Science and Religion
Science and Religion
Martin Rees – President of the Royal Society, Astronomer Royal,
Master of Trinity College, Cambridge – has been doing the Reith
Lectures on Radio 4. Here’s part of what he said this
Tuesday:
“Imagine ants crawling around on a large sheet of paper (their
two-dimensional ‘universe’). They would be unaware of a similar
sheet that’s parallel to it. Likewise there could be another
universe (with 3-dimensional space, like ours) less than a
millimetre away, but we would be oblivious to it if that
millimetre were measured in a fourth spatial dimension, while we
are imprisoned in just three.”
Later on, when asked “Can science aim to understand religion”, he
replied “I take the view that science and religion can and should
coexist.” He went on to comment that although Richard Dawkins on
his website calls him “a compliant Quisling” he remains “entirely
unapologetic at being a compliant Quisling.”
This seems to me entirely proper. If there can be another
universe a millimetre away, that leaves plenty of room for angels
to dance on the heads of pins if they really wish.
There again we don’t need another universe. There’s plenty of
dark matter in this one. Statistically, the room you are in right
now should be packed from floor to ceiling with dark matter (it
should outnumber baryonic matter – our sort – by about 7 or 8 to
one [the estimates vary]). It may consist of dark matter
sideboards, computer tables, filing cabinets and the like – but I
doubt it. More excitingly, there might be platoons of goodies
(a.k.a. angels/devas etc) fighting squads of baddies (a.k.a.
demons/asuras etc). Or, sadly but more credibly, we just can’t
imagine what’s going on.
And, of course, don’t forget about dark energy (making up about
70% of our universe [26% or so being dark matter and only 4% or
so being baryonic matter – our sort]). What does dark mean?
Hidden, undetected, occult – all genuine synonyms. So if you want
to be controversial you have some reason for calling our universe
96% occult. Martin Rees’s extra universes must, of course, be
entirely occult.
So, in conclusion, it seems crackers to use science to attack
religion - it is no position to know. On the other hand, it
cannot support religion either – only leave room for it, which is
what Martin Rees does.
Fair comment?
Comments
Subscribe
Visitor counter
Blog Roll Centre
Blog Hints
97 Comments
I mean, if they can unquestioningly believe in God, surely I can unquestioningly believe in evolution?
How would we discern good without evil, wisdom without stupidity? As for science and religion, it is possible, to my mind at least, that you must have one to balance the other until the middle ground is unveiled.
Religious faith surely has its equivalents. There are many religions in the world, more than one of which claim to be the only way, which cannot be true in all cases except for the individual who holds to a particular faith. It's what people believe, or choose to believe, that makes faith work. In their day Odin and Thor had unquestioning followers.
As we learn to measure more and more things co-existence is the only rational choice.
A possible meeting ground might be in the area of psychical research, but it's difficult to get many scientists to take it seriously, despite the excellent credentials of many past researchers.
SecretSpi - crucial point about "Scientific proof"!
Knowing all you would get is 4 billion people asking to win the lottery?
(Allowing for those that are not lucre-driven and those that don't understand the term "lottery")
Quote;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
Ez
Dreadful things may happen to people yet they sometimes say years later with a different perspective, that they proved to be turning points, the best thing that could have happened.
Conversely, some lottery winners rue the day they won. While it improved some aspects of their lives, it ruined others.
Then again, something "good" happening to one person, may be at the expense of something "bad" happening to another: if you get the job/win the war, someone else didn't (to give a banal example). You might steal from one family to feed your own.
I'm not even sure that "good" and "evil" exist at all. There're only subjective interpretations of it.
As to 'the other asks that you accept something without proof' again, I understand what Aonghus is saying. (I speak only about Christianity.) We are asked, first, to accept in faith what God has revealed to us in his written Word and in the evidence of his creation. However, having believed and placed our trust in Him to forgive our past and make us 'new' and guide our lives in the best possible way - then we begin to experience the proof in our own lives that all He promisses is true. So the proof is available to anyone who is prepared to look for it.
