Without religion would humanity descend into moral chaos?

Are scientific claims in some sense as unprovable as religious ones?

1. No. Religion is holding man back from true social progress.

2. No. If that were the case, philosophers of science would long ago have pointed this out. Philosophy and science are not futile endeavors. Scientists are not fools for pursuing their vocations.

We must distinguish between theologians and philosophers.

What is the difference?

The subject of theology doesn't exist. The questions generally tackled by philosophers are relevant.

A quote from Robert Todd Carroll:

"A delusion held by one person is a mental illness, held by a few is a cult, held by many is a religion."

That's an apt quotation.

Rick, I presume you mean that "Theos"-- the One who theologians presume to study--does not exist. But surely theologians and theologies exist. Or do you say otherwise?

BTW, IMO, because I believe that I have the right to define the god-concept as I understand it, I define G-D, not as a personal being who exists, but as the totality of all existence in which we live and move and have our physical, mental and spiritual beings. I find it impossible to deny this existence.

Meanwhile, because of free-will, IMO, anyone is free to reject G-D--total physical, mental and spiritual being. However, I would like to know if there is any value in denying TPMSB.

No doubt you are familiar with Pascal's wager. It may not prove the existence of a one god, but it sure points to the value of believing in something.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

You keep defining god pantheistically yet you deny you are a pantheist! It seems to me that panentheism, as distinguished from pantheism, is a distinction without a difference.

Religion serves its purpose. At the very least, it is a useful stepping stone onto higher things.

....a step to higher things like?

Rick, my dictionary says that "pantheism" refers to all the physical forces of nature.

Pan-en-theism--G-D in, around and through all that IS--not in the regular dictionaries as of yet, includes the non-physical forces: the mental, spiritual, and immeasurable forces.

PAN-EN-THEISM http://www.websyte.com/alan/pan.htm

I first heard it used in the 1970's. It was used by the former theologian and Dominican priest, Matthew Fox when he gave a seminar in Toronto. It was following this that I coined the word 'unitheism'--I've since been made aware of others who have done the same--to avoid the kind of confusion of which you speak.

ABOUT MATTHEW FOX
http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage20/
http://matthewfoxcs.blogspot.com/

From Dictionary.com:

pan�the�ism
n.
1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.

You (and others) seem to be making a non-existent distinction between the "universe and its phenomena" and "mental, spiritual, and immeasurable forces." In the 17th century, Baruch Spinoza defined his belief (pantheism) as god being the totality of existence. Therefore, nothing can be left out of pantheism. His proof was quite simple:

1. Assume god is separate from the universe.

2. Define god as "that which there is none greater."

3. Observe that the union of god and the universe would be greater than god.

4. Acknowledge that the assumption of step one results in the contradiction of step three.

Naturally, the establishment churches of his day rejected (and still do) his proof. What part of proof don't they understand?

From today's Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pa...ack=1&cset=true

Christians want to work to hasten the coming of the end of the earth. Muslims want to kill all infidels. Is that human responsibility and ethics?

The best thing to believe in is the truth!
The best objective for anyone is to seek the truth!
The best way to seek the truth is..........?????

I'm not saying that religion is right, good, or ethical, but that everyone here who considers themselves beyond religion, including you, Rick, had to first pass through a religious phase, no matter how brief that may have been, before becoming disillusioned and moving onwards and upwards to better things.

....an extreme rift occured between the two occured when Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky introduced his scientifc/theological synthesis "Worlds in Collision".

Rick, in the spirit of dialogue, not debate, if you think of pantheism as a doublet of pan-en-theism, this is okay with me.

BTW, I am sure that atheists would also reject Spinoza's "proof". I also think that theists think of God as "that which is none greater" but in an immanent sense. IMO, I agree that it is okay not to agree, in every detail. I am more interested in: What is the practical value is all our speculation?

======================================
A SUMMARY OF THEISM, AS I UNDERSTAND IT
======================================
Theists, if I write anything which you feel is incorrect, or unfair, feel free to let me know. I was born and raised a theist, and I have a great deal of respect for all sincerely held beliefs and or opinions, as long as they are built on a moral, ethical and loving foundation.
==============================================================
Born in 1930, I was raised in what I now call the Sunday-school and Christian theism of that day. In one way or another, this theology is, to a large extent, still with us today, especially in the hymns, which are still sung in all our churches.

