Recently I watched a debate on YouTube titled "Does the Universe have a Purpose?" This debate, which was held in Puebla Mexico, pitted three prominent atheists against three prominent theists, and to accentuate the contentiousness of the topic each individual was invited in to the middle of a boxing ring to argue their positions, where they could land verbal punches against their opponents.
Over the last several years, in the wake of 9/11, debates between religion and science -- faith and reason -- have become very popular and very combative. But these kinds of debates are by no means a new phenomenon. CommonSenseAtheism.com lists 564 such debates dating back to 1948, although these debates date from well before then. 2,400 years ago Plato wrote, "Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding," and 300 years later the Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger proclaimed, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
And the debate continues unresolved. One need only look at a series of blogs here on the Huffington Post, along with the many strongly worded comments, to see that we are no closer to coming to a conclusion than were Plato and Seneca.
The two main topics of these debates are the nature of religion and the existence of God. It is crucial, though, that these two topics be examined separately. It is possible to constructively debate the merits or problems with religion. We can all concede that people have acted wickedly in the name of religion, that dogmatic, fundamentalist religion has caused much suffering, and that the refusal to accept the findings of science which are in conflict with one's doctrine is a foolish and small-minded position. To simply dismiss all religion, however, is not a rational or informed position, because we can also concede that religion has brought much good to the world, that most believers are not literalists, that religion itself is a very diverse and complex institution, and that insecurity, ideology and greed for power, not religion, have been the causes of most wars (and that to call Communism, Fascism, Nationalism and Nazism "religions" is to so distort the definition as to make it useless and unintelligible).
When the debate moves on to question of the existence of God, though, the dialogue hits a brick wall. The atheist side typically presents the position that belief in God is an immature science and that God is a provable or disprovable hypothesis for why things are the way they are, which, they argue, can be easily disproved: Evolution eliminates the need for a creator, double blind tests prove that prayer doesn't work, psychology has demonstrated that human beings often mistake random pattern for meaningful purpose, observation shows that we are an insignificant spot in the midst of a vast chaotic universe, and the death of a single innocent child makes the belief in a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God absurd, or even offensive.
The theist side then responds with arguments to rebut these points: The universe is too fine-tuned to be an accident, without a loving God there are no objective standards or source of values, and the very fact that we can comprehend the workings of physicality with our minds demonstrates the existence of a purposeful creator. Atheists then counter that there is absolutely no objective, quantifiable proof that God exists, that religion is ignorant of, uninterested in or dismissive of modern science, and that to believe in something without proof is inherently dangerous, especially when one thinks that he is acting on divine authority. The theist responds, and so on.
The debate about the existence of God hits a brick wall because there is an essential misunderstanding about the nature of God: None of the proofs that atheists are looking for, or any counter argument from the theists, would be adequate proof. In the Peubla debate, Michael Shermer said that he'd find convincing proof, "if you could have God grow new limbs on amputees from the Iraq war, Christian soldiers, praying for them to be healed. This has not happened even once. Apparently God can not do even what amphibians can do." But even if this did happen, it would not prove the existence of God but would instead prove that there is some kind of regenerative force or energy that responds to the right kind of conscious thought. Likewise, a glowing presence and booming voice appearing on the White House lawn proclaiming "I am the Lord your God, who took you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage" as the waters of the Potomac part, would prove that there is an entity with powerful technology, and would be no more a proof of God than an airplane to a cave man. And irrefutable proof that Moses really did write the first five books of the Bible, that Jesus died and was resurrected, or that an unearthly being appeared to Muhammad and Joseph Smith to dictate new texts, would support some of the claims of religions but does not prove that there is a purposeful, loving Creator and Sustainer.
The truth is that nothing -- no thing -- can prove the existence of God.
The attempt to prove the existence of God through the scientific method of hypothesis, controlled experimentation, observation and documentable repeatable results is somewhat akin to trying to discover the cause of a person's response to a deeply moving work of art. We can examine the painting, analyze the composition of the canvas and pigment, study the arrangement of shapes and colors, discover the historical context of the work and the biography of the artists, or even conduct psychological experiments and CT scans, but none of this will do anything to explain, understand and share in the person's aesthetic experience. This person may try to explain her experience, but she will ultimately fail to convince someone who only sees pigment on canvas, and who may conclude that her experience is delusional, and that the study of aesthetics is a waste of time. To the person who was so deeply impacted by the painting, though, such an assertion completely misses the point, and does nothing to convince her that her experience is not real, and that she was not touched and expanded by her encounter.
