Letters to the Editor
-
Really slow work day...
Second, relgion and science are not about the same things. As expressed in the definitions above, science can only explain the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe when observation and experimentation in the material world yields such results. Religion automatically assumes that the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe are determined by supernatural means. Additionally, science can never dictate morality, as morality is entirely subjective, but almost all implementations of religion dictate morality to some degree. GDlinSC
That is a paragraph full of logical fallacies. Religion may assume the 'cause' and 'purpose' of the universe to be determined by a supernatural being- but so what? You do not and logically can not know the cause of the big bang, nor give any useful insight into how we should conduct ourselves, or why. The nature of man, however, is profusely chronicled in religious texts. Certainly literalists may not see it that way, but that is because of their approach to the material, not the content therein. As for science not being able to dictate morality, that is just dumb. We can empirically observe what is best practice for ourselves and those around us, and also empirically observe that what is best for those around us, and is in harmony with our own nature, is best for our individual selves. Logically, then, we can scientifically deduce a set of morals and laws to facilitate 'best practice' for our individual survival through common actions. Trust is also a necessary social component that was essential to our evolution and development as a sentient being. It allows us the comfort to ponder things and figure star-charts, by trusting that we will be fed and protected in the meantime.
The fact that some Christians, Jews or Muslims may rise above this bedrock presumption and extend the olive branch to other faiths in no way alters this fact: such praiseworthy attitudes are held in spite of prevailing religious dogma, not because of it.
The key word here being 'prevailing', which one must assume means 'that which the writer has most experienced through their own lives and through the media'. Whether fundamentalist radicalism is truly the prevailing dogma or not, it is not the true heart of the religion, be in Islam or Christianity or Judeaism. The reason it seems so is because only the nutjobs go around screaming about it and killing people- those who truly have faith and honor the spirit of their religion are to busy living it and keeping their heads down for you to notice them.
Science offers what the three major religions cannot -- the intellectual basis for recognizing human commonality and, by extension, the rationale for exploring ways to live together rather than demonizing each other. Religious dogma cannot accommodate this way of looking at the world -- bsloane
I would insert 'individually' after that first line. Human commonality is immediately recognizeable in a comparative study of any number of religious texts from anywhere in the world. Each simply beleives theirs to be the 'right' one, which often has to do with historical/tribal/regional pride than actual faith. As for exploring ways to live together, that is all that the Bible is . If you don't want to take it on the authority of some greater god, then take it at face value. Read it and tell me that there isn't alot in there that you agree with and that is helpful in everone just 'getting along'. Read the Torah and tell me the same, or the Koran, or the vedas. These are beautiful works of literature. They are timeless accounts of man's inner struggle and his struggle to live in peace with those around him. There is violence and hate too, but these are the residue of 'sinful' or 'evil' or plainly 'contrarian' human influence. In the end, these are valuable sociological studies, rendered in poetry, prose, prophecy, and law-giving.
-
to still waiting
"If you are to believe in God you might as well go all out and believe everything..."
ok, so... you still believe in the tooth fairy? The Easter bunny? Scientology? Where do you draw the line?
-
RE: HIfalutin
and the bottom line is that it's REALLY HARD to be a decent, useful human being, and that whatever gets you closer to that noble goal is probably a good thing.
That's your opinion that it's REALLY HARD to be a decent, useful human being. In my opinion, it's not hard at all. It is a CHOICE. Some people living on Earth don't want to be a decent, useful human being. Some do, but choose not to. Others do their best to meet that goal.
I think it's wrong to assume that ALL humans want to be decent and useful.
-
DurianJoe
Soemthing from nothing, for Anyone
Anyone, why is it any less plausible for the physical universe to have spontaneously come from nothing than for God(s) to have spontaneously come from nothing?
-- DurianJoe
Like most atheists today, I was raised a theist. I reached my atheism through a process of examining my beliefs in the cold hard light of rationality and came to the conclusion that they didn't make any sense to me. I then constructed my own belief system from virtual scratch, since I had no authorities around me to help in my deconversion.
If one posits that the universe and humanity is too complex to have come about through any other process than intelligent design, then that presupposes the presence of an intelligent designer. Logically, one would suspect that an intelligent designer would have to be more complex than that which he/she/it designs. That then raises the question of who or what designed the intelligent designer. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is an even more complex intelligent designer responsible for the intelligent design of our intelligent designer. This then becomes an infinite cascade of intelligent designers, each more complex and powerful than the last.
Ockham's Razor can be used to cut this Gordian Knot of infinite numbers of ever more complex intelligent designers. The short version of Ockham's Razor is as follows: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." The simplest solution is that we are here and no one designed us or our universe.