A Reasonable Faith?

gosimeon

“The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief
glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification.”
Richard Dawkins The God Delusion p.23

Discuss.

BrianCalgary

A load of garbage.

My faith is in Jesus Christ. We have the writings of the Bible which is a record of His life written by reliable witnesses to Jesus disciples.

Jesus made the claim to be God, He backed up that claim by performing uncontested miracles.

We have a group who were there at the time and witnessed the risen Lord who were tortured for their faith. We have many others who placed their faith in Christ

I find the insistence that there is no God rather irrational. Everytime I watch National Geographic channel and see the wonders of the natural world, I am convinced that God is great for designing it down to the very smallest detail.

Sangre

Why is the Bible more rational the the Qur'ān?

Scofflaw

Sangre wrote:

Why is the Bible more rational the the Qur'ān?

Actually, by Brian's definition, the Qur'ān is more rational. Mohammed is very well-attested historically - far better than Jesus. Nor are the historical events of his life in much dispute.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gosimeon

Jesus is a historical figure! Get over it!

Sangre

The problem is most theists will only claim its a rational belief system when its suits them.

Scofflaw

gosimeon wrote:

Jesus is a historical figure! Get over it!

Not as historical as Mohammed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote:

Mohammed is very well-attested historically - far better than Jesus. Nor are the historical events of his life in much dispute.

I take your point about the history in all this but Mohammed is actually a less historically viable figure than Jesus and the history of Mohammed is very much in dispute. Non christian references to Jesus are indeed sketchy and sparse, but what does exist is closer in timeline than anything in the Mohammed canon. I was surprised by this myself.

It's a common misconception, mainly down to the often uncritical acceptance of singular Muslim sources. In few other areas of historical study would such naturally biased and uncorroborated sources be accepted so readily. Comparing it to Christianity, it would be as if modern historians took the Gospels as "gospel". As the holy texts of Islam are in themselves considered the holies of holies", academic scrutiny from within and without has been thin on the ground for obvious reasons.

The only "history" we have of mohammed is entirely from Islamic texts and even there the earliest reference in name only is about 80 years after his official date of death. It's also contradictory in many areas. He's not even mentioned at all in the earliest recognisable Islamic texts, correspondence and coinage, which is mighty strange given his central importance in the evolution of the later faith as a prophet.

The earliest local account of someone we might recognise as Mohammed was written by Ibn Ishaq many years(120+) after Mohammeds death(and it has quite a different more violent take on his life to what would be understood by many today). Even this work has been lost, but is referenced by later writers. The first non Muslim references to him are Byzantine/Greek writers commenting nearly 200 years after that and they disagree with many things even his date of birth. For a start they regard him as a distant military leader, not a religious one. Now according to Muslim texts he was a mighty religious/military leader who had dealings with neighbouring states, including Byzantium. Byzantine writers are unusually silent on this and appear to have no dealings with the idea of a new religion with Mohammed as it's hub until much later.

http://www.answers.com/topic/non-islamic-view-of-muhammad-s-historicity

Even a place like Mecca, this hub of trade and religious worship central to the Islamic identity that supposedly has a history going back thousands of years is not even shown on any trade maps or ancient writings, nor even mentioned until 100 years after Mohammed's life.

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote:

I take your point about the history in all this but Mohammed is actually a less historically viable figure than Jesus and the history of Mohammed is very much in dispute. Non christian references to Jesus are indeed sketchy and sparse, but what does exist is closer in timeline than anything in the Mohammed canon. I was surprised by this myself.

Blimey. I stand entirely corrected! So neither of them are particularly historical, then.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

Certainly not in the Julius Caesar sense of historical figure. Personally I suspect they did indeed exist and there would be a fair bit of historical "truth" in both the accounts of their lives. You could argue that the Christian sources are slightly earlier, more varied and from different writers so may have more weight historically than the monoculture of sources surrounding Mohammed.

We know the political and social landscape from which a man like Jesus could spring from. We know the religious background (dead seas scrolls etc). We have more context. With Mohammed there is very little context, beyond some Greek writers commenting that the "Arabs" were of the Abrahamic tradition. This could be explained by the observation that Islam grew up in a fairly remote region a fair bit off the major trade routes. They were too far off the radar of the Greeks/Romans/Egyptians etc. to have much recorded about them. As we know today just because they weren't studied by the major powers at the time does not mean they had nothing to study. They obviously had a very vibrant culture for something like Islam to rise from. An Islamic dead sea scroll may yet show up which would flesh out the bones.

Add to that this idea in the faith that the book(s) are directly influenced by God and you have good reasons for removing conflicting accounts from view by the faith leaders early on in the game. The problem is both have had a political slant attached to their lives by the faiths that grew up around them later. Who knows? It's down to faith for the followers of both in the end of the day.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

A load of garbage.

No offence BC but that entire post simply backs up Dawkin's quote.

None of what you just said is based on rationality. It is based solely on faith that what you read about is accurate and true.

Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that, your faith is based on, well, faith which is what religion is supposed to be based on.

But it isn't rational deduction, and it is important to recognise the difference. If you accepted everything you read as accurate and true you would believe every religion out there.