THEOLOGY IN THE HYMNS WE SANG, AND STILL SING
looking back, I remember, over and over again, almost without thinking much about the meaning behind the words we sang, we Sunday school children sang hymns like, Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

In this, and in many other hymns in the current UC hymnary, which has over 1000 pages,, Jesus is spoken of and/or addressed, not just as an invisible and spiritual being. He is addressed as if he is a living being--the embodiment of God, in the here and now.

Often, contrary to the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels--where he talks of being, "...the servant of all--in our hymns, Jesus is addressed as our lord and king. He is spoken of as one who rides on in majesty (#126). Like a king, we crown him with many crowns (#211). And this--check out the hymnary index--is just a few of the numerous examples.

Over 50 hymns begin with the word 'God'. All hymns speak of, to and about God as if "He", like Jesus, is a person. He is written about as one who sees, with his eyes, everything we do. He listens, with ears, to our prayers. He even reads our thoughts. He is spoken of as one who is willing to do to, and for us, anything we can think of and ask "Him" to do, as long as we are willing to give Him the last word.

Granted there are hymns in the new hymnary which do make the attempt to be inclusive of both sexes, of other races and religions, including native spirituality. There are also many hymns which speak of the love of God, and that he wants to bless all humanity. But for the most past, God is clearly addressed as if he is an all powerful, all knowing, everywhere-present and white Christian, up there in heaven.

THE DOCTRINES OF THEISM
According to the doctrines of theism, this god-like and heavenly father lives in heaven, now. He is aware of you and me, now. He even knows that I am writing this, now. In addition to every word I write, he can read my every thought, even before I write it. Certain extreme forms of theism teaches that he knew I would do this way back when he created the world, in six days, in 4004 BC.

Theism tells us that there was a beginning. In the beginning, God created the cosmos, the universe, as we know and experience it, out of nothing. This means that the past, present and future are in his hands. By the way, if at anytime he wanted to do so, he could take control of everything. But for his own reasons, he has decided to hold off on this, for now. His giving us "free will" complicated things

Meanwhile, any Christian theist who is willing to admit: "I am a sinner. I cannot save myself simply by being a moral and ethical human being willing to keep the Golden Rule. My salvation comes ONLY when I am willing to confess my sins and say that I believe in Jesus Christ, as the one and only son of God." can expect that God will listen to all prayers and take care of all their needs

Christian theists believe that when they die, heaven awaits those who made the above confession; hell awaits those who do not.
==============================================================
Needless to say, early on, I questioned this Christian theism in which I was raised. For one thing, I found that many prayers went unanswered. Frequently, there was't even a clear, no. There was nothing but silence.

I look back, with thanks, that all of my questions were listened to with respect. At seventeen, I went off to Mount Allison University, NB, for four years study--I majored in philosophy and psychology. http://www.mta.ca

Then, for Biblical and theological studies, I went to the Atlantic School of theology, Halifax, NS. Later, I did post grad studies at Boston University. At all centres, my questions and comments were received, with respect, by professors and students alike. This, I feel, is what kept me in the ministry of the United Church of Canada for over forty years. I retired in 1994.

LABELS ARE USEFUL, BUT THEY DO NOT TELL ALL
About labels. In my opinion, labels are much like names, addresses and place names. They can be very helpful in telling others, in a general sort of way, where one is located. But they actually tell others very little about who one really is. Furthermore, labels tell us very little about the kind of life-style in which one lives, or wants to live.

And, keep in mind, because we live, I hope, in a free and demopcratic society, I am free to change my name and my location anytime I wish. In addition, I hope that I have some intellectual freedom.
============================
WHY I LABEL MYSELF A UNITHEIST
============================
With the above in mind, theologically speaking, the following is the label which I choose to describe myself, for now: For the nonce, I think of myself as a unitheist--G-D is that which is total, universal and all-encompassing, physically, mentally and spiritually. Meanwhile, I am free to change my mind when new facts come into my purview.

For me, unitheism bridges the gap between theism and deism. Unlike deism, theism thinks of God as interactive with us, almost imposing "his" will on us. Unlike theism, unitheism thinks of G-D as being interactive, without being imposing.

As I understand theism, theism asks us to think of God as an imposing and imminent being--a totally involved, all powerful, all knowing, a super personal and loving heavenly father who is in control of all history. In my humble opinion, theism presents us with a concept of God which, intellectually speaking, borders on a kind of idolatry of the mind. Therefore, I question it.

