A religious scientist

Originally posted by serigado
Not all people are strong minded and need something else in their world. Some fill that need playing World of Warcraft, others need something superior. They can't find the answers to the big questions (why are we here? how did all of this come from?) in what science has achieved, and add to that the great fear of death and the justification for moral, and you have all the conditions for a God.

I don't believe that anyone needs to believe in God. It may be a desire but not a need.

I find acceptable that these people try to find comfort in the collective illusion of that God.
Yet you rejected other illusions.

If I was talking about my ideal world, of course there would be no such God, because all people would have a good, strong, independent education. But we don't live in such a world.
My "acceptable" god doesn't make miracles and is non-interfering. He's just there for the impossible justifications, and as the gatekeeper to after life and for the justification of moral and blablabla.
If you ask me, any God is useless. But if people want to believe something, let them believe. As long as their belief doesn't interfere with the progress humanity has achieved in the last centuries.
I am not aware of any religion which includes a God that does not interfere with the progress of humanity. Richard Dawkins makes a good case in "the God delusion" that religions are in general quite harmful and I am inclined to agree with him. You call them 'acceptable' but then list conditions under which they are acceptable but which do not actually occur in real life.

Originally posted by Penguin
I've already given the reasons why I hold Christianity to be distinct from religion, and any further discussion will simply be rehashing what you and I both already know.

No, I can't just let this one go. It is fundamental to your argument for a rational, intelligent person to believe in the Christian God since you seem to accept that such a person sh ...[text shortened]... s the logical, rational, reasonable choice amongst all these alternatives?

--- Penguin[/b]

You say that Christianity is exempt from this because it is not a religion. So presumably if we can establish that Christianity is a religion after all then you would retract your assertion that it is rational to believe in it.
Using the narrowest boundaries of definition, we can make any belief system a religion. For example,

1. we can agree that anything which creates ought to be called a creator. (By 'create' I do not mean re-create, but 'create' as in, something out of nothing.)
2. Belief in a creator is one of the defining terms of a religious belief system.
3. Nature, although not eternal, is self-created.
4. Nature is a creator.
5. Belief strictly in the natural world (wherein nature is its own creator) is a religion.

See? That wasn't so hard.

I don't currently see how any of these models implies the necessity for a purposeful, intelligent creator though.
We haven't got that far yet.

Seriously though, so faith in some divine creator helps us understand how stars shine, birds fly, water freezes and magnets attract? How do we deduce the existance of the strong nuclear force using faith in your specific deity? And presumably faith in other deities or indeed no diety at all would lead to us buildiing a less accurate model of this particular phenomenon.
Not that any of those fields are without value, but the value is less than what is often currently attributed.

Why does your particular take on christianity stand out as the logical, rational, reasonable choice amongst all these alternatives?
I don't know that my take is necessarily the one, as I am a nervous little man, riddled with doubt and a lingering sense of self-preservation. In my view (replete with all manner of unreliability) of all available data (none of it hermetically sealed), the Bible answers the questions most satisfactorily.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You say that Christianity is exempt from this because it is not a religion. So presumably if we can establish that Christianity is a religion after all then you would retract your assertion that it is rational to believe in it.
Using the narrowest boundaries of definition, we can make any belief system a religion. For example,

1. we can ...[text shortened]... a (none of it hermetically sealed), the Bible answers the questions most satisfactorily.[/b]

[/b]Using the narrowest boundaries of definition, we can make any belief system a religion. For example,

1. we can agree that anything which creates ought to be called a creator. (By 'create' I do not mean re-create, but 'create' as in, something out of nothing.)
2. Belief in a creator is one of the defining terms of a religious belief system.
3. Nature, although not eternal, is self-created.
4. Nature is a creator.
5. Belief strictly in the natural world (wherein nature is its own creator) is a religion.[/b]

So you will accept that if Chritianity is a religion, then it must be compared with the other religions when deciding whether belief in it is any more logical than belief in any other religion?

Now, I take issue with your definition of a religion above: "Belief in a creator". This excludes many supernatural belief systems: Budhism, Paganism, ancient Greek & Roman religions for instance. Lets stick to the dictionary definitions shall we? Only one of the definitions below makes any reference to a 'creator' and it qualifies the creator as being 'superhuman or divine' so I think we can throw away point 2 of your argument and thereby discard points 3, 4 and 5 as well.