"We have the writings of the Bible which is a record of His life written by reliable witnesses to Jesus disciples."

We have writtings written decades later recording the views of people who already believed that Jesus was the son of God. The Bible holds no more weight in this regard than any other holy book from any other religion in the history of human. Every religious holy book is written by religious followers and records the views of the same religious followers.

You only have to look at something like Scientology's Dianetics book to see that faith in something as true doesn't mean it is. Quite the opposite in fact. Millions of people around the world believe in Dianetics despite the fact it is complete nonsense written by an alcoholic sci-fi writer who simply wanted to make money. Even when you say it is complete nonsense written by an alcoholic sci-fi writer they still continue to believe in it.

The idea that if something wasn't true no one would believe it clearly doesn't hold up since not every religion in the world can be true.

"Jesus made the claim to be God, He backed up that claim by performing uncontested miracles."

I've no idea what you mean by "uncontested"

We don't have any accounts of any non-believers who would have examine these miracles in any form of critical analysis and the only account of these miracles we do have were record years later by people who already believe them to have happened as they are claimed.

Again Scientology is the classic example of how people can believe something very strongly that is simply not true or is not supported by evidence, and how this belief can sustain the idea of the "miracle" far beyond the actual event itself.

"We have a group who were there at the time and witnessed the risen Lord who were tortured for their faith. "

So does every religion.

Even in this day and age of rational thought and scientific discovery, we have new religions and cults where people claim they have observed astounding supernatural feats performed by the leader of these cults. And these are often first hand people who will actually say they say such and such cult leader hover in the air, walk through a wall, heal a sick person, turn metal into gold. The Bible doesn't even record the eye witnesses of things like the resurrection because they were mostly dead by the time it was written.

The parallels between what religious and cult leaders claim today and what they claimed thousands of years ago is striking. Here is what FACTnet.org, and organisation that attempts to counter cults in the USA, says about the "Common Properties of Potentially Destructive and Dangerous Cults"

• The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority.
• The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
  domineering. They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them.
• The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life.
• The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves.
• The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.
• The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers.
• The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising.
• The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive.

A lot of these strikingly closely to the descriptions of the early Christians in the gospels.

Certainly Christianity is no longer a cult, it is a mainstream religion, and as such the organisation has no doubt lost a lot of the more distasteful elements of cultism. But the point to remember is that each year hundreds of new religions appear through out the world that share very close similarities with the early Christians. The question is why is belief in the accounts of the miracles and claims of the early Christians any more rational than the accounts of the miracles and claims of every other small religion or cult out there?

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote:

Certainly not in the Julius Caesar sense of historical figure. Personally I suspect they did indeed exist and there would be a fair bit of historical "truth" in both the accounts of their lives. You could argue that the Christian sources are slightly earlier, more varied and from different writers so may have more weight historically than the monoculture of sources surrounding Mohammed.

I think my problem there is that late Roman/early European history is something of an interest of mine. We don't have the levels of reportage for Jesus that we do for some extremely obscure people.

Certainly, in the absence of Christian sources, I would consider the very existence of Christ questionable - and the Christian sources are themselves questionable.

We do know that the Roman Middle East was in a certain amount of messianic turmoil at the time. The belief that all this turmoil actually produced only one figure is unwarranted. Aside from anything else, had that been the case, I would expect that single figure to be better documented.

I think the hypothesis that 'Jesus' is a composite figure is at least as plausible as the hypothesis that he was a single person - that the latter is the default hypothesis is the result of nearly two thousand years of assuming it correct.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Personally, I think its irrational, unreasonable, illogical or whatever you want to call it, to assume there was no creator. Some scientists will say, they don't bother thinking about a creator, because God cannot be scientifically measured, so they are not bothered either way. Personally, I think its a cop out. If you see a watch, or a car or a yoyo, or a computer, or a TV etc etc etc. You don't assume its not been designed. No matter how far back you go, you cannot escape the question of design. Even if you go with the big bang, evolution theory. What made the 1 cell organisms strive to propagate? Even if evolution happened, there is still that quetion, 'why did life want to survive' etc etc. Once the realistation that the world and its inhabitants are not and cannot merely be an accident, then you look at whats available as far as creation is concerned. As a scientist, to say God does not exist, is un-scientific, and inasmuch requires non-faith, or faith in your own belief. As a scientist to say, A creator must exist, is more scientific, in that its axiom says that we are not an accident but stays inline with cause and effect. Ok, it has not got the capability to measure the cause, but it certainly can measure the effect. For a scientist to say, I don't care to ponder a creator or not as we cannot establish one using the scientific method, is a cop out. Creation is self evident, be it evolution or otherwise. The complexities of the earth and of humanity 'Cannot' be an accident. An absolute impossiblity. While science holds itself up as the place of accurate knowledge, it is severely lacking in life answers. Science can tell us 'how' we die but not stop us from dying, nor explain why we die with any accuracy. The things science can't measure it does not bother with, fair enough, science deals with the natural world. Once certain scientists irresponsibly declare themselves atheist based on science like Dawkins, they overstep the mark, because nothing in science can back up atheism. I think it was Son Goku who said at one stage, that science does not take God into consideration. Well if science insists on this stance let it remain that way, and keep atheism out of the equation also!

robindch

> The complexities of the earth and of humanity 'Cannot' be an accident.
> An absolute impossiblity.

