Question on Christianity

Originally posted by 250ByXmas I agree that science has made enormous changes (improvements) in the way people live. But it doesn't address emotional needs and fears, nor does it address questions of morality or purpose. So the question becomes, is there a value in a framework that can give comfort to people in the areas where science can't (or hasn't yet). There's a slight fallacy to this argument, because it looks at the decline in living standards and says "look, religion did NOTHING for them". But in fact you could argue that religion is the only thing that survived to link the Renaissance to the Roman Empire. Without the Church, the Roman Empire would likely have been pre-historic. I would restate that to say that "some people who are involved in organized religion hate that people think". It certainly isn't universal. I'd encourage anyone to fight and argue when religion attempts to dictate science. I think that both of these statements are demonstrably quite wrong: 1. You seem to know little about the history of the Rome, or you made a serious typo when you wrote that ?gwithout the Church, the Roman Empire would likely have been prehistoric?h. Roman power reached its zenith long before Christianity took hold in the Empire. Most of the Roman Empire was in place during the First Century BC, even before Christ was born. Rome was at its MORAL peak during the days of the Roman Republic from the 3rd Century BC to the 1st Century BC. Then it began to morally decay under the rule of the Emperors, though it reached it?fs most peaceful stage from around 100 AD to 150 AD (The time of the ?ggood emperors?h). The Empire began its decline at EXACTLY the time that Christianity began to grow. It was not until the 4th Century that Christianity became the dominant religion, and at that time Rome was already intellectually, morally, territorially, militarily, and inhumanely in decline. . Rome, not surprisingly, was sacked in 410, and its rule was brought to close. It would be far more accurate to say that The Church was either the main factor in its decay or at least a bi-product of its rot. In fact, most of Rome's most humane cultural traditions were created by the Greeks, who had the most advanced and humane culture until Modern times, and they developed this a full 450 years before Christ was even a horny gleam in God's eye. 2. To say that Science does not address ?gfears?h is simply bizarre vis a vis religion. Humans lived in abject fear of everything until the unknowns were both clarified and cured by science. During religion?fs rein people believed that disease was caused by ghosts, spirits, the evil eye, vapors from hell, magic, witches, and toads. They prayed constantly to God for protection against disease, but received no cure. More than 50% of children died, and parents lived paralyzed with fear that their children would be carried away. When, inevitably, many or all of them died, they were then left with the belief that somehow ?gGod had chosen to take away their children?h. You don?ft think that caused FEAR? I can?ft imagine anything more fearful. And at the end of it all, at the end of life, there would be a judgement that would quite possibly result in their being thrown into the fires of hell for all eternity. They lived everyday in the fear that they would not meet God?fs favour, and this angry Deity would quite possibly choose to torture them for eternity. You don?ft think that caused FEAR? Science is alleviating fear (not curing it). If you have cancer you know that you have a good chance of being cured by a doctor. Hell, just 100 years ago pneumonia was invariably fatal. Now it?fs a two day hospital stay. I would say that science provides a fantastic sense of wonder. The immensity of time, the limitlessness of space, the miracle of human life, these are far more interesting things than some Being depicted as more petty and cruel than our most ignorant modern citizens. Metal

