Letters to the Editor
-
I agree No Name
I think we know that there's been a lot of nonsense foisted off on us in the name of religion. Some of us, like me, also believe, not in supernatural consciousness or powers, but that there is more in nature, and in consciousness, than we know yet.
>Is it pathological to lament the time wasted?
Not at all. In fact, the constant interference with the scientist's work was exactly the reason I gave for that scientist to disprove God. Science, especially medical science, is too important to us all, and our time is too short, to waste a minute. God knows (heh) that even when something is proven, like evolution, it still meets resistance. Though I believe in God, though, I and many like me will be very happy to let it go if science finally weighs in. If God can be disproved, let's do it. Don't waste a minute.
-
Logic and the long debate
Anon2: "It is absolutely the job, at least of the atheistic scientists, or of those who think of themselves as defenders of science against irrational attacks, to defend science against religion."
That's not what JG said. He was only talking about his non-duty to disprove the existence of gods. If gods actually exist, and decide they or their followers have no bearing on science, there is nothing to defend against. I'm trying to tighten up your argument here.
"Let them disprove telepathy, and the possibility of consciousness beyond the body, and they'll have disproved Islam, Christianity, and Judaism."
Again, your logic is jumping a gap here. Telepathy might very well exist (let's keep an open mind, right?), and yet its existence neither proves nor disproves the tenets of the major religions. Nowhere is it stated that telepathy was the sole agent used to convey divine messages to the messengers. Nor does extra-body consciousness prove or disprove anything. These are elements used to defend religion, but can anyone be sure that the results of a specific scientific experiment demonstrate what was described in the texts?
Trivial example: your common hotel bible is written in English. A sloppy skeptic might say, "Ah ha! English didn't exist at the time the bible was written. Therefore this text is false!" Well, we all know that the bible was originally written using a different set of languages than English, so this particular argument (indeed its premise) was flawed. By analogy, if scientists prove or disprove that telepathy exists, does that lead to a definitive conclusion regarding how the message was conveyed from God? Maybe God used a special form of telepathy that regular scientists don't have access to. (Yes, it's a tautological example that can seem frustrating, but it's part of the larger framework that needs to be addressed if you want to deploy airtight 'proofs' to dissuade the persistent believer.)
There are plenty of logical holes in the millennia-old texts of the major religions, not to mention the meaning of their texts themselves. This is what skeptics and religious scholars debate all the time. One needs to construct a very rigorous argument to prove/disprove articles of faith. If that is your goal, you need to pay attention to the details.
-
No answers here
"Imagine if instead of going to church, we met for an hour or more each week to discuss world affairs and the environment. We could transcend ego and apply the Golden Rule and probably bring about some benefit to ourselves and the world around us. And if, instead of praying, we used the same time to meditate on the beauty and fragility of nature."
Ever been to a Unitarian church? It's much like this.
-
Yikes
Not all atheists are devoid of compassion, but you wouldn't know it to read these letters.
-
Proof against God?
Anonymous 2, "Though I believe in God, though, I and many like me will be very happy to let it go if science finally weighs in. If God can be disproved, let's do it. Don't waste a minute."
Here is the scientific proof against God.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest there is a God. The many stories concerning God fail to explain anything that cannot otherwise be better explained without God. They are in fact inconsistent with the known universe and are internally inconsistent. The existence of stories concerning similar mythological and fictional entities suggests that the idea of "God" is no more based on reality than the existence of Dracula, the Easter bunny, or Superman.
That's it.
The end.
Science isn't all about test tubes filled with glowing liquids and particle accelerators. Those are tools to help measure things. The key to science is the scientific method which says that in trying to figure out the behavior of natural phenomena, you make careful measurements of that behavior and you use those measurments to try to craft explanations of what's going on. Those explanations should not only fit what you've previously measured, they should hold up under new experiments. If you have an explanation for what's going on but it fails to predict any new information, then it's not a useful explanation. If new information eventually comes to light that contradicts current explanations then those explanations are chucked out and replaced with whatever fits better.
The fervent belief in God, an omniscient omnipotent being that created the universe and hates fags...or even the fervent belief in some mystical new age Christianity-lite benevolent intelligence behind the universe, these are anathema to the scientific method and common sense. They're the equivalent of postulating that gravity is caused by invisible monsters that shove everyone towards the earth. There's no way to "disprove" these invisible monsters, but that doesn't mean their existence is worth entertaining.
The only reason to believe in God is if you've got some evidence. Agnosticism doesn't make sense, because if you insist on entertaining the possibility God exists, you should entertain the possibility that all sorts of unfounded ideas are true. What about Santa? There's as much evidence for Santa as there is for God. Are you Agnostic about St. Nick? I'm not trying to be snotty here. This isn't hyperbole. There really is as much evidence for Santa as there is for God, or rather, there's as much evidence against Santa as there is against God.
Atheism isn't the absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, nor the certainty that we know everything there is to know. It is not a rejection of morality, or mystery. It is the rejection of things which are likely to be untrue, until proven otherwise.
Should I find myself standing in front of those Pearly Gates [or lakes of fire], THEN is when I'll take religion seriously because there will finally be some reason to do so. Anything less, would be irrational.