Finding faith amid disaster

[Thorum]

"Around the world, people are still struggling to come to terms with the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, which have left more than 8,000 dead, thousands more missing and hundreds of thousand others homeless. The threat of a nuclear crisis only adds to the uncertainty.
In times like these, many people find comfort in their faith. But disasters can also challenge long-held beliefs. The CNN Belief Blog (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/20/finding-faith-amid-disaster/) asked some prominent voices with different views on religion how they make sense of such suffering, where they see inspiration amid destruction and how they respond to people who wonder, 'How could God let this happen?'."

My thoughts are similar to Sam Harris who says: "Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely."



Similar to Epicurus's (341 BCE – 270 BCE) argument:



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?

[The Ripper]

What's up with this atheist crusade you've been waging recently?

[Talvi]

There was ssome crazy chick on youtube saying that the disasters in Japan are a proof of god. Because the Japanese are evil atheists and deserve what they got.

Also the news here say it has left some 20 000 dead.

And third, atheism is sexy.

[The Ripper]

There was ssome crazy chick on youtube saying that the disasters in Japan are a proof of god. Because the Japanese are evil atheists and deserve what they got.

Interesting. :D


Also the news here say it has left some 20 000 dead.

Tragic.


And third, atheism is sexy.

That depends on who finds what sexy. ;)

[Beorn]

There was ssome crazy chick on youtube saying that the disasters in Japan are a proof of god. Because the Japanese are evil atheists and deserve what they got.

There was some black chick on Youtube who said the Japs deserved the earthquake and sooooooonami because they were really awful to Amerikwans and British people.


And third, atheism is sexy.

Gary Glitter was considered very sexy in his era too.

[The Lawspeaker]

Thank God I am an Atheist...

[Debaser11]

My thoughts are similar to Sam Harris who says: "Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely."

Or it's possible that God's motives are beyond human understanding? There is a bit of conceit to the atheist attempt to disprove something so huge by basing everything on human rationale.



Similar to Epicurus's (341 BCE – 270 BCE) argument:



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?






It's certainly a bedeviling dilemma because religion seems to not provide all the answers in a manner friendly to the empirical part of the brain in the most satisfactory manner, but does that mean that all religious thinking should just be tossed out?

What about the people who channel such beliefs to actually mitigate this crisis in certain ways? Certainly that speaks to something even if one is spiritually tone-deaf.

[Thorum]

There is a bit of conceit to the atheist attempt to disprove something so huge by basing everything on human rationale.

Atheists don't try to disprove anything. Atheists simply are not theists and don't believe in supernatural beings, gods, ghosts, forces and the like.

Actually, the conceit is on theists who constantly tell the world that something as big a supernatural being exists yet provide not one shred of evidence for its existence...a bit like an ego-maniac with an inferiority complex.

[Debaser11]

Atheists don't try to disprove anything. Atheists simply are not theists and don't believe in supernatural beings, gods, ghosts, forces and the like.

Denatatively, that is technically true. But as Rip hinted at, you seem to be on some sort of crusade yourself to get people to not believe in God as are a lot of atheists. That also speaks to something.


Actually, the conceit is on theists who constantly tell the world that something as big a supernatural being exists yet provide not one shred of evidence for its existence...

First of all, not all theists think the same nor are the majority of them all that outspoken.
Secondly, if you don't equate the dictionary meaning of "theist" with "the lowest common denominator of theist," it is easy to understand that the theist position is entertwined with faith. An atheist as yourself then ridicules the theist position. So who's really being the condescending person?
Finally, as far as evidence goes, it simply depends on what you consider to be evidence given the claim that a specific theist is making. Is thinking about the matter in a complex way and coming to certain conclusions evidence? Or just the tangible right in front of you?


a bit like an ego-maniac with an inferiority complex.

What? Most religion I see is based on hierarchical systems of thought. Man is not at the top spot. A great deal of religion is about humility and man subjecting himself to ideals and purpose. I fail to see how that is ego-maniacal in and of itself next to someone who thinks science is all we need. Period.

[Svipdag]

How childishly conceited can we silly human beings get ? We make the supreme being which "set" the extremely critical values of the fundamental physical constants to exactly such values as would permit a universe fit for humans to exist in into a father-figure who monitors our daily activities like Santa Claus, and is supposed to meddle with the laws of nature for our benefit. Could anything be more presumptuous ?

