1. I'm not trying to stop seeking observation...or reading about scientific development. I think it's fascinating. Dawkins is beating away at a strawman. Certainly some people of faith ignore science entirely...but most people of faith do not, in my experience. 2. The argument between science v. religion is not of any interest to me in answering how I am to live or respond to those situations. Science can explain them...I'm not saying it can't or won't. It doesn't offer up answers for how we are to live. That's not the aim of science. It was the "argument" that I was saying hasn't proved fruitful to me in determining those questions....not science itself.
Exactly. It is okay to not understand things, I'm fine with that too. But like you said, it's a problem to use "God" to explain everything that we don't understand ("God of the Gaps") It used to be "God" that sent lightning, famine, plagues, etc... It used to be "God" (or "Satan") that gave deformities to "sinners". Everything that could not be explained was sent by some guy in the sky. But now we have better, more logical, scientific explanations. The problem with religion is that it is often satisfied with the "God" answer until science shows that there is an actual explanation. I don't know if science will ever explain the origins of life or the beginning of time... but that's irrelevant. If we want to most effectively prolong human life today we need to take these advancements into our own hands. We cannot pray to God and hope he saves somebody's life, we need to get a doctor or create a new form of medicine. We cannot pray that God takes after all the people who were hit by an earthquake or tsunami, we need to get off our butts and send/fund relief efforts. You get the point... The argument is that religion holds back scientific and technological advancements by being "satisfied" with the mystery. Science aims to solve the mystery. (And yes, I know not all religious people are that way... but if you look into history you'll see how religous views have slowed progress)
1. Fair enough. But in saying this aren't you somewhat admitting that God doesn't listen/respond to prayer? I mean, a guy who had the flu 90 years ago would die no matter how much he prayed. But now somebody is saved regardless of whether or not he prays. Where does God fit in? 2. Morals don't need to be handed down by God. They make sense purely on a cultural level on what works best for us as a human race and society. Thou shall not murder. Why? Because you wouldn't want to be murdered, would you? The guideline makes sense. We can have plenty answers on how to live without "God", don't you think?
1. I don't understand this point at all. People have prayed and died...people have prayed and lived. You can see that as God isn't there. You can see that as God is there. None of us were guaranteed infinite mortality, anywhere. 2. Sure. I'm not saying that you can't have morals. Never said that. Bottom line: I'm not trying to have an argument with you or anyone else over this. Been there and done that so many times it's ridiculous. I'm telling you my perspective...that's why i posted what i posted. It's just my perspective. It doesn't surprise me one iota that it's not shared by everyone else. Does it bother you that I have a different view than you do? Because I certainly am not here trying to convince you how wrong you are. If I come off that way, it's entirely unintended.
No it doesn't bother me I would love to have your views, believe me. I like the idea of a God that loves us and wants us to live with him in heaven for eternity much better than the alternative. But I guess I'm just a doubting Thomas that lacks evidence for that belief... but I'll keep looking. I'm certainly not shutting the door on that idea.
Ditto. I remember a time not too long ago where I used to spend a substantial amount of my day analyzing atheist arguments vs. theistic ones; the majority had to do with the kalam cosmological argument, and I guess I came to a point where I was no longer insecure with my own beliefs as an individual. I think often times people- and I'm not speaking to anyone here so please dont be offended- require validation from others....in a sense, it increases their certitude (or lack thereof) in their own beliefs, which I guess is fine for them. On a somewhat tangential point (since this thread, at its heart, hits at the question of theism in general, I thought it would be appropriate to place this here...)- A general observation that I've made is that often times I find striking similarities behind the psychology of many atheists and inter-religious converts. So, for example, there are many ex-Christians who have converted to Islam in America, and vice versa. People are bound to get exposed to other religious ideologies, and in the process may find themselves privy to one over another. What happens is that the converts zeal for their newfound belief system results in a collective rejection of their previous one, and their new religious community often feels the need to market them as experts on their previous religion, and the converts themselves feel the need to guide others in their past religion to their new one. They may fancy themselves as unique, but there's nothing especially unique about apostates; its just life. Atheists can be just as guilty of developing this psychological framework. Because they often grow up in households dedicated to a particular religion, they feel uniquely positioned to proselityze to theists. And thats why even though I've seen websites dedicated to trying to convert one religious group to another, I find atheist websites and marketing campaigns distinctive in their tone and format. Anyways, just my opinion, so take it for what it is......
It sounds to me like you agree with it. It's not saying that it's bad to not understand stuff. It's saying that when you don't understand, don't just chalk it up to some deity and not bother seeking understanding. If we didn't bother looking for answers, where would humanity be today? Religion has a bad habit of teaching people not to look for answers and to just be satisfied that a deity did it. I don't like this. Not everyone can go searching for the origins of the universe, but no one should discourage one from trying to. It's counterproductive and stifles human advancement. Related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
But studying and believing in a "religion" is a search for answers. Why would any human believe in a god if they weren't searching for an answer? and why would people continue to read, study, and evaluate how the Koran, Bible, Torah, or any other religious work applies to modern culture if they weren't searching for answers? I don't think everyone who believes in a god fits into the box you are placing them in.
That's as bad as I thought, then. If people only looked in the Bible/Torah/Koran for answers, we'd probably think the Earth was the center of the universe. Human knowledge would be constrained to what some human wrote in a book. I'm not talking about just the answer to the origin of the universe, mind you... I'm talking about all scientific knowledge. You're not actually saying the Bible would've guided human knowledge to our current point alone, are you? You're not saying a society that only found answers in a book would be as advanced as we are today, are you?
I guess I just don't see what is so bad about people including religion in their search for knowledge. If someone thinks the Koran can provide insight, I don't think thats a problem. Obviously you do. I guess we disagree.
The problem is when the "insight" does not align with the truth as found in scientific evidence. If you want an answer, you'll find one. It just might not be right. Are you satisfied with the wrong answer?
Anyone who approaches holy books as an instant cheat sheet to Winning is in for a sad and sorry surprise. The state of American Christianity today is mostly like that, which explains how educationally backward and socially regressive "middle America" is becoming. "Uncomfortable questions doesn't exist if we blind, deafen and mute ourselves". After all, the old man in the sky works on a sixth sense... We want results. We want proof/disproof, and it just so happens that we've framed the Bible/Koran/Torah as the literal end all for it. Well it wasn't supposed to be. Allegories are meant to question and to challenge. With its historical context out of plain sight, people chose to take the easier route to accept things as face value. In that sense, the Christianity I'm thinking of might not play to the masses because of its higher bars for accessibility.....except with information at our fingertips, thinking, studying and thinking a little more isn't the most demanding requirement anymore. Moreover, the most basic tenets to love your neighbor or to forgive doesn't take any book smarts to follow. It's just that people aren't wired to do it all the time, and they divert responsibility when they're called to task for it.
