ReligionDispatches.org

Science and Religion: Is there a conflict?
=== .
Can a Rational Individual believe in God ?
In other words:
Can God be atheist, governed by scientific laws?
Of course
Why?
Because if God exists, he must work in an
Absolute Reference Frame and have a set of Physical
and Mathematical laws to create everything
And we can find and understand this God’s Absolute House
and when we can find and understand these Cod’s Physical Laws

Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============

"The nonreligious population is exploding, and somebody has to minister to them."

Why? Obviously this was written by a theist who believes that we need someone, a "minister," to tell us how to live our lives. That we can't navigate this world without "guidance." Bunk. Just because we don't believe in any of your gods doesn't mean that we need someone "guide" us. Get over yourselves.

It's so funny how some atheists (like their screeching theist adversaries) get their backs up so easily over a small remark like this.

Rather than "telling people how to live their lives" ministering to people in this case appears to mean offering ethical leadership and guidance. It's pure angry arrogance to think that all forms of leadership in this fashion are the thought police and simply a hindrance to your so-called freedom.

Get that log out of your eye before you start picking the specks out of others. I think it's you that needs to get over yourself and find a little humility.

i've been over myself for quite a long time now...probably longer than you've been alive.

so it's "offering ethical leadership..." huh? and what the hell does that mean? another theist that believes that atheists can't have ethics or morals w/o your mythical sky daddy? we need "leadership and guidance?" get a grip. and get over your sky daddy...he doesn't exist except in your over active imagination.

So, I'm guessing angry atheists and angry theists didn't catch the humor and irony of the title, eh? But please! Don't let my Captain Obvious statements derail the rage fest. Bring on the ad hominem attacks!

On another note, it's fabulous to see positive collective effort among a (yet another) manufactured divide. The endless Us vs. Them dichotomy would be pretty hilarious given its absurdity, if only the rage factor didn't exist. Ah, the rage factor. Always a good time.

Demandra,
This is not a rage factor as much as just passion about beliefs. Perhaps when we pass Halloween and move toward Thanksgiving things will settle down a little, but my RD scorecard for October shows it is filled with these dichotomys...

Atheists vs. theists
Gays vs. haters
Mormons vs. all the non-believers
Catholics vs. themselves
Science vs. any and all comers
Indians vs. nobody because nobody wants to fight against them, but they are putting up a good fight.

So far the Jews are the only ones not engaged in any fighting here. I keep hoping they will take on Hagee and Christian Zionism.

Oh, Jim, that was the best laugh I've had in ages. Thank you! (I'm not Jewish, but bring it on Hagee!)

On a more serious note, passion I can appreciate and respect. But for the love, must we name call and demean and toss about thinly veiled insults? I realize folks feel fabulously big and tough via a glowing rectangle, but surely we can opt for a bit of respectful discourse, even in the face of Internet anonymity?

I apologize for the stand-offish tone of my earlier remark. It was not in the spirit of this piece on ending the childish back and forth between the two camps. Though I do stand by my assertion that to "minister" in this case means to provide ethical leadership.

I don't think I said anything about a "skydaddy" (an easy ad hominem attack) or about atheists not having morals or ethics. You have no idea what my beliefs are, nor did I assert otherwise. Though you did, indeed, assert certain beliefs about "theists". Regardless, to assume that ones' morals and ethics are somehow intrinsic to them as individuals (ie I can think for myself!) and do not come from some place, whether it be a religious or secular tradition is naive at best. We all have leaders who "minister", whether they are religiously ordained or not.

I applaud this article. I have several atheist friends that have no interest in attacking people that they can work with towards the common good instead.

>That we can't navigate this world without "guidance."

I don't believe that's the issue at all. I'm an atheist, and I've been visiting church after church to try and understand their beliefs.

I think there is nothing wrong with having someone who thinks about ethics and provides an example - as long as, of course, we realize that those ethics and example should be tested and considered in the light of evidence and reason as anything else.

I pay a doctor to treat me because I know he's done years of training, testing, thinking, and practicing his craft. Could I do it? Sure - after years of training, testing, etc, etc, etc. The same with my mechanic, with my dentist, lawyer, etc.

I don't just "take their word on faith" when they tell me something - I trust that they've gone through some methodology (as close to the scientific method as possible) to come to their results. If I do question something, like if my dentist starts telling me that I need to wave a stick of incense for cleaner teeth, I'll ask for the evidence, and then I can do my own experiments to figure out if they're telling me something "true" or not.

So why not the same thing with an ethicist, or a moral leader? Someone who's researched the writings, looked at social experiments, done research into human morality and behavior and come up with ideas?

