That's an interesting discussion they are having over there. I couldn't help but throw in the following in response to a comment from the blog host, Eric Scheie:
Might the American founders (reflecting on the religious wars between Christians) have taken the intermittently applied Roman idea of religious tolerance, and then improved on it?
Perhaps, though I think the Founders were very clear in wanting to maintain a separation between Church and State, a separation that is currently being eroded.
As John Danforth, the moderate Christian and former Missouri Senator, put it:
“Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians.”
If your interest is in raising the standards of society, which have certainly been descending over the past 50 years or so, then I am completely in your corner. But I think what you term the restoration of classical values needs to come from a sense of personal responsibility, rather than the outside influences of government or church. And this is what we need to teach our children: personal responsibility. Not I tripped on your sidewalk so I can make a quick buck suing you. Not I'll lie to you, get you pregnant and then dump you, or divorce you in five years when you accidentally smash my high-school basketball trophy. Not I'll be nice to you because it's the Christian thing to do, instead of it's the right thing to do.
You can have freedom with responsibility and you can have it without interference from the Church or the State, but not if you do not accept the responsiblilty that comes with being free which is that you are required by the very nature of freedom to govern yourself, and that you can be trusted with this responsibility because freedom is something you treasure.
I certainly am in agreement on the personal responsibility issue. And I certainly agree that you ought not to need either state or church to coerce you to accept responsibility - or even provide a rationale for it. But, regarding this notion of separation of church and state in America, it is actually one of the most misunderstood things about the country. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a church by Congress. That's it. That is precisely all that it says on the matter. No established national church a la the Church of England. The Constitution does not prohibit the states from establishing churches, however, and at the time the Constitution was adopted at least half a dozen states had established churches. Congregationalism, for instance, was not disestablished in Massachusetts until 1834. There really is no evidence whatsoever that the founders would have favored the sort of separation that has been lately in fashion. And as for such separation being eroded currently, the evidence, please. By which I mean what statute has been passed, what Supreme Court decision has been handed down, that officially erodes this separation? I submit that there is none. I don't happen to agree with Danforth's opinion in this matter, but even if it were true, so what? If a particular religious group manages to acquire a forceful political presence, that's its right under a democratic republic. The opposition is free to try the same.
There really is no evidence whatsoever that the founders would have favored the sort of separation that has been lately in fashion.
I think there is no question that the Founders despised the idea of church involvement in government affairs. Nowhere in the Constitution, for example, is there a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." and in Article VI, Section 3, "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
These words are not in the Constitution, but I think they show clearly Jefferson's and the Founder's intent.
James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
John Adams wrote in his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. Ben Franklin in his autobiography clearly reveals his skepticism of Christianity.
I think there is no doubt that the Founders intended the United States to be a secular government, divorced from religion, all religions, not just Christianity.
And as for such separation being eroded currently, the evidence, please.
One example that springs to mind is in public education where certain States have used the courts to try to have creationism taught in science classrooms with the same credibility as proven scientific theories such as evolution.
Though I think religions should be taught in schools as a valuable part of our history, the myth of creationism cannot be considered scientific and does not belong in a science classroom, except perhaps to say this is what we used to believe and this is what we think now for these reasons ... To give creationism equal billing with evolution is preposterous. To put creationsism forward as a credible theory ignores what we have learned in the last two millenia.
We no longer look up at the night sky, see the stars and wonder what they are. We no longer look at the moon and say that it is a representation of an unattainable dream: it is no longer unattainable. We know what causes disease. We know what causes storms to form, we know what causes droughts and plagues; things that frightened people two to four thousand years ago, frightened them enough to make them think storms and droughts and plagues were punishments handed down from an angry and vindictive superbeing. And we know these things because we have used our minds rather than listening to superstitious stories handed down by our mothers and fathers.
If a particular religious group manages to acquire a forceful political presence, that's its right under a democratic republic. The opposition is free to try the same.