The universe runs by natural laws which came into being at the same time as and in the same way as the universe itself.To me, a deist explanation of this makes more sense than the notion that somehow order arises out of disorder.
Left to its own devices, entropy tends to INCREASE, not decrease, especially on such a scale as that of the universe itself.

Relative to the cosmos, how important is Man ? Was the universe created for Man, as the anthropic principle assumes ? If so, isn't it a bit overdone ? Does Man need all those other galaxies, clusters of galaxies. I am not assuming a negative answer to this rhetorical question. I would not attempt to second-guess the supreme being.

If there is a supreme being, and I think that assuming that it does explains our universe and its history far better than accident and incredible coincidence do, I cannot conceive of or understand this entity, and I defy anyone else to do so. I take it, therefore, as axiomatic that the supreme being is inconceivable and incomprehensible. Any concept of such an entity is false by virtue of utter inadequacy.

Yet, we seem to have some sort of innate psychological need to enter into a personal relationship with this awesome being, to satisfy which we invent
"gods" who are comfortably like us and then wonder why they don't do what we want and expect them to.

Disasters occur by the operation of the inexorable laws of nature, coeval and cognate with the universe itself. How presumptuous it is of us to pray to our misrepresentations and hopelessly inadequate misconceptions of the supreme being to tamper with those laws to avert consequences which we have not anticipated !

[Debaser11]

How childishly conceited can we silly human beings get ? We make the supreme being which "set" the extremely critical values of the fundamental physical constants to exactly such values as would permit a universe fit for humans to exist in into a father-figure who monitors our daily activities like Santa Claus, and is supposed to meddle with the laws of nature for our benefit. Could anything be more presumptuous ?

Many faithful types reject the teleological argument as well. The funny thing is that atheists employ almost the exact argument almost inside out using science and reason when they do try to disprove God or use "reason" to ridicule belief.


The universe runs by natural laws which came into being at the same time as and in the same way as the universe itself.

Sounds like an article of faith to me.


To me, a deist explanation of this makes more sense than the notion that somehow order arises out of disorder.
Left to its own devices, entropy tends to INCREASE, not decrease, especially on such a scale as that of the universe itself.

That is interesting which shows that total scientific application to ontology doesn't seem to make sense based on our own understanding of reason itself. Though I don't know why it is anymore sensible to limit one's beliefs to a deistic perspective given this point alone, though. At its core, it is simply an anti-materialist point rather than an anti-theistic one.


Relative to the cosmos, how important is Man ? Was the universe created for Man, as the anthropic principle assumes ? If so, isn't it a bit overdone ? Does Man need all those other galaxies, clusters of galaxies. I am not assuming a negative answer to this rhetorical question. I would not attempt to second-guess the supreme being.

I know this is rhetorical, but these types considerations sort of miss the point from a supremely religious perspective. Again, this is the inverse of the pro-God teleological argument that I will admit, deserves some ridicule given the way it is formulated by modern day Christians. But each side of the ball seems to miss the heart of the matter. Solely looking at the molecules in front of us or the cosmos light years away ALONE is insufficient given the gravitity of the God question.

I also think such hyper-rationalizing leads to the formulation of destructive systems of thought when values are adapted based on these considerations rather than the higher ideals that much religion has tried to proliferate. All one has to do to see that is to look around them. Walk outside. What are the values promoted today under the reign of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


If there is a supreme being, and I think that assuming that it does explains our universe and its history far better than accident and incredible coincidence do, I cannot conceive of or understand this entity, and I defy anyone else to do so. I take it, therefore, as axiomatic that the supreme being is inconceivable and incomprehensible. Any concept of such an entity is false by virtue of utter inadequacy.

Yet, we seem to have some sort of innate psychological need to enter into a personal relationship with this awesome being, to satisfy which we invent
"gods" who are comfortably like us and then wonder why they don't do what we want and expect them to.

Attempting to communicate with the divine seems to often be a very noble undertaking. Trying to rationalize the divine is pretty absurd and misguided (as you've hinted at).


Disasters occur by the operation of the inexorable laws of nature, coeval and cognate with the universe itself. How presumptuous it is of us to pray to our misrepresentations and hopelessly inadequate misconceptions of the supreme being to tamper with those laws to avert consequences which we have not anticipated !

Well, this is why one should not confuse transcdence which is cornerstone to religion with human logic and our understanding of nature in a scientific sense. Prayer is an appeal to this divine, not to what human logic based on the material around us may be hinting at.

