Hahah loved it! Pascal was indeed wrong he forgot to account for all those ever important freedoms taken away. and more importantly, if god does exist, he can obviously see past your feigning.
I am a Christian and I don’t believe any of this stuff. I worked on a pig farm, don’t think a person has to be circumcised (it is mostly done now as a medical procedure), that stem-cell research is wrong, blood transfusions are bad, or that we should take away any person’s basic rights or dignities.
I am pretty sure that God allows us to do as we please. You can check history and see that there have been some pretty awful things done (even under the disguise of religion). These were done by those that believed in God and those that didn’t.
However, I think that there is a “best way” of living out our humanity. I think that example was found in Jesus and His lifestyle. That is why I “lose” time and energy and 10% of my income. Not because I must, but because I want to.
I am deeply sorry for the way that so many religious people (especially Christians) have misrepresented the nature of God to the world and I sympethize with those that are very frustrated or cynical about Christianity.
Just want you to know that there are Christians who aren’t like the rest.
How do you know?
Do you need to? Religion is faith, isn’t it?
I also don’t agree with that, “religion suppresses knowledge” part of the comic. Wasn’t it religion that kept us from becoming barbarians during the Dark Ages?
james emmans- “They” say that women prefer men circumcised?!?? Wherre do you get your information? Who are “they?” Because I am a woman and I definitely prefer my men intact i.e. WITH foreskin. I know I am not the only one…
Religions give God a bad name. Religion is the main cause of Atheism, not a higher power. Atheism is as extrme as religion. No way was something created from nothing and DNA came by chance from cosmic soup. I’m not shutting my mind to any possibilities that aren’t obviously based on myths and ancient out dated thinking.
“They” would be women that I fcuk, but I am sure each woman has her own preference.
David- you make absolutely no sense, but I am going to assume you believe in a higher power but do not follow religion. However I can bet that the higher power you believe in is GOD, which is kind of hypocritical because the only reason you believe in that higher power is you were probably raised Christian. I know because I went to the same damn thing during my reverse baptism or realityism. My mind is not closed as an atheist, only skeptical, I am open to all possibilities even Christ God if there were any compelling arguments for them.
No way was something created from nothing and DNA came by chance from cosmic soup. I’m not shutting my mind to any possibilities that aren’t obviously based on myths and ancient out dated thinking.
So.. where did god come from? He’s just.. always existed I guess?
From a Christian viewpoint you can eat anything you want, so long as you eat it with a clean conscience. Circumcision is unessecary. Tithing is actually frowned upon if you don’t want to give it willingly, so technically you don’t have to give it. Some of the best scientists in the world were Christians who wanted to make the life of others better (on a second note some of the best hospitals in the world were in the predominantly muslim middle east of the Middle Ages). There are few denominations of Christianity, and technically they aren’t even classified as Christian (Jehovahs Witnesses) who refuse blood transfusions.
How is making a woman cover up (granted the extreme muslim idea of modesty is psychotic) an infringement on her freedom if she wants to dress that way? On a second note, how is the treatment of women by men in the west any different than the way extremists treat their women? Most men in America are ignorant, and boorish to their women, just as they are world round, despite their religious affiliation.
I do understand where this cartoon is coming from though. It’s basically saying that crazy shit happens because of religion, and it’s true. However, crazy shit happened before religion began.
Why blame religion when it’s evil humans that fuck religions made by well meaning humans that need the blame? Isabelle of Spain was an evil bitch, the tradition of making women burn themselves on Hindu funeral pyres was an evil tradition put in a good religion. It’s not religion, it’s the people in the religion that fuck up.
Religious scientists, just off the top of my head: Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei (read “Galileo’s Daughter”), Nicolas Copernicus (a canon in the Church), Francis Bacon…
And, of course, Blaise Pascal himself.
While we’re at it, how about Bishop William Wilberforce, who almost singlehandedly ended the international slave trade? Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman, who ushered thousands of slaves to freedom? Dorothea Dix, reformer of insane asylums, Unitarian Universalist? Catherine and William Booth, founders of the Salvation Army (which was first and longest on the scene in the Katrina disaster)? Dr. Martin Luther King, civil rights preacher? Elizabeth Fry, reformer of the English prison system? The list goes on and on.
And while I’m thinking of it– Dietrich Bonhoeffer, prominent theologian, executed for plotting to assassinate Hitler, the Maryknoll Martyrs, killed for preaching human rights to dictators in Central America, Archbishop Romero, killed for standing up for the poor…
Don’t forget the artists, either– Rembrandt, Bach, Handel, Dostoyevsky, G.K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, and neither last nor least, Mr. Rogers. Add to the list, Charles Schulz, who drew the Charlie Brown cartoons…
But I would suggest that the greatest are the least known.