In this way, arguments and experiments can not prove the existence of God because God is not an hypothesis. For human beings, God is the experience of a transformative relationship with creation itself, in which we know that the Universe is inherently meaningful, that we were created for a staggering purpose that will unfold over eons, that love and gratitude are the essential actual materials of our lives and that we are holy beings.
The experience of a relationship with God is not one of religious doctrine, does not come from statistics, experiments or argument, and is certainly not in conflict with science and reason in any way. It is also not about righteous certainty or judgment. The experience of God expands the possibilities for our lives and increases the feeling of mystery and intellectual curiosity about the world. Reason and observation are crucial elements in faith. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive and are no more in conflict than civil engineering and poetry.
As a rabbi and person of faith, I have no interest in proving the existence of God and certainly do not want to convert anyone to my religion or way of thinking. What I am passionate about, though, is helping bring others to an experience and relationship with God because I know that such a relationship can create powerful positive personal and communal transformation. One brings another to the experience of God not through philosophical or material proof, but through living the example of gratitude, purpose, compassion and love.
No doubt the debates about the existence of God will continue, and we can enjoy the spectacle, but I suspect that no amount of clever verbal exchange will do anything to convince anyone either way.
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
More fuel for faith-vs.-science debate - Los Angeles Times
Why the Religion and Science Debate Continues? » Evangel | A First ...
Common Sense Atheism — "When you understand why you dismiss all ...
Which of those does this discussion refer to?
Remember, they were convinced they had it right, too.
We presently acquire knowledge through our five senses. But the garden of Eden story indicates that this method of "knowing" was not always the case. We lost a "sense" that connects us to (let's call it) another part if reality. To be brief, many people are unaware that (physics)Quantum mechanics shows us that our present senses are not capable of understanding or truly comprehending reality
YES, there is. They can actually measure pain using brain scans...It's measurable. god is NOT measurable in ANY way.
You do have a belief after all, a "faith" in god's non-existence!
It's not really a belief. It's more like a want. and I think it's a product of our civilization. I also think humans naturally crave meaning and purpose and we like to find patterns in the mystery. It's also not something that I can really hang my hat on. That's why I said that I was not prepared to make any bold claims about how the universe was ultimately ordered.
It was just an idea. You know..."brainstorming." I've also said that not only time but space could be just illusions and that there may be no such thing as dimensions. We may exist in total nothingness that only "appears" to be dimensional because of the way we experience this reality. The whole universe may be infinitely small...But again, this is just a form of thought experiments geared toward shedding light on how the universe might be ordered... Since I don't have proof, I might as well be saying that I saw Santa Claus...
I recognize that so I'm not making ANY claims.
The difference between this and what believers do is believers will say there's a god and will say it with a high degree of conviction.
Faith has lead many to war, discrimination, mass murder, yet it's all ok if its inside the scope of your faith and god!
Who cares though? How about living the life you have and not worry about some divine creature that may or may not exist, or an afterlife that might happen after you die. If you're wrong, you've wasted your life worrying about a fantasy, if you're right you've also wasted the short time your creator gifted you on this world. Hell of a way to treat a gift - ignoring it.
I say this ALL the time but if you're going to claim that you have a cure for cancer you BETTER have a cure for cancer. Pretending that "God will save you" is NOT a cure.
So, if you would expect a Scientist to require proof of a cure, you should not make any claims UNTIL you have your proof. We know cancer exist so therefore it is curable. You can't even say god exists so therefor, "un-curable." In other words, you FIRST must all agree what god is and then you can figure out if god exists. Believers can't even get this first part right and agree what god is. Proof? Believers will NEVER have that.
By the way, "All creation" does NOT denote that there is a god; that is simply wishful thinking on the side of believers. Besides, that word, "creation," suggest that things were created in the first place.
I would suggest that things have ALWAYS been and the idea of creation is false to begin with. Having said that, I have no proof that the universe always was so I'll have to retire trying to argue that until we have proof.
Carl Sagan once hypothesized (to summurize) that he did not believe humans would ever travel to other planets, stars or solar systems because he thought the distances and the amount of energy necessary for a ship to make the journey was too great. I thought this rather short-sighted for such a great intellect. Just because humans can't travel to other worlds now with our limited intelligence and technology does not mean we can't in some distant future. Humans are a very primitive species.
If humans survive for another millenia, or even a million years, travel between worlds will certainly be possible, which brings me to God.
What will humans know and have learned in a billion or trillion years? I submit God's soul purpose is for a species to acknowledge, with certainty, that God does exists.