Originally posted by metal machine I think that both of these statements are demonstrably quite wrong: 1. You seem to know little about the history of the Rome, or you made a serious typo when you wrote that ?gwithout the Church, the Roman Empire would likely have been prehistoric?h. Roman power reached its zenith long before Christianity took hold in the Empire. Most of the Roman Empire was in place during the First Century BC, even before Christ was born. Rome was at its MORAL peak during the days of the Roman Republic from the 3rd Century BC to the 1st Century BC. Then it began to morally decay under the rule of the Emperors, though it reached it?fs most peaceful stage from around 100 AD to 150 AD (The time of the ?ggood emperors?h). The Empire began its decline at EXACTLY the time that Christianity began to grow. It was not until the 4th Century that Christianity became the dominant religion, and at that time Rome was already intellectually, morally, territorially, militarily, and inhumanely in decline. . Rome, not surprisingly, was sacked in 410, and its rule was brought to close. It would be far more accurate to say that The Church was either the main factor in its decay or at least a bi-product of its rot. In fact, most of Rome's most humane cultural traditions were created by the Greeks, who had the most advanced and humane culture until Modern times, and they developed this a full 450 years before Christ was even a horny gleam in God's eye. Sorry - that wasn't my point. I'm arguing that the Church was the only keeper of knowledge through the Dark Ages. In the absence of organized religion, we'd be piecing together roman history purely from archaeological sites, not from any kind of written history. If you wanted to read or write something in the 9th century, you went looking for a clergyman... 2. To say that Science does not address ?gfears?h is simply bizarre vis a vis religion. Humans lived in abject fear of everything until the unknowns were both clarified and cured by science. During religion?fs rein people believed that disease was caused by ghosts, spirits, the evil eye, vapors from hell, magic, witches, and toads. They prayed constantly to God for protection against disease, but received no cure. More than 50% of children died, and parents lived paralyzed with fear that their children would be carried away. When, inevitably, many or all of them died, they were then left with the belief that somehow ?gGod had chosen to take away their children?h. You don?ft think that caused FEAR? I can?ft imagine anything more fearful. But during these dark ages religion at least provided SOME explaination for the unexplainable. Parents who lost their children were told that their children were now in a better place. How does science cheer up a parent who loses a child in a car accident? Do you tell them "Well, what happened was that your child had a lot of momentum. He weighed about 35 kg, and was travelling at 60 km/h. During the rapid deceleration as the car hit the pole, most of his internal organs were crushed. Now that he's dead, we have no clue what happens." Through science, the realm of the unexplainable been remarkably diminished, and the number of diseases that we fear is considerably less. But there remains an unexplainable core that science is unlikely to ever legitimately resolve. I would say that science provides a fantastic sense of wonder. The immensity of time, the limitlessness of space, the miracle of human life, these are far more interesting things than some Being depicted as more petty and cruel than our most ignorant modern citizens. As an engineer with a strong physics background, I completely share the sense of wonder that science provides. But I disagree with your interpretation of god as a "petty and cruel being". That may be your perception of god, but it certainly isn't universal. Personally, I'm agnostic, but if I had to imagine a god, it certainly wouldn't be describable in those terms...

You write: "But during these dark ages religion at least provided SOME explaination for the unexplainable. Parents who lost their children were told that their children were now in a better place. How does science cheer up a parent who loses a child in a car accident? Do you tell them "Well, what happened was that your child had a lot of momentum. He weighed about 35 kg, and was travelling at 60 km/h. During the rapid deceleration as the car hit the pole, most of his internal organs were crushed. Now that he's dead, we have no clue what happens." ______________________________ This, I think, touches on one of the possible consolations of religion. A kind of psychological narcotic for overcoming the truth that tragedies do happen. It doesn't of course make religion in any way true, but certainly most humans seem to have a deep need for the consolation of fable and ritual. Personally, I believe they would get more out of this brief life if they realized that this is it. Their is not an infinity ahead of us. Think about sports. Are you going to train harder if you've got forever to get in your best shape, or if you've got but a short time, and you've got to get it right NOW. Why develop your mind in this life at all, if all it takes is a kind of petty moral pantemime to get into heaven, at which time all truth will be revealed? None of the Ten Commandments commits anyone to acquire knowledge or to think intelligently. You can get into heaven completely without either, then receive your wisdom on a platter from God. Such is the motivation of living life as a moral fable rather than a race. I was fascinated to read the scientist Ann Druyan recently, writing about the death of her husband, Carl Sagan. It was so beautiful that I will type it out for you: "When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me- it still sometimes happens- and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't expect ever to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous- not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were the beneficiaries of chance... That pure chance could be so generous and so kind... That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time.... That we could be together for 20 years. That is something that sustains me and it's much more meaningful... The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while we lived, that is so much more important than the idea that I will see him again someday. I don't think that I will ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We saw each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful." Metal

Originally posted by metal machine This, I think, touches on one of the possible consolations of religion. A kind of psychological narcotic for overcoming the truth that tragedies do happen. It doesn't of course make religion in any way true, but certainly most humans seem to have a deep need for the consolation of fable and ritual. That's the point of my original post - that it doesn't matter if God exists, rather, whether believing in God was a helpful thing. There are a LOT of confused, lost, and generally directionless people who could probably get real comfort from having a strong belief system. It certainly would not have changed the life of the Sagans, and I can absolutely respect that. On a different note, can you define a system of morality without resorting to a theological argument? I ask that as a general question to the atheists on the board, but I'm guessing you'd be one of few who could make a decent argument...