Sometime, go the poor; see who feeds and clothes them. Go to those sick and in prison, and see who visits them. Visit dictatorships, and see who opposes them. Go to the lonely and grieving, and see who comforts them… go to those held worthless by a grinding, materialist culture, and see who treasures them. You might change your mind about religion…
Can you name some scientists who weren’t born into a world full of religious persecution? There were many scientists centuries ago who were religious for purely political reasons. Scientists today are not like that any more.
You also named very few scientists and instead named a whole lot of historical figureheads.. which is totally sidestepping what we were talking about here.
Most of the worlds (modern) scientists are either non-religious or straight up atheists. This goes for the most part also for those with education.
It’s been shown that education and religion are inversely proportional.. and with good reason, religion gives simple explanations to complex problems which satisfy those who don’t know any better. It’s abuse.
Newton, a Congregational minister, was determined to describe in rational terms how God made the world to function; that’s why we call norms of science “laws”, i.e. laws of God. Copernicus was consulted by the Lateran council, a sort of advisory board to the Pope, as to the proper functioning of the calendar. Blaise Pascal was highly respected by the church. None of these suffered persecution.
Galileo’s highest aspiration was to be a priest; that’s why he never married. He got into trouble, not because he opposed the Church, but because he sought to overturn Aristotelian physics, thus jeopardizing the careers of thousands of professors, many of them Jesuits. Both the Pope and the local archbishop sought to shield him as much as possible from their ire, when those professors prosecuted him in front of the Inquisition. Take a look at his Wikipedia biography.
As for sidestepping the issue, the issue is whether religion improves man’s state, or degrades it. Virtually every improvement in human society has religious leaders at or near the core. I spoke of those who fought slavery and racism, and vanquished both; their ranks are almost entirely religious. Great labor reforms in America and Europe were largely led by religious folk. Historians credit Pope John Paul II as being the single individual most responsible for the downfall of the Iron Curtain, especially through his support of Solidarity, the freedom movement in Poland (which was, coincidentally, largely a religious movement).
As for persecution, most modern persecution of scientists comes, not from religion, but from professedly atheistic and materialistic nation-states. The Enlightenment movement in France died under the guillotine of an atheistic Republic, in the Reign of Terror. Einstein and his colleagues fled secular persecution in Nazi Germany (helped in their escape, in no small part, by religious people). The Great Leap Forward under Mao Zhedong butchered hundreds of thousands of scientists (even today, scientists there work under the very real threat of arrest and imprisonment, if they even attempt to communicate freely with their colleagues in the Western world). Stalinist Russia degraded scientific work so severely that cranks like Lyshenko represented Soviet science in Western eyes. In the name of materialistic, atheistic humanity, Pol Pot did his best to slaughter Cambodia back to the stone age, killing off virtually all educated people in the country (anyone who wore glasses or lacked calluses was summarily executed).
By the way, if most of the educated people in the world today are atheists, as you suggest, then the logical conclusion is that educational systems teach atheism, not that educated people are naturally atheists. I disagree that education and religion are inversely proportional. I speak several languages, have a doctorate, and teach religion. I’m a member of a religious society where these attributes would be seen as pretty average.
Also, would you please define “figurehead”. All the people I mentioned were people who made other people’s lives materially better. They were all seminal in major cultural movements that bettered the state of humankind.
Finally, in my experience, scientists are growing more religious, not less. As Einstein’s theories begin to replace Newtonian models with relativistic ones, more and more scientists see the inseparability of the attitudes of the observer and his data, and the creative effect that a scientist’s presuppositions have on phenomena. Increasingly, physicists and theologians share a common world-view, that the phenomenal world is largely created by intelligent perception. Many of the scientists I have read who are anti-religious are, to some extent, only fighting a rearguard action for nineteenth-century thought and theory, rather than advancing a twenty-first century cause.
Virtually every improvement in human society has religious leaders at or near the core.
Another blanket statement with no evidence whatsoever.
You said prior “Some of the best scientists in the world were Christians” then managed to name 4. Bravo.
Historians credit Pope John Paul II as being the single individual most responsible for the downfall of the Iron Curtain, especially through his support of Solidarity, the freedom movement in Poland (which was, coincidentally, largely a religious movement).
Dude, that’s so wrong it’s disturbing you actually think the pope ended the cold war. The cold war ended for one reason; the USSR went broke. the end. There really is no debating this.
I speak several languages, have a doctorate, and teach religion. I’m a member of a religious society where these attributes would be seen as pretty average.
I like many people do not consider a degree in Theology to be a degree at all. You might as well hold a degree in homeopathic medicine.