Garry's point that science 'is in no position to know' in order to attack religion, seems to me a very valid point and SecretSpi's message of co-existance is surely the only reasonable stance to take. I'm convinced that ultimately - when all is revealed - we shall see how all science FACTS (not necessarily all theories) are perfectly in line with scripture. But for the moment God has not revealed all and, as Garry points out, there's an awfull lot that is still 'dark' to the scientists. I, for one am excited about what is yet to be discovered and I'm confident it will not include some 'final proof' that there is no God, because I and millions like me am proof that there is. :-)
What if he's been screaming and waving his arms to attract our attention for 10,000+ years - but, say, in colour, perfume, plants, animals and... science? What if God does exist but Science doesn't know *how* to prove it? Why should the onus be only upon Religion to prove God? Mathematicians are not slated and yet they can "prove" the most ridiculous things on paper that just do not equate to reality - and they then go off and change the fundamental "laws" of physics to prove why the "universe" does not perform to math, whereas Religion is predominantly tossed into the corner with contempt. Maybe God is another *dimension* as per Gerry's original blog?
Everyone is waiting for Him to step forward and say "Well helloooo there."
I suspect we will be waiting for a long long time.
EzBloke's comment about an English speaking God is fascinating. Crop Circle devotees would insist we're getting lots of messages (although the source is somewhat unknown). Experimenters, such as Graham Hancock, who take Ayahuasca (south American mescalin type drug) reckon the plants talk to them, and their assertions seem to be substantiated by the vast amount of medicinal plants identified by indigenous people in the Amazon.
Tony's comment that "we experience the proof in our own lives" is an important but difficult one. If the Archangel Gabriel had just popped in for a chat and asked me pass on what he said, I'd have an immensely difficult job. Yet subjective experience is the bedrock of religion. How do we make it scientific? In this context SecretSpi's comment about "a political minefield" is crucial (and depressingly true, I suspect).
Whisks's comments about the relativity of good and evil are so important they deserve another blog. Until that happens, how about murder? Is it ever not evil? (I sense the 'greater good' argument looming - e.g. go back in time and murder Hitler?)
Many things in the Jewish religion are based purely on tradition and some of our laws are just common sense. Take the dietary laws for example. All the things we are not supposed to eat, stem from the religion being mainly in the hot middle east, and without refrigerators, it would be common sense not to eat these forbidden items (shell fish etc). You can't question tradition. It all comes back to belief. You can still believe and be a scientist, but if you truly believe, you wouldn't try to explain it away. Belief is taking what you are told at face value. You either have faith or you don't.
By extension, different 'theories' have different degrees of probability, and therefore validity. Evolution is a theory because there are gaps - things which don't add up - but as a working hypothesis it explains a great deal. And we are discovering more and more evidence daily to plug those gaps.
To say that 'scientific proof' and 'faith' are man-made concepts and therefore entitled to equal validity just isn't true. You might as well say head-hunting and nuclear physics should be accorded the same degree of respect - or disrespect, depending on your point of view. And surely all concepts are man-made?
Personally, I've never believed in inexplicable phenomena . Everything is explicable. Ghosts and UFOs may exist, but they are not ghosts or UFOs. Can you imagine say, the Jurassic era, being haunted by the ghost of a dead tyranosaurus? Of course you can't. The idea is ridiculous.
I think such instances ought to be very carefully researched, although - see SecretSpi's comment - politics would probably prevent it. Nonetheless, if we can find ways that mind - or 'spirit' - acts over matter, then as a matter of public health we ought to investigate more. (Not quite what Weens was saying, I admit.)
Whether it is science, nature, God or another God I think Ez has the nub of it. Could we tell? In fact could we see where one ends and the other begins if indeed there is a join. I doubt it. For myself I just live my life the best way I can and do my best to be true to myself, hurt no-one and help someone now and again if I can.
Also, just because we can't explain something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means we can't explain it - no more, no less. Has anyone managed to explain gravity yet? It's one of the oldest forces known to mankind, ever since the Flintstones dropped rocks on their toes. Yet when I was at school, nobody had explained how or why it existed.
Good luck
:o)
There is a God.
The parallel worlds 'theory' (Everett-Wheeler-Graham hypothesis) is only one possible interpretation of quantum physics; it has never been proven. There are other possible interpretations; the one I favour is that the Universe is made of information - it seems to be the simplest interpretation, although I can see the attraction of the parallel worlds hypothesis. It certainly lends itself to SciFi interpretation (T Pratchett would say it has more 'narrativium'.)
