Metal Reviews

I should probably add that there IS a qualifier with my last paragraph. While there may be no need for conflict between scientific knowledge and religious faith, scientific PHILOSOPHY and religious philosophy can and many times do collide. For an example, let's look at embryonic stem cell research. Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cells could potentially cure conditions like paralysis. And any half-way educated Christian would likely agree. However, once moral ethics come into play, the issue gets a lot more sticky. Since embryonic stem cell research involves abortion, a Christian would likely consider it morally wrong. So, despite its potential, he/she would ultimately disapprove of it. While a (non-Christian) scientist would likely argue that, because it could potentially help people, it's morally legitimate. So basically, you have a battle between valuing the sacredness of human life and (theoretically) improving human life. This sort of thing is where science and religion can conflict.

The answer is to grow babies in greenhouses like marijuana. This is a perfect solution that both parties can agree on.

From what I gathered by reading Dawkins and watching lectures, his issue with the "conflict thesis", or NOMA (Non-Overlapping MAgisteria) is that while Christian apologists will denounce science as a way of knowing or proving God (because there is no way to do so), every year some big expedition goes off to find Noah's Ark or something ridiculous like that. Plus, if science did in fact hypothetically prove something that could be linked to religion, apologists would be all over it.
Another thing though, is when Christianity tries to assume a "scientific" dress, and becomes pseudoscience. Intelligent Design is one such a thing. It's not a viable theory to be set alongside evolutionary theory, and the attempt to do so on behalf of Christians is vile, insidious and ignorant.

Which is why I'm in complete agreement with Goulde that science and religion are complementary but should not be blurred the way people tend to blur them. Both cover completely different grounds, and thus, you need to be careful about mixing them (that includes using science to prove atheism, btw, so the issue goes both ways).

What I think is most important to recognize is that science will only take you as far as the deistic or pantheistic God (ie. an extremely minimalistic view of God a la Paul Davies or Albert Einstein). However, if you really want to justify the Christian God (or any "personal God", for that matter), science needs to eventually be cast aside and philosophy needs to take over.

On a side note, intelligent design doesn't necessarily require God to be believed in. Some people, for example, believe extraterrestrials created and designed the Earth.

Philosophy or logic? Logic disproves a personal God. The only possible justification you could have for believing is that of a personal need and a leap of faith, which are hardly applicable as universal maxims.

It's true that logic is put on the backburner when it comes to religious faith (even a good Christian apologist will recognize this). However, we also believe that there's much more to life and existence than logic alone can tell us. Which is where faith comes into play. I personally hold the view that faith and reason are perfectly compatible (although, again, they cover different territories).

Whether or not logic disproves a personal God I guess depends on how you'd define "personal God." If you mean "guy with a long white robe in the clouds", then yes, I'd totally agree wtih you. But if you mean some kind of ethereal/spiritual power that guides us through our own intuition and awareness (once you wade through the psychological/biological factors associated with human thought and awareness, of course), then I would disagree.

Alright, now explain why Christianity is the particular denomination that provides the right explanation of a spiritual "guide".

I think it was Martin Luther who said that "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding." This is where my problem comes from. The concept of faith is so alien to truth and progress that it actively opposes it and halts the progress of human society. To me it's a willing blindness to the way the world works in order to accept some undefined higher being.

For me, my Christian faith is more of a choice than anything else. I chose to be a Christian (for very personal reasons), and not once did I ever regret it. I'm not trying to convert you if that's what you think I'm doing.

What I think Martin Luther was suggesting is that truth, progress, etc. all require a certain degree of faith. Every action we take and everything we do to benefit society requires some degree of faith (otherwise, why would you even bother with it?). Faith does not need to be alien to truth if you're smart about it. If anything, it should support truth (since the pursuit of truth in and of itself requires a certain degree of faith).

I don't think you're trying to convert me, in fact I'm enjoying this debate very much.

As for Luther, that's not what he meant. He's explained himself on that often enough. For him, reason was to be abandoned, fully and entirely. That's not the only quote like that. Faith is counterproductive to seeing how the world works because as a way of "knowing" it relies on unquestioning acceptance of certain tenets, regardless of empirical evidence or even logic. There would never have been scientific progress if no one had ever questioned the absolutisms set forth in any system of religious belief.

I, too, have been enjoying this debate.

