Scientists and scholars refute the Bible

[Sarkus]

The reason people believe is despite everything we have achieved in science and philosophy, medicine or psychology - we have not discovered a method to find joy, peace of mind, love or fulfillment in life other than through some religious belief (I include Buddhism).

Hogwash - of the highest order!!

It is comments like this that really show how absurd some peoples' thinking is, how twisted it is, how brainwashed.

DD - I suggest you stop throwing up such inane and most ridiculous statements that you clearly will be unable to substantiate.
Alternatively, please provide the evidence to support this bizarre claim of yours.

 

[KennyJC]

Diogenes' Dog lets take a look at the two most religious regions in the world. Does it make a picture of happiness? One nation is paranoid and feels superiour, the other nation simply kills everything that moves.

Meanwhile secularists are looking very happy indeed away from all the violence and instability.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Hogwash - of the highest order!!

It is comments like this that really show how absurd some peoples' thinking is, how twisted it is, how brainwashed.

DD - I suggest you stop throwing up such inane and most ridiculous statements that you clearly will be unable to substantiate.
Alternatively, please provide the evidence to support this bizarre claim of yours.

Your comments are high on insults, but low on reasoned argument Sarkus.
I must have hit a raw nerve!

Why do YOU think people become religious if not for the reasons I gave?
Alternatively, IYO does science, philosophy etc. achieve or even aim to make people more joyful, peaceful or loving? Whether you believe them or not, that is the hope many religions promise. Perhaps you could string together some sort of coherent argument, rather than just a stream of irrational invective!

Diogenes' Dog lets take a look at the two most religious regions in the world. Does it make a picture of happiness? One nation is paranoid and feels superiour, the other nation simply kills everything that moves.

Meanwhile secularists are looking very happy indeed away from all the violence and instability.

I'm not sure which nations you mean KennyJC, if you could be more specific...?

I would say that the problem with any belief (including atheism) is the tendency to become dogmatic and rigid (e.g. in Iran or the old USSR). Personally, I abhor dogmatism and "fundementalism" more than anything. It is antithetical to true spirituality IMHO. Perhaps it is just our human nature. However to condemn theism because of fundementalism is like condemning sex because of rape.

 

[KennyJC]

Why do YOU think people become religious if not for the reasons I gave?
Alternatively, IYO does science, philosophy etc. achieve or even aim to make people more joyful, peaceful or loving? Whether you believe them or not, that is the hope many religions promise. Perhaps you could string together some sort of coherent argument, rather than just a stream of irrational invective!

I think the thing atheists will counter with is that you do not need delusion to be 'joyful, peaceful and loving'. In my opinion atheists could teach theists a thing or two about these things. I'd rather feel joy, peace and love without adding delusion to the mix.

Perhaps in the act of worship there is a placebo effect which is mostly seen in evangelical worshippers who 'faint' when the 'hand of god' is placed on them, but if being evangelical is the best way to get that, I think our world could be spared that, don't you?

Personally, I abhor dogmatism and "fundementalism" more than anything. It is antithetical to true spirituality IMHO. Perhaps it is just our human nature. However to condemn theism because of fundementalism is like condemning sex because of rape.

So you agree works like the Bible etc are collections of stories and not historic fact? Good. Because I have just watched everyone around me celebrate someone coming back from the dead on Earth then ascend to heaven... Talk about fundamentalism?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I think the thing atheists will counter with is that you do not need delusion to be 'joyful, peaceful and loving'. In my opinion atheists could teach theists a thing or two about these things. I'd rather feel joy, peace and love without adding delusion to the mix.

Your assumption is that belief in God is a delusion. This is every bit as much a non-rational belief as any religious credo. People become theists because they hope for, and (theists would argue) find - joy, peace and love in a spiritual belief. I also argue that this is healthy functioning. Spirituality is part of our humanity, and needs to be taken into account.

Perhaps in the act of worship there is a placebo effect which is mostly seen in evangelical worshippers who 'faint' when the 'hand of god' is placed on them, but if being evangelical is the best way to get that, I think our world could be spared that, don't you?