Deism, on the other hand, tells us of a God--one who can be similar, in may ways to the God of theism--whho is a transcendent being, with little or no concern with the human predicament. It appears that the God of deism lives in an ivory tower. In my humble opinion, deism is a kind of practical atheism.

Theists and deists, feel free to corrected me if you feel I am being unfair.

=========================00000000000000000==============================

Okay, Rick. I agree. I prefer to think of myself as a philosopher.
Was it Will R. Durant--The Story Of Philosophy--who said: "All science begins as a philosophy and ends as an art?" IMHO, a good religion is like good art: It is full of goodness, order and design. It is given to that which is lovely, beautiful and true and the promotion of justice and peace.
BTW, I think that Durant had Canadian ( Quebec French) roots

Reason.


If only there were some way to harness good intentions and skip the supernatural hogwash!

Thank you, Lindsay, for that informative discussion of theism. Putting aside that highly flawed model for now, and assuming, for the sake of dialog, that we have narrowed the field down to two competing models, atheism and panentheism, how are we to decide which model of the universe we should adopt? Is there some test by which we can distinguish the true reality? Speaking as a scientist, if there is some way to distinguish an atheistic universe from a panentheistic one, then we should apply the test and decide.

If we can identify no test to make this determination, I suggest we apply Occam's Razor and select the simpler theory: atheism.

Mathematics and the mathematical beauty of nature is proof of God. What other proof could you hope for?

Rick responds to this: Reason.
I (Lindsay) Agree. But could we not also add: reason plus a sighted-faith--one that includes reason?


To this Rick comments: If only there were some way to harness good intentions and skip the supernatural hogwash!
I, Lindsay, respond:

Rick, et al: In another chatroom there are some atheists, positive and otherwise. You might be interested in the recent exchange:

That little story sounds like one of those hoax email memes that goes around. While it certainly is a valid and clever attempt at refuting an atheistic proof from the existence of evil, I seriously doubt that Einstein (or any real person) was that young man.

Defining evil as the absence of god makes for a clever little story, but I define evil differently: unnecessary harm.

mm think of it this way bad people dont usually think what they are doing is bad. Psychotics who go on serial killings believe what they are doing is completly sane. Terrorists believe that they are doing their gods bidding when they launch attacks, Hitler believed he was purging the world of evil and helping god. Definitions of evil vary widely from culture to culture and person to person, some view eating cows as an abomination others as lunch, evil is more determined by what goes against or threatens ones self and ones beliefs.

Rick, I did use the word "apocryphal" to describe the story.

However, I think that it is well documented that Einstein was not an atheist. And, interestingly, neither was Charles Darwin. Darwin's only academic degree was a Bachelor of Theology degree, from Cambridge. It seems to me that great thinkers simply use their brains to have greater theological concepts. My concept of G-D grew as I grew. In my 30's I grew away from traditional theism. It is still growing, I hope.

Anyone, what has been your theological journey?

Theologians would consider Einstein atheist since he did not believe in a person-like God (as God is presented in the bible). Einstein's God was mathematical. Einstein's God was that of Spinoza's, who has been variously characterized as atheistic, monistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, and god-intoxicated.

LD, IMO, that should be: "Some theologians..."Einstein's concept of God is similar to what I have in mind when I write G-D. I think of the theology of the Bible, especially that of Moses, as henotheism--my God is superior to your god. I consider it a kind of mental idolatry suitable to those who lived in pre-scientific times, but not suitable today. I highly respect the ideas of Einstein as found at the following site:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-Albert-Einstein.htm
====================00000000000000000000000=====================

Albert Einstein was a beautiful man, wise and moral, who lived in difficult times. I think all people will enjoy the great clarity and wisdom of his ideas, and they will find them very relevant and useful in our modern (and very disturbed) world. As he writes on humanity and true religiousness;

Albert Einstein Quotes on Philosophy of Religion, Theology, God

Based on a philosophy of religion similar to that advocated by Einstein, I will start of new thread.

I was confirmed in the Episcopalian Church by Bishop Pike when I was 12 years old. However, I could not be said to be at that time a "believer." I wanted the promise of eternal life to be true, but suspected it was an appeal to that well known human weakness, wishful thinking. Since then I have examined as much evidence as I could gather and have been concluding more and more strongly that religion is humbug.

Evidence: Harry Houdini showed to be fraudulent every spiritualistic medium that he encountered in a systematic search.

