science without religion is lame. religion without science is blind

1. 60

   lizzieBooposted 12 years ago

   "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is "intellectually disappointing," according to Johnathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi in London, and has become 'as shrill and simplistic as sixth-form debates'.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      MichaelStonehillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Einstein was not a religious person (though he did believe in God), so this citation is ironic. Anyway, it seems to me that modern science has become a religion, regarding new theories as if they were absolute truth, claiming arguments which are actually based on emotional distrust for anything which is not scientific. Before Modernism, scientists were either theologists or philosophers. So most secular scientists lack the spitirual inspiration and cultural basis which characterize scientists of former generations.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Micheal, I completely agree. Very well put.

         replyreport
      2. 72

         lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Michael, good points. One thing scientists seem to have missed is that "skepticism" seems to be the wrong paradigm for any research. It's close enough to work much of the time, but "restraint" or "humility" would be a closer paradigm to the ideal. The key thrust behind the adoption of skepticism, seems to have been one of restraining from jumping to the easiest conclusions.
         
         Regrettably, however, scientists chose an operating basis which includes a strong bias. And yet, scientific method cautions against bias. Interesting that they are so close to the tool they use most, so that they don't see the gaping flaw in it.
         
         And even more regrettable is the fact that skepticism is so poorly defined in actual usage that individual scientists frequently drift over into the dark side of skepticism -- like unsupported dismissiveness (no research, no peer review), or even self-indulgent ridicule.
         
         So many of the skeptics claim that the universe doesn't need God to exist. Even Hawking intimated this when he said that gravity would create the universe from nothing. But big "oops!" What put gravity there? In fact, his superior ego (arrogance) has blinded him to the fact that space and time had to be put there, too. They didn't suddenly appear all well-organized out of the nothingness.
         
         Even the loftiest of intellects can miss the obvious. The Manhattan Project scientists gave one example of this when they debated heatedly for some time about the wear and tear on the parts of their device, only to realize in complete chagrin that those parts would be vaporized a billionth of a second later. Wear and tear is irrelevant in an atomic bomb.
         
         Humility is so important in any investigation, but some scientists are having too much fun stroking their egos.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            MichaelStonehillposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Lonestar, that's a very good argument. Skepticism is a negative doctrine, but also positive Empiritcism has its limits since it is impossible to understand the spiritual as if it were natural. Good scientists are not skepticts and are humble enough to know the limitations of their research. However, the tone of the vanes is always somewhat louder.

            replyreport
   2. 74

      jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Lizzie!
      
      I am guessing they are going to miss the actual point to argue that a rabbi is bashing the scientist, who made that statement. But even that scientist knows they won't get what he meant.
      
      
      Hope you're well.
      James.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         James. I get the point, thank you. I disagree. Spirituality? I can see why that is necessary in maintaining a sense of humility while dealing with the mysteries of the universe. Religion? Please explain what point, if any, it would serve.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Humility is often a disguise for suppression of ego. A seemingly necessary cloak to keep the masses from becoming a mob or circumstances within the House of Theos from escalating into a full out War Of The Roses.
            
            Again, it goes back to what exactly is Theos -the concept, construct and application of the idea of supremacy, via sensationalism or mechanism. Einstein said it right. Religion without Supremacy cannot exist. Did he know he was speaking of his own peers also? I think he did. I think he understood Science was the same guise, a Supreme, and perhaps practical, but no less ritualistic, methodical, observation of the universe. To tome a God and all the parts of that G/god, one need only a Supremacy concept and a gathering of like minded people to sustain it, scribe those  observations/findings and format beliefs/theories of that concept.
            
            Religion -based on grand altars of marble, to sacrifice a goat or  miniature alters of stainless steel to sacrifice a plant, animal or human to please, continue to worship, satisfy the Theos, satisfy the 'G/gods (the Supremacy necessity) is pointless.
            
            The Rabbi may be right or not, I cannot say either or, as morals are not authentically theistic in premise. Yes, they are dictated by Theos from both ends and in very dramatic fashion.
            
            James.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         James! Hello! This was from an article I was reading about Rabbi Sacks who says 'without religion, society can't be moral'. He's a bit of a dude really, and like most spiritual leaders it seems, a jolly fellow too.
         I hope you're well too.

         replyreport
   3. 59

      Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Here ya go:
      
      http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
      
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ … e.religion
      
      

      replyreport
   4. 49

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with the statement.Truthful religion and scientific truths are not contradictory.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Correct.
         Do you understand why though? Because they are the same thing; identical concepts from two extremes. As the saying goes, A House Divided, Cannot Stand. In modern history (love that paradox), to "stabilize" those two extremes, humanism has fashioned Quality as the roof.
         