Again you assume it is all a placebo effect. Why should an encounter with God not be powerful or dramatic? A Jungian would say that theism invokes very powerful archetypes. This will (even if you don't attribute it to God) therefore be a powerful experience for some people! If as a result it leads people to be less selfish and dedicating their lives to helping others, it seems that is what the world needs (even if you find it a bit embarrassing).

So you agree works like the Bible etc are collections of stories and not historic fact? Good. Because I have just watched everyone around me celebrate someone coming back from the dead on Earth then ascend to heaven... Talk about fundamentalism?

I gave my view in a previous post. The OT is the oral tradition of the Jews, including songs, proverbs, allegories AND stories probably based on actual events, told and retold.

As for the NT, it seems unlikely to me that the Gospel stories are pure fiction. What you believe depends on your view of Jesus. If you believe he was just another religious leader - then miracles etc. are obvious mythologising. However, if (as christians do) you believe that Jesus was "special", then it is not so unbelievable that he should have powers beyond the ordinary and even return from the dead - especially if that is an essential part of his message.

N.B. I should have used the word "fanaticism" rather than "fundementalism". Fundementalists are often kind non-violent people. Fanatics are those that insist they are right, espouse threat and violence against dissenters and exist everywhere - politics, religion, football etc.

 

[Cottontop3000]

Spirituality is part of our humanity, and needs to be taken into account.

As soon as you show us proof that there is such a thing as a "spirit," we can talk about spirituality and not sound deluded.

 

[Provita]

There are scientists that support the bible and there are scientists that refute the bible. There is evidence that the great flood took place... and evidence it did not... (i dont believe there was a world flood, but they have found out that in the area of Israel all civilization was whiped away somehow for some time... and they say it may be because of a flood, altho i think the whole Flood story is a steal from Gilgamesh) ... they have evidence sporting many different theories on Exodus, and many excavations have uncovered buildings, locations,. anmd cities only mentioned in the bible. Although most of you dont know this, more than half the bible doesnt even contain miracles or anything, but the 'supposed' history of the Jews... some thingss in the bible just arent possible for you and me, yes, but that doesnt mean it falsifies the entire book... it has alot of history in it, and they just add "thanks be to God we beat the enemy" in there... doesnt mean they ddint beat that certain enemy...

 

[KennyJC]

Your assumption is that belief in God is a delusion. This is every bit as much a non-rational belief as any religious credo. People become theists because they hope for, and (theists would argue) find - joy, peace and love in a spiritual belief. I also argue that this is healthy functioning. Spirituality is part of our humanity, and needs to be taken into account.

Why is non-belief in God irrational? It would only be irrational if there was clear evidence an intelligent creator existed. Despite what you may feel in your heart there is no clear evidence an intelligent creator exists - Therefor the rational thing is to not believe there is. I would say a belief in a creator is not totally irrational, that I agree with. However, it's when your get bogged down in an organised religion that applies all of these motives and rules to that creator, is when it becomes irrational. An unhealthy amount of faith is needed for that which drives people to the edge of stability as you see when you turn on the news. I would also say there is a big difference between theism and spirituality. I think atheists can be spiritual.

Again you assume it is all a placebo effect. Why should an encounter with God not be powerful or dramatic? A Jungian would say that theism invokes very powerful archetypes. This will (even if you don't attribute it to God) therefore be a powerful experience for some people! If as a result it leads people to be less selfish and dedicating their lives to helping others, it seems that is what the world needs (even if you find it a bit embarrassing).

Well we know quite a lot about the placebo effect. We know when someone believes something to be true, they show the effects of it, there have been many experiments confirming this.

For example, a bunch of people with bad knees needed operations. One half of them got the real operation and the other half recieved the placebo. All of the patients felt no pain because they all believed they had the real operation. Likewise, if someone geuinely feels like they are talking to God they will become hyper and faint... Just like a teenage girl who meets a pop star who she has raised to deity status.