[Thorum]

...you seem to be on some sort of crusade yourself to get people to not believe in God as are a lot of atheists. That also speaks to something.

From this statement, I would venture to say, once again, you have not even read the linked story in the original post. I am sure it is safe to say also that Riippumatto didn't read the story either.

By the way, Christians "crusade", not atheists...

[Hess]

debaser, every time I see you post you're always in the middle of some kind of heated debate.

I think you might be the first person I've met that gets into more arguments than me :thumb001:

[Lithium]

As an eclectial pagan I would say that is normal... the more we do to the Earth the more we will get from it. We can't use double than planet's resources can give us to 2030 and to expect nothing. That's natural.

[Debaser11]

From this statement, I would venture to say, once again, you have not even read the linked story in the original post. I am sure it is safe to say also that Riippumatto didn't read the story either.

By the way, Christians "crusade", not atheists...

I was responding to what you wrote and cited in your first post. It was pretty damned obvious too given that I quoted EXACTLY what I was responding to. This, of course, you realized which is why you responded back. Then after I responded to you a second time, you seemed to have found yourself so incapable of adding or responding to the dialogue except to try to throw some cheap shot at me along with engaging in a typically liberal-minded play on words to distract from real argument. ("crusade")

By the way, why didn't you ever respond to me after you accused me of this in one of your other threads regarding the video? I'm sensing a pattern from you that seems to be limited to trying to discredit pertinent input which is contrary to yours by pointing out that someone didn't read something all while ignoring that you stick your own editorials onto the articles you post which in and of themselves warrant a response.

As far as not "crusading," given that Christopher Hitchens is one of your "heroes," (and that's not an attempt to belittle you; I like him myself at times) one only needs to watch a video of the contemporary atheistic "Four Horsemen" exchanging ideas with each other on youtube to know that this posting of yours (which is not limited to simply a news story about Japan's problem) is very much a crusade. Play with language all you like, but a rose is still rose by any other name.

[Thorum]

I was responding to what you wrote and cited in your first post.

So of the viewpoints represented, who is closest to your view?

[Debaser11]

So of the viewpoints represented, who is closest to your view?

Somewhere between these two excerpts.

"One aspect of kami (deity) worship [in the Shinto religion] is the conception of kami as life-forces in nature which can be generative - kami of rice, of rivers, of the sun, and such. … Because of this quality [they] are equally capable of retracting their blessings and destroy."

Expressed by Elizabeth Tinsley, ordained Buddhist nun and doctoral student of Buddhist culture at Otani University in Kyoto, Japan

It's an inherently conservative and tragic view of life that seems to express more truth than the sentimental explanations.

"For the believer, there is no satisfactory answer for why we suffer. Each person has to come to grips with that. It’s not as if some magic answer can be found. But the idea of God suffering along with us can be very helpful."

Expressed by The Rev. James Martin, Jesuit priest, culture editor of America magazine and author of “The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything”

Likewise, this is also inherently tragic and honest but does offer respite despite its stoic nature. There's real value there.

I'll be the first to admit that even from a religious perspective, I found many of those explanations lacking, especially the ones that appealed to sentimentality. But seriously, that's CNN for you.

For example:

"As we contemplate the great number of people who have died in this tragedy, we may feel very strongly that we ourselves, in some part or manner, also have died.

The pain of one part of humankind is the pain of the whole of humankind. And the human species and the planet Earth are one body. What happens to one part of the body happens to the whole body.

An event such as this reminds us of the impermanent nature of our lives. It helps us remember that what’s most important is to love each other, to be there for each other, and to treasure each moment we have that we are alive. This is the best that we can do for those who have died: We can live in such a way that they can feel they are continuing to live in us, more mindfully, more profoundly, more beautifully, tasting every minute of life available to us, for them."

Thich Nhat Hanh, Vietnamese Buddhist monk, writer and activist who founded the Unified Buddhist Church in France, and Plum Village, a Buddhist community in exile

If that type of religious sentiment annoys you, I can't say I blame you. The problem is, that type of sentiment is the most closest to secular humanism. The humanists think and act basically the same way as these watered-down religious ninnies with superficial convictions. The difference is that the humanist takes out God and puts his faith in "humans" to just "get along" and the watered down religious person makes God into an understandable wet nurse.

I have to admit, that was an interesting article and I'm sorry I overlooked it to begin with but I still stand by everything I write against the atheist viewpoints that get proliferated.