Finally, in my experience, scientists are growing more religious, not less. As Einstein’s theories begin to replace Newtonian models with relativistic ones, more and more scientists see the inseparability of the attitudes of the observer and his data, and the creative effect that a scientist’s presuppositions have on phenomena. Increasingly, physicists and theologians share a common world-view, that the phenomenal world is largely created by intelligent perception. Many of the scientists I have read who are anti-religious are, to some extent, only fighting a rearguard action for nineteenth-century thought and theory, rather than advancing a twenty-first century cause.
Once again I see no evidence to support his theory.
My degree is in law. I teach religion. Central to both is logic. some tips on logic:
1. defeat generalizations with particulars. If I am wrong, show me that I am wrong. Give me facts, not opinions. When you say that I have made a blank statement with no proof, you need to back that up with facts. I showed that religious leaders were at the forefront in abolishing slavery, in reforming hospitals and prisons, in civil rights, in opposing oppression, in defending the poor. Instead of saying “another blank saying with no evidence whatsoever, show me to be wrong. I can think of one or two movements bettering mankind which were not religiously inspired; that’s why I used the word “virtually”. See if you can find them.
2. pay attention to what others say. I didn’t say the USSR, I said the Iron Curtain. I agree that economics caused the final fall of the USSR. But JP II’s efforts and policies caused the loss of Poland to the USSR, and showed other nations behind the Iron Curtain that they could now break away from Russian military occupation. Even CNN, which was not the Pope’s greatest fan, agrees with that. See the CNN article here– http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/19/spotlight/
3. avoid ad hominem attacks. Insulting your opponent highlights the weakness of your argument.
4. stay on topic. The topic is whether religion has made mankind better or worse, not my intelligence or my degree.
In response to your specific statements:
I listed the scientists which I assumed the audience would know. There’s a great list of specifically Christian scientists at Wikipedia, here-
May I point out that it includes Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Newton, Linnaeus, Priestley, Faraday, Mendel, Lemaitre, and others. I also want to point out, for the sake of honesty and balance, that some of them had trouble with the church, but that that did not cause them to lose their faith. If you look down at the bottom of the page you will see links for Jewish, Muslim, and atheist scientists. And, if you’re interested in continuing that topic, I can tell you the theologians who laid the groundwork for Western scientific thought.
As for relativistic sciences and theologians, read John Polkinghorne, a Christian writer, and Jeremy Hayward, a Buddhist teacher. Also see The Dancing Wu Li Masters, a very good book on the new physics.
Back to the topic: whether religion has made things better or worse for mankind. I have named a few of the ways religion made the world a better place, through ending slavery, fighting for civil rights, reforming prisons and hospitals, opposing oppression, defending the poor. I have named names, linked to articles, given facts. Please do the same for me. Show me a Schweitzer, a Teresa of Calcutta, an Archbishop Romero in the Atheist ranks. Show me atheist soup kitchens, poverty aid societies, and poverty law centers; ones that say, “we aid our fellow men because we are atheists”, as organizations like the Salvation Army and the Christian Children’s Fund do because they are Christians, or as Moslem and Jewish aid societies do because they are Jewish. I admit that I am ignorant of such organizations; inform me about them.
Finally, let me say that religion, taken at its best, offers hope, atheism, taken at its best, only offers doubt. Religious people all live in hope of a better place, a better life, here as well as in the future. Atheists doubt. Doubt that any human relationship, in the end, is worthwhile; doubt that anything survives the grave; doubt that anything has value except material objects. It’s no accident Madeline Murray O’ Hare was murdered by her fellow atheists for her money; in the end, that’s all that mattered to them.
1. How can I debase what you say when you’re referencing all recorded history? Would you like me to write a book just to refute your statements?
2. John Christensen writes an opinion piece about the pope and that’s proof that he was the single most influential person in ending the cold war.. ? I’ve got a better theory: Robin Hood used Excalibur to kill Stalin (who actually lived as a robot until 1991), which is what really brought down the Iron Curtain.
3. Debasing one’s accolade is not an ad hominem attack.
4. I stayed on topic, we were talking about scientists and religion and you went on a tangent for 4 paragraphs talking about pious figures throughout history.
Lists of Christians? Ok, here’s a list of Atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists
Mine’s longer, does that mean I win?
And, if you’re interested in continuing that topic, I can tell you the theologians who laid the groundwork for Western scientific thought.
Western life was put forth by the *lack* of religion. Freedom of religion was one of the greatest achievements ever made by a civilized country. Thomas Jefferson was not a religious man, and many of the leading founding fathers of the United States were also not religious, their actions brought on a new era of freedom in the world. Their actions had nothing to do with religion.
The problem you have is you feel that because someone who was religious did something good, you give credit religion for being the cause of the action. I could say the same of people with mustaches/beards, Lincoln freed the slaves, thereby proving that bearded men are better than non-bearded men.