I gave my view in a previous post. The OT is the oral tradition of the Jews, including songs, proverbs, allegories AND stories probably based on actual events, told and retold.

Chinese whispers, yes. That is a feature of the Bible I feel. Besides, it's probably best to ignore the OT right? It's a little embarrassing if you believe in a loving creator, hehe.

As for the NT, it seems unlikely to me that the Gospel stories are pure fiction. What you believe depends on your view of Jesus. If you believe he was just another religious leader - then miracles etc. are obvious mythologising. However, if (as christians do) you believe that Jesus was "special", then it is not so unbelievable that he should have powers beyond the ordinary and even return from the dead - especially if that is an essential part of his message.

Well I don't believe they are 'pure fiction' either. There could be half truths there. Maybe even Jesus existed, but when you slimline all of the 'miracles' I'm sure there was just a normal guy there. Perhaps someone who doesn't even resemble the deity we call Jesus today. A lot can happen in the 60 years after his alledged death and the time it takes for local myths to spread in time for the writing of the Gospels.

N.B. I should have used the word "fanaticism" rather than "fundementalism". Fundementalists are often kind non-violent people. Fanatics are those that insist they are right, espouse threat and violence against dissenters and exist everywhere - politics, religion, football etc.

I see no difference with fanatics and fundamentalism.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Why is non-belief in God irrational? It would only be irrational if there was clear evidence an intelligent creator existed. Despite what you may feel in your heart there is no clear evidence an intelligent creator exists - Therefor the rational thing is to not believe there is. I would say a belief in a creator is not totally irrational, that I agree with. However, it's when your get bogged down in an organised religion that applies all of these motives and rules to that creator, is when it becomes irrational. An unhealthy amount of faith is needed for that which drives people to the edge of stability as you see when you turn on the news. I would also say there is a big difference between theism and spirituality. I think atheists can be spiritual.

I used the tern NON-rational i.e. not based totally on rationality rather than IRrational i.e. contradicting rationality. Atheism and theism are both NON-rational, because they are both metaphysical models (i.e. viewpoints) that cannot be verified by rational argument (as evidenced on this forum). Both can become irrational (as also evidenced on this forum)!

However, I'm not sure how atheists can easily be spiritual without becoming (or at least borrowing from) theists - unless you count Buddhism, or meditation as non-theistic? They all depend on a metaphysical view of the world which involves realisation of a higher reality/perception than most materialists would be comfortable to admit. Theism has such practices built in.

Well we know quite a lot about the placebo effect. We know when someone believes something to be true, they show the effects of it, there have been many experiments confirming this.

For example, a bunch of people with bad knees needed operations. One half of them got the real operation and the other half recieved the placebo. All of the patients felt no pain because they all believed they had the real operation. Likewise, if someone geuinely feels like they are talking to God they will become hyper and faint... Just like a teenage girl who meets a pop star who she has raised to deity status.

I know the placebo effect (or other forms of suggestion) are often invoked to explain such phenomena. Perhaps the teeny-bopper meeting her idol is equally overwhelmed to the evangelical feeling the hand of God - so both end up on the floor. However, this is to judge only from the outside, and is highly over-simplistic. Without knowing the subjective nature of their experience, and the subsequent effect on their personality and life, how can you or I really know? We are missing the vital data, and judging on appearance only.

 

[KennyJC]

However, I'm not sure how atheists can easily be spiritual without becoming (or at least borrowing from) theists - unless you count Buddhism, or meditation as non-theistic? They all depend on a metaphysical view of the world which involves realisation of a higher reality/perception than most materialists would be comfortable to admit. Theism has such practices built in.

