51. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4835 by Manfred on November 6, 2006 at 1:18 pm

"So on your death bed, you have nothing to look forward to, except non-existence? "

Certainly Truth seeker. A non-existence after a life time of existence which makes you quite fortunate. A life time with tremendous opportunities to learn and experience so many bautiful or ugly things. Yet, one that if you think about it is better spent without wishful thinking or submission to a highly improbable deity. By your mere existence you are much luckier than those who will never be born. So make the most of it.

" In such a case, there appears to be absolutely no purpose in this life?"

Every individual gives menaing to his or her own life. There are a billion things one can choose from:
Love. Help your fellow human beings. Give to charity. Teach. Learn. Paint. Make music. Listen to music. Feel the awe and wonder of scientific persuit. Be useful. Protect the animals and plants. Be a good mother. Be a good father. Be a good son or daughter. And many many other things.

"There seems to be no reason for us to be here..."
We are here. Why do you need a reason? Just be a good Human Being. And don't worry about death or afterwards.

52. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4613 by Manfred on November 4, 2006 at 8:57 pm

"Intelligent people will continue to point out inconsistencies in the bible, contradictions between the bible and the natural world, the silly polar extremes of religious judgement (eternity in paradise/eternity being tortured) etc. A few people may renounce their faith with a healthy dose of rational thought and that is why we fight. My concern is will enough people do it, and will they do it quickly enough? Sadly, i fear not."

Gareth
Probably you are right unfortunately. I think even Richard Dawkins had a readership in mind consisted mostly of the people on the verge of denouncing their faith. Those who need a final push. (Correct me if I am wrong).

I don't think if a theist who has absolutely made up his/her mind about faith would be easily persuaded. If free thought is not aceepted as a condition of a debate or discussion, it is going to be difficult to have a rational, logocal debate.

I also think that it goes all the way back to children education. If they are exposed to different viewpoints, scientific method, and are taught to be free thinkers (more of how to think than what to think, as RD mentioned in TGD), then they would have that starting point you are talking about even if they choose to have faith.

Personally, I think you guys are lucky that you live in open societies where these debates can take place. With all the shortcomings, at least lots of people are exposed to education and debates, and there is a chance to discuss things logically.
And nobody is really being persecuted because of atheism. You should live in a theocracy to understand what I mean. I don't know what can be done when the whole system of education is in hand of fanatics and children are indoctrinated and adults are exposed to religious propaganda 24/7.
I simply don't know. And the problem is most of the evil effects of religion are coming from societies like these with a global impact.

53. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4511 by Manfred on November 4, 2006 at 8:54 am

" I hate to explain things"

Now, that explains a lot!

54. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4509 by Manfred on November 4, 2006 at 8:51 am

Rosy,
You were told before, no scientist ever has talked about pure chance. Evolution by natural selection is not chance. Natural selestion is a very gradual, slow process, and it has been in motion for billions of years.
" and we all go bumping into the sun spots on the other side of the moon"
Not sure what you are talking about here.

And there is still lots of debate on string theory. For one thing, it has not been proven yet by any experiments. And as long as it is not, many scientists do not accept it as the correct theory. It does explain some experiments ans observations but not all of them. And you see, that is exactly what a scientific method is: investigate and question everything.

55. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4506 by Manfred on November 4, 2006 at 8:33 am

"In conclusion, we asking me to accept something that is harder or just as hard to explain as just simply saying God put it here."

Rosy, you are saying that the God who has supposedly created all these , is a simple explanation? How can he be? He has to be much more complex than his creation in order to create it. And again, nobody is asking you to accept things without investigation. And if something is a bit hard to understand to you, doesn't mean putting a God up there solves the problem. It just makes a lazy way out.
The fact that there are disagreements on the origin of life and univerese among scientists, is precisely what makes science beautiful. What are you suggesting? Giving up the exploration and scientific investigation and call it a quit?

"Why can't I have my opinion when it seems to be the only possible excuse for life, and there is so much proof in the prophecy of the illumined."