Originally posted by durakelt1 For what reason do you not believe in a soul? If you travel outside the US you'll discover that American Christianity is a unique thing. For what reason should you believe you have one? Do you have proof? Through common sense and freethinking, one should realize that what some mistake as a 'soul' is actually their consciencnous (self awareness).

250byX-mas, Honestly, Ethics as a brand of philosophy is my weakest area. I am aware of non-religion based ethic system, such as Kant's, but my feeble brain just can't convince itself that any one of them absolutely holds up to logic and are provably correct. In the end I suppose I just go through life with an 18th century humanist philosophy of "whatever results in the greatest good for the greater part of mankind is moral". It's more a mixture of common sense and conjecture than a philosophy (and probably boring to read about at that!). I do think that the driven pursuit of some kind of teleological "absolute goal of morality" has been an historical disaster to the world, but like you point out, that is more a cancellation of someone else's philosophy (religion) than a positive ethical system. Metal

Originally posted by bull35 For what reason should you believe you have one? Do you have proof? Through common sense and freethinking, one should realize that what some mistake as a 'soul' is actually their consciencnous (self awareness). What would you consider proof? If you start from the reasoning "nothing exists but the material", then all your conclusions will follow from that. But you won't have proved anything. I believe I have a will, and the capacity to know and feel things beyond the material world. Science just observes material things and makes generalisations and predictions about them. Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in science, but I don't think it is capable of explaining absolutely everything. Is there life after death? Are we reborn as other animals? I don't think any scientific textbook will give absolutely certain answers about that. (I'm not a Christian, by the way, and I don't take the bible literally)

Originally posted by RockSolid God is the Creator of the universe and that nothing is like God in our space-time creation. Essentially, this means that God has no equal and that God is supremely and infinitely exalted above all creatures. Also, it means that God is uncreated and that all creatures owe their original existence and continued preservation to God the Creator and the Preserver. That is the Islamic prespective. But I always wonder why atheists truly belive they posses the true, when in fact they cannot prove what they belive in, just like people that belive in God. Atheists cannot prove that God doesnt exist, while people that belive in God cannot prove that God exists. Its about belief, I belive I am right, while atheists belive they are right. But if you look at it without a bias, no one is sure who is right, I can be equally as right as you. From your arguments in this thread I believe that you do not fully understand the difference between science (its methods and rigorous standards) and religion. It appears to me that your understanding of religion does not equal your understanding of science. Your knowledge of god is outside the realm of proof because its both contradicts reality and is not verifiable. You can not prove that your knowledge represents the truth better than a crazy man who wears aluminum foil on his head to ward off extraterrestrials. Ask yourself, how do you know this is fact? You don’t. You can’t. Our only contact with reality is through out senses. Therefore any verification is beyond your ability (the meaning of “fact” presupposes that which we can perceive). Second, the atheist asserts that a god does not exist due to the lack of evidence. That’s it. That’s the fundamental reason, although other arguments do exist. The burden of proof does not lie with the atheist to prove that god doesn’t exist because that’s impossible. Logically, it’s a contradiction to prove a negative statement. Luckily, our legal system understands this and that’s why you are innocent until proven guility (if that analogy helps explain). How would you prove that god doesn’t exist? It would be a pointless pursuit. I agree that belief is strong or weak. You can believe with reason or with faith. But it’s nonsensical to claim that religious faith is equally valid to a scientist’s standard of rigor in his methods. Originally posted by eddieboy Hey man, I am by no means a creationist, I am a divine interventionist. What troubles me is why would we care to pass our genes along or perfect them if we are not going to be around to see the results in some way/shape/form. If we are here by chance, which is what evolutionists believe why would the cycle of life want animals to longer lifespans, or procreate so there species doesnt die out?? If this is by chance what difference does it make if the average man lives to be 20 or 80?? This is not a flame Science merely attempts to explain observable phenomena. I don’t consciously control the direction of evolution. Its not as if we have any conscious control over the process. Perhaps I don’t understand the question but a few people above were also attempting to answer ethical questions (whats the point of life?) through these scientific discoveries. Originally posted by eddieboy Personally I believe it is just to perfect to be a mere "chance" or coincidence. Humans tend to be skeptikal of even the slightest coincidence in day to day life, but so easily write off "life" as a whole as a coincidence Perfect? I thought that it was a rather ruthless process myself. Watching a zebra being torn in half by two rotating alligators isn’t really an ideal situation in my books. Originally posted by Bandawg77 Good point. Very good point. I'm an atheist but I've noticed that alot of atheists have a rather jaded view on everything. The universe is an amazing thing, there is no denying that, the way the sun planted its seed in this planet and spawned life should have us all constantly saying "wtf?". For me the intricacy of eco-systems in particular raises an eyebrow. But at the same time none of this lends any credibility to any religion whatsoever. If anything the existing religions greatly cheapen the magnificence of existence. I've got a feeling there is a whole lot more to it than we think. The gaia theory is interesting and should be looked into deeper. Einstein once said that the most beautiful is the mysterious. I agree, the more I understand the world around me through science, the more heightened my sense of spirituality (my relationship with reality). The more I understand the greater my sense of connectedness.