This I agree with, though I do not think it a good idea to stand idly by while religion gains influence over government. I do not wish to abolish religion; only see a separation between church and State maintained. People should be free to believe whatever they want, even though I might consider their beliefs ridiculous. Only when their religious beliefs are allowed to infiltrate the governing of the State, something I perceive to be happening in the US, that I object.
The Founders of America were very intelligent, well-read men with very naive ideals; ideals that served America well for a long time. I think it is obvious that they specifically excluded religion from State affairs and they did it for good reason, understanding the tyranny religion caused throughout history when it was allowed to interfere in government.
You have your views on religion and your views are fairly moderate. I think you are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to people who claim to believe in God.
As usual, Noel, I think our differences are not that great. The consitution makes only two references to religion: both negative. But the fact that half a dozen states had established churches at the time the constititon was adopted can neither be ignored nor underestimated. Jefferson's views are his views, worthy of respect, but not the law of the land. The attempts to teach ID have failed because of the courts - hardly an example of erosion. That's how things happen in a free society. I spent years writing about religion for my paper. Almost all of the people I dealt with were remarkably tolerant of those who disagreed with them. The most hostile types I encountered were those secularists declaiming that the theocracts are coming, the theocrats are coming. But they theocrats never show up. If I seem tolerant it's because I take my cue from the great Rabbi Gamaliel in the Acts of the Apostles: If something is from there is nothing anyone can do to to stop it. If it's from man it will perish in time like all things human. So many things take care of themselves. People shouldn't get bent out of shape so easily.
The attempts to teach ID have failed because of the courts - hardly an example of erosion.
The most recent attempt failed in Pennsylvania, but since 2004, a new wave of 'creation science' has stepped forward in several States. Kansas (where evolution was first stripped in 1999 from science textbooks before being reinstated), Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico have adopted "critical analysis of evolution," placing shackles on what science teachers can and cannot teach children about proven scientific theories. As Eugenie Scott of the National Center of Science Education put it:
"This is neo-creationism, trying to avoid the legal morass of trying to teach creationism overtly and slip it in through the backdoor."
In Georgia, latest attempts to lend credibility to creationism include wanting to label public school textbooks discussing evolution with a disclaimer warning that evolution is "a theory, not a fact."
Evolution has been proven. How it occurs is still open to debate, but that it occurs has been proven. Creationism or intelligent design or what have you has no basis in science. If I am reading you right, you do not advocate for any flavor of creationism to either replace or be given equal billing with evolution in science classrooms. I find it disturbing that President Bush has recently called for both evolution and creationism to be given equal billing in public schools since the theories are not equal.
So many things take care of themselves. People shouldn't get bent out of shape so easily.
I think you're right: change will come in any case and while there is a strong, puritanical streak in America's character that makes an appearance every so often, one of the things that I love about America is that she can change in unpredictable ways. In fact, she thrives on change in ways other places do not.
The last century was a contest between secular ideologies and we managed to get through it without too many nukes going off. This century, however, is shaping up to be a contest between religious ideologies. The difference between Communism and religious fundamentalism is that the latter appeals to the soul and not to the material things of this world. It is this appeal to the soul that makes religious extremism a far more dangerous threat than Communism - an ideology based on pure materialism - ever was.
Richard Nixon used to quote Whittaker Chambers (the Alger Hiss case) on Communism. In Beyond Peace (Nixon's last book), he quoted Chambers saying:
"Communism was a faith and that it was only as strong as the failure of all other faiths."
Sometimes I wonder if the plan isn't to counter fundamentalist Islam with fundamentalist Christianity, or, at least, if that isn't the Islamic fundamentalist plan, something I think we should be careful about falling into.
Islamic extremists want to hijack the Muslim religion to justify their crimes. Drawing the understandable urge to go after these criminals along religious lines is what the terrorists want us to do. It gives them a legitimacy for their crimes that they do not deserve and, wittingly or unwittingly, encourages the rest of the Muslim world to look at them as religious martyrs, rather than as the criminals that they really are.