Consider me ilitrate in the prophecy of the illumined and please tell me about one. I am interested to know. But if you need a fallacy as your excuse to live, I can't really argue with you.

"Why is a roll of the die necessary to understand probability?"
It was an example. Didn't you want simplicity to understand things? That's is exactly how Models work in science. You start from a simple model of what you are trying to explain. A realistic model that captures the properties of the phenomena. Because it makes it easier to understand. You add complexities to it and again make sure that it still works according to your experiments and observations which are your facts. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, your model is wrong and you explore more. Establshed scientific theories like Evolution or numerous theories in physics have withstood the rigorous checks with the facts (experiments and observations). They are not just guesses. They are the best natural models we have to explain the facts and evidence. If a better model or theory is to be found, scientists would be the first to embrace it, as long as the new theory complies with the observed or measured facts.
In all of these there is no need to bring in a supernatural being. As I said, that ends the argument and is the lazy way out.

56. Dawkins' delusion is that science can determine the existence of God

Comment #4400 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 5:21 pm

Thanks Russ.
That was really interesting. Why is Harry Cook a priest?

57. Atheists should be louder and prouder

Comment #4389 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 4:42 pm

Paul
Atheism is not a belief system. Atheists are usually people who although have been brought up in religious families or societies, have not accepted everything they are told about religion. They had the opportunity to look at other points of views through education. They have reached the conclusion therefore, that there is no objective evidence for the existance of God, and the holy Books of any kind, are the myths and stories of a group of people in a corner of this planet which have been taken as truth by the majority of people.

I don't think atheists are exclusive. I also disagree with the notion that most of the people with average intelligence cannot be atheists. It is not the matter of intelligence. It is the matter of adequate education and presenting all the scientific evidence and viewpoints to people. Indeed the distribution of the adequate education is very poor in general in the world.

For example, in my country, Iran, neither Big Bang nor evolution in being taught to children in school. There is no doubt that the majority of these children who do not have all facts will grow up to believe whatever the clergy tell them. There are people like me who mostly because of their families and because of getting exposed to books and education more than the formal education become atheists or agnostics.

I am positive if others had as many opportunities as I and my friends had, they would not have accepted the whole religion package so blindly. Unfortunaely, education is not adequate and the wealth is not distributed equally so that every child can have access to scientific knowledge.

58. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4381 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 3:46 pm

You are very welcome :) Glad you liked it.

59. Dawkins' delusion is that science can determine the existence of God

Comment #4358 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 2:02 pm

"Yet, McGrath notes, even if we limit ourselves to looking at the effect on people's lives, it is impossible to argue conclusively that faith is unhealthy."

Right, like it never makes the faithful believe that they only have the truth and everybody else is wrong.
Is it healthy to kill for your faith? Is it healthy to blow up buildings with people in it?
Is it healthy to start a crusade?

The problem is, the effects of religion in people's lives is in front of their eyes, with numerous examples from all over the world, not only at our times, but throughout the history.

Perhaps it is healthy to be ignorant. It is definitely a bliss.

60. Dawkins' delusion is that science can determine the existence of God

Comment #4351 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 1:48 pm

Can these people come up with a new argument?
Can they at least read the book and then review it?
Dawkins has talked about scientists who believe, includign Pascal, in his book. Dawkins has talked about the God he is against in his book. Dawkins has talked about the claims of positive correlation between religious invlovement and wellbeing. Dawkins has talked about Stalin in his book. Should I go on?

61. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4328 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 11:58 am

Slow Brown Fox
Very true.
What you wrote reminded me of "The Theologian's Nightmare" by Bertrand Russell. It is amusing:
http://www.solstice.us/russell/theologian.html

62. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4314 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 10:25 am

Thank you Rosy.

"When God is ready to reveal himself, he will let you know."

I don't bet on it, though.

63. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4308 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 9:27 am

William
"If EVERY religious person was like Rosy - well, the world would be lovely! We'd have heaven on Earth - because people would be more considerate and respectful of each other."

Agreed, although I would take issues with him wanting a Martin Luther.

64. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4288 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 8:05 am

Rosy
" Poetry has touched my life."
Good, the same with me. Although the poets that I like are different from the ones you have read. You see, not everyone here is British. I don't mind being a British, or whatever else, but I can't help it, I am not. So you see I usually don't worry about the Queen, whether God wants to save her or not!
Poetry is an art practiced by human beings. It has nothing to do whatsoever with supernaturalism.

"God has also touched me just as real as those other events, but I don't know how to share it in a way that others would benefit from it. It is personal."
Exactly. Whatever God touching you means, it makes sense only to you and your mind. It would have made sense to me if you could show me any plausible evidence that it is indeed God touching you, not a trick of your mind or your delusions. So as long as you can't give me the evidence, please keep your experience as personal as you can. NO objections on my part.

"But if someone doesn't believe in Him, then I doubt my sharing of my experience is going to convince them that it is real."
Correct. Again unless you can present us with an OBJECTIVE evidence.

"You must believe that He exists and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him."
A presumption for something's existance does not make that thing real. And you are right, I cannot possibly believe that God exists; there is not an iota of objective, rational evidence for it.

65. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4255 by Manfred on November 3, 2006 at 4:34 am

rosy-fingered dawn:
"Does that make any sense to you?"
Sorry, not really.
And you know what I meant when I asked which God.
I didn't mean Dawkins. You should realize that there are many believers with different types of Gods and all of them absolutely think theirs is the true one. How do you know you are not wrong?

I have not much to say about your bumble bee. It is not clear what your point is. You realized your fear was baseless and irrational? Is that what you are trying to say?

" I am speaking metaphysically, as when Henri Bergson talks elusively about an out of the body experience, or intuition, where you become the object itself, or inside of it looking out rather than mere common sense."
Since we are on the subject of out of body experience, read this from NYTimes Science. Our brain is capcable of great many things and we have just started to understand it.

The link to article is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?ei=5088&en=eeb8e23490396c32&ex=1317528000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

---------------------------------
October 3, 2006
Out-of-Body Experience? Your Brain Is to Blame
By SANDRA BLAKESLEE

Correction Appended

They are eerie sensations, more common than one might think: A man describes feeling a shadowy figure standing behind him, then turning around to find no one there. A woman feels herself leaving her body and floating in space, looking down on her corporeal self.

Such experiences are often attributed by those who have them to paranormal forces.

But according to recent work by neuroscientists, they can be induced by delivering mild electric current to specific spots in the brain. In one woman, for example, a zap to a brain region called the angular gyrus resulted in a sensation that she was hanging from the ceiling, looking down at her body. In another woman, electrical current delivered to the angular gyrus produced an uncanny feeling that someone was behind her, intent on interfering with her actions.

The two women were being evaluated for epilepsy surgery at University Hospital in Geneva, where doctors implanted dozens of electrodes into their brains to pinpoint the abnormal tissue causing the seizures and to identify adjacent areas involved in language, hearing or other essential functions that should be avoided in the surgery. As each electrode was activated, stimulating a different patch of brain tissue, the patient was asked to say what she was experiencing.

Dr. Olaf Blanke, a neurologist at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland who carried out the procedures, said that the women had normal psychiatric histories and that they were stunned by the bizarre nature of their experiences.

The Sept. 21 issue of Nature magazine includes an account by Dr. Blanke and his colleagues of the woman who sensed a shadow person behind her. They described the out-of-body experiences in the February 2004 issue of the journal Brain.

There is nothing mystical about these ghostly experiences, said Peter Brugger, a neuroscientist at University Hospital in Zurich, who was not involved in the experiments but is an expert on phantom limbs, the sensation of still feeling a limb that has been amputated, and other mind-bending phenomena.