You might say the same argument back at me, but the difference is I’m not claiming great non-religious scientists are doing things BECAUSE of their lack of religion, it’s merely a side note that very intelligent men did not feel the need to carry extra mythical baggage with them.
Teresa, don’t even talk about Teresa as if she was anything other than a showboat who caused many many people to suffer. She would tell dying patients not to take the proper medication thereby causing them an agonizing death.
Finally, let me say that religion, taken at its best, offers hope, atheism, taken at its best, only offers doubt. Religious people all live in hope of a better place, a better life, here as well as in the future. Atheists doubt. Doubt that any human relationship, in the end, is worthwhile; doubt that anything survives the grave; doubt that anything has value except material objects. It’s no accident Madeline Murray O’ Hare was murdered by her fellow atheists for her money; in the end, that’s all that mattered to them.
Humanism offers far more prospects on life than religion does. Religion is so infatuated with the afterlife that this current one is a mere punctuation mark. Really though, if I live 100 years, what is that in comparison to eternal afterlife?
Show me a Christian who isn’t materialistic and selfish and I will be truly astonished. EVERY SINGLE pious Christian I’ve ever met meets those characteristics far more than the Atheists I know. Don’t think I know many Christians? I went to Church every Sunday until I was 18, I was even an altar boy for 4 years, then I went to a high school run by Jesuit Priests.
You cite an atheist being murdered as evidence of greed and hate inherent in atheism? Seriously? How many murders do you think take place on a daily basis by the pious? The rate of incarceration amongst the pious is higher than that of the non-pious by the way.
As I understood it, we were talking about the cartoon above. It asserts that Pascal’s wager was wrong, that religion harms people and is a waste of time. I discussed some of the many ways that religion has made human life better, not worse.
I cited the CNN work as an example of a statement against interest; CNN is not the most pro-Catholic organization in the world. If you would like a more extensive bibliography, I can prepare one.
The people I cited who improved man’s lot through their works themselves gave God and religion as reasons for what they did. Lincoln never said that he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation because he had facial hair.
You asked for a longer list, and I gave you one. We are not in a list competition.
What you live for is properly my concern. You are a fellow human being. That’s what “humanism” means, by the way. People matter. You matter.
100% positive results from any sample would make a scientist question his method of sampling. If every single pious Christian you know has those characteristics more than the Atheists you know, it means that you perceive Christians through a different filter than Atheists, not that those characteristics actually exist in every single pious Christian.
I don’t mean to upset you unduly. Should we take a break for a few hours, or would you like to continue? Do you need a breather?
WOW!!! That was epic. Kudos to both George and Ian. Spectacular. A thumping good read, I couldn’t put it down. 5 stars. Much love.
Still an aetheist though, and it seems to me that it ain’t necessarily the belief system that makes people do “good” or “bad”. It’s the individuals interpretation of that belief system and even then the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I applaud the brain power of Ian and George’s debate late last year; I’m still trying to cultivate my own (brain power). Has no one written more since before Christmas?
Here’s a wager for you. If there is a God, I’ll wager that He/She/It will forgive me for not believing in Him/Her/Itself. I wager that the conversation will go something like this:
Me: Oh wow, the pearly gates! It’s all true. Hey, sorry I didn’t believe in you and accept you as my Lord and Savior and all that other stuff you wanted me to do.
God: Well, that’s OK. Of course I would have preferred for you to believe in me, but since there was no conclusive proof of my existence I understand why you did not.
Me: I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings .. uh .. your majesty.
God: Well I hope that this doesn’t hurt your feelings, but since I am Creator and Master of the Universe, I’m pretty occupied. Your personal beliefs haven’t really been on my radar. Normally I wouldn’t be speaking to a random mortal at all. I’m just out here taking a smoke break. You want to talk to Peter over there about getting a halo and wings and apartment and all that.
Me: So I don’t have to go to Hell?
God: For what, not believing in something without proof? What in My name are they teaching you bald primates down there?
Dec 08, 2007 @ 12:55:08
Hahah loved it! Pascal was indeed wrong he forgot to account for all those ever important freedoms taken away. and more importantly, if god does exist, he can obviously see past your feigning.
cheers mate!
Dec 08, 2007 @ 14:08:59
I am a Christian and I don’t believe any of this stuff. I worked on a pig farm, don’t think a person has to be circumcised (it is mostly done now as a medical procedure), that stem-cell research is wrong, blood transfusions are bad, or that we should take away any person’s basic rights or dignities.
I am pretty sure that God allows us to do as we please. You can check history and see that there have been some pretty awful things done (even under the disguise of religion). These were done by those that believed in God and those that didn’t.
