various theories of the mechanics involved in this beginning are referred to as the Big Bang. There is really no good evidence for the oscillating universe hypothesis, and tons of evidence for the Big Bang.
"

Yes, the Big Bang is pretty well established, but what precipitated it is not. Big Bounce and String Theory are not much beyond hypotheses, but there is mathematical reasoning that supports both. My point, in case you missed it, was not that science has clear, irrefutable answers on this question, just that your explanation; "God", is not the only possible one which can be defined as eternal, self caused or existing outside the space time continuum. In fact, if your complaint is that there is not enough evidence for those hypothesis I think you are then obligated to present the evidence for your God hypothesis, if you think it is more viable. The world of astrophysics and the Nobel Committee breathlessly await your dissertation. (Sorry, did that sound condescending? It was meant to be a joke...)

You go on...:

"...as for vaccuum fluctiuations, this in no way precludes an intelligent designer of matter and its properties."

Nothing in science precludes a designer. But on the other hand, nothing in science requires one either, and as you correctly point out: "in physics and cosmology, you just have to go where the evidence leads, whether you like it or not." I would add that beyond that point where the evidence leads the proper, honest conclusion is "I don't know (yet)" not "I have an answer which follows special rules that don't apply to anyone else's hypothesis." All that does is shut down the debate and stop the search for answers.

And talk about condescending! You claim that you have this answer, that you know it to be true, and that you don't even have to follow the same rules of logic and reasoning you insist everyone else has to adhere to. There's a line somewhere; something about looking for motes in people's eyes; now where did I read that...? hmmmmmm

Regards

A (more chronologically mature than he cares to admit but apparently not very funny) Hermit

Even if our universe is one of many universes being generated, we are still left with the problem of what or who created the universe generating mechanism.

There is a logical problem with a universe that is beginningless and eternal but operates within linear time. The fact that there is a present moment where things are happening depends on there having been prior moments where the precursors to the present moment's happenings occurred, and those prior moments (as well as each present moment) derive their position and continuity by a relation to the very first moment of time, without which no moment of time could exist. Linear time demands a beginning.

This problem (I hope I have explained it adequately), as well as the evidence for the Big Bang, render the Bhuddist notion of eternl, uncreated universes invalid.

"There is really no good evidence for the oscillating universe hypothesis, and tons of evidence for the Big Bang."

Well, the current theory that goes with the evidence is that two great 'membranes' intersected in a much vaster eleven-dimensional multiverse... causing the event we know as the Big Bang.'

Pagan worldviews get along fine with these developments, really, ...there's no authority based on the need for the universe to be the artifice of an anthropomorphized humanlike intelligence: We may see this all as Great Goddess, but this is very rarely in the sense of a strongly-anthropomorphized controlling agent, and certainly not an externalized one.

We simply say, 'She's alive.' :)

Having never been in a situation even remotely similar to warfare, I will take Gary's word for it that the "brand" of chaplain isn't always important. I'm glad that he has been blessed with chaplains who are able to look past their own theology and minister effectively to those not of their faith.
I still maintain, however, that we owe it to those who are willing to put their lives in danger to provide them with access to spiritual counselors of their own path. It is the least we can do for them.

THERE IS NO GOD NAMED ALLAH
AND MOHAMMED IS HIS INVENTOR

Hermit,
If you are being a "grownup" and conducting a "mature debate," I would appreciate it if you would refrain from condescending and patronizing jabs at me.

The overwhelming consensus in cosmology is, and has been for decades, that the universe had a beginning. The body of various theories of the mechanics involved in this beginning are referred to as the Big Bang.

There is really no good evidence for the oscillating universe hypothesis, and tons of evidence for the Big Bang.

as for vaccuum fluctiuations, this in no way precludes an intelligent designer of matter and its properties.

in physics and cosmology, you just have to go where the evidence leads, whether you like it or not.

Eric S.,

I must admit, I'm getting confused, by my own words and by everything else having to do with "something from nothing".

Let me try to get free of my mental thicket by asking you a question:

Do you consider the Buddhist belief in eternal, uncreated universes and the monotheist belief in an eternal, uncreated God, to be identical or comparable, logically or in any other way, or are they distinctly different?

Regards.

Wow! Whole bunch of comments popped up while I composes my last one.

Eric, forget "steady state", look up "Big Bounce" or "String Theory."

Again, I'm not advocating either one; frankly the math is beyond me, but the idea that only God, and not the Universe itself, can be defined as eternal, self creating or existing outside of the space-time continuum is just not valid.