[Grey]

"Around the world, people are still struggling to come to terms with the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, which have left more than 8,000 dead, thousands more missing and hundreds of thousand others homeless. The threat of a nuclear crisis only adds to the uncertainty.
In times like these, many people find comfort in their faith. But disasters can also challenge long-held beliefs. The CNN Belief Blog (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/20/finding-faith-amid-disaster/) asked some prominent voices with different views on religion how they make sense of such suffering, where they see inspiration amid destruction and how they respond to people who wonder, 'How could God let this happen?'."

My thoughts are similar to Sam Harris who says: "Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely."



Similar to Epicurus's (341 BCE – 270 BCE) argument:



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?







To god all things are beautiful and good and just, but people have supposed some to be unjust, others just.

God is not evil, but beyond any such categorization. To assume that what is good for man is absolutely good is conceited. Good and bad exist for men, and only for men.

[Talvi]

They have taken down the video I mentioned before but the girl wrote the following to the description on youtube:

PRAISE GOD FOR ANSWERED PRAYERS!!! GOD ANSWERED US AFTER JUST 1 DAY OF FASTING AND PRAYING! HE RATTLED THE ATHEISTS IN JAPAN!! THE REST OF THE WORLD BETTER BE READY! 1 DAY OF PRAYER = 9.0 EARTHQUAKE IN JAPAN! I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE WHAT 40 DAYS OF PRAYER WILL DO!

Christians are awesome!

[The Ripper]

They have taken down the video I mentioned before but the girl wrote the following to the description on youtube:


Christians are awesome!

She's from some crazy protestant sect. You can't consider them tr00 Christians. ;)

[Talvi]

She's from some crazy protestant sect. You can't consider them tr00 Christians. ;)

Where would the wold be if we didnt generalize? Even this board is an attempt at generalization. :(

[The Ripper]

Where would the wold be if we didnt generalize? Even this board is an attempt at generalization. :(

Hey, I just lumped all "protestant sects" under the looney label, I generalize, too!

[Debaser11]

Where would the wold be if we didnt generalize? Even this board is an attempt at generalization. :(

Exactly. I agree 100%. So by that logic Christianity should get a huge break. Generally speaking, Christian societies have produced the most prosperous countries with the highest standards of living. The shedding of these countries' faith in God has coincided with many of the social problems we find within greater Western civilization today.

And most people in my country and many people in Europe still identify themselves as "Christians." Yet, most people, mainstream people, would be shocked and reviled by that comment you posted attributed to a Christian. Just look at how my country, which is overwhelmingly still majority Christian reacted to some of Falwell's comments after 9/11 that had a very similar tone to them.

So if we generalize rather than focusing on the extremes, Christianity is exonorated from many of the charges posited by many people.

[Svipdag]

You said of my comment that the laws of nature came into existence at the same time as and in the same way as the universe itself, that it sounds like an article of faith to you.

I must admit that it is merely an assumption which seemed so reasonable to me that, though I have no proof of it, there was no doubt in my mind of its truth. It is, however, a slight exaggeration.

At the VERY beginning of the "Big Bang" [if that is, indeed, how the universe started], there was probably much more disorder than order and the laws of physics, could not be applied to the state of the matter and energy in the universe at that time. If, then, the laws of nature are nearly coeval with the universe itself, they must be somewhat younger.

As soon as order came to predominate over disorder in the primordial plasma,I cannot say how or why, though this is assumed to have occurred very early, too early in my opinion, for a process as slow as random chance to account for it, the matter and energy in the plasma would have begun to behave in accordance with the laws of physics as as we know them.

I do admit to one article of faith. I hold that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CAUSELESS EVENT. Quantum physicists, of course, deny this. They do not seem to recognise that their assertion that quantum events are unpredictable not because of ignorance of their causes but because they have no causes, is, itself, an article of faith. I.e., determinism vs indeterminism

[Psychonaut]

I do admit to one article of faith. I hold that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CAUSELESS EVENT. Quantum physicists, of course, deny this. They do not seem to recognise that their assertion that quantum events are unpredictable not because of ignorance of their causes but because they have no causes, is, itself, an article of faith. I.e., determinism vs indeterminism

But, the Copenhagen interpretation of QM doesn't really posit any kind of acausality, right? I mean, just because the result of an event is not strictly determined by the event, that doesn't mean that the result was not caused by the event. Like, in the double-slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment), there's no doubt that the path the photon follows after passing through the slit is caused by its being launched through the slit; what's doubted is whether or not its course is determined by its pre-slit trajectory. True acausal metaphysics are even more bizarre than the quantum realms. :D

[Svipdag]

At least in popular articles *, some quantum physicists have taken a strictly acausal position. A physicist friend, and ex-colleague of mine has told me that he has heard some quantum physicists take an acausal position in classroom lectures.