“The research shows that the self can be detached from the body and can live a phantom existence on its own, as in an out-of-body experience, or it can be felt outside of personal space, as in a sense of a presence,” Dr. Brugger said.

Scientists have gained new understanding of these odd bodily sensations as they have learned more about how the brain works, Dr. Blanke said. For example, researchers have discovered that some areas of the brain combine information from several senses. Vision, hearing and touch are initially processed in the primary sensory regions. But then they flow together, like tributaries into a river, to create the wholeness of a person’s perceptions. A dog is visually recognized far more quickly if it is simultaneously accompanied by the sound of its bark.

These multisensory processing regions also build up perceptions of the body as it moves through the world, Dr. Blanke said. Sensors in the skin provide information about pressure, pain, heat, cold and similar sensations. Sensors in the joints, tendons and bones tell the brain where the body is positioned in space. Sensors in the ears track the sense of balance. And sensors in the internal organs, including the heart, liver and intestines, provide a readout of a person’s emotional state.

Real-time information from the body, the space around the body and the subjective feelings from the body are also represented in multisensory regions, Dr. Blanke said. And if these regions are directly simulated by an electric current, as in the cases of the two women he studied, the integrity of the sense of body can be altered.

As an example, Dr. Blanke described the case of a 22-year-old student who had electrodes implanted into the left side of her brain in 2004.

“We were checking language areas,” Dr. Blanke said, when the woman turned her head to the right. That made no sense, he said, because the electrode was nowhere near areas involved in the control of movement. Instead, the current was stimulating a multisensory area called the angular gyrus.

Dr. Blanke applied the current again. Again, the woman turned her head to the right. “Why are you doing this?” he asked.

The woman replied that she had a weird sensation that another person was lying beneath her on the bed. The figure, she said, felt like a “shadow” that did not speak or move; it was young, more like a man than a woman, and it wanted to interfere with her.

When Dr. Blanke turned off the current, the woman stopped looking to the right, and said the strange presence had gone away. Each time he reapplied the current, she once again turned her head to try to see the shadow figure.

When the woman sat up, leaned forward and hugged her knees, she said that she felt as if the shadow man was also sitting and that he was clasping her in his arms. She said it felt unpleasant. When she held a card in her right hand, she reported that the shadow figure tried to take it from her. “He doesn’t want me to read,” she said.

Because the presence closely mimicked the patient’s body posture and position, Dr. Blanke concluded that the patient was experiencing an unusual perception of her own body, as a double. But for reasons that scientists have not been able to explain, he said, she did not recognize that it was her own body she was sensing.

The feeling of a shadowy presence can occur without electrical stimulation to the brain, Dr. Brugger said. It has been described by people who undergo sensory deprivation, as in mountaineers trekking at high altitude or sailors crossing the ocean alone, and by people who have suffered minor strokes or other disruptions in blood flow to the brain.

Six years ago, another of Dr. Blanke’s patients underwent brain stimulation to a different multisensory area, the angular gyrus, which blends vision with the body sense. The patient experienced a complete out-of-body experience.

When the current flowed, she said: “I am at the ceiling. I am looking down at my legs.”

When the current ceased, she said: “I’m back on the table now. What happened?”

Further applications of the current returned the woman to the ceiling, causing her to feel as if she were outside of her body, floating, her legs dangling below her. When she closed her eyes, she had the sensation of doing sit-ups, with her upper body approaching her legs.

Because the woman’s felt position in space and her actual position in space did not match, her mind cast about for the best way to turn her confusion into a coherent experience, Dr. Blanke said. She concluded that she must be floating up and away while looking downward.

Some schizophrenics, Dr. Blanke said, experience paranoid delusions and the sense that someone is following them. They also sometimes confuse their own actions with the actions of other people. While the cause of these symptoms is not known, he said, multisensory processing areas may be involved.

When otherwise normal people experience bodily delusions, Dr. Blanke said, they are often flummoxed. The felt sensation of the body is so seamless, so familiar, that people do not realize it is a creation of the brain, even when something goes wrong and the brain is perturbed.