         James.

         replyreport
         1. 49

            paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The religion and science are two dimensions of the same coin.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            James, ladies and gentlemen.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Was that over the top, Lizzie? Sometimes, I say too much.
               James.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  James, not at all!! I think you're great!

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     
                     Sometimes, I am not altogether certain. lol.

                     replyreport
   5. 60

      Jonathan Jancoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Einstein lived too short of a time.
      
      http://www.keylonticdictionary.org/onli … amp;did=31

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   Yes. The opinion of a rabbi on the topic of the need for religion would never be considered bias.
   
   Whatever Einstein's reason for the statement, it is simplistic and unworthy of argument, but you'll get a lively one, for sure.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Emile, a), I've just realised this is sarcasm and
      b), I thought using Einstein would be interesting since he is rated so highly among secularists here.

      replyreport
3. 60

   recommend1posted 12 years ago

   The good Rabbi has a whole blather box full of fantasy to wheel out in favour of a mythical bronze age god, Hawing and Dawkins only have the unknown future of mankind to talk about - and that is a little more difficult and essential to the future of our children and their children.  The Rabbi's gang are busy trying to incinerate the middle east over their beliefs, I would go with Hawking and Dawkins if I were you.

   replyreport
4. 60

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   That is because the ones most vocal, the minority, in the fields today, are more into using science to deny and dis-prove God, something that science is not in the business to do anyway, then to actually do real un-biased science. It has become an agenda driven/based system, as all other tools of society have been twisted into, for the Secular Humanist Atheists.
   
   It has become their own "Faith and Religion", of Man above God.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's quite the contrary.  I'm sure that if there was any evidence for a God, they would have shared it with the public.  Do you realize how BIG that discovery would be?
      
      
      
      Paranoid delusion!
      
      
      
      ABSURD!  Your foolish concept of a God fails on its own.  There is absolutely no evidence for this nonsense. 
      
      There is no God for man to be above, being that the only "proof" that you have is in your imagination, hence your statement is practically insane.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago

   Religious faith does not seek evidence to verify its beliefs.  It believes in something because the tradition of religion states that it is so.  For centuries, the Church denied that the Sun was the centre of our solar system. The faithful then had to accept this on faith alone.  The Pope according to Roman Catholic tradition is infallible, therefore for Roman Catholics it was fact that the Sun moved around the Earth.  As it turned out, the Pope was wrong.
   
   Science though would never declare something to be fact based on faith.  I have never heard the likes of Richard Dawkins state that he knows humans have evolved, because the Lord his God told him so. Rather, he bases this on real scientific evidence.  The science museums and anthropological departments of the world are full of the bones and fossils that clearly show the evolution of species, including our own.  Some religious though, because they don't want to believe in evolution state quite seriously, that this evidence has been created by the devil to fool mankind.  Such thinking is what is so wrong with beliefs based on faith alone.
   
   For all the Christian fundamentalists, who have invented the idea of intelligent design, as a new way of describing creationism, it is worth them understanding that the majority of Christians now accept evolution to be fact.  Even the Roman Catholic Church, which has always been centuries behind the discoveries of science now teaches that evolution is fact, as does the Anglican Church.  It is only the newer evangelical fundamentalists that still cling onto their ideas of a literal creation.   It is usually such groups who also describe people with mental illness as being possessed by the devil, thus denying people proper medical help.  Conducting an exorcism on the mentally ill will only make their problems much worse. 
   