There have been attempts to integrate science and religion (eg Creationism, Scientology) but they invariably turn out to be about as scientific as 'Jack and the Beanstalk'.
I personally believe that the Universe is a living thing (sort of a hyper-Gaia hypothesis) but I wouldn't personify it as a god, and I don't believe that it requries worship.
No-one could deny that the IDEA of god (or gods) is real, and has had a real effect on human history. I think the effect of religion has been more harmful than helpful, overall. Maybe the idea of god is something we needed in order to get to where we are now, but I think it is an idea (like phlogiston or the philosophers' stone or astrology) that belongs in the past.
Incidentally, I have no personal experience of murder nor evidence of its legal ramifications, so how am I certain you can be tried, convicted, etc? I believe it to be true.
And "measuring something imperfectly" is different to measuring it at all. What precisely could you measure? What would God be measured in? God Units?
and Shanks) reported on Physorg on Monday. The article concludes: 'Prof. Shanks concludes “Odds are that the standard model with its enigmatic dark energy and dark matter will survive - but more tests are needed. The European PLANCK satellite, currently out there collecting more CMB data will provide vital new information and help us answer these fundamental questions about the nature of the Universe we live in.”'
Dark matter/energy are thrown into doubt about once a month, but so far they have survived.
Re Multiple Worlds - I'm thinking more of Martin Rees's 'Multiverse', an idea which does not appeal to me (because it seems to be a get-out from considering the 'anthropic principle' - that the universe is so strangely configured that it must have been deliberately set up that way). However, the alleged discovery of 'Dark Flow' suggests something outside our universe is exerting a gravitational effect - so maybe there is at least one more universe, admittedly not a millimetre away, though.
I like your hyper-Gaia universe. Well worth considering.
Science/religion interface - I'd still like to see psychical research properly conducted and acknowledged.
Bren - I agree. Alas, my subjective awareness, or lack of, carries little objective weight, though.
Zomb00 - did I get the right article? About a dog and some Hells Angels?
Inzie - who us? Debating religion? Never. Weren't me, it was him - her - that one over there!
Religion: This is how it is, believe it or prepare for damnation. Oh.. By the way, on your way out, put some money in that box, unless you really want to burn in hell.
I do not deny the power of religion, but that power is a human power, it doesn’t stem from gods, spaghetti monsters, or the Most Holy Mushroom of Ramalamadingdong. Religion is an manifestation of arrogance, an inborn human need to be important. There must be an important reason for my existence, I cant just be an result of random evolution can I ? It is also en effective tool to establish that ‘WE’ are better than ‘THEM’
Science and religion is complete opposites and natural enemies.
An unscientific perspective, of course, but that's how it is with us humans - we mix imagination and intellect, and I wouldn't wish to undervalue either.
Distressed about your views on the Most Holy Mushroom of Ramalamadingdong, though. I was about to join its devotees. Might think twice now.
Nothing really do do with the last posts but God is mentioned.
PS. There was a TV program in which Ann Widdicombe argued for the Ten Commandments. She might have won her argument had she not proclaimed to an academic, 'You mean Moses never parted the Red Seas?'
We all know this was done by Charlton Heston.
The Ten Commandments could only be one factor in a huge range of history that makes English law. I don't see how it can be the cornerstone. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens just crept away out of the line of fire.
Here's Genesis chapter 2, verse 22: "And the Lord God fashioned the rib He had taken from the man into a woman." i.e. woman secondary to man, not in the image of God but the mere product of a spare rib.
I don't like dissing other people's scriptures but Genesis has been used by inadequate males as an excuse for bullying woman for centuries and millennia. I won't go on - forbidden fruit, naughty Eve, blame women for all human woes, etc etc etc
What astonishing times there have been in the past. Why have poeple hated women so much?
I'll see if I can dig it out.
Yo! Leave the Most Holy Mushroom of Ramalamadingdong outta this! Some things are too sacred to mess about with, man...
The bit I don't understand in all this is this quote from Tony: "I'm confident it will not include some 'final proof' that there is no God, because I and millions like me am proof that there is." Sorry, Tony, I really don't understand. I don't see it - where's the proof?