I find it curious that it was the last century that saw a clash of secular ideologies and that it will be this century that sees a clash of religious ideologies. Logically, one would think it would have happened the other way around: first we shed our myths and superstitions and then we fight over economic and political ideas.
I really think the concern over Christian fundamentalism is utterly exaggerated. First, fundamentalism represents a tiny minority among Christians. When people use the term "fundamentalist" in this context they usually mean Evangelicals or "born-again" Christians. Neither of the latter groups is disposed to take scripture literally. As for the ID/Evolution debate, using religion to question science is obviously idiotic. But so is using science to dismiss religion. When Richard Dawkins declares that science disproves religion he in fact goes well beyong the evidence and is making, not a scientific statement, but a metaphysical one. I think both sides in this debate are wrong. I shall have more to say about evolution in a forthcoming review (that species have changed and developed over the eons seems to me not so much proved as self-evident).
I look forward to reading that post. I think you're right that evolution is self-evident, but then so many things that seem obvious in hindsight take us a very long time to come around to. One could say, for example, that it was self-evident that the earth is round, that as you took your fishing boat out onto the seas, you noticed a sort of curvy, roundy bit at the horizon and that logic told you as landmarks disappeared over the horizon, that in fact what was happening was that you were going around something, something very big, like, for example, a giant sphere. Over the centuries many sailors thought the world was round (Columbus being one of them) despite the teachings of the church.
As to the threat of Christian fundamentalism, I can understand America's desire to protect its national interest, but I get a little nervous when I hear George Bush refer to such things as the Axis of Evil, evil being a distinctly religious term.
It would make me feel personally more optimistic if this war on terrorism was framed in terms of rooting out terror cells in order to arrest the criminals who would do, or have done, murder, and arrest them, and that any religious inference, certainly emanating from our side, be resisted. Then there is no war - there is simply the capturing of criminals. I think that had it been handled this way immediately after 9/11, there would be much more active support for our cause among moderate Muslims who in my experience love the ideals represented by America.
The Vatican, meanwhile, is actively trying to cast the entire Muslim religion as a faith with ingrained fanatical tendencies that cannot be reasoned with, owing to Islam's claim that God gave specific instructions to one man in a dream, whereas Christianity represents more of a divine intervention from God and is therefore more adaptable. Take your pick: God incarnate walked the earth or God one night paid a visit to someone in a dream.
You can say the threat of Christian fundamentalism is way overblown. At the time I first encountered the idea, several years ago, I didn't think much of it, but I am beginning to become concerned. It is going to take a long time for the terrorist threat to be eliminated, assuming it ever is and having started it out on a religious footing, i.e., framing it in religious terms, we run the risk of gradually polarizing the world into religious camps; the idea that you will have to take a religious side: Christian or Islam. If you opt not to subscribe to Christianity or Islam, then you are a traitor on the devil's side and in your enemies camp. Over time it could descend into a war against the reasoning mind, and against free will, fought by both sides. This is not a situation I would like to see my children or my grandchildren stuck with when I have enjoyed the freedom in my life to speak my mind without fear of reprisal.
I am unaware of the church ever having insisted that the earth was flat. The view seems to have been accepted by every educated person long before Columbus (Aquinas casually refers to it in the early pages of the Summa - uses it to prove a point, in fact). I do not consider "evil" a religious term. But then I actually knew someone once who got back at a junkie who had stolen his stash by dipping the junkie's needle (this was back before the disposable ones) in dog shit. Junkie's arm had to be amputated because of gangrene. I don't think you need to get religion to think that's evil. Believe me, there are some bad dudes out there. Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Father Damien - all religious and all doers of good. Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- all atheists, and all doers of evil. Notice too how quickly atheist regimes were able to do evil and on how vast a scale. The church did plenty of bad things, but the non-religious not only played really good catch-up, but outdid the church in spades. How quickly the Church of Reason established a Reign of Terror.
• adjective 1 deeply immoral and malevolent. 2 embodying or associated with the devil. 3 extremely unpleasant: an evil smell.