However, while you are trying to constrict what is a 'religion' to remove Christianity from its definition (though how you coould do that without also removing the vast majority of the other religions from it as well is beyond me), I am trying to broaden the scope of my argument to any supernatural belief system whatsoever: What makes the Christian belief system any more true than belief in fairies, witches, ghosts and astrology?

--- Penguin.

=======================================
- a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
- an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

- A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

- a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

- a system of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world.
www.anthro.wayne.edu/ant2100/GlossaryCultAnt.htm

- belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe
www.millicentrogers.org/glossary.htm

- Has many definitions - most of them involve the idea of supernatural agency.
www.csa.com/discoveryguides/religion/gloss.php

- an organized system of faith and worship
www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/priestley/vocab.asp

- Oxford dictionary definition (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship. ...
www.ecotao.com/holism/glosoz.htm

- Generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief.
www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm

- An organized set of beliefs and faith regarding the spiritual or metaphysical world. This includes beliefs regarding an afterlife, the soul, theology and the existance and nature of gods, types of spirits inhabiting the world, and similar items. ...
www.jashan.net/sites/satanism/dict-common.php

- A man's expression of his acknowledgement of god.
www.godonthe.net/dictionary/r.html

- the service and worship of God or the supernatural
www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/dictionary/MiddleEast.htm

- A system of thinking that recognizes a supersoul and performs some sort of adoration of that supersoul.
www.angelfire.com/pa/ebrownle2/gloss.html

- For the purpose of this Plan, religion is defined as all aspects of - beliefs and practices regarding supernatural beings, power, and forces.
mywebpages.comcast.net/tbrown117735MI/culturevocabulary.html

- a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader
encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861601866/cult.html
===========================

Originally posted by Penguin
Using the narrowest boundaries of definition, we can make any belief system a religion. For example,

1. we can agree that anything which creates ought to be called a creator. (By 'create' I do not mean re-create, but 'create' as in, something out of nothing.)
2. Belief in a creator is one of the defining terms of a religious belief encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861601866/cult.html
===========================[/b]

So you will accept that if Chritianity is a religion...
As soon as you accept the same of naturalism, and only for the same reasons.

Now, I take issue with your definition of a religion above: "Belief in a creator".
As do I. I actually said (as you quoted) "Belief in a creator is one of the defining terms of a religious belief system."

Lets stick to the dictionary definitions shall we?
That's entirely up to you. However, a few issues poke out using current word use. One, the history of the word, thus its underlying meaning, brings forth connotations not available in a limited current use study. For instance, this from the online etymology website regarding religion:

"However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."

To bind fast? Place an obligation on? That sounds an awful lot like concepts related to the next issue:

A mere definition of common word use does not necessarily shed any light on the conceptual meaning of any given word. Superficially, dictionary definitions simply tell us how the word is being used, without touching on underlying meanings. For instance, when we view the panorama of world religions, we find a variety of beliefs--- some in complete opposition to one another, others more closely aligned. However, without fail, all of them speak of things the adherent must do (or eschew) in order to gain enlightenment/salvation/satisfaction. All of them, that is, except for one: Christianity.

In orthodox Christianity, nothing can be done to warrant salvation. Nothing, of course, but acceptance by faith of the gift from God. It is a relationship with the Living God, it is about thought. But, it is emphatically not about effort on man's part, physically, emotionally, mentally or otherwise. This separates Christianity from religions. Religions tell man what he must do to join himself together with God. Christianity tells man what God has done to actually accomplish the feat.

If I was talking about my ideal world, of course there would be no such God, because all people would have a good, strong, independent education. But we don't live in such a world.
My "acceptable" god doesn't make miracles and is non-interfering. He's just there for the impossible justifications, and as the gatekeeper to after life and for the justification of moral and blablabla.
If you ask ...[text shortened]... elusion" that religions are in general quite harmful and I am inclined to agree with him.