Actually, what you described is why I have a problem with the Lutheran religion: It tends to emphasize faith alone, rather than works. Perhaps I botched up my interpretation of that Luther quote, and if I did, I'm sorry.

Faith, at least according to my religious views (as well as many other Catholics), does not necessarily rely on unquestioning acceptance of dogma. Everybody with faith questions it. And it's perfectly reasonable to question it (most half-way ethical priests or pastors will say the same thing). However, a wise man once said that, while it's good to be skeptical of your faith, you then need to be skeptical of your own skepticism. If you're an atheist, you essentially have your mind made up about believing God's non-existence. And if you don't sometimes question this viewpoint, then you're basically doing what you accuse us of doing. As I mentioned in a previous post, I've accepted the (IMO small) possibility of my religious beliefs being wrong. And some of my views are a little unorthodox for a Christian. But I still accept them nonetheless. You can accept something while still questioning it and remaining a little skeptical about it. Do you think scientists never question whether or not Evolution happened as they believe it did?

I resent the idea that non-belief in God requires as much faith as belief in God. Non-belief stems from a rational worldview and a series of logical arguments no different than what you'd apply to any other instance in your daily life. Belief requires a suspension of rationale, for no matter how obvious it may seem to you that there is a necessity for a divine entity, this perception of reality is not shared by all human beings (unlike the perception of wetness, of solidity, or of colour) and is therefore an entirely personal view of the world. The fact that it abandons logic makes it a candidate for assignation with the moniker of "delusion" in medical terms.

Well, let's look at it this way: If God doesn't exist, then the most logical explanation we have for the universe is that it has no origin. However, this would imply that time and space also had no origin. Which would suggest that time just "exists" infinitely. This is impossible for a human being to fathom, as you can't mentally go "infinitely back in time." So you must make some kind of metaphysical assumption (that the universe just "exists"). However, if you believe in a power that transcends time and space (accepting that it's capable of things we're not capable of fathoming), then this dilemma is more-or-less resolved because you're suggesting that time and space did in fact have some kind of beginning. Which, to me, seems much more logical. I've actually found that, the more I studied atheism, the less logical/rational it really became. Because, while on first impression it may seem more logical, I found that delving deeper into it led to a lot of inconsistencies and concerns. Particularly when considering the universe's own limitations.

I'm not arguing that Christianity is more logical than atheism (although, personally, I find belief in a God to be more logical than belief in no God - notice I said "a God", not necessarily the Christian God). But both "religions", once you delve into them, require a lot of metaphysical assumptions that when all is said and done are not really based on logic or reason. At which, the one truly "logical" position would be agnosticism!

Not to mention that, with your attitude, you're putting a lot of faith in your own logic/reason. Because you're essentially suggesting that, if your logic/reason doesn't point to something, it must not be true. Which in and of itself requires faith.

Filling a gap of knowledge that we have now with God isn't really helpful. The origin of the universe will be discovered in the future, I'm sure of that, and through scientific methods. As scientific progress goes on, and discoveries increase, the necessity for God will continue to dwindle, as it has been doing ever since the advent of science.

Well, personally, I don't have quite so much faith in science.

And I disagree with you about the necessity for God dwindling through science. I simply see science as allowing us to further discover and correct mistakes in our understanding of how God established everything. Getting into "The Mind Of God" as Paul Davies puts it. If anything, I tend to see arguing against scientific fact as showing disrespect towards God, because you're essentially denying the way He created everything.

I think we should probably wrap up this debate now, since it seems we're starting to go in circles and I think I've said pretty much everything I need to say. Good discussing this with you, Frigid.

Good idea. Pseudo-lock.
Thank you, I enjoyed it.

You're welcome, Frigid. I'm glad we were able to challenge each other a little and perhaps learn some new things about ourselves and views through this discussion.

One thing Seinfeld... I'm having weird visions of what I imagine you look like wearing that Seinfeld white shirt... That's quite disturbing.

It may very well be that your form of religious belief (while IMO still more like deism than anything else) is one of the few forms that I tolerate, while still being in disagreement with. No anti-homosexuality, no disrespect for scientific method, no blocking off of logic and rationality... Kudos to you for remaining a decent person despite your religion

Thanks Frigid. And kudos to you for your thoughtful responses and respectful discussion (despite me disagreeing with your views).

Awesome. Let's have sex.