It doesn't borrow from theists at all. Theists find their meaning in a 'revealed word of God' and dogmatic rules. Atheists (if they need to) find meaning in the power of truth and reality. A quick google search of 'atheist spirituality' turned up this which I thought was well put:

'I think we often look too far away for gods and miracles, and ignore the ones all around us. We want to think that we, as a species, are different, that somehow we are endowed by god(s) to do whatever the hell we please with this world. But the world was not created for us (if it was 'created' at all). It exists FOR ITS OWN SAKE, not as a proving ground for future gods or a stage for a cosmic struggle between good or evil, or a playground that one species is meant to use as its personal possession. It is vaster by far, and wilder, and more beautiful than that'

Theists often shy away from what science can show us, because they see it as a threat that things can be explained without God apparently playing a role (evolution is a great example), but atheists find these truths give great (spiritual?) strength.

Weak people find it upsetting that one day we will be dust, as will their loved ones, but that is how we all started out in the first place... I find that amazing.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

It doesn't borrow from theists at all. Theists find their meaning in a 'revealed word of God' and dogmatic rules. Atheists (if they need to) find meaning in the power of truth and reality....

Theists often shy away from what science can show us, because they see it as a threat that things can be explained without God apparently playing a role (evolution is a great example), but atheists find these truths give great (spiritual?) strength.

There are dogmatic theists just as there are dogmatic atheists (e.g. Prof. Richard Dawkins). People cling to certainty and authority, whether it is in a book, or a person. I am ashamed to say much religion has become dogmatic. It is regrettable that people get stuck in their own certainty, be that reductionist or religious.

Let me tell you about the other side of theism. The idea is to use every human faculty to find out if there IS a transcendant intelligence in the universe. How can we do that? How would you find out if Schroedingers cat was alive without opening the box? By calling it's name, and listening for a response. So it is with "The All". My experience is that the degree of sincerity is reflected in the response.

"Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened."

So, the principle is to throw out all the doctrines and dogmas, release oneself from all mundane cares, and just sink into the silence that is "the presence of God" and wait and listen for a while.

"Be still and know that I am God"

For other people's insights there is loads to choose from - the Tao Te Ching, the Bible, The Cloud of Unknowing, A Course in Miracles, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, The Qu'ran, Confucius' Analects etc. etc. All of it can be inspiring, none of it is TRUTH (unless you find truth there). Science and philosophy are all compatible with this form of theism because, while they do not get too certain of their own rightness, they too are the search for truth.

Weak people find it upsetting that one day we will be dust, as will their loved ones, but that is how we all started out in the first place... I find that amazing.

Death is scary. However, I hope I have shown that theism need not be about "after-death insurance", but about finding the transcendant in life.

 

[TheVisitor]

The order of temple service is also very revealing. There were, first of all, priests who were eunuchs. This sterile priesthood presaged the sterility of a people who would drift from the Word, for a people who claim to know God apart from the Word are as barren of life as is a sterile eunuch. Secondly, the temple had within its confines the virgin priestesses who performed the religious acts of the temple. This showed forth the day that ceremony and form, ritual and works, would take the place of the Holy Spirit and no longer would charismatic manifestation fill the temple of God. Over them all was the high priest, a man of political power and public influence, portraying what was already in progress, though not too manifested, that is, the church would soon be given over to the leadership of man with man's plans and man's ambitions and "thus saith the Holy Ghost" would no longer be a living reality. And underneath them all were the temple slaves who had no choice but obedience to the religious hierarchy. What can this mean but the day would come when the vested clergy, by political maneuvering, state help, and the substitution of Word and Spirit for creeds, dogmas, and human leadership, would enslave the laity while the leaders luxuriated in ill gotten wealth and enjoyed their filthy pleasures, and the poor people who were to be served according to God, now became the servants.

 

[Sarkus]

Why do YOU think people become religious if not for the reasons I gave?
Alternatively, IYO does science, philosophy etc. achieve or even aim to make people more joyful, peaceful or loving?

I do not dispute that some people become religious for the reasons you put forward - but your claim remains unsubstantiated.

You claimed: "The reason people believe is despite everything we have achieved in science and philosophy, medicine or psychology - we have not discovered a method to find joy, peace of mind, love or fulfillment in life other than through some religious belief (I include Buddhism). "
And yet you offer no supporting evidence.