I don't believe that anyone needs to believe in God. It may be a desire but not a need.
It may have been an induced need by education, but I think some people need it to keep going. Just as some people need a pet to make them company. I think we are just diverging a little in the significance of "need"

You call them 'acceptable' but then list conditions under which they are acceptable but which do not actually occur in real life.
Yeah... Making a fracturing speech only polarizes opinions. Religions most of the times are more harmful then beneficial, and the tendency must be to educate people to rely on themselves. You can't just say to them the meaning of their life is simply wrong. Let's first change religion to something merely spiritual. There is on official religion under those conditions I said, but many people think this way. They don't need churches and worshiping and all the ridiculous stuff, yet they feel more comforting saying "hey.. maybe there's some god out there looking for me and my family, and when I die we can all meet and have a nice drink".

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So you will accept that if Chritianity is a religion...
As soon as you accept the same of naturalism, and only for the same reasons.

Now, I take issue with your definition of a religion above: "Belief in a creator".
As do I. I actually said (as you quoted) "Belief in a creator is one of the defining terms of a religious belief system."
. Christianity tells man what God has done to actually accomplish the feat.[/b]

Again the need for Christians to be something more then the others. It's always the same thing. Now Christianity is not a religion. Are you crazy? Maybe you want it to be something more, but it isn't.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So you will accept that if Chritianity is a religion...
As soon as you accept the same of naturalism, and only for the same reasons.

Now, I take issue with your definition of a religion above: "Belief in a creator".
As do I. I actually said (as you quoted) "Belief in a creator is one of the defining terms of a religious belief system." ...[text shortened]... . Christianity tells man what God has done to actually accomplish the feat.[/b]

As soon as you accept the same of naturalism, and only for the same reasons.

If you can explain how naturalism is a religion when defined as in my previous post above, then fine. I think you'll have a hard time shoehorning the supernatural elements in there though.

In orthodox Christianity, nothing can be done to warrant salvation. Nothing, of course, but acceptance by faith of the gift from God.

You've just contradicted yourself there. We don't have to do anything. We have to accept the gift from God. Accepting a gift is an action. It is something your religion says we have to do.

And we are still talking about God. If any particular God did not exist, for example the Flying Spaghetti Monster, how could we tell? Contrast this with any particular scientific theory. For example if the theory of evolution by natural selection were wrong, how could we find out? Well, human bones in Jurasic strata would do it. as would two dogs mating and the female giving birth to a cat. Or a gorilla giving birth to a human.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]As soon as you accept the same of naturalism, and only for the same reasons.

If you can explain how naturalism is a religion when defined as in my previous post above, then fine. I think you'll have a hard time shoehorning the supernatural elements in there though.

In orthodox Christianity, nothing can be done to warrant salvation. Nothing, ...[text shortened]... g and the female giving birth to a cat. Or a gorilla giving birth to a human.

--- Penguin.

the very definition of supernatural ensures that a scientist (engaged in pushing the boundaries of the natural) that believes in the supernatural, is simply someone who believes in everything.

It must be difficult.

Originally posted by Penguin
As soon as you accept the same of naturalism, and only for the same reasons.

If you can explain how naturalism is a religion when defined as in my previous post above, then fine. I think you'll have a hard time shoehorning the supernatural elements in there though.

In orthodox Christianity, nothing can be done to warrant salvation. Nothing, of ...[text shortened]... g and the female giving birth to a cat. Or a gorilla giving birth to a human.

--- Penguin.

If you can explain how naturalism is a religion when defined as in my previous post above, then fine.
I am not using yours, I am using mine as posted previously. You remember, the one that speaks of relying on a creator for creation?

I think you'll have a hard time shoehorning the supernatural elements in there though.
Given:
that naturalism adheres to the doctrine of self-creation; and,
that self-creation is not something observable in nature today...
that makes nature's self-creation somewhat super-natural, wouldn't you agree?

Accepting a gift is an action.
You're right: it is an action that requires no work, whatsoever. It's a lot like swallowing in that everyone can do it simply by deciding.

If any particular God did not exist, for example the Flying Spaghetti Monster, how could we tell?
What claims is FSM making, exactly? When did were the claims first made? What is the nature of FSM, and what bearing does that have on man?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If you can explain how naturalism is a religion when defined as in my previous post above, then fine.
I am not using yours, I am using mine as posted previously. You remember, the one that speaks of relying on a creator for creation?

I think you'll have a hard time shoehorning the supernatural elements in there though.
Given:
that nat ...[text shortened]... the claims first made? What is the nature of FSM, and what bearing does that have on man?[/b]

I am not using yours, I am using mine as posted previously. You remember, the one that speaks of relying on a creator for creation?