The suicidal nutter... erm chap that threw the puppy at the Hells Angels club house is clearly under the belief that:
A. God is with him and no matter HOW much shit he gets his bare, mooning arse into, God will dig him out and hose him down.
B. He has planned everything to a 'T', hence the 5MPH bulldozer as a getaway vehicle, after all they can't shoot the tyres out, they can't overtake it (it takes up the entire road) and t-boning it is going to be more entertaining than practical. Anyhow, he has a plan 'B', he'll hitch-hike! He's just mooned the Hell's Angels, thrown a squirming puppy at them, stolen a bulldozer as a get-a-way vehicle and now he's going to hitch-hike out of the problem! Genius! WTF? You can't make this up!
c. This is the masterstroke! By introducing the puppy dog to the Hells Angels club house, his is introducing the antithesis of of everything Hell's Angelish. He believes the puppy will negate the Angels with its cute, needy vulnerability and its "Awwwww" factor.
He fully expects both puppy and angels to disappear in a puff of smoke in the same way as fire and water or matter and anti-matter. (The latter may produce more than a 'puff', results will vary.)
He is entitled to his beliefs. God help him. 'Cos he's a dead man walking otherwise...
I'm afraid the conclusion I've come to from considering what people in the past have done based on various religious texts is that, frankly, people are horrible. They'll use whatever they can to justify whatever they want, however vile that is.
(I'm not that much of a cynic about human nature really, but I do think we as a species are very good at justifying doing vile things to other people).
AW: Likewise. :-)
When I said "verifiable by observation" I meant by anyone and everyone, not just by you. You seem to have failed to grasp the distinction between 'subjective' and 'objective'.
'Known facts': again, we seem to mean different things by the term 'facts'. What you call 'the Truth' (with a capital 'T', no less!), I would define as 'opinion'. Just because someone wrote it down a few centuries ago, and claimed it was the word of god (anyone could say that) doesn't make it the truth, or even the Truth.
Consider an innocent child who has died in agony from some horrible disease. Anyone could observe the pitiful corpse of the poor mite. That child's death would be a fact, not just some thing that someone wrote in a book.
Such things happen every day: innocent children die horribly, blameless animals are slaughtered, good people die for no good reason, environmental catastrophes happen - not just man-made, but 'acts of god' such as hurricanes and earthquakes. A christian would say "It's god's will" and when asked "Why would a loving god allow such things to happen?" would answer "We can't understand god's plan".
Well, if god's plan includes causing innocent children and animals to die in horrible agony, then I for one will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Lucifer!
You say that the existence of a loving god is proved by some words in a book: I say that the existence of a loving god is disproved a thousand times over by every pointless, futile death of a blameless innocent, such as we see reported in the news, day in, day out, every week, month and year.
http://www.newchristian.org.uk/faqsuffering.html
I did nearly die twenty years ago. And I was in horrible agony. At least, I would have been if I'd had any strength left to feel things. But I was down to seven stone (I'm thirteen and a half now) and incapable of mustering enough strength to think with. So I didn't exactly think death would be okay, a release, a convenience – but there was a vague awareness floating around me that seemed to say something like that. And there was another vague awareness that it might be better to live so that I could carry on with various things, such as my family. But I really didn't have strength to choose between them.
If someone pointed a gun at me now I would no doubt fear death in the normal adrenalin way. But if told I had a terminal illness, I’d be fascinated. Wow, the great adventure. Big regrets at leaving people, projects etc, but wow – the new horizons, the prospects, the vistas!
This is not, of course, to minimise how others feel about death. It’s normally the big terror, and is often accompanied by considerable pain. But I just can’t feel that way myself.