• noun 1 extreme wickedness and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force. 2 something harmful or undesirable.
On the church ever having insisted that the earth was flat, there're so many examples in the Bible and throughout history, my favorite being Cecco d'Ascoli. He was burned alive by the church in 1327 for promoting the round earth myth.
I don't think we can overlook the tyranny of despots, but I also don't think we should forget the tyranny religion has caused throughout history. Mengele might have placed people in ovens; the church tied them to stakes and burned them alive. The Inquistion saw torture and murder inflicted by the church all across Europe for a very long time.
You call science a 'Church of Reason', but science is not based on faith; it is based on evidence and freely admits those things it has not yet come to understand, unlike religion which claims to understand all kinds of things, like what death brings, and expects us to believe them without a shred of proof. Science can also not be blamed for the rise of the last century's despots. Political ideology was what they preached, not science, and they lost, not because God triumphed, but because ordinary men and women fought, and often died, for freedom.
I can find no confirmation that Cecco d'Ascoli was burned at the stake for teaching that the Earth was round. Indeed, your link says that "it is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church, and that it became practically nonexistent among the educated during and after the Middle Ages." (Interestingly, the same comment goes on to mention the church's opposition to the heliocentric system. No doubt true -- but true also of the consensus among scientists at the time of Galileo. That consensus favored the Tychonic system devised by Tycho Brahe - for two reasons: One, Tycho was the greatest astronomer of his day; two, everybody - including Galileo -- assumed that celestial orbits were circular, and circular orbits could not be mathematically reconciled with heliocentrism. Galileo knew that, so he was being a little intellectually dishonest himself. Kepler, not Galileo, demonstrated - and did not just preach - heliocentrism.) To be precise, the church never burned anybody at the stake. It handed people over to the civil authorities, and they burned them at the stake (which is a good reason to keep church and state at a safe distance from each other - see, I do favor separation of church and state; I just don't think one has to expunge every religious reference out of public life). Reputable scholars put the death toll of the Inquisistion at fairly modest levels, certainly nothing remotely comparable to the 20th-cetury totalitarian regimes - or even to the French Revolution itself. (Though it worth remembering that, as Kenneth Patchen put it, "there are no proportions in death.") I did not call science a Church of Reason. I was referring, not to science, but to the Church of Reason established after the French Revolution.And science is based on faith more than you think. In fact, most of what we do is based on faith. If you acted only on the basis of certainty, you'd never walk out your door in the morning. And science has certainly had enough errors of its own in its history. The Tychonic system was harmless enough, bu the consensus against antisepsis to prevent puerperal fever, opposition to vaccination, etc., were not. George Washington died precisely because he got the best medical attention of his day. There is no human endeavor that does not run the risk of error and even abuse. And yes, science in time corrects its errors. So does the church.
I can find no confirmation that Cecco d'Ascoli was burned at the stake for teaching that the Earth was round.
Cecco d'Ascoli was officially sentenced by the Inquisition to be burned alive for trashing Dante's poetry, but this is thought by several historians to have been a trumped up charge since he was very outspoken on the subject of learning from nature, not scripture. Among other heresies, he believed that people were living on the other side of a spherical world which was a direct contradiction of scripture.
Andrew Dickson White, Professor of History at Cornell University, in his book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom gives a detailed account of the conflict between science and religion throughout the ages and has this to say about Cecco d'Ascoli:
"In Italy, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Church thought it necessary to deal with questions of this sort [the idea that the Earth was a sphere] by rack and fagot. In 1316 Peter of Abano, famous as a physician, having promulgated this with other obnoxious doctrines in science, only escaped the Inquisition by death; and in 1327 Cecco d'Ascoli, noted as an astronomer, was for this and other results of thought, which brought him under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna and burned alive at Florence. Nor was this all his punishment: Orcagna, whose terrible frescoes still exist on the walls of the Campo Santo at Pisa, immortalized Cecco by representing him in the flames of hell."