Ok so even using your somewhat unorthodox definition, which by the way would also exclude buddhism, paganism and probably several other religions since they say nothing about whether or how the universe was created, naturalism is also still not a religion. All we know is that the universe appears have been expanding for nearly 14 billion years from a point source. Note that that is not saying that the matter/energy was created 14 billion years ago, just that it was very very compressed. So naturalism does not imply belief in a creator and so isnot by your definition a religion.

that naturalism adheres to the doctrine of self-creation; and,

As I pointed out above, naturalism does not adhere to a doctrine of self creation so you are indeed having a hard time shoehorning supernatural elements into naturalism.

It's a lot like swallowing in that everyone can do it simply by deciding.

There is plainly muscular effort required to swallow, as well as mental effort.

What claims is FSM making, exactly? When did were the claims first made? What is the nature of FSM, and what bearing does that have on man?

The age of a religion is irrelevant, otherwise we should believe the first religion ever dreamt up, which was probably a polytheistic one involving weather Gods and that is unlikely to say much about the beginning of the universe. Either that or we should believe in the youngest religion which is quite possibly pastafarianism.

The claims it makes are many, varied, hugely attractive and probably fairly hard to disprove.
- Heaven has beer volcanoes as far as the eye can see.
- Heaven has a stripper factory.
- The FSM first created a mountain, trees and a midget on the first day. He spent the next 3 days creating the rest of the universe and then rested for 3 days.
- I don't have my Gospel to hand but if I remember correctly, his teaching are something like "if it's nice and it doesn't hurt anybody, go ahead".

Originally posted by Penguin
I am not using yours, I am using mine as posted previously. You remember, the one that speaks of relying on a creator for creation?

Ok so even using your somewhat unorthodox definition, which by the way would also exclude buddhism, paganism and probably several other religions since they say nothing about whether or how the universe was created, natu ...[text shortened]... tly, his teaching are something like "if it's nice and it doesn't hurt anybody, go ahead".[/b]

...which by the way would also exclude buddhism, paganism and probably several other religions since they say nothing about whether or how the universe was created...
We weren't discussing any other religion, we were noting how using the term supernatural in its broadest sense could conceivably lend itself to labeling naturalism a religion.


All we know is that the universe appears have been expanding for nearly 14 billion years from a point source.
Sounds like question begging to me. And the point source came from... ?

There is plainly muscular effort required to swallow, as well as mental effort.
Right, but everybody is equally capable. Those who are incapable of thought are incapable of making a decision about salvation. The same are automatically saved, where no capability ever existed.

- I don't have my Gospel to hand but if I remember correctly, his teaching are something like "if it's nice and it doesn't hurt anybody, go ahead".
Well, your FSM religion sounds like a real winner. Why don't you run with it and see where it gets you. For someone who fancies himself an objective and impassioned thinker, you haven't put much thought into the standard by which 'nice' will be measured. But don't let that stop you...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]...which by the way would also exclude buddhism, paganism and probably several other religions since they say nothing about whether or how the universe was created...
We weren't discussing any other religion, we were noting how using the term supernatural in its broadest sense could conceivably lend itself to labeling naturalism a religion.
t into the standard by which 'nice' will be measured. But don't let that stop you...[/b]

We weren't discussing any other religion, we were noting how using the term supernatural in its broadest sense could conceivably lend itself to labeling naturalism a religion.

But it was 'religion' you were redefining (as something involving belief in a creator), not 'supernatural'. I was just pointing out that your new definition was like defining a 'mammal' as 'an animal that eats grass'.

Sounds like question begging to me. And the point source came from... ?

We don't know. And that is a perfectly valid statement to make. Just because you don't know is no reason at all to believe in any particular bogeyman. It is reason however to try to come up with hypotheses that can be tested and thrown out. Any specific explanation that cannot be tested has exactly the same value as any other explanation that cannot be tested. See my reasoning behind bringing up the FSM below.

Right, but everybody is equally capable. Those who are incapable of thought are incapable of making a decision about salvation. The same are automatically saved, where no capability ever existed.