You need to provide evidence that atheists are less happy / joyful etc.
You need to provide evidence that theist are more happy / joyful.

I see none of this in your comments.

Whether you believe them or not, that is the hope many religions promise. Perhaps you could string together some sort of coherent argument, rather than just a stream of irrational invective!

Excuse me??? You are the one making claims and providing no support. I am quite in my right to point this out to you - as the onus is on the one making the claim to support that claim - which you consistently fail to do.
The reason you give for people turning to religion is NOT evidence that they are happier, or any more happy than an atheist.
Now maybe YOU can give support, any support whatsoever, to your claim.

And please try to learn and understand what "atheism" is - it is NOT a belief.

Again you assume it is all a placebo effect. Why should an encounter with God not be powerful or dramatic? A Jungian would say that theism invokes very powerful archetypes. This will (even if you don't attribute it to God) therefore be a powerful experience for some people! If as a result it leads people to be less selfish and dedicating their lives to helping others, it seems that is what the world needs (even if you find it a bit embarrassing).

You also need to distinguish between the effects / results of being a theist and the actual tennets of their faith!

Yes, being religious can, and undeniably does, have many wonderful effects on people - can bring them joy, fulfilment, happiness etc.

But that does not, in any way, provide evidence for the existence of god, or - for Catholics - transubstantiation, or for the existence of Jesus, or Satan, or the performance of miracles, or for the existence of a spirit etc.

Atheism and theism are both NON-rational, because they are both metaphysical models (i.e. viewpoints) that cannot be verified by rational argument (as evidenced on this forum).

You misunderstand Atheism - as you seem to be assuming atheism = Strong Atheism.
Atheism is merely lacking a belief in the existence of God.

This "lack of belief" is NOT non-rational - but entirely rational.
Theism is entirely IRRATIONAL - because it DOES go against logic - as it requires belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence.
Likewise, STRONG Atheism is IRRATIONAL - because it does the same.

WEAK atheism - which you seem to fail to understand - is the only RATIONAL viewpoint.

Both can become irrational (as also evidenced on this forum)!

I agree that Strong Atheism is irrational (the actual belief that God does NOT exist) but do not label all atheists as such.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

The order of temple service is also very revealing. There were, first of all, priests who were eunuchs. This sterile priesthood presaged the sterility of a people who would drift from the Word, for a people who claim to know God apart from the Word are as barren of life as is a sterile eunuch. Secondly, the temple had within its confines the virgin priestesses who performed the religious acts of the temple. This showed forth the day that ceremony and form, ritual and works, would take the place of the Holy Spirit and no longer would charismatic manifestation fill the temple of God. Over them all was the high priest, a man of political power and public influence, portraying what was already in progress, though not too manifested, that is, the church would soon be given over to the leadership of man with man's plans and man's ambitions and "thus saith the Holy Ghost" would no longer be a living reality. And underneath them all were the temple slaves who had no choice but obedience to the religious hierarchy. What can this mean but the day would come when the vested clergy, by political maneuvering, state help, and the substitution of Word and Spirit for creeds, dogmas, and human leadership, would enslave the laity while the leaders luxuriated in ill gotten wealth and enjoyed their filthy pleasures, and the poor people who were to be served according to God, now became the servants.

Intriguing! Is the "Word" scripture or the "Ontic Logos"....

"When they lose their sense of awe,
people turn to religion.
When they no longer trust themselves,
they begin to depend upon authority.

Therefore the Sage steps back
so that people won't be confused.
He teaches without a teaching,
so that people will have nothing to learn."
Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching Ch.72 (S.Mitchell translation)

"Mysticism, according to its historical and psychological definitions, is the direct intuition or experience of God; and a mystic is a person who has, to a greater or less degree, such a direct experience -- one whose religion and life are centered, not merely on an accepted belief or practice, but on that which the person regards as first hand personal knowledge."
Evelyn Underhill, "Mystics of the Church"

 

[s0meguy]

No - I am not saying that.
I am saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of non-existence.
Likewise, onus of proof is on the one making the claim (in this case, existence of God, Jesus etc).
But you can not, and should not, jump from a lack of evidence to belief in the non-existence. That is irrational.