However, I think that there is a “best way” of living out our humanity. I think that example was found in Jesus and His lifestyle. That is why I “lose” time and energy and 10% of my income. Not because I must, but because I want to.
I am deeply sorry for the way that so many religious people (especially Christians) have misrepresented the nature of God to the world and I sympethize with those that are very frustrated or cynical about Christianity.
Just want you to know that there are Christians who aren’t like the rest.
Aug 11, 2015 @ 13:31:55
look guys, we found the ONE TRUE CHRISTIAN
:P
Dec 08, 2007 @ 14:22:57
How do you know?
Dec 08, 2007 @ 15:55:37
How do you know?
Do you need to? Religion is faith, isn’t it?
I also don’t agree with that, “religion suppresses knowledge” part of the comic. Wasn’t it religion that kept us from becoming barbarians during the Dark Ages?
Dec 08, 2007 @ 15:57:59
if god does exist, hes an extortionist
Dec 08, 2007 @ 16:05:21
I’m thinking that it was actually religion that caused us to become barbarians during the Dark Ages…
Dec 08, 2007 @ 16:19:49
they say women prefer men circumcised – it get them going.
Dec 08, 2007 @ 16:28:10
Chad, religiousness was what caused the Dark Ages. The romans had far superior technology to those living in the dark ages, why do you think that is?
Let me paint you a current picture: Stem Cell Research
Dec 08, 2007 @ 16:50:42
james emmans- “They” say that women prefer men circumcised?!?? Wherre do you get your information? Who are “they?” Because I am a woman and I definitely prefer my men intact i.e. WITH foreskin. I know I am not the only one…
Dec 08, 2007 @ 16:57:02
Religions give God a bad name. Religion is the main cause of Atheism, not a higher power. Atheism is as extrme as religion. No way was something created from nothing and DNA came by chance from cosmic soup. I’m not shutting my mind to any possibilities that aren’t obviously based on myths and ancient out dated thinking.
Dec 08, 2007 @ 18:17:42
“They” would be women that I fcuk, but I am sure each woman has her own preference.
David- you make absolutely no sense, but I am going to assume you believe in a higher power but do not follow religion. However I can bet that the higher power you believe in is GOD, which is kind of hypocritical because the only reason you believe in that higher power is you were probably raised Christian. I know because I went to the same damn thing during my reverse baptism or realityism. My mind is not closed as an atheist, only skeptical, I am open to all possibilities even Christ God if there were any compelling arguments for them.
Dec 08, 2007 @ 18:36:22
So.. where did god come from? He’s just.. always existed I guess?
Dec 09, 2007 @ 16:08:13
From a Christian viewpoint you can eat anything you want, so long as you eat it with a clean conscience. Circumcision is unessecary. Tithing is actually frowned upon if you don’t want to give it willingly, so technically you don’t have to give it. Some of the best scientists in the world were Christians who wanted to make the life of others better (on a second note some of the best hospitals in the world were in the predominantly muslim middle east of the Middle Ages). There are few denominations of Christianity, and technically they aren’t even classified as Christian (Jehovahs Witnesses) who refuse blood transfusions.
How is making a woman cover up (granted the extreme muslim idea of modesty is psychotic) an infringement on her freedom if she wants to dress that way? On a second note, how is the treatment of women by men in the west any different than the way extremists treat their women? Most men in America are ignorant, and boorish to their women, just as they are world round, despite their religious affiliation.
I do understand where this cartoon is coming from though. It’s basically saying that crazy shit happens because of religion, and it’s true. However, crazy shit happened before religion began.
Why blame religion when it’s evil humans that fuck religions made by well meaning humans that need the blame? Isabelle of Spain was an evil bitch, the tradition of making women burn themselves on Hindu funeral pyres was an evil tradition put in a good religion. It’s not religion, it’s the people in the religion that fuck up.
Dec 09, 2007 @ 19:51:37
Want to name some?
Dec 09, 2007 @ 20:14:29
How about Einstein?! Oh, wait. He wasn’t a Christian. In fact, he didn’t even believe in a deity.
Then what about Darwin? He was supposed to have converted on his deathbed! Oh, that’s interesting. Apparently, that’s a lie.
Er, what about all the modern day scientists in America! Hmm… less than 10% believe in any god.
Damn, I’d like to see some of these “best scientists” too.
Dec 09, 2007 @ 22:36:37
I guess “some” can actually mean two.
Dec 10, 2007 @ 14:55:25
Religious scientists, just off the top of my head: Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei (read “Galileo’s Daughter”), Nicolas Copernicus (a canon in the Church), Francis Bacon…
And, of course, Blaise Pascal himself.