Science/religion, philosophy/theology... conscious/subconscious and thinking about it, unconscious. We don’t have proof of subconscious but we know it exists. Nobody can dispute we don’t have one, and we can’t witness it in each other. It helps us deal with issues. The subconscious mind contains repressed memories and it also stores experiences – personal experiences that possibly nobody else has witnessed, but they’re real as we lived them and can recall them and in some cases we imagined and dreamt them... Our subconscious takes care of all the crap... it’s no good saying we all have one, so it must exist, as that’s not scientific proof as we know! It’s hearsay and personal experience. The electronic brain cannot deal with the subconscious brain and simply orders things into something it can make sense of, or deletes it, which is why we forget dreams so often, our subconscious trying to keep it stored, our electronic brain trying to shove it in the trash bin, except for the ‘bits’ it can put into some kind of order... we can keep those! opposites, as with the blog, but one can’t exist without the other as with so many opposites – we’d go mad without a subconscious! Our subconscious, as in dreams, can only truly be understood and accepted whilst we’re in our dream, again, like religion, we have to believe and be 'there' to accept. Once we wake it is interpreted in a rational ‘electronic brain’ manner – correctly? Who knows but personally I doubt it! Dreams make perfect sense until we wake!
I don’t believe in God, but the one people do believe in isn’t a dictator. I brought my son up with guidance but have always believe in leaving him to make his own judgements and decide what he believes to be right and do what he wants to do. I remember rushing him home from school once, when he was little, and getting him changed as we were going out, and he was thirsty. I said that we will be at my friend’s house soon and we’re late and he could have a drink when we got there, and he said, and I remember him saying it even now... “mum, what’s more important, us being late or me being thirsty...” he was only about 9, so I know I did the right thing!
I’m going to sound like a broken record now, but Religio Medici and Dreams and Nighmares by Hadfield if you haven’t already read provides a lot of answers as well as questions. It’s not boring and explores the layers of the mind... dreams exist, but we can’t prove what happened in them or the feelings they left us with, but they are real... I don’t think anyone should have to prove what they have experienced – if you don’t believe me so what I don’t need to prove it scientifically – it happened?
I think the same is with religion. Proof or not, people know what they feel (subconscious mind) and we can’t interpret (electronic brain) their beliefs as we’re outsiders...
I don't like telekinesis. I watched a film about it once but I think it shouldn't be used to spin people around and kill them. It should be used for good - like when you can't reach the remote control...
I think we all have ESP - we all people read and sometimes we get flashes in our minds, instinct...
Unfortunately, science/our brain and the need to know how and why and label everything, and sometimes dismiss things it is unable to label or work out, is like a giant bulldozer in a rain forest... destroying species that have not yet been discovered. Science to me is our electronic brain. We were all born, but we can't describe that day because we couldn't categorise the events, but I'm sure it happened and know it did! I think that our strive for answers is destroying our psychic abilities... When I see films set in the future, where people can use telepathy - in my mind I can't help but think, even our dreams may be extinct by then... I'm not sure if I've made much sense with this reply? Hope I have but for some reason I was finding it difficult?
http://www.thewordcloud.org/my_profile/blog-view/blog_2075.htm
Minxie, I'm sorry to see you have a bad headache. I'd love to pray and ask God to take it away (see my blog) but you may prefer me not to.
i'm spiritual, but not religious (is that a poser)? but do think that we're missing the point that to deny the existence of anything we can't prove means it doesn't exist... who are we (our brains) or science to say that - our brains are already disregarding a lot just because we are unable to explain it... good for you x
I'm so glad your headache went away earlier, btw - even though, since you had been 'taking stuff all day' you don't count it as 'proof' of God's intervention. I just loved the timing, though :-)
I listened to the Reith Lectures on Radio 4 (top of the post) and was most amused when the host introduced someone as a 'devout atheist' to which he replied "I'm no more a devout atheist, than I am a devout non stamp collector."
In Wrath's June Comp (write a known book in the hand of somone else) I was tempted by the following;
The God Delusion by God.
I am no delusion.
The End.
Come the Revolution (or Revelations) who'll be the first against the wall?
I have a background stepped in fundamentalist religion, and now regard myself as 'recovering', my story is fiction based on this journey.
The Dawkins Delusion by God
Hmm, so he thinks he exists, does he? Well, we can soon put that to an...
...End
(Although I would argue strongly for the value of St Dawk - we need someone to help clear away the dubious bits of religion.)
Please do put a link here: your story sounds fascinating.
Teaser/background here > http://wagar.org.uk/website/?p=494
Synopsis is here (spoilers!) > http://wagar.org.uk/website/?p=723
Chapter 1 (of 24) is here in the cloud in the General Critique section
Here > http://www.thewordcloud.org/forum/topic/2975
and
Here > http://www.thewordcloud.org/forum/topic/2983
Respectively.
