BBC Focus Magazine

[Nails]

Dawkins & Hitchens, two of the worlds greatest intellects.
I'm also quite impartial to a bit of Sam Harris as well, he makes a very good argument against religion.

Apart from making you feel better...

Even that is an extremely dubious claim.

Indeed it is, because love for anything makes you feel better.
In my experience it is better still when the love is actually reciprocated....

[Doonhamer]

Dawkins & Hitchens, two of the worlds greatest intellects.
I'm also quite impartial to a bit of Sam Harris as well, he makes a very good argument against religion.

Apart from making you feel better...

Even that is an extremely dubious claim.

Indeed it is, because love for anything makes you feel better.
In my experience it is better still when the love is actually reciprocated....

And that is part of the delusion, they actually believe that their imaginary friend loves them back

[Doonhamer]

Also...

"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
-- George Bernard Shaw

[Thinker]

I think George Carlin put it more aptly:

"Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money."

Anyway, MPL, there is a very good reason why no religious people have come forward. Look at the thread as it has unfolded. There is pretty strong sarcasm and condescension eminating from the thread towards people of belief. Everyone of us knows a person who believes and they are rational, intelligent human beings that we can get on with and learn from. They just have this faith in a supernatural entity that created the world. They probably know in their heart of hearts that they haven't got a chance in a debate against an intelligent athiest (unintelligent athiests exist as well, remember) and maybe they are just as sure that there is no creator as we are, but it's a nice thought. So why should they bother getting into a debate about it as they know their argument has no gravity.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I have to say that makes a lot of sense Thinker, and I will admit that when I was younger and because I was told it was so I believed in all of the above. Indeed it did, despite the hell-fire etc, seem a much cosier universe than it does now, but then the truth is not always conveniently nice and cozy is it?

Ironically , today, I had an interesting conversation with one of the few, less radical, believers that I am still in touch with on this very subject and have learned that they have dispensed with the hell-fire etc and now put forward a much more 'user friendly' god concept that seems to have done away with the need for a devil, hell and even eternal damnation. Now god is all loving, everything, everywhere and... well, you know not that unlike a sort of Star Warsien 'force' but obviously not the same thing .................... apparently.
So apart from the extremists who are merely ignorant it seems to me that god can be adapted to suit the time and prevailing circumstances and thus too I guess the whole thing can be justified in science because a lack of evidence for existence is not proof of actual absence.... but yes, he still wants the money.

[Thinker]

Yes I've heard this "god is everything" concept before. But that more closely resembles Einsteinian God, as in a universal law of everything that governs the universe..a sort of Theory of Everything. The only thing is, they still refer to god as "HE"!

[Dark One]

It strikes me that we have a very blinkered view of what 'God' is here. Most of our arguments seem geared towards ridiculing the old 'beardy man in the sky' concept, but I think science gives us one or two other, more palatable alternatives. Take the Omega point theory, put forward by physicist Frank Tipler,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

or the idea that we are living in a simulation, made popular by Nick Bostrom, run by aliens or distant ancestors running us as a historical study or whatever.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Now I know there is no proof for any of these and I'm not advocating them, nor do I necessarily believe in them myself. But I'm open to the ideas they contain, and they are, I think, somewhat more palatable to the more scientifically minded of us than just a tyrannical old man with a superiority complex and infinite time on his hands.

[Shadowwolf]

It strikes me that we have a very blinkered view of what 'God' is here. Most of our arguments seem geared towards ridiculing the old 'beardy man in the sky' concept,

Well in fairness the most common concept of god for most believers across the globe is some variation on the man in the sky watching and controlling everything on the mortal plane, whilst holding out the prospect of reward in the afterlife; that's the rather irrational one divorced from scientific reason the OP was aiming at. It is not either of the ones you mention, particularly as the latter is not really a conception of any god at all.