I agree rick, at one time or another weve all been dooped into the religious scam. I have also looked into the ways you produce miracles and after lots of time in magic shops the thing that has always been constant is how simple the tricks are to do. People come up with elaborate results of how something could be faked but the funny thing is how simple they really are to do. From psychic cold reading to medumistic ectoplasm its all been faked

Rick adds Surely both of you are not suggesting that I am advocating religion based on fraud, fake spiritualism and magic tricks, are you?

As a unitheist--if you prefer, Rick...as long as you don't deify materialism...I can go along with being called a pan-en-theist, or neo-pantheist--and an advocate of 'pneumatology', which is the serious study of the spiritual nature of humanity, I abhor blind faith in the doctrines, dogmas, rites and policies of institutional religions.

BTW, as long as we keep our cool and critical wits about us, it does seem that religion has one value: It does make for good dialogue, eh?--as we Canadians say.

religion is a fantasy for most and a delusion for others. Whether it makes for interesting coffee talk depends on many things. More often than not, two people dialoging about religion wear their respective masks and dare not take them off for fear of what lies underneath.

LD, Try me! I try to respect truth. And I not talking about it in any kind of narrow or absolute sense of the word.

why is it that people are so enamored with social convention and social acceptability? Listen to enough people dialoging about religion and you'll see repetition, parroting and lack of novelty. Why is that? Why is the spectrum of possible things we can normally talk about regarding religion so narrow? Why are lines of communication with other people so few? Why are social conventions so confining? Why are human limitations so many? If God is infinite like some claim, why the limitations all around us, the lack of imagination, the abundance of pettiness?

This why I use the special symbol G-D (Am I the only one to use this symbol?). Maybe the time had come to ask an artist to come up with a special icon--a special kind of smilie--to represent the concept. If I knew how do computer graphics I would give it a whirl. Words like electro-magnetism, eternity of time, infinity of space, and gravity come to mind.

Lindsay, given your finiteness, why would you believe in eternities and infinities?

Is this a rhetorical question? If so, what evidence do you have that human beings, who choose to be one in and with G-D, are finite beings?

If your question is not rhetorical, my answer is: For the same reason that I believe in life, and more life, and life filled with joy, tomorrow and tomorrow, and tomorrow, ad infinitum. And this includes all of us, not just those who accept my philosophy.

OPINION, OPINION, NO DOGMA, OKAY?
BTW, IMHO (in my humble opinion) G-D is a symbol of the one eternal and infinite Oneness, in an through all of life. Unless you choose to be excluded, G-D is very, very inclusive.

And think of this: If atheism, the kind which says that all life ends at the death of the body, is right, no atheist will every be able to tease anyone, saying: "See, I was right. There is no life after death." But if G-D is for real, think of the fun that believers, of all faiths, are going to have.

ABOUT HELL--Look around!
BTW 2, IMO: For many, life on earth is a kind of hell, now. We are all free to begin the process of being redeemed by choosing to be redeemed, if we are willing to pay the price. If we are, look around: Much of life is heavenly.

The same is true for the future. "As we sow, so shall we reap." I believe that eternal joy comes with a price--repent, change your mind and you can, and will, change the future. As a popular advertising put it: We pay now, or we will pay later. The choice, as always, is ours.

Is science a religion?

Lindsay,



I quote "This why I use the special symbol G-D (Am I the only one to use this symbol?). Maybe the time had come to ask an artist to come up with a special icon--a special kind of smilie--to represent the concept. If I knew how do computer graphics I would give it a whirl. Words like electro-magnetism, eternity of time, infinity of space, and gravity come to mind."

A Klein Bottle may be appropriate!!

Dare I ask: What is a Klein Bottle?

That is a major evil of religion: by emphasizing a non-existent afterlife, religion makes life seem much less important than it really is. One who realizes that his life and the lives of others is all that we really have is more likely to take right action to make the most of our potential. One who believes the delusion of the supernatural is one who has an excuse to take a fatalistic approach to life. He will be more likely to excuse atrocities committed by believers.

Lighten up, Rick. I was chuckling and smiling to myself when I wrote the above comment.

But if you want to get serious, it is my opinion--I abhor being dogmatic--that, like it or not, every human being--good, evil and boring--will live on, and on, and on, in some form, in the eternal now. We the people, as you say, who "... make the most of our potential" now, will build on that as we enter the next stage. IMHO, THERE IS NO DEATH. I LIke the quote: "Death is just a horizon. And a horizon is but the limit of our vision."