And jumping from lack of evidence to belief in the existence is rational?

When man makes up Christianity people should accept it without evidence?
When man makes up Someguyism people should dismiss it because of lack of evidence?

 

[Sarkus]

And jumping from lack of evidence to belief in the existence is rational?

And exactly where are you digging up the idea / claim that I have said that this is so?

When man makes up Christianity people should accept it without evidence?
When man makes up Someguyism people should dismiss it because of lack of evidence?

If you had bothered to read all the posts you will realise that the point being made is: lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence.
This was in response to MW, in her opening post on this thread, seemingly jumping to the conclusion that because they haven't found evidence then it must not exist.

At NO POINT have I stated, or will I EVER state, that it is rational to have a belief without evidence - either FOR OR AGAINST the existence of God.

While I am an atheist due to the absolute lack of evidence in the matter, I think it irrational to jump to the conclusion that a lack of evidence is the same as evidence for the non-existence.

Now I hope this clears it up for you?????

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I do not dispute that some people become religious for the reasons you put forward - but your claim remains unsubstantiated.

You claimed: "The reason people believe is despite everything we have achieved in science and philosophy, medicine or psychology - we have not discovered a method to find joy, peace of mind, love or fulfillment in life other than through some religious belief (I include Buddhism). "
And yet you offer no supporting evidence.

You need to provide evidence that atheists are less happy / joyful etc.
You need to provide evidence that theist are more happy / joyful.

I see none of this in your comments.

Well done Sarkus - I have something I can reply to...

In fact I haven't stated that Religious belief DOES produce joy etc. (though I think it does), but that it purports to be a route to these things, not found through science/philosophy etc.

However, although it is (predictably) contraversial, there is strong evidence of a link between religious belief and happiness. e.g. http://www.webmd.com/content/article/78/95776.htm

or another paper (abstract)...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12674256&dopt=Abstract

Some possible explanations are given in this interesting paper by Bob Condor.

"In our culture, we don't really learn the basic skills of how to be in intimate relationships. We tend to disparage intimacy if it comes up at all, or we restrict it to certain people, such as spouses."

Ornish has written a new book, "Dr. Ornish's Eight Pathways to Intimacy," in which he suggests several methods of achieving closer relationships. That five of these pathways -- get together, serve, confess and forgive, make a commitment, meditate -- will sound familiar to anyone who follows an organized form of worship will come as no surprise to those who have studied the connection between religion and happiness.

Across nations and denominations, religious involvement is a positive predictor of happiness. People active in organized religion -- not self-fashioned spirituality -- are less likely to become delinquent, to abuse drugs and alcohol, to divorce or to commit suicide. Thanks to such factors, they lead healthier, happier and longer lives.

Part of the reason has to do with social support from others in a congregation, but looming larger in most minds -- and souls -- is a sense of meaning and guidance. In one study at the National Opinion Research Center, people who said they felt "close to God" were significantly more likely to consider themselves "very happy." Psychologists posit that such a connection is another form of intimate relationship or that it helps people feel closer to loved ones -- or both.

You can do your own internet search and see for yourself. Not everyone agrees of course. However the evidence linking religious belief and greater longevity is even stronger.

Yes, being religious can, and undeniably does, have many wonderful effects on people - can bring them joy, fulfilment, happiness etc.

But that does not, in any way, provide evidence for the existence of god, or - for Catholics - transubstantiation, or for the existence of Jesus, or Satan, or the performance of miracles, or for the existence of a spirit etc.

I'm not trying to prove God's existence. Only you can do that for yourself. If you read the previous post (and mine) properly, you will see that I am giving an explanation as to why people become theists!

And please try to learn and understand what "atheism" is - it is NOT a belief....