* Sorry, I can't cite them for you. I'm depending on my memory of articles I read some time ago.

I agree that strict acausality is not the OFFICIAL position of quantum physics (if there may be said to be such a thing).

[Egbert]

My thoughts are similar to Sam Harris who says: "Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely."

Similar to Epicurus's (341 BCE – 270 BCE) argument:



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?






Catastrophes are not evil, they simply are. I do not view this as a theological issue, but rather of an individual's inability to endure catastrophes. No God promises that this life will be free of misery, strife or death...only how one should face such things. Those with a great deal of faith, tend to deal far better with their lives being completely wrecked and all they know obliterated, they trust that there is a plan...

I personally believe that God wants men to act as men in times of crisis, to do their duty and strife builds character, it must be endured, learned from and ultimately dismissed.

[Debaser11]

I think your assumptions are quite reasonable and I can't say they are really any different than my own given the little I understand that's filtered to me on pop science television and radio shows.

I remember this one program (I think it was Michio Kaku's radio show) addressing how we can literally trace back the origins of the Big Bang and see the "face of God." There is similar rhetoric when programs about string theory come on PBS. It's very overdone. Now, I realize the language might not be meant to be interpreted religiously, but when I hear stuff like that on a science radio show, I feel it comes off as way too dogmatic. It actually turns scientists into existential clergymen (inadvertantly, perhaps) when that type of rhetoric becomes so commonplace when the topic is science. People think science can do things that it really can't by definition. (See Richard Dawkins who is a brilliant scientist but a lousey philosopher.) Empiricism has taken on a religious character.

That is of course why I feel the compulsion to point out any type of assumption based on empiricism. It's not that it's bad at a certain level. I saw that you were "agnostic" and your post was pretty thoughtful, so I didn't feel like I was pointing anything out to you that you didn't already know. But pointing out any type of assumption is always irresistable to me given the dangerous trend I see emerging in our culture that basically disprivileges certain systems of thought in the name of "science."

It's interesting that you mention quantum. I find it curious how the implications of quantum can be interpreted so differently going by the assumption that quantum is pure chaos. On the one hand, you had people like Einstein who thought its lack of order was very troubling and his feverish desire to create a unified field theory that wed quantum to relativity seemed to have a spiritual dimension for him (from what I understand). On the other hand, I've known Christians who have actually taken solace over the fact that quantum seems random. If quantum activity can have no cause, then the door is open for God or so the reasoning goes. But again, the fact that such questions are debated around what science tells us shows how utterly unspiritual our society has become (imo).

[Cato]

My thoughts are similar to Sam Harris who says: "Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely."


Similar to Epicurus's (341 BCE – 270 BCE) argument:



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?






In either case, this assumes that the Deity actively participates in worldly affairs in a manner beyond the purely mechanical (i.e. natural laws). Does God grant special consideration to some and not to others? Does God come running at our beck and call? I've never seen a magic trick, i.e. a miracle, yet I believe in God.

In his rebuttal to Jobs criticism, which seem entirely justified from the human perspective, the reply is:

Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?

And then God goes on to reply to Job by asking him to fathom the mysteries of nature. Job can't even do this.

So, if Job (a stand-in for humanity in general) can't fathom nature, how can he fathom God?

:confused:

[Thorum]

In either case, this assumes that the Deity actively participates in worldly affairs in a manner beyond the purely mechanical (i.e. natural laws). Does God grant special consideration to some and not to others? Does God come running at our beck and call? I've never seen a magic trick, i.e. a miracle, yet I believe in God.

In his rebuttal to Jobs criticism, which seem entirely justified from the human perspective, the reply is:

Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?

And then God goes on to reply to Job by asking him to fathom the mysteries of nature. Job can't even do this.

So, if Job (a stand-in for humanity in general) can't fathom nature, how can he fathom God?

:confused:

But I don't believe that god(s) exist and have never been shown evidence for its existence.

[Svipdag]

I find some modern physicists to be exasperatingly arrogant. Sir Isaac Newton thought that he was discovering the laws which God had ordained to govern His physical universe. Modern physicists create mathematical models of physical reality which they claim to be merely descriptive, but treat as if they were prescriptive.