Not to follow them because some supernatural being has anointed them, but because they've done the research into what it moral. And yes, what "morality" is can, does, and should evolve over time. It used to be "moral" to beat children or wives or keep slaves. It used to be "moral" to let the poor die because they couldn't afford a doctor.

The important caveat is that any statements of "morality" by, well, anyone should be open to criticism and analysis as any other field of endeavor. I may check out Mr. Epstein's book myself, and consider its ideas. If they are full of good reasons, if I find his evidence supports his assertions for what good moral behavior should be and why such things are good for myself and society - then I'll consider following them the way that I follow my dentist's advice to floss.

I believe it's the next step of the atheist movement - to work together within ourselves, and work together with common purpose with people of other religions. Call it part of our own "evolution" if you will.

No, I don't have the evidence to back up that assertion *yet*. But I'm working on it.

I doubt a visit to a church would do much to help you understand what the people in the church don't understand after a lifetime. Try those visits again, but this time consider the possibility that the church IS the God for those people in that particular church. They listen to the teachings of the church and believe. They also at times speak for the church when necessary. They support each other in keeping the faith, and if any question and fall away those remaining come together to strengthen their beliefs and help each other to not question. These systems have been carefully crafted through the generations and proven to work.

Uh...or not.

The spectrum of belief that exists within Christianity cannot possibly be learned via a few visits. I spent five years working as a faith relations liaison in the non-profit sector, visiting literally hundreds of churches. No two were alike.

There are mainline ministers who preach about the power of myth in framing life experiences and how ridiculous it is to believe in literal interpretations of said myths, pastors who warn of impending eternal damnation if you don't believe exactly as they tell you, and everything imaginable in between. Questioning is encouraged and supported in many congregations (I've been to several churches with atheist members) whereas others will ostracize any deviation from the perceived norm...and anywhere in between. And within those particular minister's churches, there are members who agree wholeheartedly and others who think their pastors are utter morons.

It's frustrating and difficult to deal with complex issues and extensive diversity within structures we want so desperately to be simple or that have been presented to us via mainstream media or our limited experience as simple (or offensive, small minded, etc.)

But at some point, we're going to have to deal with the fact that Christians or other religious folk (just like every other group we like to marginalize due to appearance and/or perceived lifestyle, e.g., minorities, gays, women, etc.) aren't any one thing and cannot be lumped into some pile of sameness.

Ain't that just frustrating as can be?

Since you have a great sense of humor let me ask you, when that is translated into common English is it anything like a mormon doing "missionary work"? Seriously, who sent you to visit hundreds of churches? Sounds interesting.

Actually is is easy once you see what is causing the complexity. It comes from a system of beliefs that turns out to contain contradictions. Eliminating the contradictions would make it science and not religion, so the contradictions must be maintained and somehow resolved. But contradiction that is accepted always leads to more contradiction, and there is no limit to the complexity that ultimately results.

Jim Reed, you really have a straw man of both religion and science here. Science unearths plenty of apparent contradictions, but works to resolve them, exactly like religion. Take the wave-particle duality of light, for instance. Science did not eliminate this contradiction (it couldn't, the data were undeniable), but rather resolved it by affirming that both the wave and particle natures of light (and all matter) are true and have explanatory power. To do so, science had to work out the rather complex theory of quantum mechanics. To say that science eliminates contradictions is to completely misunderstand how science works. Rather, good science feeds on contradictions because their resolution shifts the paradigms of our understanding and helps us arrive at the truth. In the same way, good religion does not rashly eliminate contradictions by submitting to a false dilemma or ignoring the data. Instead, it recognizes contradictions and resolves them in order to arrive at more complete truth. For both science and religion, this process results in apparent complexity not because the nature of the underlying truth is necessarily complex, but because, as humans get further and further away from what they can intuitively understand, they require more and more complex explanations for truths they are unfamiliar with. If those of us working in research took the same approach to science that you imply here, we would be incapable of doing any science whatsoever.

In theory, religion works that way, but in practice it seems to me religion is more concerned, almost totally concerned, with growing the religion and keeping people in the faith. I think that is the value of RD, issues that are impossible to raise in normal religious environments can be discussed here.

QED works and it is complicated. As far as the evidence goes, it seems to be perfect. I don't think religion resolves contradictions and arrives at more complete truth. They arrive at more complete obscurity because remember, their ultimate job is to recruit members and keep the flock in line.

It only seems that way because you're on the outside, just as quantum mechanics makes no sense to people who don't understand science. The religion I have experienced does not have as its highest goal "recruiting members and keeping the flock in line", but promoting relationships with God. My church has helped me to know God better and to arrive at truths about how I should act that were not obvious to me before. I am both a scientist and a Christian, and in this way I can see from the inside that these two institutions in their ideal form pursue truth in similar ways. Apparently, you have yet to experience this process in the context of religion, but I assure you, it happens regularly for many people.