While we’re at it, how about Bishop William Wilberforce, who almost singlehandedly ended the international slave trade? Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman, who ushered thousands of slaves to freedom? Dorothea Dix, reformer of insane asylums, Unitarian Universalist? Catherine and William Booth, founders of the Salvation Army (which was first and longest on the scene in the Katrina disaster)? Dr. Martin Luther King, civil rights preacher? Elizabeth Fry, reformer of the English prison system? The list goes on and on.
And while I’m thinking of it– Dietrich Bonhoeffer, prominent theologian, executed for plotting to assassinate Hitler, the Maryknoll Martyrs, killed for preaching human rights to dictators in Central America, Archbishop Romero, killed for standing up for the poor…
Don’t forget the artists, either– Rembrandt, Bach, Handel, Dostoyevsky, G.K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, and neither last nor least, Mr. Rogers. Add to the list, Charles Schulz, who drew the Charlie Brown cartoons…
But I would suggest that the greatest are the least known.
Sometime, go the poor; see who feeds and clothes them. Go to those sick and in prison, and see who visits them. Visit dictatorships, and see who opposes them. Go to the lonely and grieving, and see who comforts them… go to those held worthless by a grinding, materialist culture, and see who treasures them. You might change your mind about religion…
Love
George
Dec 10, 2007 @ 16:45:34
Can you name some scientists who weren’t born into a world full of religious persecution? There were many scientists centuries ago who were religious for purely political reasons. Scientists today are not like that any more.
You also named very few scientists and instead named a whole lot of historical figureheads.. which is totally sidestepping what we were talking about here.
Most of the worlds (modern) scientists are either non-religious or straight up atheists. This goes for the most part also for those with education.
It’s been shown that education and religion are inversely proportional.. and with good reason, religion gives simple explanations to complex problems which satisfy those who don’t know any better. It’s abuse.
Dec 10, 2007 @ 20:33:02
Newton, a Congregational minister, was determined to describe in rational terms how God made the world to function; that’s why we call norms of science “laws”, i.e. laws of God. Copernicus was consulted by the Lateran council, a sort of advisory board to the Pope, as to the proper functioning of the calendar. Blaise Pascal was highly respected by the church. None of these suffered persecution.
Galileo’s highest aspiration was to be a priest; that’s why he never married. He got into trouble, not because he opposed the Church, but because he sought to overturn Aristotelian physics, thus jeopardizing the careers of thousands of professors, many of them Jesuits. Both the Pope and the local archbishop sought to shield him as much as possible from their ire, when those professors prosecuted him in front of the Inquisition. Take a look at his Wikipedia biography.
As for sidestepping the issue, the issue is whether religion improves man’s state, or degrades it. Virtually every improvement in human society has religious leaders at or near the core. I spoke of those who fought slavery and racism, and vanquished both; their ranks are almost entirely religious. Great labor reforms in America and Europe were largely led by religious folk. Historians credit Pope John Paul II as being the single individual most responsible for the downfall of the Iron Curtain, especially through his support of Solidarity, the freedom movement in Poland (which was, coincidentally, largely a religious movement).
As for persecution, most modern persecution of scientists comes, not from religion, but from professedly atheistic and materialistic nation-states. The Enlightenment movement in France died under the guillotine of an atheistic Republic, in the Reign of Terror. Einstein and his colleagues fled secular persecution in Nazi Germany (helped in their escape, in no small part, by religious people). The Great Leap Forward under Mao Zhedong butchered hundreds of thousands of scientists (even today, scientists there work under the very real threat of arrest and imprisonment, if they even attempt to communicate freely with their colleagues in the Western world). Stalinist Russia degraded scientific work so severely that cranks like Lyshenko represented Soviet science in Western eyes. In the name of materialistic, atheistic humanity, Pol Pot did his best to slaughter Cambodia back to the stone age, killing off virtually all educated people in the country (anyone who wore glasses or lacked calluses was summarily executed).
By the way, if most of the educated people in the world today are atheists, as you suggest, then the logical conclusion is that educational systems teach atheism, not that educated people are naturally atheists. I disagree that education and religion are inversely proportional. I speak several languages, have a doctorate, and teach religion. I’m a member of a religious society where these attributes would be seen as pretty average.
Also, would you please define “figurehead”. All the people I mentioned were people who made other people’s lives materially better. They were all seminal in major cultural movements that bettered the state of humankind.
Finally, in my experience, scientists are growing more religious, not less. As Einstein’s theories begin to replace Newtonian models with relativistic ones, more and more scientists see the inseparability of the attitudes of the observer and his data, and the creative effect that a scientist’s presuppositions have on phenomena. Increasingly, physicists and theologians share a common world-view, that the phenomenal world is largely created by intelligent perception. Many of the scientists I have read who are anti-religious are, to some extent, only fighting a rearguard action for nineteenth-century thought and theory, rather than advancing a twenty-first century cause.