Look at a the shape that a body of water must be to fit in a puddle in the ground. Does the exact match of water with hole suggest to you that the water was designed to fit the hole?

So far, the argument-from-design that you have talked about can be summarised as:

1. I don't understand how things could have formed
2. Therefore god exists

This is unconvincing reasoning (and arguably more suited to the creationism thread anyway).

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

No offence BC but that entire post simply backs up Dawkin's quote.

None of what you just said is based on rationality. It is based solely on faith that what you read about is accurate and true.

Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that, your faith is based on, well, faith which is what religion is supposed to be based on.

But it isn't rational deduction, and it is important to recognise the difference. If you accepted everything you read as accurate and true you would believe every religion out there.

"We have the writings of the Bible which is a record of His life written by reliable witnesses to Jesus disciples."

We have writtings written decades later recording the views of people who already believed that Jesus was the son of God. The Bible holds no more weight in this regard than any other holy book from any other religion in the history of human. Every religious holy book is written by religious followers and records the views of the same religious followers.?

Three gospels were written prior to AD62. The fourth, Johns, was written in the 80's. Matthew was one of the 12 apostles so would have witnessed the events spoken of. Luke was a travelling companion of Paul's. John was possibly one of the 12, and there is argument that it could be John the elder, referred to by Papias in AD125, and John the elder and John the apostle could be one and the same as Papias refers to John as an elder. Just as someone would call me Brian the coach or Brian the Sunday school teacher, depending on perspective.

Now back to Papias, he also affirms Mark's writings as being the eyewitness account of Peter, Papias also affirms Matthew.

From a historical standpoint, the gospels were written within the lifetime of the events recorded. Events that were witnessed by both those that supported Jesus and those that were hostile to the faith. Yet not one writing exists by those hostile to the faith disputing any of the events recorded in the gospels.

Alexander the greats two earliest biographies were written by Arian and Plutarch 400 years after Alexanders death, yet they are considered historically as being accurate. With the Bible we have 4 biographies written within a generation of the events and no material that disputes any of it. In fact the only material we have from Chriatianities opponents corroborate the events recorded.

Wicknight wrote:

You only have to look at something like Scientology's Dianetics book to see that faith in something as true doesn't mean it is. Quite the opposite in fact. Millions of people around the world believe in Dianetics despite the fact it is complete nonsense written by an alcoholic sci-fi writer who simply wanted to make money. Even when you say it is complete nonsense written by an alcoholic sci-fi writer they still continue to believe in it. .?

It shows how people will believe anything and grasp at anything for whatever reason. The huge difference is that the gospels were written by reliable people and Paul was a very highly respected educated man within religious circles. And again none of the events were disputed.

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that if something wasn't true no one would believe it clearly doesn't hold up since not every religion in the world can be true..?

Very true, not every religion can be true. So the current secular understanding of 'all roads lead to Heaven' is false. So which one is true? Christianity is the only religion where God comes down to mingle with humanity and offers Himself as a sacrifice.

Wicknight wrote:

"Jesus made the claim to be God, He backed up that claim by performing uncontested miracles."

I've no idea what you mean by "uncontested" ..?

No writing anywhere saying that He didn't perform any of the miracles listed. We get back to the historical analysis about the events. We have one Jim Keegstra who taught here in rural Alberta that the holocaust was a big lie and a Jewish conspiracy. He ended up losing his teaching credentials because of it and the uproar within the Jewish community. Why? because within the lifetime of the events he was trying to discredit them and the eyewitnesses stood up. The same with Jesus, since the gospels were written within the timeframe of witnesse still being alive, they would have written and shot down all the claims of the gospels, especially the educated Pharisaical class.

We don't have any accounts of any non-believers who would have examine these miracles in any form of critical analysis and the only account of these miracles we do have were record years later by people who already believe them to have happened as they are claimed.

Wicknight wrote:

Again Scientology is the classic example of how people can believe something very strongly that is simply not true or is not supported by evidence, and how this belief can sustain the idea of the "miracle" far beyond the actual event itself.

"We have a group who were there at the time and witnessed the risen Lord who were tortured for their faith. "

So does every religion. ..?

Who, when and were?

Wicknight wrote:

Even in this day and age of rational thought and scientific discovery, we have new religions and cults where people claim they have observed astounding supernatural feats performed by the leader of these cults. And these are often first hand people who will actually say they say such and such cult leader hover in the air, walk through a wall, heal a sick person, turn metal into gold. The Bible doesn't even record the eye witnesses of things like the resurrection because they were mostly dead by the time it was written. ..?

There are periodic news stories on the people who claim such things and they are generally shot down. No such shooting down of the gospel claims have been recorded.

The Bible does record eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. Paul in Corinthians even lets readers know that they can go and speak to any of over 500 people who witnessed the resurrected Christ.

And again we get back to the gospel writers, Matthew in particular who was an eyewitness, writing about it.