I suggest reading the background/teaser first to see if it resonates! :)
All the best,
Drew.
‘When asked about religion, Darwin diffidently responded "The whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe as he can". A glaringly different stance from some of his present-day disciples!’
If you want to look at any of the transcripts, here they are:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/the-reith-lectures/transcripts/2010/
I don't do the orthodox view of God. As an agnostic, I have no doubt something far deeper is going on, but I do not attribute this to some kind of all-knowing supernatural force. For me, God and Nature are synonymous. A lot of things that Man turns to God about stem directly from Nature (to the point where natural phenomenon are often attributed to God) - we spring from nature, we live in nature, we die and return to nature. And since science is the study of nature, then in a way, it is also the study of God. I don't think God and science are at odds at all. Religion... well, that's another matter. Whether you believe God actually started it or it is wholly a construct of Man (I think the latter), it is in the hands of Man now, and Man is by default fallible. If God was at the front of religion, don't you think He/She would be having a little bit more of a say in what science is allegedly doing to it right now?
The greatest paradox for me is that the more civilized we get, the more detached from Nature we become - which in turn takes us further down the path to our own downfall. The sad thing is, the day we finally unravel all the mysteries of the universe may very well be the end of days for our species as a whole... :(
Agnosticism is arguably the only tenable position, because we're in no position to know everything, no matter how devout we may feel. On the other hand, I might call myself an agnostic gnostic - because while my left brain may reasonably doubt everything, my right brain seems to feel no such qualms.
"Yeah, of course," it says.
"Of course what?" asks my left brain.
"Well, you know, everything," says my right brain.
"Such as?" asks my left brain.
And so on...
I know how this may sound to others, but religion's whole 'we hold the word of God' thing... claiming to speak for God and all that... I find it a bit, well, crass. Who are we to guess God? Who are we to speak for Him/Her? Ever seen the film 'Dogma'? There's a line in that were one of Jesus' disciples (Rufus, the black one who got written out of the bible for being, well, black) says "If there's one thing God hates, it's all the shit that gets carried out in His name'. Now that's definitely something I can relate to.
Reading the wide variety of views here has been fascinating for me. Most of the widely held (disparate) views (beliefs) are represented and I've enjoyed many long nights debating the subject with serious-minded people. Those who dismiss religion and politics as subjects never to be discussed in polite company are life's idle chatterers and generally as boring as watching fluff gathering in a corner; unless of course you too find gathering fluff fascinating to watch.
I found myself making notes in argument as I read and reached the last comment all too soon. Some Clouders' views I was already familiar with from Gerry's Mind/Matter blog; another great debate and it made me want to set out my own rationale in detail. Trouble with that is ... my take on the meaning of life is the result of a life's journey involving some serious extra-mural study of sciences in search of explanations for my own very real experiences. I could spend another life-time on such work and I don't have that option.
Besides, no polemic of mine would make a difference. Great men (and women) have attempted to convince with little success. It takes a Master such as Jesus the Nazerene to make a real impact in one life-time by living and showing the way but unfortunately his message was taken by a man who had never heard the teacher speak yet saw the power he had had over his followers and twisted the message into an unrecognizable hotch potch of myth and superstition; a religion that gave him a power base but has ever since been easy for thinkers to rip to shreds.
That first charlatan was Saul of Tarsus. Strip away his corruptions and all the additions of those who followed him and you will find the original message of Jesus in the New Testament. It is quite beautiful.
Is it not true that science is rarely tainted by it's lies, failures and charlatans
Whereas religions are constantly and deeply undermined by theirs?
It is surely neither science nor religion that is evil, but people who are capable of it, and when they feel so inclined they will use whatever tools are at their disposal to achieve it. Almost all human endeavour is tainted by our weaker moments but it is also gilded by our finer ones. If there has ever been a religious or scientific idea that has not been subverted at some stage by someone to some dubious end, then it is a rare one.
Eisenman could be right - Saul may have been an agent provocateur of the Sadducees, Roman collaborators who conceived a brilliant means to defuse the political significance of Jesus' movement. Or Saul may have doctored all the gospels he could track down but with good intentions, simply to make what was fast becoming a separate religion more palatable to the Romans and thus defend it. Or neither may be true. I guess we shall never know, any more than we know any other piece of history.