Thanks for your comments– I enjoyed reading them–
Love
George
Dec 11, 2007 @ 01:03:07
Another blanket statement with no evidence whatsoever.
You said prior “Some of the best scientists in the world were Christians” then managed to name 4. Bravo.
Dude, that’s so wrong it’s disturbing you actually think the pope ended the cold war. The cold war ended for one reason; the USSR went broke. the end. There really is no debating this.
I like many people do not consider a degree in Theology to be a degree at all. You might as well hold a degree in homeopathic medicine.
Once again I see no evidence to support his theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q.
Dec 11, 2007 @ 09:30:54
Dear Ian–
My degree is in law. I teach religion. Central to both is logic. some tips on logic:
1. defeat generalizations with particulars. If I am wrong, show me that I am wrong. Give me facts, not opinions. When you say that I have made a blank statement with no proof, you need to back that up with facts. I showed that religious leaders were at the forefront in abolishing slavery, in reforming hospitals and prisons, in civil rights, in opposing oppression, in defending the poor. Instead of saying “another blank saying with no evidence whatsoever, show me to be wrong. I can think of one or two movements bettering mankind which were not religiously inspired; that’s why I used the word “virtually”. See if you can find them.
2. pay attention to what others say. I didn’t say the USSR, I said the Iron Curtain. I agree that economics caused the final fall of the USSR. But JP II’s efforts and policies caused the loss of Poland to the USSR, and showed other nations behind the Iron Curtain that they could now break away from Russian military occupation. Even CNN, which was not the Pope’s greatest fan, agrees with that. See the CNN article here– http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/19/spotlight/
3. avoid ad hominem attacks. Insulting your opponent highlights the weakness of your argument.
4. stay on topic. The topic is whether religion has made mankind better or worse, not my intelligence or my degree.
In response to your specific statements:
I listed the scientists which I assumed the audience would know. There’s a great list of specifically Christian scientists at Wikipedia, here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
May I point out that it includes Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Newton, Linnaeus, Priestley, Faraday, Mendel, Lemaitre, and others. I also want to point out, for the sake of honesty and balance, that some of them had trouble with the church, but that that did not cause them to lose their faith. If you look down at the bottom of the page you will see links for Jewish, Muslim, and atheist scientists. And, if you’re interested in continuing that topic, I can tell you the theologians who laid the groundwork for Western scientific thought.
As for relativistic sciences and theologians, read John Polkinghorne, a Christian writer, and Jeremy Hayward, a Buddhist teacher. Also see The Dancing Wu Li Masters, a very good book on the new physics.
Back to the topic: whether religion has made things better or worse for mankind. I have named a few of the ways religion made the world a better place, through ending slavery, fighting for civil rights, reforming prisons and hospitals, opposing oppression, defending the poor. I have named names, linked to articles, given facts. Please do the same for me. Show me a Schweitzer, a Teresa of Calcutta, an Archbishop Romero in the Atheist ranks. Show me atheist soup kitchens, poverty aid societies, and poverty law centers; ones that say, “we aid our fellow men because we are atheists”, as organizations like the Salvation Army and the Christian Children’s Fund do because they are Christians, or as Moslem and Jewish aid societies do because they are Jewish. I admit that I am ignorant of such organizations; inform me about them.
Finally, let me say that religion, taken at its best, offers hope, atheism, taken at its best, only offers doubt. Religious people all live in hope of a better place, a better life, here as well as in the future. Atheists doubt. Doubt that any human relationship, in the end, is worthwhile; doubt that anything survives the grave; doubt that anything has value except material objects. It’s no accident Madeline Murray O’ Hare was murdered by her fellow atheists for her money; in the end, that’s all that mattered to them.
Ian, I am interested. What do you live for?
Love
George
Dec 11, 2007 @ 10:51:47
1. How can I debase what you say when you’re referencing all recorded history? Would you like me to write a book just to refute your statements?
2. John Christensen writes an opinion piece about the pope and that’s proof that he was the single most influential person in ending the cold war.. ? I’ve got a better theory: Robin Hood used Excalibur to kill Stalin (who actually lived as a robot until 1991), which is what really brought down the Iron Curtain.
3. Debasing one’s accolade is not an ad hominem attack.
4. I stayed on topic, we were talking about scientists and religion and you went on a tangent for 4 paragraphs talking about pious figures throughout history.
Lists of Christians? Ok, here’s a list of Atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists
Mine’s longer, does that mean I win?
Western life was put forth by the *lack* of religion. Freedom of religion was one of the greatest achievements ever made by a civilized country. Thomas Jefferson was not a religious man, and many of the leading founding fathers of the United States were also not religious, their actions brought on a new era of freedom in the world. Their actions had nothing to do with religion.