Regards

A Hermit

Excuse Me Geneeral lion, But was it true that Sir Alexander the great was a Pagon and was especially known as "The Son Of G-d"? Or was this pagon a dual Citizen, One of Pagaon & the other as Son of G-d (Zues?).?

So could It be that a Modern Morality abiding Paga can claim him or herself as either Son or Daughter (not Both?) of Zues? Or The AMON? Ya Ya.

"God, by definition, is the *eternally* existent, Uncaused Cause of his creation."

Sorry Eric, that's just "special pleading." You can't argue that the universe must have been created because all things must have a creator, and then turn around and invent special rules for your own preferred explanation for the origin of the Universe. There is no more reason to define God as eternal and uncaused than there is for defining the Universe as such. Even less, perhaps, since there are plausible mathematical models of eternally recurring Universes and evidence of spontaneous production of subatomic particles - look up "vacuum fluctuations" sometime. (None of this suggests that we have the answer for the origin of the Universe (yet), but science has revealed some of what was going on.)

You can't have a serious, mature debate if you're just going to invent special definitions which only apply to your arguments. That's not a conversation it's Calvinball.

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/2990/cb_rules.htm

Loads of fun, I'm sure, but I'm trying to be a grownup here...;-)

Regards

A Hermit

Norrie,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by... "No, the concept of "something from nothing" does not defy logic. Logic has to do with formal reasoning. If something exists there is nothing to reason about....You may say that for various reasons something can't possibly exist, but if it does exist, it does, and logic doesn't enter into it."
...I was saying that the concept of an emergence of being from nonbeing is illogical, not that 'being' exists. I think you are also asserting that nonbeing is something that exists. "Non-being" or "nonexistence" is an oxymoron. Nonexistence is nonexistent, by definition. If something exists, it cannot be nonexistent. It is a concept rather than a positive entity.

Five STARS for "THE-LION" Ya!

Oh, and, buzzed by this, but Emperor Julian was in the CE, not BCE: he could hardly have been The Apostate' before there were Christians. :) '

"Well said, Eric!

"The fool says in his heart 'There is no God'." - Psalm 14:1"

This quote assumes that atheists believe in the sanctity of the "self", a belief that the majority of theists I have encountered are not able to let go of themselves.

If the self were something demonstrably separate from the body and material means of communication, then the lens of theism would certainly make a lot more sense. It might even be the most elegant explanation of morality and "free will".

In that case, every action by every human would be a new "creation", an end with no material beginning. Storms, volcano eruptions, and the movements of the sun and moon might also constitute such "creations" to the primitive mind. Such "creation" would seem to repeat iteratively, supporting the idea of an eternal, unchanging being behind reality.

Such ideas of an unchanging, eternal being derive from Parmenides and other pre-Socratic philosophers. Christian theologians starting around the 7th century ACE derived the idea of the eternal, unchanging nature of god from these thinkers.

The catch is that if you begin to accept the basic discoveries of science in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, you find that there are no modern creations. The only creation left is the universe itself, and that was certainly a very long time ago. So in fact, if there is a creator, "He" does not seem to be unchanging. Everything in nature is a series of becomings, and if there is a god, then "He" doesn't seem any different. The logical conclusion is that, if god every existed, god does not exist anymore, because "creations" stopped occurring a very long time ago. The bases for a belief in an eternal creator contradict our logic and our science.

There is no evidence for anything supernatural in the entire history of the world. No special powers of "self", although the self is important to society, and no special powers of any external supernatural being.

Lastly, there is nothing arrogant or foolish in making such observations. I am in awe of the thinkers that have developed these insights. I am humbled by the complexity of the problems we must deal with when we let go of our ideas about immaterial souls, external gods, eternity.

Happy 4th!

Eric S.,

You wrote,

"You may say that Infinite Being creating finite being is incomprehensible, but it does not defy logic, which the concept of "something from nothing" does.

No, the concept of "something from nothing" does not defy logic. Logic has to do with formal reasoning. If something exists there is nothing to reason about.

You may say that for various reasons something can't possibly exist, but if it does exist, it does, and logic doesn't enter into it.

Buddhists believe in an infinity of eternally existing uncreated universes, just as monotheists believe in an eternally existing uncreated God. Is one of these beliefs more or less illogical than the other?

Att: Sistar JACOBY, et al;

WoW! Eeeeee Haaaa!

Happy Every day & Huggs & a Kisses to ALL the Brethren(s) & The Sistar(s).

We Salute All who we imagined have fallen, yet Eclati-On's know that ours Boys & girls in the "System Of Holy Cosmic Heart beat Miracle" Planet Hoppings, nor have they ever Died in vain!