I think of life after the death of my body as the next stage of an eternal life, in G-D--as an extension of this lifetime. Even in this life, all of us, I think, experienced stages. Starting as one-celled beings--potential human beings--those of us who have had the good fortune to be raised in a nuturing and loving family have had the opportunity to develop, physically, mentally and spiritually.

Speaking personally: Looking back, despite experiencing severe physical poverty and its many challenges, I have had the opportunity to develop to a mature old age. I plan to die in peace and go on to the next stage.

BTW, I am not, nor have I ever been a fatalist.

Rick, when you say, "He (the one who believe that life is eternal) will be more likely to excuse atrocities committed by believers" I have now idea what gave you this erroneous idea. The Bible, among other sacred writings, clearly teaches: The way we live now, impacts on what we experience in the eternal NOW. The future we used to dream about is now.

First, there is Calvinism: http://www.bible.ca/calvinism.htm

Jean Calvin selectively used the bible to conclude that the future is a real entity and that all of life is therefore predestined (fatalism). If a man were to be in heaven at some point in the future, then there was nothing he could do today to change it, thus excusing all manner of atrocities. That's where the idea of "shoot them all now and let god sort them out" comes from. Calvinism influenced most protestant faiths to some extent.

Second, there is monotheism in general: http://deoxy.org/bom.htm

Monotheism, in its encouragement of obedience to authority, inspires, among others, the ongoing atrocities of today's suicide bombers.

You asked.

Thanks for just a few of the reasons why I am not a Calvinist, nor a monotheist. Interestingly, John Wesley--his teachings, along with some of those of Calvin, are part of the UCC--rejected Calvinism.

Rick, are you hard-wired to be a generalizer?
BTW, did you know Bishop Pike, personally? I know something of his story. From what I know, he was a tragic figure. Even his church thought of him as a heretic.

Generalization is inductive reasoning, a skill every human has. Part of wisdom is knowing the limitations and exceptions of classification.

I met Bishop Pike only a few times before he died in the desert in Israel. I read his book about the death of his son.

This has been a very interesting topic to read.

However, I noticed that it perpetuated the trend of discussing religion and science in opposition to one another, based primarily on the unspoken assumption that religions as a category are theistic, and therefore illogical (or at least contrary to Occam's razor). This is a serious oversight, as there is one major religion that evades to a large extent the descriptions that apply to most other major religions. That is Buddhism.

Even after quoting Einstein's passage about Buddhism, you failed to discuss it further. The quote was:

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.

Buddhism is not theistic, nor is it atheistic. It is agnostic with respect to God. This is because, in Buddhism, metaphysics are not of primary importance - its primary concern is the very accessible problem of human suffering. Buddhism's philosophies are strictly logical, as it encourages careful and logical reasoning over blind faith. Its epistemology (a strict phenomenalism) applies philosophical doubt in quantities that would intoxicate even the most devout follower of Descartes.

Western philosophy has made some serious philosophical errors in its time, and almost all of these were circumvented by the scholars of India centuries before they were committed in Europe. The problem was, and continues to be, a lack of circumspection in reading and research. What has followed in the West is an unwarranted skepticism of eastern thought, whose philosophical integrity equals and in many cases surpasses any philosophy found in the west.

May this post at least serve to disinclude Buddhism from the category of "religion" in this post, and thereby exempt it from further discussion in these dualistic terms (if it continues) in future.

I agree.

I would add that there are many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., who are open to this kind of thinking.


Sounds okay to this unitheist Christian.



It is my hope that we will be wise enough to use the method of mature dialogue aimed at reaching consensus. However, where we disagree, may we begin by agreeing to disagree, agreeably

If you want to criticise, criticise, don't beat around the bush.

In answer to the actual subject of this topic - yes, science and religion will get along. The Dalai Lama, for example, said that Buddhistic views will have to bow to the findings of science as they are outdated thereby. Buddhism is an undogmatic search for truth (except for the dogma encouraging letting go of dogma) and science is an excellent technique for that search.

Rather, I think that especially in the science of the mind, neuroscience, etc. (the main subject of this website) mind-investigating religions like Buddhism have a great deal of expertise that science would do well to use. And vice versa. Scientific methods could result in enhanced meditative techniques, for example. On the other hand, I think the higher aim is not merely to understand intellectually the nature of the mind, but to realise it experientially, and this is where Buddhist meditation methods will help scientists. A cooperation between scientific endeavours and Buddhism (and perhaps other religions, though I can't think of any) would be extremely helpful to both.