Wicknight wrote:

The parallels between what religious and cult leaders claim today and what they claimed thousands of years ago is striking. Here is what FACTnet.org, and organisation that attempts to counter cults in the USA, says about the "Common Properties of Potentially Destructive and Dangerous Cults"

• The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority.
  
  Jesus is regarded as the supreme authority. So this could work. IS also true of anyreligion. Teaching originates somewhere
  
• The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
  domineering. They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them.The only ones Jesus had do this were the 12. Anyone else he spoke to stayed in there careers and towns. See Nicodemus.
• The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life.Again we can peg this on any leader. Even Mr. Dawkins.:)
• The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves.If you are God, then by all means.
• The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.Christ did nothing of the sort. Nowhere does Jesus tell us what to wear, or eat. Although any system will attempt to tell you what to believe. Mr Dawkins would have us all believe and say and think that there is no God, because he considers it irrational.
• The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers.Christianity is nothing of the kind. As we will always be more than happy to give you a bible so you can read it yourself and draw your own conclusions. And even encourage you to question what the teachers say and test them on their messages.
• The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising.We do want new members but make it a personal decision by the person and we also maintain friendships with those outside our churches. Every church that I have attended always state at collection time that it is an exercise for regular attendees and visitors need not give. The money is never an issue.
• The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive.

Innovative yes, Exclusive no. Christianity will welcome all into it's fold. You don't hav eto bring anything to the table to get in. Just you as you are, we'll let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

A lot of these strikingly closely to the descriptions of the early Christians in the gospels. Actaully not, on closer examination.

Wicknight wrote:

Certainly Christianity is no longer a cult, it is a mainstream religion, and as such the organisation has no doubt lost a lot of the more distasteful elements of cultism. But the point to remember is that each year hundreds of new religions appear through out the world that share very close similarities with the early Christians. The question is why is belief in the accounts of the miracles and claims of the early Christians any more rational than the accounts of the miracles and claims of every other small religion or cult out there?

Because the leader sacrificed Himself and His miracles actually happened. The claims of other religions and cults just don't work. Christianity never brainwashes and distances you from your family, in fact it is the opposite, Christians are encouraged to go back to their familiee and share their joy. I recently met a girl who was of the Sikh faith as a child, she came to Christ and was then ostracized by her family, she continued to pursue a relationship with her family and eventually after years has been able to restore it.

That is the face of Christianity, relationship with friends and neighbours, and Christ, a loving realtionship based on the greatest commandments.

JimiTime

robindch wrote:

> The complexities of the earth and of humanity 'Cannot' be an accident.
> An absolute impossiblity.

Look at a the shape that a body of water must be to fit in a puddle in the ground. Does the exact match of water with hole suggest to you that the water was designed to fit the hole?

No.

So far, the argument-from-design that you have talked about can be summarised as:

1. I don't understand how things could have formed
2. Therefore god exists

cars have designers, computers have designers, just as everything in my previous post has. There is nothing to sugest, life, this earth or its capacity for life is an exception. So a comment like 'i don't understand how things could have formed' is a contentious statement. As far as Dawkins is concerned my point was clear.

a) Science should either use the assumption that the complexities of life and a life supporting earth must have had a designer, though not being able to measure using the scientific method.
OR
b) Science should not concern itself with atheism or theism at all.

Dawkins presents atheism and science side by side, which in itself is contradictory. However to the minions decieved by his apparent 'knowledge', they believe science and atheism go hand in hand. Which is irrisponsable on his part. Just as a creationist making bogus claims is irresponsible to both God and science. If science wants to stick to measuring the natural world, then it should be clear and concise that science does not back up any claim that God does or doen't exist, and it fundamentally cannot answer the question. I'm sure this is the view of much of science, but people like Dawkins don't present it this way. I would compare it to an islamic nut blowing up a bus, and muslims coming out against it. Scientists should also come out against Dawkins evangelical atheism, as he alignes himself with science, as if it justifies his atheism, which it certainly does not!

This is unconvincing reasoning (and arguably more suited to the creationism thread anyway).

Sorry you feel that way. Its posted here because we are discussing a dawkins quote.

BTW, Can I PM you. I don't seem to be able to?

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote:

No.


cars have designers, computers have designers, just as everything in my previous post has. There is nothing to sugest, life, this earth or its capacity for life is an exception. So a comment like 'i don't understand how things could have formed' is a contentious statement. As far as Dawkins is concerned my point was clear.

Those things that are designed are not alive.

Personally, I think its a cop out. If you see a watch, or a car or a yoyo, or a computer, or a TV etc etc etc. You don't assume its not been designed.

Because we've seen them being made and know people make them as jobs. It's a fact.

A creator must exist, is more scientific, in that its axiom says that we are not an accident but stays inline with cause and effect. Ok, it has not got the capability to measure the cause, but it certainly can measure the effect. For a scientist to say, I don't care to ponder a creator or not as we cannot establish one using the scientific method, is a cop out. Creation is self evident, be it evolution or otherwise.