Tipler however, seems to be part of the common concept what with one of his works being The Physics of Christianity. The Wiki page mentions his work being described as pseudo-scientific nonsense, and that's a charge I've heard before in association with his name. From what I can recall all that is proferred by the guy is assertion and techno-babble attempts at mechanisms by which various miracles could have occurred even though these wondrous events have vanished from the modern age; reliable records and all that being a damper on such claims. He seems to have forgot that one verifies an extraordinary event actually occurred before spinning unlikely arcane methods by which it could occur. Far from palatable, it just seems to be more of the same.

Bostrom, well he doesn't suggest anything even remotely faith like, there's nothing religious in his idea at all and really that's all it is, an idea. It's at its core assumption and assertion that we cannot know, an abstraction where a simulated verse is indistinguishable from a non-simulated one and thus it is simpler to assume that we are not in a simulation. Such a thing might be possible but that is immaterial and simply not a basis for any belief or faith, no one is a follower of the simulation. Again I'd not see this as palatable scientifically, I'd see it as not even registering, no more than the Deistic concepts do unless some evidence comes along to suggest otherwise.

[Dark One]

Fair enough

This is something of a pointless debate I think, not just here but in general. The believers are in one trench and the sceptics are in another, and nothing will move either one. The frontline might shift from time to time but it will never really end. One thing that no amount of science or evidence can ever really penetrate is subjective experience.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I am inclined to agree that as debates go it does rather lack a definable point, but I'm still hopeful that someone of a scientific bent, who is also religious (and I know they are out there somewhere) can explain how they can reconcile what I see as two rather contradictory concepts.

I accept that the thought of being shot down in flames on such a public forum might prove a tad tedious, but they do not have to use their real name and if their belief is unshakeable, well then how are we going to change anything?

[KingPhillip]

"I accept that the thought of being shot down in flames on such a public forum might prove a tad tedious, but they do not have to use their real name and if their belief is unshakeable, well then how are we going to change anything? "

Aye, there is the rub.

You're looking to convince them of their irrationality while you stay intractable (unshakeable), unwilling to see their point of view through faith where rationality is not totally requisite.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well KingPhillip I hope I will be sufficiently magnanimous to accept that their reasoning has some merit as viewed from their point of view even if I do not actually agree with it.
I just cannot understand how religion can possibly retain any credibility in our science based world.

[KingPhillip]

I suppose I was too subtle in my sports massage thread elsewhere.

There is no science supporting (sports) massages. Yet, they work and there is no attack. But if I had included reflexology, the gates would fly open.

So it would seem if religions make no substantive claims, there would be no targets to attack. Having grown up with people of various religious persuasions, I know they do not go around making claims. They live to their faith as best as they can.

Politics, local and global, is what draws the target on religions. There is nothing scientific about politics.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Ah yes politics, now that did draw a response from the religious types after the National Secular Society won a precedent in law forbidding the saying of prayers at local government meetings.
(I'm still staggered to learn that such an absurdly arcane practice was still going on in this century!!)
The claim being that this undermines religions long established role in public life which, to quote one rather misguided spokesperson "will lead to the demise of such institutions as the armistice remembrance"................... which given that the remembrance ceremony is and has always has been entirely secular in nature is gratingly hypocritical.

But that's politics for you, a minefield waiting to be stamped on.

[Shadowwolf]

There is no science supporting (sports) massages. Yet, they work and there is no attack. But if I had included reflexology, the gates would fly open.

Well there seem to be articles regarding it as this search indicates, don't know how scientific they are but there does appear to be some level of work.

Now why would the gates fly open if you mentioned reflexology? Would it be because reflexology makes a slew of unsubstantiated claims for a mere foot massage? That it claims to effect medical issues because every part of the body is mirrored in the foot and is thus a valid treatment modality? All whilst demonstrating no favourable evidence for such grand claims with plenty against? Does sports massage make any such claims? You advanced none in your sports massage thread, in fact you went on to say, "Science research, however, has tilted its results slightly towards the negative." Sounds like you found scientific evidence. Besides, sports massage is not remotely akin to reflexology beyond one passing similarity. Does it claim to help with blood pressure, digestive disorders or back pain by massaging a point in your foot for which there is no evidence of a link? Nor does it make any claims as to how life on this planet evolved or where the universe came from?