But for all the ways they are sometimes subverted, both religion and science also inspire us to do great things for one another and to strive towards something that cannot be provided by Tesco. They give our lives meaning, and that we cannot live without.
Not to the same degree.
Granted, something like vivisection taints science like a canker on the record of achievements but at least no-one has (yet) to go to war over the LHC, or the schism between m- and string- theories.
Jules;
I like your thinking and would ask are we dwelling too much within the Christian sphere and should we take a step back and look to them all with the same critical eyes? It would be churlish to rake up the birthday of Christ at this time of the year as much as it would be childish to bring paedophilia to the table as this is currently only screwing Catholicism, so we should cast our nets wider and more basic.
Is it the fact that we cannot leave a good idea alone? As a race do we have to embellish, expand and support everything with obvious contrivances? Are we guilty of fattening the calf? All religion must begin with some deep understanding or realisation; an epiphany. But it then becomes drowned in 900 pages of diktat and hyperbole.
Give me a religion that has one tenet, one commandment, one sentence; "just be nice" for example. (Or to bring it completely up to date and cover modern inflection and to impart a higher sense of credence; "For fucks sake, just be nice.")
but, yes, I concur it is in danger of becoming a blind faith isn't it? A theory without proof.
I wonder what their churches will look like?
There are things about all organised religions I dispise (prejudice / racism / pompous and disgusting show of wealth when others of their faith are starving!), but where would we be without it?
PEOPLE are responsible for the bad in this world, religion is just a cloak they wear to hide their true selves. If there were no religion these individuals would find another excuse to fight / murder and control.
Though I love Dawkins, I also agree with Rees.
Kiki, I'll go looking through your previous blogs to find that - sounds interesting. Richard Dawkins is really rather well-meaning, or that was my impression when he came to Inverness - but he resists some scientific ideas with almost religious zeal, and that has led him to make some pretty poor decisions, I think. He worked hard to resist both the Gaia hypothesis and holobiontic evolution, both of which are as much established fact now as anything is. Bless him, he means well, even if he lacks Martin's charm, and he does write like an angel!
Yes. We should do that, and after a lifetime of seeking enlightenment, we may hear God speak to us, before the advancing years, without in any way impairing our verbal fluency, finally detach the workings of our minds from the content of our speech. The illusion of time and space will part and the true nature of being will be laid open to us. We shall open our eyes upon the God of all things and She will say: 'You're all doing very well.'
It does seem to me that scientists tend towards Atheism, because when you look at the facts, as scientists tend to do, it is pretty easy to show that most religions are based on nonsense. Atheists seem to deal with truth, whereas Christians etc will put their hands over their ears and go "la la la la" when confronted with the truth. But I think Atheists are missing a trick, because simply invalidating existing religions does not prove there is no God. There might still be a God, and so an Agnostic approach is closer to the truth than Atheism, in my opinion.
In terms of being nice I think that if you put aside the many examples of religious persecution and atrocities committed in the name of God then it's reasonable to think that one aspect of religion is concerned with being nice, rather than being honest. Many people would rather believe nice things than confront the truth, so religion can be a big comfort to those people.
Can't resist a reply to Jules, though, and 'looking at the facts'. Two points which I shall specifically relate to Dawkins' 'God Delusion': first of all his basic premise is faith in matter as the only reality. This excludes mind, spirit, etc - mind being for him something that merely emerges from matter. He is welcome to his faith so long as it is acknowledged as such. It cannot of course be proven.
Secondly, nowhere in his book does he acknowledge psychical research. A few statistics: the Society for Psychical Research was founded in London in 1882. In the following 100 years its presidents included 19 Professors, 10 Fellows of the Royal Society, 5 Fellows of the British Academy, 4 holders of the Order of Merit and 3 Nobel Prize winners (Charles Richet, Henri Bergson and John William Strutt). It seems somewhat neglectful to dismiss their efforts without even a glance.