They refuse, whether consciously or not, to acknowledge that nature is in no wise constrained to comply with their models. The mere fact that a conceptual model is internally consistent and accounts for the presently known facts does not guarantee its truth.

Yet, I heard a modern physicist being interviewed on television say of his latest mathematical concoction that this model was so elegant that no amount of empirical evidence could ever refute it. My physicist friend, when I told him of this, said "That man was not speaking as a a physicist." I fully agree with him, for that was a statement of quasi-religious faith.

I also have heard a modern physicist state, in a patronising tone of voice, that the consquences that can be inferred from a mathematically valid model, counter-intuitive though they may be, MUST BE TRUE. I.e, Nature is obliged to comply with mathematically valid models. What preposterous pontification !

This has led me to draw the conclusion that modern physicists have lost the ability to recognise when they are talking nonsense.

[Debaser11]

Right. They think they're all philosophers now if not clergymen.

[Cato]

But I don't believe that god(s) exist and have never been shown evidence for its existence.

Who the hell says that finding God means someone has to show you to God? I've had to look, scrap, and fight to find a belief in God according to my own abilities. Having someone show you the way is the easy way. End of story.

[Debaser11]

I think one of the reasons there is a disconnect between atheists and religious people largely comes from how God is perceived and for what purpose.

I'm speaking as a former atheist, myself.

From the atheistic point of view, a religious person is believing in God because they are fearful, ignorant, guillable, conformist, and the like. And that is certainly true in the case of all too many believers.

However, the truely noble religious people believe in God the way one also believes in virtues like strength, courage, and prudence. Believing in God then becomes a way to make those virtues mean something in a more real sense. It grounds them in a cosmic sense. It ties them to something. Sure, it's faith based. We can't know if these values are prior but believing that they are gives real meaning to those values. It makes life more real. The alternative is the existential point of view that supposes there is no meaning and that we just make it all up as we go along and try to do what makes us all happy or fulfilled (which is not principled). It's not hard to see that this mode of thought lacks the vitality of a more religious/spiritual mode of thought. Yet, both sides are in a way hedging their bets because we really just don't know and can probably never know. But the religious person is committed philosophically or at least should be. The atheist is not in any cosmic sense. That's why religious people say that atheists "don't believe in anything." In that sense, the religious life is more heroic to me by virtue of its deeply principled nature and commitments. It has real meaning outside of circumstantial material interactions.

The dichotomy is essentially a choice between being cosmically tied to virtues and "what can I get out of life as long as I don't hurt someone else in some perceivable way so that I can say I'm a 'good' person?"

[Thorum]

Yet, I heard a modern physicist being interviewed on television say of his latest mathematical concoction that this model was so elegant that no amount of empirical evidence could ever refute it.

I also have heard a modern physicist state, in a patronising tone of voice, that the consquences that can be inferred from a mathematically valid model, counter-intuitive though they may be, MUST BE TRUE.


Can you give us the name of the first physicist and television show?

Also, the name and place the second physicist quoted?

I think they would be interesting to watch or read.

[antonio]

My thoughts are similar to Sam Harris who says: "Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely."


That guy, who so easily proved the non-existence of God, maybe can also enlight the world about how more than three dimensions Universe really has. :D

[Thorum]

That guy, who so easily proved the non-existence of God, maybe can also enlight the world about how more than three dimensions Universe really has. :D

What did you think of the article? Can you relate to anyone in it?

[Cato]

The faith in any disaster is to be true to yourself so that you survive.

If you survive, others survive, lest you run and hide like a coward.

[antonio]

What did you think of the article? Can you relate to anyone in it?

Obviously I'd related just to what you commented about the article, I even surrounded it around quotes for the sake of clearness. :D

[Svipdag]

Sorry, Thorum, I really can't. The TV program was probably about 10 years ago, maybe more. Since I retired, I've rather lost track of time. The remark to the effect that, no matter how counter-intuitive a conclusion drawn from a "valid" theoretical model may be, it MUST be true, was made in a public lecture, I think at Wesleyan University, but I do not recall by whom or when.

I seem to recall reading in Scientific American some time ago that there are 11 dimenstions , 8 of which are "folded back on themselves" [whatever the hell THAT is supposed to mean] leaving the 3 familiar geometric dimensions.
Topologically, I suppose that this makes sense. HOWEVER, what is topologically possible is not necessarily physically possible.