I think every church is full of people who believe the church helps them know God better and learn how to act. From the outside, I see contradictions. The more sincere they are about finding God in their church and learning to act and apply that learning, the more likely they are to be voting Republican, and the more blind they are to the problems that has caused.

I would reply that from the outside, it's easier to make broad and fallacious generalizations that give the impression of contradiction. As one who voted Democrat and is also "sincere about finding God in [my] church and learning to act and apply that learning", I stand as a direct counterexample to your point. Read any of Donald Miller's writings: he represents a whole group of sincere, churchgoing Christians who don't fit the political stereotype.

But there are larger problems with judging people by their vote: i) a person's vote tells you nothing about their heart, since people may vote the "right" way and still do terrible things in their private life and ii) a person's actual treatment of others matters more than their political stance. Even assuming that voting Republican is a contradiction for a true follower of God, there are many Republicans who are motivated to do good things through their churches. My parents, for instance, go every week to a juvenile detention center to lead a Bible study, hang out with the kids, and pray for them (most of them are already Christians, though some are not). Often, my parents are the only outside visitors these kids get all week, even all month, and it really lifts their spirits to know someone cares about them and takes an interest in their lives. My parents got involved in this ministry because they felt God was leading them to it through something they heard in church. If my parents did not go to church and were not sincere about their relationship with God, they would have never been motivated to serve in the way they do. Sure, there are churches and Christians out there whose preaching and belief conflict with their actions, but there are many who have genuinely been transformed for the better.

I know you would like the world to be simple: science is good, religion is bad, etc. We all want simplicity, but human nature is decidedly complex, and so are social institutions because made up of humans. Labeling religion as bad and throwing it out altogether may be the easy thing to do, but it is neither true nor effective. Rather, the way to go is to redeem religion (and science, and every other corrupt institution) through the difficult process of separating the good from the bad, preserving the former while fixing the latter. This process is messy, frustrating, and drawn out, just like real life.

To me the important question is is there an actual connection between Christianity and God. Christians believe they are following God, and God is making them a better person than they would be otherwise, and they learn things from God and through his word that is beyond what other people are learning. They think the strength of God is helping them grow, and collectively the group is helping the people grow even more. From a scientific point of view, I have to wonder if this is true or not. When you consider the wars and all the hatred and closedminded vanity of modern religion, I can't see that the average Christian is any better than the average person at all. Probably worse when you take a close look at the fruits. The fact that some Christians are better than others doesn't scientifically prove those good Christians really do have a genuine connection to God. It seems to me that the way Christianity is right now is exactly the way you would expect it to be if God was just ignoring the religion.

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. (Sorry it took so long for me to reply, it's been a busy couple of days). By the way, I like the way you explain your viewpoint: it is clear and concise, which is more than I can say for myself most of the time. But if you want to scientifically evaluate the effectiveness of Christianity (or any institution that claims to promote goodness), the variable you need to measure is not people's absolute goodness (G), but the change in someone's goodness over time (deltaG). Thus, the question is not "is the average Christian better than the average non-Christian?" (Gc>Gn?) but rather "is the the average Christian better than he/she would be without Christ, taking the average non-Christian's moral progress over time as a baseline?" (deltaGc>deltaGn?). This is an important distinction, since Jesus saw his mission as being to the most sick and sinful specimens of humanity (myself included).

An analogy: let health represent goodness. The average health of people in the hospital is worse than the average health of people outside the hospital, and from this you may conclude that, for an institution that claims to make people healthy, the hospital is a sham. Of course, you would actually need to look at the change in someone's health while they are in the hospital, and compare it to the change in an equally sick person's health when they don't go to the hospital, in order to judge its effectiveness. It is also important to note that, in this analogy, Christianity really is meant to be a hospital and not a fitness club. Christ is not in the business of making decent people a little better, but rather healing those who know they are totally broken. Jesus: "it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:17).

Of course, many Christians see Christianity as more of a fitness club than a hospital because they think they are already decent people. The result is about what you'd expect from a terminally ill patient seeking treatment at a gym. This is a real problem in the American church and is part of the reason for all the vanity and hypocrisy that is evident there. Also, the sheep and the goats are really mixed together, within the church as well as outside. Being in the church doesn't guarantee a relationship with God (as being in a hospital does not guarantee treatment), nor is God limited to working through the church (doctors can work outside of hospitals), but for someone who needs God, I believe that a genuine, God-seeking church is the right place to be.