Joseph McCabe, a former Franciscan Monk, wrote in his book, The Story of Religious Controversy:
"By that time Cecco d'Ascoli, a professor at Bologna University, had taken up the mission, and was imploring men to turn from the sawdust of Scholasticism to the study of nature. On a faked charge he was handed over to the Inquisition and, in 1327, burned alive."
Samuel Lewis Morgan, a lifelong Pastor and dedicated student of the Bible, in his book, The Bible: A Progressive Revelation, wrote:
"In 1327 the astronomer Cecco d'Ascoli was driven from his professorship and burned alive at Florence for declaring his belief in the antipodes and for other heresies."
your link says that "it is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church, and that it became practically nonexistent among the educated during and after the Middle Ages."
It also lists Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabalaand as religious proponents of a flat Earth and says "many of the early Fathers were flat Earthers."
The Bible is also littered with references to a flat Earth. We can dispute each of the following references, but to me they read like the writers of the Bible without doubt believed in a flat Earth:
Isaiah 11:12; Ezekiel 7:2; Revelation 7:1; Daniel 4:10-11, 20; Matthew 4:8; Luke 4:5; Revelation 1:7; Deut. 5:8; 13:7; 28:64; 33:17; I Samuel 2:10; Psalms 48:10; 61:2; 65:5; 88(89):11-12; 98:3; 103:3; 104:2-3; 135; Proverbs 17:24; 30:4; Isaiah 5:2; 11:2; Jeremiah 25:33; Job 37:3; Revelation 20:8; Isaiah 40:22; Job 22:14; Amos 9:6; Matthew 24:31.
Close to where I am currently living in Wales is what is known as the Map of Mundi which "reveals how 13th century scholars interpreted the world in spiritual and geographical terms." It is a map of a flat Earth, a circle, not a sphere, with Rome at the center. If there was ever any doubt about what the Church in the Middle Ages believed with regard to the shape of the Earth, one need only glance at this map to confirm that they believed it was flat. It is obvious when you see the map that it is meant to represent a flat circle, not a sphere.
Interestingly, the same comment goes on to mention the church's opposition to the heliocentric system. No doubt true -- but true also of the consensus among scientists at the time of Galileo
It was the Church who tortured Galileo for his heliocentric views, not his scientific contemporaries.
To be precise, the church never burned anybody at the stake. It handed people over to the civil authorities, and they burned them at the stake.
I think it's fair to say the Church burned people at the stake since the burning took place on its orders.
Reputable scholars put the death toll of the Inquisistion at fairly modest levels, certainly nothing remotely comparable to the 20th-cetury totalitarian regimes - or even to the French Revolution itself.
We don't have accurate figures of how many people the Church persecuted and murdered during the Inquisition, but we know from accounts of the time that it was a frequent occurrence. I don't think anyone can argue that the time of the Inquisition was a nice time to be alive. While I agree that in subsequent periods of history more people were put to death than during the Inquisition, keep in mind that there were a lot more people alive, certainly in the 20th century, than there were during the Inquisition, and also that the methods of elimination were (and are) much more efficient than ever they were in the past.
And science is based on faith more than you think.
I think the difference is that science does not ask us to take it at its word. It offers evidence to support its claims. The Church does not. If religion were subjected to the rigorous proofs required under the scientific method, it would not stand up. The Church has always required that people follow it in blind faith for the very simple reason that it can offer no proof for its claims. This is not the first time in history that the Church has been questioned, but this time around it will have to bend because it does not have the option of terrorizing people into keeping the faith or of murdering those who disagree with them.
science in time corrects its errors. So does the church.
I'd be interested in a few examples of some important things the Catholic church admitted it got wrong. My understanding is that it has immunized itself from ever having to admit errors on anything important to it through its doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church, Papal Infallibility being one channel of it. To invoke it, all the Pope has to do is label whatever he says a solemn papal definition or ex cathedra teaching and the rest of us are expected to accept it as free from error for all time because something called the Holy Spirit "will not allow the Church to err in its belief or teaching." Anything labeled 'definitive' and 'binding' can never be wrong.