   Science no longer needs gods in order to understand the development of the universe or the evolution of species, because the evidence is there, to deny it is a vanity based upon religious indoctrination.  As long as there are religious believers who believe in a primitive ideology, and who refuse to recognise the real evidence of science, then they only have themselves to blame when others laugh at them and do not take them seriously.  It is perfectly possible to accept the evidence of science, whilst still having a religious belief.  However, the religious will need to accept that their belief is based upon faith alone, whilst science is based upon real evidence.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Sherlock, you touch on a number of points here.
      The RC church was wrong about Gallileo, a misdemeanor for which it apologises now, as it was undoubtably wrong there.
      Religious faith does seek to verify its beliefs: it's called prayer.
      Dawkins makes the hugely unscientific claim that there 'is no God'. Unscientific because he states it as absolute. He then goes on to say, without any irony by the way, that though he has no proof of the non-existence of God, he is sure that he will have it soon. If this is not blind  faith I don't know what is.
      We can't really account for fundamentalist Christians, or fundamentalist anything for as Sacks argues, "fundamentalism is the attempt to move from text to application without interpretation". Science is not based on evidence but on theory. Dawkins is as much an extremeist as the fundamentalist Christian because he begins in prejudice and then looks for ways to justify it.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Next thing, Dawkins will be saying that there is absolutely no Flying Spaghettti Monster.  How very unscientific of him. 
         
         Dawkins will begin in prejudice against the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and then look for ways to justify it.  What an extremist!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sherlock221bposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Ah, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster is quite a different thing.  There is absolute scientific evidence that this creature exists.  I pray to the Lord Spaghetti (peace be upon Him) and He always answers my prayers.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               See that's all the proof we need right there!
               
               To h**l with Dawkins. What an extremeist!

               replyreport
   2. 72

      someonewhoknowsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The reason we have a brain is to decide for ourselves what the truth is through our own senses as well as using logic and --unfortunately our bias toward one train of thought or so-called evidence.The fact is personal experiance is more Important than learned bias in science and religion.

      replyreport
6. 70

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   The Rabbi is just showing his support for the religion he follows and is all about perpetuating the original, ancient myth that a person must be controlled and told what/how to live because they cannot be moral otherwise.
   
   It just shows how pathetic religion is about understanding the individual and/or what it actually means to be a human being.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Cagsil, being human is about choice. We choose what we stand for and we stick by it religiously. To be religious is to willingly imbue everything about your existence with  meaning of a particular kind. Talking about religion without making any specifications is far too broad. This is what this thread is getting at. The opposite of religion is not atheism, but nihilism.
      Incidentally, Rabbi Sacks says that Jews traditionally don't take Genesis literally, (and I don't mean the band) so I don't think its about perpetuating an ancient myth but rather living by a set of principles.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, there is more too it than that.
         Most do, however, the foundation for which they stand to begin with is highly subjective and almost never objective.
         With boundaries, which many fail to realize.
         So is the statement that human beings would have no morals if it wasn't for religion.
         You mean, attempting to get at.
         Actually, James might differ with you about that, because Science would be considered the opposite.
         Actually living is about understanding one's own life, more than anything else, which includes living within the world we know.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think James would say that science was opposite to religion. I think he would say that science was a religion.
            What d you say James?

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               It was sarcasm. Oh well.

               replyreport
            2. 74

               jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               I would emphatically state -and provide much 'proof' & 'evidence' that science IS a religion, if not the Supreme [Being/Entity] that laid the foundation Theos in the first place. How, because of its rudimentary and rigid approach, sensation was added to it, to temper and appease the masses of humanity many moons ago. This was the goal of its inception. What it didn't plan on, or foresee, was the vast degree sensationalism would spread, and at several intervals throughout history, how it became the dominant Theos. Today, science -and its power- is unmatchable, practically inescapable, supreme, all knowing/all encompassing, worshiped by everyone.
               
               My friend Morse would laugh as he remembers being a hippie turned yuppie with the introduction of the information, space and technology age.
               
               James.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep, thought so.

                  replyreport
7. 76

   Hugh Williamsonposted 12 years ago

   Einstein's "belief" in God didn't match up well with conventional theology. A central organizing factor isn't the same as a humanized deity.
   
   Neither side of the atheism vs. theism debate need have any concern that the other side will prove you wrong, because there is no proof of a God or of a lack of one. There is evidence for both sides, but that isn't proof.
   
   Once someone is convinced by the evidence of something, then he/she has a belief. But, a belief is not proof.
   
   Once there is a one-sentence, iron clad statement of proof of God or no God, we will have a fact. IMO it will never happen.
   
   So believe what you wish and go enjoy the holiday.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There is NO evidence for the existence of a God.  If you think so, then, show me.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That would constitute proof getitrite. He was clear that wasn't possible. Any rational and reasonable person can accept the fact that we don't know everything and it is not outside of the bounds of logic to very gently hold onto a belief until more facts are available.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I only asked for EVIDENCE, not proof.
            