We already are measuring the effects, with no creator assumed.
Creation is NOT self evident unless, as many people of faith assume, you start off with the premise that something was created.
"I don't know therefore it must be a creator" is not valid at all.

The complexities of the earth and of humanity 'Cannot' be an accident. An absolute impossiblity.

Why? Because you believe it must have been a creator and refuse to believe otherwise? Why are you saying it's an impossibility, do you know about a bunch of other universes to compare this one to? Probability only comes into effect when you have other cases to compare to, and since you don't, and since this universe clearly exists, then you cannot say "it's an absolute impossibility".

JC 2K3

JimiTime wrote:

Personally, I think its irrational, unreasonable, illogical or whatever you want to call it, to assume there was no creator. Some scientists will say, they don't bother thinking about a creator, because God cannot be scientifically measured, so they are not bothered either way. Personally, I think its a cop out. If you see a watch, or a car or a yoyo, or a computer, or a TV etc etc etc. You don't assume its not been designed. No matter how far back you go, you cannot escape the question of design. Even if you go with the big bang, evolution theory. What made the 1 cell organisms strive to propagate? Even if evolution happened, there is still that quetion, 'why did life want to survive' etc etc. Once the realistation that the world and its inhabitants are not and cannot merely be an accident, then you look at whats available as far as creation is concerned. As a scientist, to say God does not exist, is un-scientific, and inasmuch requires non-faith, or faith in your own belief. As a scientist to say, A creator must exist, is more scientific, in that its axiom says that we are not an accident but stays inline with cause and effect. Ok, it has not got the capability to measure the cause, but it certainly can measure the effect. For a scientist to say, I don't care to ponder a creator or not as we cannot establish one using the scientific method, is a cop out. Creation is self evident, be it evolution or otherwise. The complexities of the earth and of humanity 'Cannot' be an accident. An absolute impossiblity. While science holds itself up as the place of accurate knowledge, it is severely lacking in life answers. Science can tell us 'how' we die but not stop us from dying, nor explain why we die with any accuracy. The things science can't measure it does not bother with, fair enough, science deals with the natural world. Once certain scientists irresponsibly declare themselves atheist based on science like Dawkins, they overstep the mark, because nothing in science can back up atheism. I think it was Son Goku who said at one stage, that science does not take God into consideration. Well if science insists on this stance let it remain that way, and keep atheism out of the equation also!

You only experience the world with a human perception. How can you possibly use assumptions based on your experiences on earth as a human to reason that there must be a "Creator"? Why does there have to be a beginning and an end? Why not an infinite time loop? Why not multiple parallel universes?

As for science not stopping us from dying, it does. Medecine prolongs our lives, and there's no reason why, with reasearch into stem cells, cloning and more advanced medecine, that scientists/doctors could not one day grant us eternal life on earth.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Some scientists will say, they don't bother thinking about a creator, because God cannot be scientifically measured, so they are not bothered either way. Personally, I think its a cop out

Its not a cop out, its a fundamental requirement of science, don't assume something you have no evidence for.

JimiTime wrote:

Even if evolution happened, there is still that quetion, 'why did life want to survive' etc etc.

Why do you assume life did want to survive?

You are assigning purpose to something when purpose is not necessary.

If I was on a beach and looked at a rock that has been lying there for days and was too big for the sea to wash out I could claim that it is the purpose of the rock to be on the beach and that is why it is too heavy for the sea to wash it away. It is supposed to be on the beach an not in the ocean. But that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

If the every early molecules of life didn't some how start replicating then life would not survive. And that would be that, just like if the rock was too small it would be flushed into the ocean.

JimiTime wrote:

As a scientist, to say God does not exist, is un-scientific, and inasmuch requires non-faith, or faith in your own belief.

You are right. But then science doesn't say God doesn't exist.

Lots of scientists can believe that God doesn't exist, and lots of scientists believe God does exist.

The arguments someone like Dawkins uses against God are not scientific in nature, they are based on reason and logic, which is not the same thing.

For example Dawkins would argue that everything we observe is made of simpler components like lego until we get down to really simply components such as quarks. The idea that something as complex as God would just exist on its own made up of nothing but itself doesn't really make a whole lot of sense within this framework. That isn't a scientific argument because you cannot scientifical say what God is or is not made up, or scientifically that something like God cannot exist. But it is still an argument none the less.

JimiTime wrote:

As a scientist to say, A creator must exist, is more scientific

No, that is equally unscientific as saying God doesn't exist.

There is no scientific evidence God exists. The argument "there must have been a creator" isn't evidence, and it also suffers from having a number of fundamental flaws (if it was true then what created God, and what did God make the universe out of)

JimiTime wrote:

For a scientist to say, I don't care to ponder a creator or not as we cannot establish one using the scientific method, is a cop out.

As soon as you come up with a way to scientifically test for God let us know.

Until then scientists have no option but to leave God out of the models of the universe, for the simple fact they have absolutely no idea how to model God or test for God.

JimiTime wrote:

The complexities of the earth and of humanity 'Cannot' be an accident.

Says who?

But even if you accept that as true (and I point out there isn't actual reason to do so) that still isn't scientific evidence for God.