Well, I think we can agree that d'Ascoli was burned at the stake for what was regarded as heresy. That some church fathers - according to one source - were flat earthers does not take away from the fact that this was never the church's position. Also, as I say, Thomas Aquinas felt confident enough about it to use it as a proof. He certainly seemed to take the spherical earth for granted. It was, after all, a pretty old notion, observable by looking at the horizon from any seacoast. I did not say it was not the church who persecuted Galileo. I said that its positon was the accepted position among scientists of that day - and Galileo's was not - and Galileo held his position while knowing full well that there were mathematical problems that he could not resolve. I don't approve of what happened to Galileo. I merely say that it is a bit more complex than it is usually presented. (Owen Barfield is good on this.) Apparently, your epistemology admits only provable things as being true. But many true things are not provable. You cannot "prove" that you exist. Yet you do exist. You have an immediate experience of yourself. Now, if people otherwise sane and otherwise honest have experiences that they regard as transcendent, what would you have them do? Deny what they have experienced because it cannot be proved? Say that it is not a "true" experience because it does not come up to "scientific" standards? No one has ever seen a quantum. It can only be inferred, not observed. And science confers no moral certitude - Mengele was a scientist, too. As long as science and relgion and politics and art remain human activities they will be subject to human limitations. Science is not the only source of truth. I think poetry is as great a source of truth. Keep reading it and you may agree with me. Also, if you get a chance, read the piece about Auden that I linked to this morning. I am rather beat just now - have been writing all day.
You mentioned this before and I probably should have asked you what you meant. I can prove that I exist. Unlike God, I show up in person. ;-)
Now, if people otherwise sane and otherwise honest have experiences that they regard as transcendent, what would you have them do? Deny what they have experienced because it cannot be proved? Say that it is not a "true" experience because it does not come up to "scientific" standards?
I think it reasonable to ask them to analyse it, maybe ask them what they had for dinner the previous night. I'm kidding. I agree there are aspects of life that we do not currently understand, but this doesn't mean it is due to a God. As mentioned in another thread: if one man says he experienced God in some way, it is a revelation to him alone. When he tells others about it, it becomes hearsay. I am free to believe or disbelieve him and when I hear people saying they regularly experience God and that God tells them things, I invariably exercise my right to disbelieve them. This is not to discredit a person's personal experience - they may well be sensing or experiencing something - only that the feelings they are experiencing are not necessarily a manifestation of 'God'.
No one has ever seen a quantum. It can only be inferred, not observed.
This is true, but when you look up into the sky, you cannot see a black hole through any telescope either. It is only by observing the effects of the enormous gravitational force exerted by the black hole on the surrounding stars that we can figure out where it is. We can also figure out where a black hole is by photographing levels of radiation our eyes cannot see.
It is the same with Quantum Mechanics. It is the behavior of atomic particles that allows us to understand the properties and behavior of subatomic particles. When you look at your arm, you cannot see the tiny cells that make up your skin anymore than you can see the miniature dustmites crawling on the tiny hairs of your arm. This does not mean that they are not there. People will say “Aha, just because you can’t see God doesn’t mean God isn’t there.” What makes all the difference is being able to test our theories through the use of our reasoning minds, whether it’s through using the microscope or the telescope or the very advanced equipment used to predict the mass of subatomic particles.
God is just an idea. It’s not even a theory since a theory requires evidence to support it. The idea of God does not come with evidence. Science may not currently be able to show me a pretty picture of a subatomic particle, but if I can be shown the math and the observations that support the theory for their existence, I’ll take that over several thousand-year-old fables about a superbeing no one has ever been able to prove the existence of.
And science confers no moral certitude - Mengele was a scientist, too.
You're right. We have to provide our own moral certitude. Mengele was a scientist, but he was also a very cruel man, but knew when ordinary people found out what he had been up to, he would be killed, and he ran for his life.