...This "lack of belief" is NOT non-rational - but entirely rational.
Theism is entirely IRRATIONAL - because it DOES go against logic - as it requires belief in the existence of something for which there is no evidence.
Likewise, STRONG Atheism is IRRATIONAL - because it does the same.

WEAK atheism - which you seem to fail to understand - is the only RATIONAL viewpoint.

I have some sympathy with this view as I share your caution on pronouncements of what is THE truth (see above posts - maybe that makes me a weak theist!). Skepticism is very healthy!

However, I would argue that weak atheism is in itself is a belief or judgement that:
a) Non belief is the only rational default position.
b) There is insufficient evidence to believe otherwise.

It is not the only rational viewpoint therefore. Another default position is to say "some people say they have experienced God", I will suspend disbelief, assume there is a God for 6 months and find out for myself. Another may argue - "I experience God, and have had all my prayers answered. That is sufficient evidence for me to rationally believe in God".

So, you may feel that weak atheism is YOUR only rational viewpoint, but for others (and I would argue for you too), there are other viiews just as rational.

 

[Sarkus]

Another default position is to say "some people say they have experienced God", I will suspend disbelief, assume there is a God for 6 months and find out for myself.

No - the very assumption of God's existence is still irrational.
Making the irrational belief an assumption rather than a belief does not make the actual belief less irrational.
Remember, I/we are talking about the actual "belief in God". You either believe in the existence of, believe in the non-existence of, or don't believe.

Another may argue - "I experience God, and have had all my prayers answered. That is sufficient evidence for me to rationally believe in God".

In this case the conclusion ("God") is irrational - as there are other explanations (not necessarily fully understood yet by science) that do not require the existence of some God character - and under Occam's Razor this would then deem the "God" explanation irrational.

So, you may feel that weak atheism is YOUR only rational viewpoint, but for others (and I would argue for you too), there are other viiews just as rational.

I do agree that the idea of what constitutes "evidence" might be subjective - but evidence in these matters, due to the extraordinary nature of the claim (God's existence) MUST be beyond scrutiny and thus MUST be as objective as possible.

Only when someone who claims a subjective experience )that they might consider to be the work of "God") has ruled out EVERY possible alternative should they then start looking elsewhere.

It also depends on what one's definition of "God" is - as I know many on this site consider "self" to be God - in which case the label of "God" is just, IMO, unhelpful semantics for a natural phenomenum.


As for the link between religion and happiness - I could cite individuals I know that gain a great deal of happiness from it that I doubt they could get anywhere else - but that was never in question.

You still claimed: "...we have not discovered a method to find joy, peace of mind, love or fulfillment in life other than through some religious belief." It was, and still is, this statement that I have issue with - as it is claiming that the only way to discover joy, peace of mind, love etc is through religious belief.
And on this I still ask for evidence - not that religious belief offers this, as I don't doubt it, but that this is the ONLY thing that can do it, as you seemed to claim.

 

[s0meguy]

Now I hope this clears it up for you?????

Ok then nevermind, for some reason I was assuming that you were one of those ignorant hypocritical Christians.

 

[dattaswami]

*************
M*W: Just about every story in the bible (O&NT) has been refuted by scientific discovery (or the lack thereof), and bookstores and libraries are rife with the publication of their studies. That means to me that everything in the bible is false. Why, then, do christians not know about recent studies such as the finding (or lack thereof) an historical Exodus, for example? If there was no Exodus, then there is no manna from heaven, so that story discounts another story. These falsehoods beget other falsehoods, and the the whole shebang turns out to be all lies. I just don't understand why christians continue to believe. Is it that they don't read-up on the scholarly research? Do they just have lollipops for heads (i.e. suckers)? Why is it so hard to get through to christians? Are they really THAT dependent on the belief of eternal life, or are they just afraid they might make Jesus angry? What is it with those christians?