JimiTime wrote:

Science can tell us 'how' we die but not stop us from dying, nor explain why we die with any accuracy.

Is it supposed to?

JimiTime wrote:

Once certain scientists irresponsibly declare themselves atheist based on science like Dawkins, they overstep the mark, because nothing in science can back up atheism.

Actually lots in science can be used to support atheism. That doesn't mean one has to be an atheist to be a scientist, nor does it mean that science has stated God doesn't exist.

JimiTime wrote:

I think it was Son Goku who said at one stage, that science does not take God into consideration. Well if science insists on this stance let it remain that way, and keep atheism out of the equation also!

Atheism isn't in the equation. The question of God doesn't come into any scientific model of the universe.

That doesn't stop a scientists like Dawkins stating he doesn't believe in God and giving reasons and arguments for this, any more than it stops a Christian scientists saying that he does believe in God.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Three gospels were written prior to AD62. The fourth, Johns, was written in the 80's.

Were any of the writers of the gospels not Christians or followers of Jesus?

Whould you believe a book written by a Scientologist about L. Ron Hubbard? Would you believe a book written by a Scientologists about L. Ron Hubbard written 40 years after he died?

[

BrianCalgary wrote:

From a historical standpoint, the gospels were written within the lifetime of the events recorded. Events that were witnessed by both those that supported Jesus and those that were hostile to the faith.

There is not a single recorded description of any miracle Jesus is supposed to have performed that was not recorded by a member of his church.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Yet not one writing exists by those hostile to the faith disputing any of the events recorded in the gospels.

You are claiming that if these miracles were not real then someone should have written that they weren't real. That I'm afraid is not a rational argument. It is an assumption and a pretty wild one at that. It assumes that people were going around and detailing and recording all the false miracles that all the different cult leaders at the time were claiming to have done. That is ridiculous.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Alexander the greats two earliest biographies were written by Arian and Plutarch 400 years after Alexanders death, yet they are considered historically as being accurate.

Well it depends on what you mean by "accurate" Historians don't assume everything that was written in these biographies are true or accurate, and Alexander didn't claim to be the son of God nor did he rise from the dead.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The huge difference is that the gospels were written by reliable people and Paul was a very highly respected educated man within religious circles.

Who says those who wrote the gospels were reliable and respected people?

Did any of those who wrote the gospels not believe in what they were writing?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianity is the only religion where God comes down to mingle with humanity and offers Himself as a sacrifice.

That isn't true.

Sacrifice used as a justification for the death of a leader, religous or otherwise, is one of the most common themes in accient human culture, probably because it provides a conveniant explanation as to why the great leader winds up dead in the end. It can be found from Greek and Roman culture to Chinese culture.

BrianCalgary wrote:

No writing anywhere saying that He didn't perform any of the miracles listed.

That is a ridiculous argument.

There is no writing anywhere saying I haven't performed miracles. If I then tell a few people that I did and say "look, no one has ever stated I didn't" is that an argument that what I'm saying is true.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The same with Jesus, since the gospels were written within the timeframe of witnesse still being alive, they would have written and shot down all the claims of the gospels, especially the educated Pharisaical class.

What are you basing that on?

Firstly it assumes that the educated Pharisaical class didn't just ignore the tiny number of Christians who were following a cult leader who claimed to be the messiah but who died years ago. If it was simply dismissed as nonsense why would they go to the trouble of attempting to dispute all the claims.

Secondly most of the claims come from the religion itself. If you wanted to know who saw Jesus after he was resurrected how would you find out? You would have to go to the followers and say who saw him and where are they. I seriously doubt that many people would be arsed to do that.

BrianCalgary wrote:

There are periodic news stories on the people who claim such things and they are generally shot down. No such shooting down of the gospel claims have been recorded.

2000 years ok there wasn't much of a news media in the Middle East.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Bible does record eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

The Bible "records" a lot of Jesus's followers claiming that Jesus rose from the dead.

They would, wouldn't they? Read any scientology book and it will go on and on about how Dianetics has revolutionised the lives of Scientologists.

One interesting point is that the Bible doesn't record anyone who claims it didn't happen. Even if it did happen you would expect to find at least some who claimed it didn't.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Paul in Corinthians even lets readers know that they can go and speak to any of over 500 people who witnessed the resurrected Christ.

Did he list their names or where to find them?

BrianCalgary wrote:

The claims of other religions and cults just don't work.

You are right, they don't. But then neither do the Christian claims.

Of course every cult has followers who will swear they do. Christianity 2000 years ago would have been no different. Every religion and cult has people who are so sure of this that they are prepared to kill or die based on this belief. Early Christianity would be no different.

The Heaven's Gate cult were so convinced that their leader was able to make them go to alien worlds that they happily killed themselves to let this happen. If you read an interview with a Heaven's Gate member before they topped themselves would this devotion have convinced you that what they believe must be true? Would there absolute belief that what they thought was happening was real convince you that it must be real?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianity never brainwashes and distances you from your family

No, but Jesus did,

35 For I have come to turn `a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law 36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

BrianCalgary wrote:

That is the face of Christianity

That is the face of modern Christianity. The reality for the small cult 2000 years ago would have been quite different.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

No.