Sports massage is a massage of the relevant muscle groups for that athlete, it make no claims I'm aware of beyond feeling good, stress relief and working the muscle. No energy fields, no medical claims and no guarantees of victory solely by virtue of a massage.

So it would seem if religions make no substantive claims, there would be no targets to attack. Having grown up with people of various religious persuasions, I know they do not go around making claims. They live to their faith as best as they can.

Is that not like saying if the sun were not there it would be pretty cold, however, seen as it is there any observations of what it would be like without it are mere abstractions. Religion does make substantive claims, wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise, and thus it is responded to.

I've - and I think we all - also know folks of various persuasions and they don't go around making claims and nor do I. But I also know some who do, others that knock on my door to share the good news, proselytise from the street corner, try to have their fantasies taught as though they are equal to scientific explanations, try to enshrine their version in a states laws. Living the faith as best they can is all well and fine whilst that's benign but suspending the reality check is not sound. Two South Korean parents recently lived their faith as best they could, three of their children were starved to death to chase out the demons. A mob living their faith as best they could beat up a man for the crime of non-belief. The real problem is not with extremists but with the idea that supports extremism, that belief without evidence is okay, it's not and it's not rational.

Politics, local and global, is what draws the target on religions. There is nothing scientific about politics.

Religion draws the target on itself, it's not politics, it puts itself out there everytime it seeks to dominate the social discourse and pretend to explain our world; there is nothing scientific about religion and that's why it fails.

I suppose I was too subtle in my sports massage thread elsewhere.

I doubt it, more that a separate thread is likely treated as a separate thread about whatever the title and OP is; usually common to find comments about a topic in that topic instead of somewhere else.

[MikeG]

Like MPL, I grew up in a very Orthodox environment, with church every Sunday, Easter, Christmas, and what not. I began having doubts as a teenager, when my ravenous appetite for reading and researching whatever caught my attention at the time, led me to dig too deeply into religion, I won't bore you with the details, but some interesting books that still stand out in my mind where the Apocrypha, Celsus's work The True Doctrine and the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

The first is a compilation of works, dated to the same period as the original bible writings. These works were discarded at some point by the church, probably because their claims could be refuted by other historical writings. For example, one passage writes that at the time of Christs death, a great earthquake shook the Roman senate and hurled all the statues of the false gods to the floor. At the time it was written, nobody had any means of checking the validity if this statement, so it remained doctrine, until it was buried by some later Ecumenical council.

The second book, is a work by an ancient Greek philosopher who wrote his work at the time of the first bible writings. He attacks Christians and their faith, and claims that Jesus was fathered by a Roman legionnaire by the name of Panthera.

The 3 book, is a work of semi-fiction, and although discredited to an extent of using fabricated evidence in some cases, it does make some good arguments. I remember discussing the claim that Mary Magdalene had moved to France after Jesus' death with a monk. Apparently , the church recognizes this event.

These 3 works only served to sow the seed of doubt in my mind. It took a lot more research for me to take a step back and really question my faith. But the doubts had set in, and when I reread passages of the Old Testament again, I paid attention to what I was actually reading. The God described there was vengeful, destructive, sought the killing of women, children, and even livestock, to completely obliterate some people's (when we were taught that he gave life to all mankind, but in the end played favorites).

I don't grudge anyone their beliefs, and funnily enough, I still take my children to church, at least on major holidays like Christmas and Easter. It's only fair that the kids make their own decisions later. I don't intend to discuss my feelings on this issue with them. One reason I suppose, is the old argument that belief in religion shapes your moral character, at least in the very young. In my own case, I now see Religion and religious holidays as more of a cultural thing.

It would take hours, to really analyse and express my feelings on this topic, and this isn't the proper forum for it. But since we've deviated somewhat from our scientific musings, I thought I'd just jot that down

[M Paul Lloyd]

Seems fair enough to me MikeG and as you point out an analysis of the evidence tends to undermine a lot of what is put forward as historical fact, which in essence is science.