"Till We Meet Again"! [I was a Boy Scout].

Ever Hear of the Boyscout Motto?, Well, it goes like this: "On my Honor, I will Do My Best, To Help The Girl Scouts Get Undressed.." ? [Similar said].

Praise the Holy No Mon in and of US-ALL,

LORD/ECLAT + "i"! Happy every Day!

Paganism is not New Age...
When a seeker comes to a Wiccan teacher, the first thing the teacher does is get rid of the New Age bric brac. New age is not a religion.

New Age has infiltrated everywhere...but that does not mean that Wicca is new Age. Susan there are Atheists that practice new age methods...healing and meditation. Does that make them New Age? Is healing with herbs new age? is meditation new age? What are you calling new age?

And the word Pagan does not mean polytheism, but country person.

Mary, Mary, Mary...

There are also many Christians that come to learn Wicca and incorporate those beliefs and Goddess with their Christian dogma. There are even Penacle with Cross pendents. I don't particularly like that either...I have a Christian seminary trained Pastor that has earned his first degree and is working on his second. If we paid our clergy he would be a Wiccan Priest...but he has a family to care for.

We are not just being infiltrated by New Age but by Christians and Jews...and I have students from all over the world. Some places would bring death to the student. Weak? You are ignorant and a bigot. Tell me Mary, how sublime was the Inquisition? how about the early church fathers that sold Pagans into slavery? How about The Malleus Maleficarum? How about the destruction of Pagan knowledge and temples? How about the blatant thievery of our holydays...what is unique to Christianity?

As far as Paganism and nazism...does that make David Kerash's use of the Bible and quoting Christian verse really Christian in raping children? Or how about the abortion doctor killer? does that make him following Christian belief? So stop with the nazi BS.They used symbols of German Heathism... they did not follow the beliefs. Two different things.

terra

" Norrie Hoyt:

On this day of Pagan protest, let us pray for the Second Coming of Julian the Apostate, the protector and resurrector of paganism.

Where is he when we need him so badly?"

On this day?

Not far, I'm sure. :)

How could he want to miss *this?* :)

The "steady state theory" which holds that the universe never began to exist is an obsolete hypothesis and has been for decades. During those decades after having become obsolete, evidence supporting the Big Bang has been steadily piling up - but there has not been an accumulation of evidence for the steady state hypothesis. It has not been borne out by the facts.

There is no difference between polytheism and monotheism except that all the superstitions and mythology of polytheism are concentrated in one god in monotheism.

Polytheists have been much more tolerant. the gods were not jealous of other gods. the more the merrier. If one god did not work out another was chosen. Or created. The monotheist god brook no competition. That is why monotheists have killed more people than polytheists ever did.

the monotheist god is man made. Jesus was a man turned into god. Allah, the arabic god was created by Muhammad. In fact Islam is not truly monotheists because Muhammad is just another god in Islam , just a lesser god than the god he created, Allah.

Norrie-

I should have known that you would know about Julian the Apostate! Julian was a Pagan, and when Julian became emperor in 361 BCE he ordered the Christian churches to give back all the property they had looted from the Pagans. Unfortuantly, he decided to invade Persia and got himself killed. If he hadn't been killed, western civilization would have been a LOT different.

Eric S. states: "It is only rational and logical to arrive at the conclusion that since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause - since everything that begins to exist has a cause. There can be nothing that begins to exist without a cause."

Not true! There is no proof that the universe had a beginning or a cause. Scientific investigation indicates a universe that changes due to natural forces and events, but "a beginning" to the universe is merely a human presumption. From human experience nature has always existed and nothing exists outside of nature. Even our imaginations are part of animal nature, but sometimes our imaginings (such as those about gods) are simply fiction. It is human nature to invent fictional characters and to personalize what we don't understand; which is why we think of nature as "mother nature", time as "father time", etc.. These imagined personnas don't actually exist.

On this day of Pagan protest, let us pray for the Second Coming of Julian the Apostate, the protector and resurrector of paganism.

Where is he when we need him so badly?

Susan,

You wrote:

"Somehow, I don't think that Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy would look favorably on paying Druid chaplains with taxpayer money. Don't call them the Supremes; just call them the Monotheist Majority."

I prefer to call them the Roman Five.

"It is true that I am opposed to tax support for military chaplains; I think that religious institutions should pay the salaries of the chaplains who represent their faith on the battlefield."

Wouldn't this bias things toward wealthier religions? Frankly, religious counseling is real work, and the bullets a chaplain might be shot with are as real as any others. I see no problem paying them for the risk and service, ...as long as this resonable accomodation is extended to all.