Not everybody is equally capable of swallowing. Stephen Hawking for instance. Likewise, although I am capable of thought, I am incapable of devoting myself to a deity I do not believe exists.

Well, your FSM religion sounds like a real winner. Why don't you run with it and see where it gets you. For someone who fancies himself an objective and impassioned thinker, you haven't put much thought into the standard by which 'nice' will be measured. But don't let that stop you...

I was not trying to suggest that Pastafarianism was a winner. I was pointing out that it has as much truth value as any other supernatural belief system, including yours. If it is impossible to distinguish between a universe where the FSM (or God, Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Thor, Woden, the Wheel of Life, etc etc) exists and one where the above do not, then they they are all equally valid. If you discount the FSM as rediculous then you must discount all the others as well.

--- Penguin.

By the way, I now have the Science Wars lectures and will gradually go through them. It may take me some time though.

Originally posted by Penguin
We weren't discussing any other religion, we were noting how using the term supernatural in its broadest sense could conceivably lend itself to labeling naturalism a religion.

But it was 'religion' you were redefining (as something involving belief in a creator), not 'supernatural'. I was just pointing out that your new definition was like defi ...[text shortened]... rs lectures and will gradually go through them. It may take me some time though.[/b]

Likewise, although I am capable of thought, I am incapable of devoting myself to a deity I do not believe exists.
Fortunately, the condition for salvation has nothing to do even with the spiritual-sounding "devotion." God has not made salvation contingent upon one's devotion to Him. You either accept the work that was done on the cross by Jesus Christ as though the work was yours, or you do not.

There is no religious, warm-fuzzy glow that accompanies salvation, nor are we charged with making the same be our experience. Acceptance of the gift is not an endorsement of anyone's perspective of the giver: it's simply acceptance.

If God is not real, you have lost nothing in the venture.

If you discount the FSM as rediculous then you must discount all the others as well.
One of two scenarios is possible, it appears. Either I have not given my faith any (or enough) reasonable thought prior to reaching my conclusions about the same, or you haven't.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Likewise, although I am capable of thought, I am incapable of devoting myself to a deity I do not believe exists.
Fortunately, the condition for salvation has nothing to do even with the spiritual-sounding "devotion." God has not made salvation contingent upon one's devotion to Him. You either accept the work that was done on the cross by Jesus C ...[text shortened]... nough) reasonable thought prior to reaching my conclusions about the same, or you haven't.[/b]

If God is not real, you have lost nothing in the venture.

Yes, you have. You have lost all the time worshiping, devoting yourself, and more importantly, having a completely wrong vision of the world during your whole lifetime.
Accept the beautiful vision of a world without God and you will never be deluded. You only have to answer to yourself, you know everything you do is without a superior obligation, because YOU are your own GOD. Is there anything more beautiful then this freedom???

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Likewise, although I am capable of thought, I am incapable of devoting myself to a deity I do not believe exists.
Fortunately, the condition for salvation has nothing to do even with the spiritual-sounding "devotion." God has not made salvation contingent upon one's devotion to Him. You either accept the work that was done on the cross by Jesus C ...[text shortened]... nough) reasonable thought prior to reaching my conclusions about the same, or you haven't.[/b]

Fortunately, the condition for salvation has nothing to do even with the spiritual-sounding "devotion." God has not made salvation contingent upon one's devotion to Him.

So you believe, with no evidence or possibility of discovering until too late whether you are wrong. I could just as easily state that the FSM will consign non-believers such as you to hell (like FSM heaven except that the beer is stale and the strippers all have VD) and such a belief would be just as well supported.

If God is not real, you have lost nothing in the venture.

As Serigado says, you have lost the time and effort believing in what is likely a falsehood. Even worse, there may actually be a God who punishes those who believe in things with no adequate justification, and if it's judgement of 'adequate justification' does not include your justification of your belief then you are even more stuffed.

One of two scenarios is possible, it appears. Either I have not given my faith any (or enough) reasonable thought prior to reaching my conclusions about the same, or you haven't.

No, you are wrong, there is a third scenario: Maybe neither of us has given reasonable thought prior to reaching our conclusions. Maybe there is even a fourth scenario: we have both given reasonable thought but no amount of reasoning can justify one conclusion above another.

--- Penguin.

I'm on lecture 8 of 'Science Wars'. I'll start a new thread when I've finished it.