If God exists, it can be proven. humans just aren't smart enough to know God... but that doesn't mean we or some other species within the know universe will not evolve to the level to prove (or disprove) God exists.
The problem with your reasoning, I hope you can see, is that a postulation without evidence is an invalid cause for imposing religious laws and rules on other people even if they are willing participants. Just as we can't keep invading other countries when their leadership fail to turn over their non-existent WMD programs, we can't keep stoning people to death in obedience of a law that couldn't possibly have been passed down by an unknowable, unprovable God.
It's real simple Google Hubble Space telescope
It's a picture from the inside looking out
First, let us be thankful for the work of other people. Much has changed in the last 2,400 years. Quite a few of the words used in this article didn't exist: science, hypothesis, evolution, vast chaotic universe, double blind tests, CT scans....
“Atheists” brick: I've found their are very few atheist. When you meet an “atheist” ask them, Multiple choice, which best describes yourself?
A) “I don't believe in God” (atheist don't look for proof)
B) “I am skeptical about the existence of God” (agnostic)
C) “ I believe in the existence of a god” (theist)
Most will respond, “B, God may exist but I haven't heard a good explanation.”
“Proof of God” brick. Question for atheist, “ Do you love your child or Children...?”
Replace the word God with Love= “Atheists then counter that there is absolutely no objective, quantifiable proof that Love exists, that Love is ignorant of, uninterested in or dismissive of modern science, and that to believe in something without proof is inherently dangerous, especially when one thinks that he is acting on legal authority.”
*“Religion is not what you believe, its what you practice” Many people say they believe in
God on Sunday. First thing Mon. morning there stabbing their co-worker in the back.
*Careful with the word “everyone”. Not everyone believes their religion is the “one true religion”.
*”It's logically impossible for everyone to be right when they all disagree” Like someone looking at a map and saying there's only one way of driving from NY to LA.
Happy New Year!
p.s. I have to admit I had to look up “Judeo-Christian” (wiki). Sort of gave me a headache- when I come across Protestants (removed woman from gospels) or Puritans (burning witches), I usually head the opposite direction lol.
It said thousands of years ago many times that the universe was stretched out and we can actually see the evidence of that today.
It says there is a Creator of all matter and today we can see that all of the basic elements of the universe are the actual created working machine parts inside of us that were not able to create themselves to work that way.
It says things reproduce after their kind and we can see that is true.
It says the world was destroyed by a flood and we can see the many layers that were laid down by the currents up to nearly a half a mile thick with all of the life forms buried in those layers. There is no other possible way of laying down that many tons of sediments with that many perfect layers around the entire globe.
The Bible speaks of dinosaurs and we have found the bones to prove they existed.
Evolution has failed to prove anything. It is not able even to make any one of the billions of steps that is required of it because that kind of magic is nothing more than baseless fantasy.
The Bible speaks of dinosaurs? Really? Since we're not all bible scholars, perhaps you could post a reference from the bible where dinosaurs are specifically mentioned? That would be great...
...or you can let your fingers do the walking and search for it yourself.
The keyword is dragon.
And let me guess, the Neanderthals and earlier forms of man were the 'giants' mentioned in the bible?
Things reproduce after their own kind? Tell that to the horse and donkey couple.
You must read Texas schoolbooks.
Those who have not seen will not accept my words, or the words of scribes who lived 2000 years ago, and why should they. Finding the truth is very much a personal journey, and saying God doesn't exist is as much an expression of belief as saying he does exist, in either case not scientific. However, there is a great deal of scientifically proven evidence for the existence of the afterlife, a slight deviation off topic, but very interesting and well worth reading up on!
And no, it will not be a matter of "the waning moments on this plane of existence". Atheists rarely do last minute conversions. I definitely won't. I won't cheat my intellectual integrity in the last moment on the only plane of existence we actually know of.
For Atheists, this is the REAL troubling aspect about Religion is the CONSTANT goal post moving. Believers QUICKLY revise their beliefs to fit their newly found reality.
What we are saying is that Science, and the direction of Science, point to us finding out these answers. And when we do, we will, once again, discover that god had nothing to do with the mystery...The rules will be governed by Scientific principles. Eventually the PROOF for god will be a Scientific one be cause that's how "god" in quotes must organize the universe...Even god must be ruled by Science. If that's the case...there is no distinguishable god...and the universe just is the way it is because it has rules that guide it; those rules WILL be based in a Scientific process...not magic. An\d if it's not magic, it's not a god we, as Atheists can argue with.