There is one comment on this thread from a military chaplain, and I realize that my flippant opening comment may have given the impression that I don't understand how important chaplains must be to soldiers who believe in God.

It is true that I am opposed to tax support for military chaplains; I think that religious institutions should pay the salaries of the chaplains who represent their faith on the battlefield. But I am certain that chaplains do play a valuable role, amid death and carnage, for those soldiers who seek the solace of religion.

That's why I think, given that the U.S. military does pay for some chaplains, it should pay for chaplains of all faiths.

It seems to me, by the way, that there must be some inherent conflict between the spiritual mission of the clergy and their presence in a military theater in which decent ethical norms (in humanistic as well as religious terms) are constantly being violated. I would be very interested to hear what chaplains have to say about this. What does a chaplain do, for instance, if a solder confides that he has engaged in torture?

God by definition is a supernatural notion invented by our terrified ancestors to calm their fears.
There is no God who exists outside of the imagination.

"Freedom of belief is both more inclusive and broad methinks. It is not restricted to adherents of organised religion or membership in any religious entity. It also encompass the personal freedom not to believe in any religion,"

In America, we have freedom of religion: to worship many Gods or one or none: you can't legislate *belief,* but you can guarantee free exercise of those beliefs.

" or to have beliefs such as paganism/polytheism and in such ideologies such as Nazism, fascism and communism."

You know, I really tire of people finding ways to refer to Paganism and Nazism in the same breath.

I object when people do this to Islam, I'd appreciate the courtesy of not turning around and doing it to us.

[God, by definition, is the *eternally* existent, Uncaused Cause of his creation.]

God was created when people invented the idea.

As an atheist I would prefer a world that has several religions rather than just one.
The presence of differing supernatural beliefs
allows the rest of us to observe that they cannot all be true,and the likelyhood that they could all be wrong.
Imagine the power of the pope if catholicism was unopposed by other religions; or imagine a world where Islam was unopposed.There would be little room for rational thought,and atheism would have a tough time surviving in such a world,as it did in the middle ages.
In a perfect world we wouldn't need to invent a god,we wouldn't need a supreme supernatural ruler
as an explanation of the mystery of existence.
Such an explanation explains nothing anyway.
It's a child's response to a scientific riddle,
which is charming enough in it's way,but actually muddies the waters of the wonders of reality.

Frankly, except where chaplaincy has been used, like by Fundamentalist Christians in the Air Force, to get converts and marginalize people of other religions, I have no more problem with tax money going to military chaplains than with it going to military sports coaches or military shrinks.

And, frankly, I think atheists see (and stress) the 'fluffy New Age' aspects of Paganism cause that's what they like to look at. Makes em feel better or something.

Certainly tends to be what the media circus shows.

Oh, and I'm really sick of people harping on this idea that modern astrology is about some mysterious force from the stars controlling the fates of man. It's a *big clock,* OK? :)

And I got my Epictetus right here. :)

Atheists love to ask, "Where did God come from?" but they are making a category error. Apples and oranges. God, by definition, is the *eternally* existent, Uncaused Cause of his creation. He himself is eternal and uncaused. Until you get this you will be asking who created him. Even if he was created by a prior God, as the Mormons believe, there would have to be a Prime God back of every created God who himself is eternal. The buck's gotta stop somewhere. God is not finite, as his creation is, nor is he subject to the laws of space-time, which he also created. You may say that Infinite Being creating finite being is incomprehensible, but it does not defy logic, which the concept of "something from nothing" does.

Well said, Eric!

"The fool says in his heart 'There is no God'." - Psalm 14:1

Gary raises the important point here; it isn't the "brand" of religion attached to the chaplain that's important; in fact in today's pluralistic society it's best if the position is filled by someone who is able to set aside their dogma.

What's important is that all who serve, regardless of their religious affiliations, have access to confidential counsel, even if it's just for the chance to bounce their feelings off a sympathetic ear.

It's a terrible thing to ask someone to go to war. They should all have the all the support we can give them.

"Any fool understands that you can't get something from nothing."

So where did God come from, Eric?

It's understandable that calling faith irrational gets your back up, but the proper response would be to present the rational basis for your faith, would it not? The rational answer to questions about the origin of the universe is "we don't know, yet therefore we must look more closely" not "we don't know, therefore God did it."

If you can't present a rational basis for your belief in the existence of God than that belief is, by definition, irrational. Sorry, but that's logic for you...