Spiritual Knowledge - Concepts Of Science

Science is the logical analysis of the items existing in this creation based on only one authority that is perception (Pratyaksha Pramanam). Even in the ancient logic, all the authorities (Pramanas) are based on perception only. You see the fire giving smoke. This is deduction or perception. When you see the smoke coming from a distance and do not see the fire, you say that fire exists there and this is induction or inference (Anumana Pramanam). But this induction is based on your previous deduction only. Somebody says to you that fire gives smoke. If that person is your dearest, you believe it and infer the fire from the smoke. This is authority of word ‘Shabdha Pramanam’.

Though you have not seen the fire, your dearest person has seen the smoke coming from fire. Like this all the authorities are based on perception only. I do not find any scripture of any Religion, which contradicts the experience of perception. There are four ways of authority. 1) Sruthi, which is the original scripture. 2) Smrithi, which is the commentaries of Scholars on the original scripture. 3) Yukthi, the logical analysis based on deduction, induction etc., 4) Anubhava, the experience based on the perception of the items in this world, which may be direct or indirect. Out of these four ways, the fourth way is the most powerful. If anything contradicts the fourth way, that is not valid or it may be a misinterpretation based on misunderstanding of the Sruthi or Smrithi or Yukthi. Thus Science and Philosophy are not separate. The very frame of the spiritual knowledge is Science only. Thus Science is the basic foundation and over all underlying structure of all the Scriptures.

A true Scientist should always stand on the perception and should not deny the experience derived by perception. If he denies, he is not a scientist. All top most scientists were philosophers and spiritual people only. Those scientists have travelled along the river of Science and reached its end, which is the ocean of spiritual knowledge called as philosophy. Philosophy is pervading all the branches of Science. Every branch of Science gives Ph.D as the final degree. Ph.D means Doctor in Philosophy. If Science and Philosophy are different, why this word Philosophy is regarded so much by all the branches of Science? Philosophy means the essence of the knowledge of every branch that is experienced when one reaches the end of that branch.

Therefore, the spiritual knowledge, which is the ocean is the Philosophy in which all branches of Science and all the Religions merge and loose their identity. A scientist who has not reached the end of Science and who is still travelling in the river only denies the existence of the ocean, since he is still perceiving the limiting boundaries of his knowledge – river. Such river-travellers are called as atheists. They neither see the ocean nor see the other rivers. Even the follower of any particular Religion is in the state of this atheist only. He is no better than these atheists because he believes that God is a particular form only, which is a small part of this creation. Some other followers believe God as formless, who is the all-pervading cosmic energy. Since cosmic energy is also a part of the creation, their form of God is very big. These atheist-scientist believe that this creation is God. Thus all these are atheists only. All these atheists, who may be scientific atheists or religious atheists, will realize the true nature of God only when they reach the end of the Science or Religion.

A scientific atheist is contradicting his own authority, which is the perception. When the human incarnation performs the inexplicable miracles, how can they deny the perception of such miracles? You may do that miracle in an alternative way, but that does not contradict the different path of the original miracle. One may get first class by copying. Such false first class cannot contradict the genuine first class. The result is same, but the process is different. You may produce ash by putting a fine powder of wet salt in the grews of your hand like a magician. The same ash may be produced by a divine miracle also. Since the result is same, can you argue that the process also should be same? Since the first class result is same in the case of the original student and a fraud student, do you mean that the hard work of the original student is fraud?

Do you mean that the original and fraud students are one and the same? Therefore, the same result can have two different processes. Since the result is same, processes need not be same. Do you mean that a result has only one process? Is it not contradicting the very fundamentals of Science? A Chemical compound can be produced in several ways (Hess Law).

Since the compound is same, do you mean that the alternative reactions are also one and the same? Same Chennai city can be reached by several ways. Since the end City is same, do you mean that all the paths are not different? Do you mean that all the paths are merged as one path only and thus there is only one path to reach the Chennai city? Therefore, conservative scientists and conservative religious followers can be categorized as immature analysts. The immaturity indicates their position in the river and maturity indicates their position in the end of the river, which is the ocean. Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean.

At Thy Lotus Feet His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org