            
            
            Until more facts are available, I'm gonna, very gently, hold onto the belief that The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and that He created the universe after a night of drunken debauchery!
            
            
            Being a rational and reasonable person, I don't find this outside of the bounds of logic.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               point well taken.

               replyreport
      2. 57

         OutWestposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually there is alot of evidence for the existance of God...a Creator.  The complexity of life and the universe is very strong evidence because it points to an intelligent design which in turn points to a creator.  Creation from randomness is very illogical and very poor evidence for all this existance.  There is so much undiscovered in our world and universe and things we cannot even understand that it also points to something of much greater intelligence and ability than us.  So for us to make any conclusions based on pure human evidence is also illogical and even fool hearty.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Untrue.
            Untrue, yet again.
            Random?
            A greater intelligence? No.
            Interesting statement, considering everything else you said is untrue.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               OutWestposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               But you offer absolutely nothing in return.  Just saying NO does not work here.  Why don't you present something?

               replyreport
            2. 72

               lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Cags, you sometimes make some good points. Nice logic, but it's really tacky when you go into Troll mode and start throwing out one-liners or even one-word denials. Such beautiful  "know-it-all" ego. I don't much care for mine; can I offload mine (are you interested)?

               replyreport
         2. 70

            getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Instead of presenting any evidence, you present only CONJECTURE.
            
            Nothing is pointing to Intelligent Design except your religion.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               OutWestposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               It has nothing to do with religion but it does have something to do with creation...and I don't mean Adam and Eve but the creation of the universe and all life.  It is such a complicated process of how any life comes into existence that we don't even fully understand it.  So if intelligent beings such as ourselves don't fully understand it than it points to an something intelligent like intelligent design.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  getitriteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  That's only your opinion.  You think Intelligent Design is suggested, but in the end, it is only YOUR opinion.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I think this is the kind of debate Rabbi Sacks is grumbling about. Its not what one might call robust argument to say, well that's just your opinion. Perhaps you are at the end of your tether however.

                     replyreport
         3. 72

            lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            OutWest, the Intelligent Design argument is weak at best. That's about as much proof of God as 2+2 = 4. And there's a lot of beauty in mathematics.
            
            I've encountered my own evidence. Most of these yahoos (in troll clothing) won't discuss such evidence, because they're afraid. They ridicule and demand proof. Can't get to first base on an intelligent discussion, but that is the nature of blistering ego. They are so full of themselves, they can't see past their own point-of-view.
            
            I've experienced dozens of miracles, and I'm not talking the "ordinary" kind of "cute babies" or "colorful sunsets" or even "miracle pregnancies." I'm talking the kind that defy scientific and even science fiction explanation (and I'm a published science fiction author, so I know a little about the subject). Not one skeptic has ever asked for more information about any of the miracles. They don't want to know. They don't have the curiosity of a scientist. They're pretending omniscience.
            
            I've also been outside this physical body and was able to see clearly (yep, without human eyeballs). Now some skeptics immediately suspect drugs or trauma-induced hallucination. Nope. One moment I was talking to a spiritual counselor about some powerful, epiphany-eliciting subjects, and the next I could not feel my body, but floated about 5 meters in the air, and about 4 meters off the left shoulder of my body, which sat behind the closed blinds of the building's second story window.
            
            Just as a software program cannot redesign and alter the computer on which it runs, a human body cannot circumvent, bend or break the laws of physical reality... any more than can a rock. Only a spiritual source of creation can do such things. One clue is Genesis 1:26, that we were created in God's image. The Nazarene teacher echoed this when he told the enemies who were ready to stone him for blasphemy, "ye are gods."
            
            Scripture isn't proof. Intelligent design isn't either. But my experiences are. The problem with proof, though, is that faith (not belief, but 100% confidence) has to come before creation (proof). The cart does not pull the horse. And it's incredible that so many seemingly bright individuals keep insisting that it does. Alas! That's the blindness of their egotistical "I know it all" attitude. (And do you see any of that around here?)
            
            I don't know it all. And I keep learning. But I know a bit more than these trollish, non-discussing, hubbers, at least on the subject of miracles and the mechanics of creation. I'm also not bad in several of the sciences, too. Science and religion can be compatible and even complimentary.
            
            I would really love to learn something from one of these trolls, but they don't stand still long enough to discuss anything. (And you don't discuss by using a hammer or blowtorch! One-liners or one-word denials. Or by calling your opponent a liar or worse.)
            