Regards

A Hermit

Why does Susan constantly call theists "irrational"? Such a repeated characterization is insulting. It is getting old.
It is only rational and logical to arrive at the conclusion that since the universe had a beginning, it had a cause - since everything that begins to exist has a cause. There can be nothing that begins to exist without a cause. The universe itself is no exception to this rule. Atheists want to claim reason and logic for themselves, but they are mistaken. It is irrational and illogical (and a supreme act of faith) to believe that before the universe came into being, there was only absolute Nonexistence, nothing. Any fool understands that you can't get something from nothing. To assert otherwise is a logical absurdity. If all that "existed" before the universe came into being was Nonexistence (which is a self-contradicting statement), existence could not emerge from it, for even the "potentiality for existence" would not be present in Nonexistence.
The God of the Bible is eternal and infinite, and had no beginning. He therefore had no cause. God was (and is) the Existence behind existence. There is no other rational explanation for the cause of the universe.
Atheists, you may not like the fact that others accept the existence of God as a given, but please stop calling such an acceptance "irrational." It is certainly not. It is irrational to believe that you can get something from nothing. As the song from The Sound of Music goes, "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could."

Re the high court, you said... "Don't call them the Supremes; just call them the Monotheist Majority."

I love it!

In recent years, there have been many instances of vociferous Christian groups across the land forcing local school boards to require that educators distribute their faith group's flyers, etc. to students. These groups have generally reacted in horror when other interests such as pagans and atheists logically began to present their flyers for distribution as well. *chuckle*

Wassail!
Mike the Happy Heathen

Susan, you sure know how to lean on a nerve. I didn't get past your first paragraph without the hair on the back of my neck bristling. If my #@#$@##@$# tax dollars are going to God's treasury it's a violation of the constitution. The Chaplin should no more be on the government payroll than the prostitute, (I know). Maybe they should poll the Army to see which one they really want tagging along.

Excellent essay.

Raymond L:

You rail against "man-made" religions. In the name of God, who else is going to construct them? Last time I looked, we are--all of us--man-made. We try to interpret and understand the mystery of our existence. For that we construct religions.

And God helps us....sometimes.

Précis:

Atheism is cheap.

All religions are pretty bad but polytheism is no worse than them. Once was powerful and wicked (and widespread) but now is weak and silly. As an evangelizing atheist, SJ can tolerate a religion that is the latter. SJ rails against Supreme Court: names Catholics (have all been appointed by GWB? Think not. But SJ can't be bothered to look it up &, anyway,Catholics are all the same). Calls them Neanderthals. [This denounciation will probably raise a good response from atheists who avidly follow SJ's various rages and rants.]

From someone who has served 23 years in the military and seen his share of Iraq, trust me when I say that chaplains are necessary in the military. Their job is not to push religion but to be there if I should need to visit one and discuss the moral and ethical decisions which I must make every day. The chaplain is the ONLY person in the US Armed Forces with privilege of confidentiality and the only one with whom can sit down and discuss anything without fear of reprisal or censure. I have had comfortable discussions with Catholic, Christian and Muslim military chaplains (and I'm a pagan) because they are there to help me when nobody else can, not to preach their doctrine.

If for no other reason than helping people heal, they are absolutely necessary in our military.

there is G.O.D. but its not the god of all the man made world religions. please read www.greatpath.org very sincerely and with respect.......

Another excellent post Susan.

Freedom of belief is meaningless if it applies only to beliefs on a government approved list.

there is G.O.D. but its not the god of all the man made world religions. please read www.greatpath.org very sincerely and with respect.......

there is G.O.D. but its not the god of all the man made world religions. please read www.greatpath.org very sincerely and with respect.......

JWest

Perhaps we all should really be clear on the difference between "freedom of religion" and "freedom of belief."

Freedom of religion invokes visions of unfettered involvement in public policies and issues, inter-state affairs, lobbying for faith based initiatives etc by religious entities etc.

Freedom of belief is both more inclusive and broad methinks. It is not restricted to adherents of organised religion or membership in any religious entity. It also encompass the personal freedom not to believe in any religion, or to have beliefs such as paganism/polytheism and in such ideologies such as Nazism, fascism and communism. And of course, for such believers to be accorded rights and protection under law from persecutions by any individual, organisation or even the state due to their beliefs not being that of the majority. Unless they blow up things and peoples because of their beliefs.

Has the Supremes (no, not the one led by Diana Ross, but those secular ayotallahs in black robes sans turbans issuing secular fatwas), past and present, actually made any real distinction on freedom of belief and freedom of religion?

Best regards and Happy 4th of July.

Very well said Susan. The rejection of paganism and the actions of the supreme court is proof positive this country is going in the wrong direction. I'm not worried though. The christians will get so greedy, in time they will start fighing each other. They already are.