If no one designed the water to fit the hole exactly then what are the odds that the water just randomly managed to fit the hole perfectly? Astronomically large, consider the billions of H2O atoms in water. Too large in fact. The water is not even off by a few millimeters. It is a statistical impossibiliy that the water would just randomly take the exact same shape of the hole it is in, therefore someone or something must have designed the water to the exact same shape of the whole it is in. There is no other rational conclusion.

JimiTime wrote:

cars have designers, computers have designers, just as everything in my previous post has.

You are just listing things that have designers and stating that it is self evident that they have designers. Salt doesn't have a designer. Neither does the weather, although acient people used to think it did.

JimiTime wrote:

a) Science should either use the assumption that the complexities of life and a life supporting earth must have had a designer, though not being able to measure using the scientific method.
OR
b) Science should not concern itself with atheism or theism at all.

"Science" doesn't concern itself with theism or athiesm. There has never been a scientific theory that stated God does or does not exist.

JimiTime wrote:

Dawkins presents atheism and science side by side

He does, because he views theism as a belief that is irrational and completely unsupported by science, which was invented by human society simply to reassure ourselves over question we cannot answer, to support ourselves over our things we fear, such as death, and sustained largely by those who wish to control and manipulate populations.

Lots of scientists don't agree with that assessment.

JimiTime wrote:

If science wants to stick to measuring the natural world, then it should be clear and concise that science does not back up any claim that God does or doen't exist

I though it was. It seems to me the only people who ever claim science is attempting to disprove God are theists.

JimiTime wrote:

Scientists should also come out against Dawkins evangelical atheism, as he alignes himself with science, as if it justifies his atheism, which it certainly does not!

Lots of scientists already have. After the publication of the God Delusion there were a number of high profile theists scientists who wrote rebuttals to the work.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Christianity is the only religion where God comes down to mingle with humanity and offers Himself as a sacrifice.

I'm not sure how this increases the historical accuracy?

JimiTime wrote:

a) Science should either use the assumption that the complexities of life and a life supporting earth must have had a designer, though not being able to measure using the scientific method.
OR
b) Science should not concern itself with atheism or theism at all.

Just to reiterate Wicknight's comment. Science does not concern itself with God, theism, or atheism. It is entirely neutral on religion, despite the claims of people like Dawkins.

This often gives the non-scientist theist the idea that religion is somehow 'excluded' from the lab or other scientific environments - an idea which is incorrect.

Religion is found in labs as it is anywhere else. However, the Bible is not a scientific text any more than it is the instruction manual for an assembly plant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Ok let me spell it out in points.

1. If Scientists say the big bang happened and life came about as a result of that initial big bang. (obviousy simplifying) Ok. I may or may not disagree, but there you go.

2. If Scientists, while still having their science cap on, even mention the notion of God, its irresponsible, because as you say, Science has nothing to do with Finding if God exists or not. It deals with the natural World. The fact that someone like Dawkins, who wears his atheism as a badge of honour, 'uses' science to back him up, its irresponsible. Why, because Science should not concern itself with if God exists or not.

As a Christian, I have the luxury of what scientists have achieved over the years, but also do not need the scientific method to explain all things. So I have hope, I have the knowledge of my Creator. I also know that there is more than the natural world. Just because science is limited to the natural world doen't mean I have to be. I know its been argued that its theists who have the biggest issues with science, that may be so, but certainly in my experiences, atheists and science go hand in hand. they are usually the most ardent evangelists also.

Now most of you have a problem with my view that its illogical, irrational etc etc, that there is no 'designer'. Thats my view, no amount of rhetoric, or so called 'evidence' or analogy is going to change that view. Why? Because life is more complex than anything man has ever designed, so I could never believe that it just happened by fluke.(Although some do not like such simplistic terminology, that is essentially what it is, if there is no designer)

I simply could not, in Good mind believe all that we behold is accidental. Thats another thing, the mind is part of the natural world, can that be measured? or is it taken as a given because we just know it exists due to its effect?

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

I simply could not, in Good mind believe all that we behold is accidental. Thats another thing, the mind is part of the natural world, can that be measured? or is it taken as a given because we just know it exists due to its effect?

It's known that certain thought processes have distinctive electrochemical signals. Also MRIs are beginning to reach the point where they can tell what you're thinking. So the mind can be measured partially.
Of course your emotional state has always been obvious from MRIs, but recent months mark the first time when higher order thought can be plucked out.
Although the field is still in its infancy.

I know its been argued that its theists who have the biggest issues with science, that may be so, but certainly in my experiences, atheists and science go hand in hand. they are usually the most ardent evangelists also.

Who are? Scientists or Atheists?

As a Christian, I have the luxury of what scientists have achieved over the years, but also do not need the scientific method to explain all things. So I have hope, I have the knowledge of my Creator. I also know that there is more than the natural world. Just because science is limited to the natural world doesn’t mean I have to be.

Remember that most of science isn't "origin" science like the Big Bang or Evolution. A lot of it is explaining processes we observe in the world.
e.g. How does Magnetism work? How do mountains form?

