You seem to believe that scientists cannot be 'religious' (whatever that means) and vice versa. This simply isn't true.

Newton: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done" and Einstein spoke of "a knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man" and finally Hawking: "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God."

The God being referred to here is the same God that has been pondered for aeons. Alas, this God isn't accessible to all and as such the bearded, cloud riding God is offered up as an introduction and the allegory can be explored until one reaches one's limits of understanding.

Do you really think that religious figure-heads believe in fairies? Does Dr Rowan Williams believe in the same God as Mrs Smith next door? God is conceptual, allegorical and poetic. Both Scientists and the religious seek and knock, you know, and their specific vocation is almost irrelevant.

I really believe that numerous atheist-fundamentalist don't actually understand what they don't believe in.

 

James, you can't honestly believe that "God governs all things". Certain laws of Physics are pretty much immutable, but that is not the same as having a "governing" influence, is it? Governorship implies an element of intervention in everyday affairs and occurrences; it implies intercession on behalf of human beings; and ad hoc suspension of the laws of physics, probability or even common sense, which is patently NOT what we observe. I think devout religious belief and stern empiricism ARE mutually exclusive, sadly.

 

You're correct, I don't believe God governs all things and, for your reference, if I had to pigeon-hole my philosophy right now, it would just about squeeze into pandeism. Scientist can be religious (with its myriad of interpretations) and the religious (excluding borderline mentally-ill literalists) can be scientists.

I refer you once again to the last sentence of my previous post.

 

I agree with that sentence, and I'm both happy and somewhat smug in the safe knowledge that I am not to be included in that particular grouping.

 

Is this the last sentence to which you refer?

May I point out that it actually makes no grammatical sense at all?

 

You may.

 

Yes it does. It's just that it ends with a preposition.

If you recast the sentence thus:

"I really believe that numerous atheist/ fundamentalists don't actually understand that in which they don't believe", then it's fine.

Or you might say, "a significant number of the people engaged in this debate on either side are not sufficiently familiar with the details of the opposing view to form an opinion of any value".

 

You might say that, if you wanted to put words into my mouth.

Explicitly; ill-informed fundamental atheists are contemptible, in my view, and are only slightly higher up the food chain than literalists. They argue with the easily deceived about notions of God that really ought to have been left behind in the sixth-form.

 

I just liked it when they said there is so much literature about there being a god, well i could write "i am great" in a book, but would it be true?

Tony

 

With regards to JTaylor's and Pimmo's colleague comments, they are borne purely out of scientific reasoning. Especially the one from Pimmo's colleague. He basically says that because science hasn't given us all the answers, it has failed.

But because you don't know the answer to something, it simply means that, not that some God is the answer. By this reasoning, religion (and God) has failed because it is continually contradictory and gives us no answers whatosever.

The God of Abraham is obviously fictitious, so now you try to change to the argument.

OK, does the Universe have consciousness? Possibly, but that doesn't make it a God any more than I am for having it.

The bible is a false account, and demonstrably so. What you allude to now simply isn't the same, and you know it.

Geezer

 

Thank you for pointing that out, Geezer.

What argument?

It doesn't make it a supernatural, personal god, for sure.

The Bible, for most, is allegorical. Forget the literalists, they're clearly barking mad. Re-read my posts and move on from this, it's old hat. Human God concepts evolve.

Damn it, you've caught me out! Besides, it wasn't me, it was that bloomin' trouble-maker Spinoza who started it all.

 

Rather highbrow now,so to bring it down to our level ...

I've used the example before (wityh Olly) about the Heart Surgeon with an utter devotion to God.

Would you have not thought that someone dealing with life and death would not be saying things like 'and all we can do now is pray' (I know some will mock his statement with quips about the operation,but it was genuine belief on his part).

 

YouTube - God On The Brain (part 5 of 5)

Examples throughout this programme but specifically here at 7:05

and the inverse from Hawking at 8.18

YouTube - Carl Sagan - God, the Universe, & Everything Else

 

oops, looks like another problem:
BBC NEWS | England | Hampshire | Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

 

Any expression of belief implies that others are incorrect. Perhaps Muslims/Hindus/Atheists etc. should start to complain about signs outside Christian churches?

Geezer

 

A sign supporting Jesus outside a house of God V. An atheistic sign on a mode of public transport. Not a terribly balanced comparison, Geezer.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there are no Atheist churches.....

Still, there are many outpourings of religious teachings or expressions through the TV or radio, but no one tries to stop those. It's still hypocrisy to try to deny other views, whatever they may be.

Geezer

 

Top post

 

Indeed. However, I suspect that Dawkins, Betrand Russell, Arthur C. Clarke, Darwin et al. would object fervently to driving a bus around London saying "There is a personal God, now stop disobeying the Ten Commandments".

 

Yes, I take your point

The original story about Christians trying to stop it being allowed is what I object to.

Geezer

 

Well, I don't object to them trying to stop it, that is their right. I do however, object to their reasons for trying to stop the advert (forgive the semantics). Freedom of expression should not, in my view, be restricted simply because it impacts on a belief set.

 

Dawkins described congregating atheists as being like "trying to herd cats". Here's an attempt to herd cats that you may interested in.

The Brights' Net - Home Page

 

 

I think its been pretty obvious for quite some time to most of us that there is no god, it has been to me anyway.

ever wonder why churches are full of old people on a sunday? coz theyre all thinking the same thing "just in case"

 

That's funny!

Geezer

 

What about the God that Hawking refers to at 8.18 in this link?

YouTube - Carl Sagan - God, the Universe, & Everything Else

Almost nobody with the capacity for critical thought 'believes' in the supernatural, personal God that I feel most of you are debating. This is man's God concept from the Bronze-age, for goodness sake. The God of evolved, rational, enlightened minds is light years away. The God of Spinoza, Einstein, Asimov, Hawking and Taylor () is observable (post- primum movens), majestic and divine.

 

I wonder if it will be male or female or both

 

Neither would be a fair supposition.

 

Yes, but don't you think that they only think along those lines because even though they lost their faith (if they ever had any of course), in their lives they will have come into contact with religion, and the concept of a supreme being. The seed has been sown.

It would be interesting to see what these brilliant minds thought if it were possible to bring them up and education without ever even hearing of the concept of a supreme being or Universal consciousness.

Geezer

 

Very good TB

Les