Gerry, I always find your ideas compelling and I sympathise very much with your approach in this blog. I think you're right about Dawkins. He has blind spots, topics that make him go, 'Lalalalalala.' Occasionally there are relevant points of which he is well aware but he simply doesn't like them, so for him they don't exist. As I said, la la la la la. I suppose we all do that, but I think it's a shame. He's a powerful communicator and he's done some good science. If he were a touch less stubborn and arrogant and wasted a bit less time arguing with Duane Gish's creationists, he might achieve something radical.
Tony, it was the Sadducees as a whole who appear to have been Roman collaborators. Robert Eisenman's thesis was that Saul was working for them secretly. Not necessarily as a collaborator per se, he may have been simply a mercenary. There were individuals during the second world war who ingratiated themselves with the French Resistance, even specifically with the Maqui, but were not French Libertarians - they were Nazis or else in the pay of the Nazis. If Eisenman's right, then Saul may have been no more a Pharisee than I am. But of course, he may be doing the man a terrible injustice. The New Testament does not support Eisenman's thesis, but then it wouldn't, would it, if Eisenman is right. The Damascus scroll does link the character it refers to as The Liar or The Apostate with a number of names associated with the early church. He found several links with non-canonical gospels that added weight to his ideas, but it is all circumstantial. That was my point, really, in response to Amarantha's comment - this stuff is fascinating but we'll never know the truth. I think that goes for pretty much everything we call history - we don't know a fraction of what we're told we do, because history is largely written by the winners. On balance, I think I'm most tempted by option three too - that Saul's conversion to Paul was genuine. But these other theories are worth looking into - they also have the ring of truth in places. They reek of exactly the sort of mischief that humans have always got up to.
Gerry, you absolutely have to start the lost gospel blog! If they're what I think they are, I've not read any of them and I'm very curious. About twenty years ago I got hold of a copy, with a translation, of the documents retained from the public in the Dead Sea Scrolls find. The book I got from the library was recalled a few months later. I understand now they are all available on-line, and the battle to keep them secret is lost. An old interest is back out of the cupboard.
Ron, I think you've highlighted one of the cornerstones of Gerry's original piece, but Gerry will correct me, I hope, if I've got it wrong! We are all agnostics, whether we call ourselves that or not. I think Tony has made the point elsewhere that those who haven't seen evidence of God simply haven't seen it yet. The experience is a personal one, and those of us who haven't been through it cannot say with certainty that we never shall. How can you deny the existence of anything at all? It means nothing to do so. And a concept as tricky as god? Three simple letters, one little word. It means so much and yet means almost nothing that we could define. Have we at last found something harder to explain than literary fiction? Amen to that.
Re Tony's evidence of God, I took this to mean that by following the words of Jesus Tony has found the results to be as Jesus predicted. That is evidence that Jesus was enlightened, perhaps, but it's not really evidence that he was a son of god or anything like that is it?
"History is largely written by MEN, therefore is exaggerated and unreliable! That's fighin' talk, Kiki. I feel a blog coming on - a bit of history, perhaps, from the feminine angle. I wonder what it would really be like...
EzBloke:'science is rarely tainted by it's lies, failures and charlatans' - I imagine Nazi science is the worst example so far (and you can't get much worse, can you?)
Jules and Ron: re agnosticism - if the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, then even the most devout and enlightened believer must be an agnostic to some extent. (Do you know the story of the blind men and the elephant? 'An elephant is very long and thin,' said one grasping its tail. 'An elephant is very wide and flat,' said another grasping its ear. And so on. That's how far we're likely to understand God.)
Kiki: history written by men - puts me in mind of what may be the most revolutionary need of the world right now - the liberation of women which, in many places, has scarcely begun. I don't think we stand much chance, though, as a species if we persist in using only half our potential.
MightyJock: the most convenient way for God to create life, the world and the universe might have been through evolution. (The Biblical days of creation, taking place before there was any sun and earth by which to measure them, can be conceived - if we wish - as taking billions of years.)
I have no wish to be dragged into a religious argument, but to consider now that there is an almighty god and he chose to allow evolution to take place??? come on fella!!! I mean i'm all for co existance but you can't have it all ways!!!
I suppose the only form of argument there would be with regards of interpretation of what you consider to be god? but i do believe that you spoke of christianity way back above this. If god (as christians percieve him) did enjoy the idea of evolution, he could have given Darwin a break??? ;-)
Click here to sign up now.