Yet the sense of body integrity is rather easily duped, Dr. Blanke said.

And while it may be tempting to invoke the supernatural when this body sense goes awry, he said the true explanation is a very natural one, the brain’s attempt to make sense of conflicting information.

Correction: Oct. 10, 2006

An article in Science Times last Tuesday about a neurological explanation for out-of-body experiences omitted the name of a brain region that produces such sensations. It is the temporal parietal junction. (The angular gyrus, which was named in the article, is part of the temporal parietal junction.)
--------------------------------------------------

66. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4205 by Manfred on November 2, 2006 at 5:48 pm

Randy
I read the news an hour ago.
I am no fan of these people, but let's reserve our judgements until after we are presented with facts.
At this point, nothing is proven really.

67. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4184 by Manfred on November 2, 2006 at 3:38 pm

"Why are you so upset with God also having a personality"

I don't think William is upset with God having a personality. He does NOT believe in God (If I may say so on your behalf William), so he cannot really be upset about the non-existant to have a personality.

"We obey God, we live. We turn away, we die."
Which God? There are many of them. And your evidence for immortality if you obey God? And please give me some hard evidence not quotes from scriptures.

Why is it so difficult to accept that you die and that is the end of it?

68. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4165 by Manfred on November 2, 2006 at 2:26 pm

Jascui
Very good point. Fear of death is indeed very powerful. But I think in a way religions increase this fear of death. The notion of sin and roasting in hell forever for it, is very fearsome. What established religion does, is to increase the fear and then claim that only they have the answer for people to decrease their fear.

On the other hand, people can be given reasonable rational explanations to be free of that fear to begin with. And this would be of course more effective when children are invloved. People are injected with this fear from childhood, without any rational thinking behind it (mostly).
It would be very difficult for them when they are adults to see that their fears are baseless, when all through their lives they were given only one answer, namely religion. Education is still the key.

Don,
Please try to discuss thing logically. It is getting extremely difficult for me to follow your train of thoughts.

69. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4147 by Manfred on November 2, 2006 at 12:14 pm

In 56: I meant "Who has said that Martin Luther didn't exist?"

Sorry. But you know what I meant.

70. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4144 by Manfred on November 2, 2006 at 12:12 pm

"One cannot deny that Martin Luther existed, that he walked the earth, that he had flesh and blood, that he breathed air, that he prayed, that he PROPHECIZED, and that he made a mark on his time."

Who has denied that Martin Luther didn't exist? How is this relevent? I thought we are talikng about God and science, not Martin Luther. Don, I think you are confused.

"Sad, the day when the majority of modern science is debunked for the New Faith."

Ok, let's wait for the day. And what is New Faith now? The way I see it, it is the other way round. Faith, Old and New, is being debunked by science.

By the way, take Martin Luther out of your above statement and replace it with Muhammad. You'll get the same result. And then, "I don't think I'd like being around on that day, with all [your] errors exposed to the naked light!"

I hope you get the POINT!

71. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4137 by Manfred on November 2, 2006 at 11:36 am

Ryan, thanks for the kind words.

Don:
I must confess, I am starting to fail to understand you. You are contradicting yourself, man.
"God is not stagnant, but changes to meet the needs of the time. He uses humans to bring his purposes to fruition. He didn't simply create the world and the life in it, and then disappear to never be heard from again. He lives today! And he uses man to give his message."

I must ask, why, why and why? Didn't you say in another post that he is the higher power? Why can't he just use his own power? Why does he need humans to do his bidding? And on what premise are you saying that "You are using your brain to reason upon things that cannot be understood in this way.?" You know, this is not the hard objective evidence you were talking about before.

And why can't our brain understand these things?
If by this you mean the unknowns that science has not answered yet, then you should know that scientists are working on those very mysteries. There used to be very many questions throughout the history of which humans did not know the answers. Progress of knowledge through science has answered many of them. There are still many questions and science keeps providing us with answers.
In which one of your scriptures, Books or whatnot, the answers to these questions are really the
correct ones that modern science has provided?

72. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4123 by Manfred on November 2, 2006 at 10:50 am

>>"Then we will find that great light that pervades the universe, put there by God, him or her self."<<

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Dear Don, atheists are not bound by any dogma, meaning that they are ready to change their minds if presented with irrefutable objective evidence. And they are not trying to impose anything on anyone. That is why they are called free thinkers. You unfortunately have not presented any evidence of the existence of a God, and although you are being presented by scientific evidence almost daily that is contrary of what is said in your Book, you are not ready to rethink your position.
Scientific method and thinking, is not a matter of faith. Faith is believing in something without evidence. Scientific method deals with evidence. I cannot disprove your God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I am not going to believe in them unless you can present me enough objective scientific evidence.

And I really doubt St. Augustine can be counted as a free thinker.

73. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4081 by Manfred on November 2, 2006 at 9:21 am

Martin
More than 90% of Iranians voted for the Islamic Republic in a very popular referundum 2 months after the final victory of the revolution.

People belonging to all types of political and ideological factions participated and helped the revolution and voted for the islamic republic(including Marxists and communists).

Although it would be too simplistic to say that only moderate religious parties and factions caused the thoecracy to come to absolute power,
they were indeed very popular and had a huge appeal to people and they definitely helped. The first prime minister after the revolution was the leader of the leading moderate religious party who also had a moderate view on nationalism. His cabinet was forced to resign during the hostage crisis which was mostly led by fundamentalists.

As you said Iran is a perfect example of the dangers of treating religion as something unchallenged.

Religion has the potential to foster fundamentalism and if fundamentalists come to power, even those moderate religious people fall victim to the more extremist elements. That, I think is exactly why Richard Dawkins' fight is so important.

Cheers

74. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4075 by Manfred on November 2, 2006 at 8:54 am

"Well, no. The cause of those acts of terrorism was a particular theocratic movement, Islamism. Dawkins does his best to draw analogies with other religions, giving warning of the political influence of American evangelicalism, and, at the fringes, an American Taleban intent on the repression of women and the suppression of liberty. But this is tosh."

Islamism? What on earth is islamism? The acts of terrorism on 9/11 and 7/7 etc. were the effects of what true Islam (true by the standards of its followers)teaches. Islam and for that matter all religious dogmas are opposite of what free thought values. Muslim fundamentalists are using terrorism to do what they think and are taught is right. Christian fundamentalists in the US are using their money and power and influence to promote what they think and are taught is right. The root of the problem is not Islamism. It is the religion itself. Why should it matter what we call it? As long as it is an inflexible dogma, it is against free thought.
I completely understand why atheists like Prof. Dawkins and Sam Harris are encouraging atheists to be more outspoken. People should realize that if religion goes unchallenged, the state of affairs become very similar to what is going on in Iran. The names and details would be different, but the basic idea is the same.
I have grown up in Iran under a theocracy. And this theocracy came to absolute power because moderate religious poepole, who are very nice people indeed, paved the way for it. And everybody else did not challenge it out of respect for religion.
At the time of the revolution in 1979, nobody exactly knew what an Islamic republic is. Khomeini himself said that under such system, even Marxists would be free to express their ideas. Nobody challenged him; everyone believed him, even the Marxists. He was a grand Ayatollah. He deserved respect. His word was the word of God. And we saw what happened.
Even today, many intellectuals in Iran are struggling to reconcile religion and free thought. It is a futile effort, and it is not working. They are still trying to respect the very foundation on which the system is built.
Granted, if anyone inside the country challenges religion, he or she has to pay a heavy price.

I now live in the US and I am constantly appalled by Christian fundamentalists. I don't understand why they are trying so hard to make the US resemble an islamic republic.
It is all basically the same. Just change the names of religions and you would get the same package. People really need to read more history.