            Don't you just "love" the shallowness of their approach to such a deep subject?

            replyreport
      3. 76

         Hugh Williamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Religion cannot disprove science and vice-versa. They are too divided for that - I don't know how to say it any clearer.
         
         As for giving you some "evidence" the answer is no.
         
         I can't believe you've been here flaming the forum all day. You should have gone out and enjoyed the day as I suggested.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Why disprove each other? Why not working together toward a more all-inclusive body of truth (and not necessarily absolute Truth, too)?
            
            I used some science (restraint, logic and mathematics) on a very potent miracle which occurred on Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles in 1977. Explaining that with normal physical effects is about as easy as explaining Jesus walking on water.
            
            I've come to realize by deductive reasoning that I remain incapable to doing "miracles on demand" because of ego and a blazing lack of humility.
            
            One thing I happen to like about the trolls, though, is that they help remind me when my ego starts to blossom. Too bad I can't return the favor.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Evolution Guyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You are in denial. If you genuinely wanted to replicate these "miracles," instead of crowing about them and reinforcing people's opinion of religion by demonstrating a total lack of humility and enormous ego while telling other people they are egotistical - which - if you think about it - is what Christians have been doing for 2,000 years - you would go do it.
               
               But no - you try and convince us that majik happens. What do you not understand about this phenomena being in your head only?
               
               You religious trolls are all the same. Making outlandish claims and then attacking people for not accepting them. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts. Has done from day one.
               
               But - thank you for reinforcing my opinion of your religion. I will continue to attempt to educate people away from it and try to teach you that your personal experiences are just that - your personal experiences. They are not going to convince anyone of anything other than the fact you are incapable of understanding basic reasoning and this will inevitably cause conflicts. You didn't do majik and your god exists only in your head.
               
               You do not accept evolution because you reject the basic premises. You are worse than the fundies because you have fooled yourself so badly and think you have "reasoned" and "investigated," when all you have done is gone deep into denial to twist the facts to suit your irrational beliefs. 
               
               You did not do majik. You are not a majician. Sorry. I see now why you are so angry. People don't believe you when you say you did majik, but cannot do it again. Can you really blame them?

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Marcus, majik is just slight of hand tricks. Anyone can do majik, especially a Determinist. They can deter (cause the misdirection of) others from seeing past the illusion, using speed, verbiage and artificial light. Now, who do you know that I would reference as a determinist? Think hard.
                  
                  Aikido: defend yourself while protecting others from injury; the Way (of unification of life energy); the Way (of harmony).
                  
                  Did you forget everything already or miss that class for a Haight-Ashbury protest?
                  
                  peace and love brother, peace and love.
                  
                  James.

                  replyreport
8. 72

   lone77starposted 12 years ago

   Both science and religion have some form of truth as their aim.
   
   Science has done an excellent job of codifying the structure and effects of the realm of continuity (space-time, energy-matter).
   
   Religion has largely mucked up the search for truth in the discontinuous realm, largely because human egos get in the way. But even scientists miss a few things because of ego.
   
   I say largely, but the roots of religion are strong enough to inspire others. Some skeptics say religion is the source of all war. Such generalities are easily disproven, but even those wars where religion seemed to play a major role, the real culprit was not the religion but ego. And I would dare say that ego is the source of all evil in this world. This is more the "ego" as defined by Buddhism, rather than that described by Western psychology.
   
   Things like "forgiveness" exist in the realm of discontinuity. Science doesn't deal with this realm -- only continuity. Creation also exists in discontinuity. So does inspiration and epiphany. These are all spiritual forces. One might even say that the athlete's "zone," when everything seems effortless, exists in this discontinuous realm.
   
   The awe and wonder that Einstein talked so often about exist in this realm.
   
   But this realm is hard to talk about. It's not nice and concrete like mu mesons, absorption spectra, magnetic domains on stellar surfaces, or the search for Earth-like planets. Yummy subjects, these, but the "mechanics" behind walking on water can be just as fascinating, especially if you have a few clues to how it was done.

   replyreport
9. 52

   wbraxtonposted 12 years ago

   take it from a lifelong astronomer...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      well put, thank you.

      replyreport
10. 74

    jacharlessposted 12 years ago

    PS, Proof can or cannot be evidence. Vis A Vie.

    replyreport
11. 60

    TMMasonposted 12 years ago

    All the religionists... still in denial.
    