The problem you have is you feel that because someone who was religious did something good, you give credit religion for being the cause of the action. I could say the same of people with mustaches/beards, Lincoln freed the slaves, thereby proving that bearded men are better than non-bearded men.
You might say the same argument back at me, but the difference is I’m not claiming great non-religious scientists are doing things BECAUSE of their lack of religion, it’s merely a side note that very intelligent men did not feel the need to carry extra mythical baggage with them.
Teresa, don’t even talk about Teresa as if she was anything other than a showboat who caused many many people to suffer. She would tell dying patients not to take the proper medication thereby causing them an agonizing death.
Humanism offers far more prospects on life than religion does. Religion is so infatuated with the afterlife that this current one is a mere punctuation mark. Really though, if I live 100 years, what is that in comparison to eternal afterlife?
Show me a Christian who isn’t materialistic and selfish and I will be truly astonished. EVERY SINGLE pious Christian I’ve ever met meets those characteristics far more than the Atheists I know. Don’t think I know many Christians? I went to Church every Sunday until I was 18, I was even an altar boy for 4 years, then I went to a high school run by Jesuit Priests.
You cite an atheist being murdered as evidence of greed and hate inherent in atheism? Seriously? How many murders do you think take place on a daily basis by the pious? The rate of incarceration amongst the pious is higher than that of the non-pious by the way.
What I live for is none of your concern.
Dec 11, 2007 @ 11:48:56
Dear Ian–
As I understood it, we were talking about the cartoon above. It asserts that Pascal’s wager was wrong, that religion harms people and is a waste of time. I discussed some of the many ways that religion has made human life better, not worse.
I cited the CNN work as an example of a statement against interest; CNN is not the most pro-Catholic organization in the world. If you would like a more extensive bibliography, I can prepare one.
The people I cited who improved man’s lot through their works themselves gave God and religion as reasons for what they did. Lincoln never said that he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation because he had facial hair.
You asked for a longer list, and I gave you one. We are not in a list competition.
What you live for is properly my concern. You are a fellow human being. That’s what “humanism” means, by the way. People matter. You matter.
100% positive results from any sample would make a scientist question his method of sampling. If every single pious Christian you know has those characteristics more than the Atheists you know, it means that you perceive Christians through a different filter than Atheists, not that those characteristics actually exist in every single pious Christian.
I don’t mean to upset you unduly. Should we take a break for a few hours, or would you like to continue? Do you need a breather?
Love
george
Dec 12, 2007 @ 19:46:30
And to think my paltry little “Religion is nothin’ but a money makin’ racket.” argument would have held sway among such debating giants!
Dec 23, 2007 @ 22:16:29
WOW!!! That was epic. Kudos to both George and Ian. Spectacular. A thumping good read, I couldn’t put it down. 5 stars. Much love.
Still an aetheist though, and it seems to me that it ain’t necessarily the belief system that makes people do “good” or “bad”. It’s the individuals interpretation of that belief system and even then the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Very entertaining debate though…..
Jan 23, 2008 @ 15:32:10
dear ones,
I applaud the brain power of Ian and George’s debate late last year; I’m still trying to cultivate my own (brain power). Has no one written more since before Christmas?
love,
MR
Jan 24, 2008 @ 00:09:39
I’ve been busy with work lately, I’d be more than happy to debate on the forums though.
Feel free to get the ball rolling..
Mar 15, 2008 @ 07:43:00
An interesting article, along the lines of this discussion, in the Guardian–
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html
Love
george
Feb 05, 2010 @ 12:49:59
Here’s a wager for you. If there is a God, I’ll wager that He/She/It will forgive me for not believing in Him/Her/Itself. I wager that the conversation will go something like this:
Me: Oh wow, the pearly gates! It’s all true. Hey, sorry I didn’t believe in you and accept you as my Lord and Savior and all that other stuff you wanted me to do.
God: Well, that’s OK. Of course I would have preferred for you to believe in me, but since there was no conclusive proof of my existence I understand why you did not.
Me: I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings .. uh .. your majesty.
God: Well I hope that this doesn’t hurt your feelings, but since I am Creator and Master of the Universe, I’m pretty occupied. Your personal beliefs haven’t really been on my radar. Normally I wouldn’t be speaking to a random mortal at all. I’m just out here taking a smoke break. You want to talk to Peter over there about getting a halo and wings and apartment and all that.
Me: So I don’t have to go to Hell?
God: For what, not believing in something without proof? What in My name are they teaching you bald primates down there?
Apr 08, 2015 @ 16:04:43
The thing I never got about Pascal’s Wager was the notion that i could simply choose to believe. I never felt I could.