You said atheists and science go hand in hand, but the vast majority of science would be unusable for atheism, as I've said before.
I think you mistake all of science for a small portion of cosmology and biology.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

The fact that someone like Dawkins, who wears his atheism as a badge of honour, 'uses' science to back him up, its irresponsible. Why, because Science should not concern itself with if God exists or not.

"Science" doesn't concern itself with the existence of God.

That doesn't Dawkins shouldn't.

Dawkins shouldn't say that science shows that God doesn't exist (I'm not sure Dawkins has said this) but that doesn't mean Dawkins cannot explain why he is atheist and why he thinks theism is an irrational delusion using scientific findings to back his argument up. There are plenty of rational arguments to why God doesn't exist. You are free to agree or disagree with them.

JimiTime wrote:

Because life is more complex than anything man has ever designed, so I could never believe that it just happened by fluke.

Fair enough. I don't think that argument is going to convince anyone else, but if it is good enough for you then that is all that matters I guess.

JimiTime wrote:

Thats another thing, the mind is part of the natural world, can that be measured? or is it taken as a given because we just know it exists due to its effect?

Depends on what you mean by "measured" We still don't understand how consciousness forms, or what exactly is the system that produces it.

I am a bit puzzled by that attitude that if science cannot explain something then we should turn to the easy answer of religion. This seems to be a quite common position held by theists.

I would point out that in reality religion doesn't actually provide any actual answers or explain any of these things either.

Religion doesn't explain how the mind works.
Religion doesn't explain how emotions work.
Religion doesn't explain how the universe was created.
Religion doesn't explain how life was created.

Simply saying "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. It is just an excuse to ignore the question. We say "God did it" and move on.

Surely the question is how did God do it? These questions aren't answered by religion, so it seems a little pointless to turn to religion to answer them.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

It's known that certain thought processes have distinctive electrochemical signals. Also MRIs are beginning to reach the point where they can tell what you're thinking. So the mind can be measured partially.
Of course your emotional state has always been obvious from MRIs, but recent months mark the first time when higher order thought can be plucked out.
Although the field is still in its infancy.

Interesting. I'll have to have a look at that, cheers.

Who are? Scientists or Atheists?

Atheists who are using science as a church. I've already pointed out that I think this is a mis-use of science, but most atheists if not all of them I have experienced, utilise science in such a manner.

Remember that most of science isn't "origin" science like the Big Bang or Evolution. A lot of it is explaining processes we observe in the world.
e.g. How does Magnetism work? How do mountains form?

You said atheists and science go hand in hand, but the vast majority of science would be unusable for atheism, as I've said before.
I think you mistake all of science for a small portion of cosmology and biology.

That is understood, but i think most would be able to deduct what part of science i mean contextually. When I say atheists and science go hand in hand, I mean that they state science as a reason for not believing in God. I think what parts of science they use is self expanitory.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

That is understood, but i think most would be able to deduct what part of science i mean contextually. When I say atheists and science go hand in hand, I mean that they state science as a reason for not believing in God. I think what parts of science they use is self expanitory.

Sorry, but you have to remember there are people who speak about science as if it is one massive coherent atheist entity.

JC 2K3

JimiTime wrote:

Atheists who are using science as a church. I've already pointed out that I think this is a mis-use of science, but most atheists if not all of them I have experienced, utilise science in such a manner.

I do not understand this point.

How could science possibly be a "church"?

Are you saying people worship science or what?

And if so, what is wrong with people worshipping science?


All science says is that a "God" is highly unlikely.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

"
Religion doesn't explain how the mind works.
Religion doesn't explain how emotions work.
Religion doesn't explain how the universe was created.
Religion doesn't explain how life was created.

Simply saying "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. It is just an excuse to ignore the question. We say "God did it" and move on.

Surely the question is how did God do it? These questions aren't answered by religion, so it seems a little pointless to turn to religion to answer them.

Maybe the relevance of the question is the question. If I knew how the mind worked would I be happier? would I gain salvation? Will I recieve everlasting life? or will i just be able to say 'i know how it works'. Or at best, may be able to prolong life in someone who has a disease of the mind etc. What we have been given by God is a means to gain everlasting life, and everlasting happiness. Also the key to true happiness, Love.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

Sorry, but you have to remember there are people who speak about science as if it is one massive coherent atheist entity.

Point duly noted.

JC 2K3 wrote:

I do not understand this point.

How could science possibly be a "church"?

Are you saying people worship science or what?

And if so, what is wrong with people worshipping science?

Church meaning, while a theist will have a bible or quaran etc, athists that I have had experience with, will have darwin etc.

All science says is that a "God" is highly unlikely.

If what you say is true, then science has gone beyond itself. It is giving weight to a view that God does not exist. A point that is not scientific.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Church meaning, while a theist will have a bible or quaran etc, athists that I have had experience with, will have darwin etc.

I will always offer a scientific explanation of something, rather than a religious one.

Theists will offer explanations appropriate to their religion, but I don't have a religion, so I give the scientific explanation. This does not mean that I am using science as a church, or promoting atheism as scientific (or vice-versa), it just means I am offering a scientific explanation because I have no other.

cordially,
Scofflaw