God is a journey in consciousness, and because that's so, whatever benefit we gain from being conscious is increased once we obtain direct access to God. Needless to say, atheists don't even begin such a journey, because they dismiss it outright in advance.
"You've probably never thought about the evolutionary origins of religion before. And if you have, you certainly haven't heard it rapped before."
Even though I have serious problems with the movie's main argument, it's worth seeing. It provides a great window into how Krauss and Dawkins think; it's cinematography and soundtrack rock.
It is not reasonable to me, nor do I believe, that anything is random or happens by chance. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable to me, and I firmly believe, that every effect has a cause -- even if no one except God can comprehend this cause.
Besides the obvious fact that evidence can be misleading -- we tend to find only what we expect to see -- God is not something that comes at the end of a logical train of thought. Rather, my faith in God is my basic foundational assumption, the axiom that I start with when I do my logic.
Mental gymnastics is not the special burden of religious believers. It's part and parcel of the human believing condition. I suggest a policy of humility and tolerance with respect to those who disagree with us, not arrogance and bullying.
I think the big division between science and spirituality could be narrowed by a clearer definition of our words. Our vocabulary doesn't serve us well. Don't let the foibles of our vocabulary prevent you from respecting the beliefs of others as long as they respect and honor yours.
Both climate crisis denial and the anti-vaccination movement follow the same trend of dismissing science. But the phenomenon of religious and political science denial extends far beyond the obvious examples. It can get much worse, and much uglier.
In a recent New York Times op-ed, evolutionary biologist David Barash recounts telling the undergraduates in his animal behavior class that evolutionary science has "demolished two previously potent pillars of religious faith and undermined belief in an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God." Barash's claims of demolition are more "op" than "ed," I'm afraid.
The newest frontier of science is the study of consciousness, for which a materialistic bias is particularly prejudicial.
The debate about whether science and religion are adversaries often misses the fact that many people are comfortable both with their faith and the idea God plays a role in the universe.
The archbishop of Canterbury recently admitted that he sometimes has doubts about God. Thank God! We could only wish that more religious leaders had some doubts and expressed them honestly.
Conventional brain science has no explanation. It has long assumed that as the brain goes, so goes the mind; for the brain is what gives rise to the mind. The return of mental clarity and memory in a brain ravaged by Alzheimer's is not supposed to happen. Yet it does in some cases.
Climate justice, human rights, religion, and indigenous spirituality are all entwined and people are taking action in an unprecedented way this weekend.
Climate scientists have assumed that the overwhelming weight of evidence would carry the day. It hasn't. Indeed, studies show that, when individuals are challenged with facts contrary to their core beliefs, those beliefs temporarily harden.
Scientifically-minded religious believers contend that a careful reading of the Book of Scripture teaches that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth. Is that how God did it? I have no idea. But it's possible that God did it this way.