    Welcome to the world of faith...

    replyreport
    1. 84

       psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Their is a difference between denial and non-belief.  Largely one of respectful address.

       replyreport
    2. 72

       lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I can't tell you how funny that sounds, seeing someone with such a closed mind, talking about something with which they've had no meaningful experience, and judging based on their limited exposure.
       
       Denial? You sure are!
       
       Now, don't get me wrong. I happen to agree with an abbreviated form of your statement. "Many" not "all" religionists are in denial and even delusion. Particularly the Fundamentalists who disdain and ignore science. Science is batting close to a thousand on reality, and ignoring reality is tantamount to delusion.
       
       But if you're not here to discuss, but merely to make your close-minded statement, then I bid you a fond farewell.
       
       It takes humility to learn something new. And a closed mind is anything but humble. All the really good scientists and researchers know this instinctively. As a software engineer, if I ever thought I new it all, I'd have a hard time finding bugs and meeting production deadlines. Thinking you know it all only creates blindness, not blistering intelligence.
       
       I'm not perfect, but at least I'm open to learning new things, and even being critical about them. Things like electronic engineering, differential and integral calculus, astrophysics, geology, meteorology, planetology, computer science, oceanography, cultural anthropology, evolution, and also Buddhism, reincarnation, karma, Taoism, Judaism, Jewish Kabbalah, Christianity, and even Scientology. Each offers pieces of a larger puzzle. I'm not the brightest bulb on planet Earth, but I've done okay -- graduated with a bachelors degree summa cum laude in computer science, first place awards for an essay and a short story, a published novel, and Hollywood screen credit producing artwork for two-time Academy Award-winning designer Saul Bass. Denial? I really have to laugh out loud.
       
       What most skeptics rail against is not really religion, but ego. A lot of the religionists in this world are full of it. And that's sad, but typical of any group. The "we're better than you" attitude is rife and the internet is helping to crank up the heat. Skeptics versus believers (and skeptics are really believers of their own kind, too), believers in Global Warming and their detractors, Republicans versus Democrats, and the list goes on and on.
       
       What's also sad, is that anyone with too much ego (know-it-all attitude) cannot see the defect in themselves. I happen to know that I do not know it all, and I'm still learning. I also know that I still have way too much ego, and I'm trying to get rid of it.
       
       Those who haven't even started are really the ones in denial.

       replyreport
12. 49

    ann caysellposted 12 years ago

    hi hugh how are you can you be my friend

    replyreport
13. 49

    ann caysellposted 12 years ago

    hi hugh how are you can you be my friend

    replyreport
14. 79

    earnestshubposted 12 years ago

    Well, I can readily discern the shallowness of yours now you have had your say.

    replyreport
15. 61

    secularist10posted 12 years ago

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein.
    
    I doubt Einstein was referring to "religion" in the sense of organized large-scale superstition. Rather, "religion" in this context is far more likely to mean a general human tendency for wonder, creativity and the desire for something beyond our current selves. In that sense I completely agree. Francis Bacon said "wonder is the seed of knowledge."
    
    We can do just fine without the odd rituals, ornate hats, illogical moral judgment and backward attitudes toward women of religion. We cannot do without a basic desire for growth, happiness and genuine curiosity.
    
    If Einstein was really referring to the "religion" of most of these "religious" folks like the good rabbi, well, he would have been religious like them.
    
    Ironically, it is superstition and organized religion that has so often stood in the way of genuine curiosity and human happiness and emotional growth and human potential. As religion has been removed from society and from people's lives over the centuries, we have become wealthier, healthier and safer. We have discovered more knowledge and realized new insights into what makes us tick. "Religion" has had little to no role in this process.
    
    The Rabbi says "the new fundamentalist secularism... is 'intellectually disappointing.'"
    
    Of course anything that does not conform to the religious mentality will be "intellectually disappointing" so this doesn't mean much.
    
    It's like a basketball player sitting at a baseball game and complaining "this sport sucks!"

    replyreport
    1. 49

       paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I don't agree with this notion. Religion and science have existed always together.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          No they haven't. Where religious adherence is high, scientific advancement is low. Where scientific advancement is high, religious adherence is low. There is a clear inverse relationship, although of course sometimes they can overlap. But as a general rule, they do not go together.
          
          It is the difference between supernaturalism and naturalism.

          replyreport