That could explain why there is such resistance in America to accepting evolution. Those less mentally healthy join the churches, and then they start thinking they know more than those who are more healthy.

The hospital analogy shows there may be hope for the church. A recent program said the average annual health care cost in America in 1910 was under $5. Even at that, it was overpriced because health care was things like snake oil. Hospitals were places the sick went to die. Then it was science to the rescue. People started inventing operations that actually did good, and did the research to find medicines that worked. Churches today with their resistance to science might be like health care of the 19th century. All they have to do is start intelligently rejecting beliefs that are wrong and concentrating on what works, and in another century they might be a million times more helpful to humanity than they are right now.

I agree. How arrogant and actually, misinformed or maybe even ignorant. For every person that thinks someone needs them, there is a person to surprise them with "I don't need you." I am not here to justify your ego's need for identity!

So, I heard Epstein speak tonight at the University of Chicago and I have to say I was disappointed. My perspective is shared by many people; it's one of general discomfort with the so-called New Atheist movement, not for any theological reasons but for the lack of intellectual rigor it brings and instead the use of emotional pleas to make the argument case seem more substantive than perhaps it really is.

I attended the talk hoping to hear the opposite side of this debate, maybe something for those of us who aren't theists but not as vehement as Dawkins et al. What I found was indeed the opposite. Instead of the fiery rhetoric of the New Atheists I found vague, poorly defined arguments centered around some ethereal notion of doing good.

Epstein seems to represent the same sort of watered-down intellectualism that the New Atheists do, except for people who aren't as angry as, say, Sam Harris. It will probably sell a lot of books.

When you say non-religious, you simply mean non-Christian, an ignorant stance. Religious practice does not have to have God in it. For instance, the religious practice of many Buddhists is non-theistic, but not non-religious, in my opinion. (I don't dare tell someone their practice is not religious, how dare me!) Some may not agree, but your headlines are flawed theological thinking.

I suspect that those who belong to non-theistic traditions aren't as bothered by the question of the existence of God, for obvious reasons. You see the title of Epstein's book has "God" in it, what God do you think he is referencing?

Book 4 of the free ebook series "In Search of Utopia" (http://andgulliverreturns.info) shows how ethics are developed then takes a number of ethical questions (such as: abortion, euthanasia, torture, contraception, reducing population, etc.) and shows how each can be ethical or non-ethical depending on the basic assumptions one has and the evidence one uses to build on the assumptions.
Very thought provoking.

Morality, is always based, in Catholic teaching, on reason and in order to be in communion with Catholic teachings, one must accept the rationality of ethics as taught by the Catholic faith that is in a long tradition of ethical philosophy dating from Aristotle.

A clear distinction should always be made between faith and morals. Faith, in something like the Trinity, for example, is a special knowledge that we accept because it has been revealed to us by God Himself. Something we could not know without His Word and Church tradition from apostolic times.

Morals are something anyone should be able to understand, however, and the Church gives guidance and expects obedience because lots of people just don't get it sometimes. For instance, there exist many reasonable positions against abortion, but a reasonable exception that is tolerated (and that Catholic Church has never condemned) is abortion when it came to the life of the mother. I say "came" because this almost never happens today. Catholic hospitals routinely use medications to stop ovulation after a rape, as well.

Catholic Christianity is unfortunately lumped together with Evangelical Protestantism, Fundameltalism, and most other Protestant denominations which do not have its philosophical traditions and love of reasonable discourse. Finding few who can, or want to defend its traditions it is then summarily tossed out with religions that have a decidely ideological bent of mind.

The beauty of using reason in moral discussion is that it is the only truly objective criteria. God, who is a supremely rational being, never asks us to do something that is unreasonable, like killing for the sake of our religion. Benedict XVI has tried, most notably at Regesburg, to show this time and time again. One of the great contributions Judaism and subsequently Christianity made to the civilization of the world was to condemn human sacrifice to which the story of Abraham, who almost sacrificed his own son Isaac, but was stopped by the angel of God, attests. God was not going to ask him to do this irrational thing and the story is a mighty example of what it meant to be a Jew and not a pagan. We should not accept the concept of a deity that would ask us to do irrational things in the name of religion such as was done at Fort Hood last week. It is a challenge, because our reason forces us to find other solutions that are not in conflict with what we may like to do for the sake of expediency-- like abortion or preemptive war or forcing through threat of violence those who do not agree with us.

There are many naturally good people in this world, however,but as a Christian I am called to be perfect as God is perfect and not just "good." Is that possible? I have the saints to say it is possible. To the atheist's invective "How many divisions does the Pope have?," I would say "How many Mother Teresas do those good atheists have!" I do wish them very well, however.