Originally posted by 250ByXmas I think the theist vs atheist arguments miss the interesting question. Instead of asking "Is there a God?" the better question would be "Is there value in believing in a God?" I'm guessing that most of the atheists on this board use faith on a regular basis. You visualize a 1 RM lift, you imagine yourself succeeding, you convince yourself you can lift it, then you do the lift. Your muscle structure didn't change before and after visualization. You succeed in making a challenging lift because you believe that you can. Why couldn't the same techniques be applied to living life? Whether God exists or not is an irrelevant question if the act of believing makes you a better person. Maybe religion for some is basically "psyching yourself up for life" in the same way that someone might "psych themselves up for a lift"? I wouldn't call it being weak minded to do something that works for you... As an atheist I do see a point in religious belief. I have mentioned that my girlfriend (Catholic) is a theist because she can not accept that she will never see her mother again. It would tear her up to accept that at this point in her life. Although I have went without most of my life being born in Canada I can't say that I had a hard life. I can work and earn. My father tells me that 'in the old country' (Poland) people suffered ... they had nothing ... but a belief. Hope is the only reason why they got out of bed every day. I can understand that. What works isn't always whats right.

Originally posted by Wide You really need to do some reading on evolution. Things do not evolve for a reason, there are random mutations and if the mutation gives the creature an advantage over his relatives more than likly his relatives will go extinct before he does. Life does not care how long you live. Random eh??? Yah so through "random" change humans now look the way they do as opposed to apes??? Random my ass

Originally posted by eddieboy Random eh??? Yah so through "random" change humans now look the way they do as opposed to apes??? Random my ass Although your argument is an emotional appeal in ignorance of the proven process of evolution ... consider the probability of a super-natural creator ... I find it easier to accept the volumes of evidence behind the process of evolution than the possibility of a supernatural omni everything being. Which is MORE likely?

Originally posted by Data Although your argument is an emotional appeal in ignorance of the proven process of evolution ... consider the probability of a super-natural creator ... I find it easier to accept the volumes of evidence behind the process of evolution than the possibility of a supernatural omni everything being. Which is MORE likely? I do believe in evolution, but I believe a "higher power" wrote the code. That is more likley than mere chance in my opinion.. I dont even bother to try and understand why or how. Can the smartest of chimps comprehend what is going on in the human world? So what make men think they can possibly figure out a higher power, or creator. For all we know in the scale of inteligence we could have the mental power of an insect compared to "god" so trying to figure it out is useless. I just try to follow my conscience and not read into things too deeply