We do not need a religion to protect us from ourselves, or from the worst manifestation of ourselves. It is up to us to do that and it comes naturally to us to want to do that. We are all born with a highly developed sense of moral justice that our parents help to hone in raising us.
I have heard the view from some atheists that since there is no God, we are free to do whatever the hell we want. What does it matter? These people have two things in common. First, they tend to be extremely selfish, and second, in my experience they are in the minority.
Science is not the only source of truth. I think poetry is as great a source of truth. Keep reading it and you may agree with me.
From my limited exposure so far, I agree that poetry can be a beautiful expression of truth and a source of great inspiration.
That's an interesting discussion they are having over there. I couldn't help but throw in the following in response to a comment from the blog host, Eric Scheie:
ReplyDeleteMight the American founders (reflecting on the religious wars between Christians) have taken the intermittently applied Roman idea of religious tolerance, and then improved on it?
Perhaps, though I think the Founders were very clear in wanting to maintain a separation between Church and State, a separation that is currently being eroded.
As John Danforth, the moderate Christian and former Missouri Senator, put it:
“Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians.”
If your interest is in raising the standards of society, which have certainly been descending over the past 50 years or so, then I am completely in your corner. But I think what you term the restoration of classical values needs to come from a sense of personal responsibility, rather than the outside influences of government or church. And this is what we need to teach our children: personal responsibility. Not I tripped on your sidewalk so I can make a quick buck suing you. Not I'll lie to you, get you pregnant and then dump you, or divorce you in five years when you accidentally smash my high-school basketball trophy. Not I'll be nice to you because it's the Christian thing to do, instead of it's the right thing to do.
You can have freedom with responsibility and you can have it without interference from the Church or the State, but not if you do not accept the responsiblilty that comes with being free which is that you are required by the very nature of freedom to govern yourself, and that you can be trusted with this responsibility because freedom is something you treasure.
I certainly am in agreement on the personal responsibility issue. And I certainly agree that you ought not to need either state or church to coerce you to accept responsibility - or even provide a rationale for it.
ReplyDeleteBut, regarding this notion of separation of church and state in America, it is actually one of the most misunderstood things about the country. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a church by Congress. That's it. That is precisely all that it says on the matter. No established national church a la the Church of England. The Constitution does not prohibit the states from establishing churches, however, and at the time the Constitution was adopted at least half a dozen states had established churches. Congregationalism, for instance, was not disestablished in Massachusetts until 1834. There really is no evidence whatsoever that the founders would have favored the sort of separation that has been lately in fashion. And as for such separation being eroded currently, the evidence, please. By which I mean what statute has been passed, what Supreme Court decision has been handed down, that officially erodes this separation? I submit that there is none. I don't happen to agree with Danforth's opinion in this matter, but even if it were true, so what? If a particular religious group manages to acquire a forceful political presence, that's its right under a democratic republic. The opposition is free to try the same.
There really is no evidence whatsoever that the founders would have favored the sort of separation that has been lately in fashion.
ReplyDeleteI think there is no question that the Founders despised the idea of church involvement in government affairs. Nowhere in the Constitution, for example, is there a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." and in Article VI, Section 3, "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
These words are not in the Constitution, but I think they show clearly Jefferson's and the Founder's intent.
James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
John Adams wrote in his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. Ben Franklin in his autobiography clearly reveals his skepticism of Christianity.
I think there is no doubt that the Founders intended the United States to be a secular government, divorced from religion, all religions, not just Christianity.
And as for such separation being eroded currently, the evidence, please.
One example that springs to mind is in public education where certain States have used the courts to try to have creationism taught in science classrooms with the same credibility as proven scientific theories such as evolution.
Though I think religions should be taught in schools as a valuable part of our history, the myth of creationism cannot be considered scientific and does not belong in a science classroom, except perhaps to say this is what we used to believe and this is what we think now for these reasons ... To give creationism equal billing with evolution is preposterous. To put creationsism forward as a credible theory ignores what we have learned in the last two millenia.