[Thinker]

I don't grudge anyone their beliefs, and funnily enough, I still take my children to church, at least on major holidays like Christmas and Easter. It's only fair that the kids make their own decisions later.

As you said yourself, it's only fair that the kids make their own decisions later. Do you not worry that by taking them to church they are being indoctrinated with religious ideas?

[Shadowwolf]

...but I'm still hopeful that someone of a scientific bent, who is also religious (and I know they are out there somewhere) can explain how they can reconcile what I see as two rather contradictory concepts.

I'd guess that were any to appear, the substance of any justification would lie mostly in apologetics and a rigorous compartmentalisation that keeps the science away from the belief and thus sooth the cognitive dissonance. The biologist Francis Collins in his rationalisation of faith and science does exactly that, he thinks that the Genesis story is consistent with the Big Bang theory even though superficial similarities don't equate to validation whilst the story really isn't that consistent anyway, that and he just cannot fathom how the universe came from nothing which is merely an argument from incredulity. Even though he is a capable scientist in his field and accepts the reality of evolution he essentially plumbs for god as an instigator, basically a god of the gaps position and not very scientific. We can clearly see that with reason and evidence none of these deity based claims stand up to scrutiny, whatever about community or comfort the underpinning claims are demonstrably false and the only way to maintain belief in them is to suspend the reason, the reality check normally applied everywhere else. Kind of like what you do when you watch an otherwise preposterous move like Die Hard 4.0 or Star Wars, to enjoy it you must forget that technically it's mostly or completely impossible. I'm not trying to be condescending but it's how I interpret the suspension of reason that does occur, it's just not a reasonable position and only exists to keep untruths safe.

However, even under an anonymous handle no one is likely to be eager for a grilling or feel that they must justify whatever is their personal belief to random strangers, and thus are likely to just ignore it. I can fully understand the puzzlement that arises from an otherwise scientific mind suspending their reason and curiosity in special cases, I get that and wonder it myself though I think the answer is as I said above. However, I don't think that anyone should be called out to justify why they do so unless they have personally put their hands up like Collins has done in writing his justification. At the end of the day folks can personally believe whatever they like and don't need to justify that to anyone but themselves. Challenge should only arise if they knock on your door so to speak or seek to mold society in the image of their dogma, then it's fair game. I think that faith puts itself out there enough that we don't need to throw down gauntlets at unassuming believers to pony up some good justification for whatever they believe, that might be a bit too strident.

The believers are in one trench and the sceptics are in another, and nothing will move either one.

There is some measure of truth to that. The skeptics require evidence to change and won't do so until that evidence is forthcoming which it has not so far, and believers won't change despite contrary evidence because belief without evidence and in the face of contradiction is considered virtuous by them, a test of their faith etc. I don't think the committed are the objective even though some can change, it's the ones who are not so dedicated that's the point. Folks who if shown the tools can explore and see the failings for themselves and leave the comfort blanket behind.

You're looking to convince them of their irrationality while you stay intractable (unshakeable),

Perhaps it is pedantry but our position is not intractable or unshake-able as that suggests we are not willing to amend our views, if credible evidence were proferred then I would amend my position. Thus far there has been none that cannot be more plausibly explained with more mundane interpretations. Intractability would be the case were we resolute in our position despite clear evidence to the contrary.

[KingPhillip]

Kingphillip wrote:You're looking to convince them of their irrationality while you stay intractable (unshakeable),

"Perhaps it is pedantry but our position is not intractable or unshake-able as that suggests we are not willing to amend our views, if credible evidence were proferred then I would amend my position. Thus far there has been none that cannot be more plausibly explained with more mundane interpretations. Intractability would be the case were we resolute in our position despite clear evidence to the contrary."

You left out the rest of my sentence: "..., unwilling to see their point of view through faith where rationality is not totally requisite." You can't see the world outside of rationality. You can't accept irrationality's existence. You deny it. You forbid it. You try to not sound condescending, but you show condescension.

You're not asking for a discussion. You're asking for volunteers to be the targets of a firing line and defend themselves with faith.