We no longer look up at the night sky, see the stars and wonder what they are. We no longer look at the moon and say that it is a representation of an unattainable dream: it is no longer unattainable. We know what causes disease. We know what causes storms to form, we know what causes droughts and plagues; things that frightened people two to four thousand years ago, frightened them enough to make them think storms and droughts and plagues were punishments handed down from an angry and vindictive superbeing. And we know these things because we have used our minds rather than listening to superstitious stories handed down by our mothers and fathers.
If a particular religious group manages to acquire a forceful political presence, that's its right under a democratic republic. The opposition is free to try the same.
This I agree with, though I do not think it a good idea to stand idly by while religion gains influence over government. I do not wish to abolish religion; only see a separation between church and State maintained. People should be free to believe whatever they want, even though I might consider their beliefs ridiculous. Only when their religious beliefs are allowed to infiltrate the governing of the State, something I perceive to be happening in the US, that I object.
The Founders of America were very intelligent, well-read men with very naive ideals; ideals that served America well for a long time. I think it is obvious that they specifically excluded religion from State affairs and they did it for good reason, understanding the tyranny religion caused throughout history when it was allowed to interfere in government.
You have your views on religion and your views are fairly moderate. I think you are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to people who claim to believe in God.
As usual, Noel, I think our differences are not that great. The consitution makes only two references to religion: both negative. But the fact that half a dozen states had established churches at the time the constititon was adopted can neither be ignored nor underestimated. Jefferson's views are his views, worthy of respect, but not the law of the land. The attempts to teach ID have failed because of the courts - hardly an example of erosion. That's how things happen in a free society. I spent years writing about religion for my paper. Almost all of the people I dealt with were remarkably tolerant of those who disagreed with them. The most hostile types I encountered were those secularists declaiming that the theocracts are coming, the theocrats are coming. But they theocrats never show up. If I seem tolerant it's because I take my cue from the great Rabbi Gamaliel in the Acts of the Apostles: If something is from there is nothing anyone can do to to stop it. If it's from man it will perish in time like all things human. So many things take care of themselves. People shouldn't get bent out of shape so easily.
ReplyDeleteThe attempts to teach ID have failed because of the courts - hardly an example of erosion.
ReplyDeleteThe most recent attempt failed in Pennsylvania, but since 2004, a new wave of 'creation science' has stepped forward in several States. Kansas (where evolution was first stripped in 1999 from science textbooks before being reinstated), Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico have adopted "critical analysis of evolution," placing shackles on what science teachers can and cannot teach children about proven scientific theories. As Eugenie Scott of the National Center of Science Education put it:
"This is neo-creationism, trying to avoid the legal morass of trying to teach creationism overtly and slip it in through the backdoor."
In Georgia, latest attempts to lend credibility to creationism include wanting to label public school textbooks discussing evolution with a disclaimer warning that evolution is "a theory, not a fact."
Evolution has been proven. How it occurs is still open to debate, but that it occurs has been proven. Creationism or intelligent design or what have you has no basis in science. If I am reading you right, you do not advocate for any flavor of creationism to either replace or be given equal billing with evolution in science classrooms. I find it disturbing that President Bush has recently called for both evolution and creationism to be given equal billing in public schools since the theories are not equal.
So many things take care of themselves. People shouldn't get bent out of shape so easily.
I think you're right: change will come in any case and while there is a strong, puritanical streak in America's character that makes an appearance every so often, one of the things that I love about America is that she can change in unpredictable ways. In fact, she thrives on change in ways other places do not.
The last century was a contest between secular ideologies and we managed to get through it without too many nukes going off. This century, however, is shaping up to be a contest between religious ideologies. The difference between Communism and religious fundamentalism is that the latter appeals to the soul and not to the material things of this world. It is this appeal to the soul that makes religious extremism a far more dangerous threat than Communism - an ideology based on pure materialism - ever was.
Richard Nixon used to quote Whittaker Chambers (the Alger Hiss case) on Communism. In Beyond Peace (Nixon's last book), he quoted Chambers saying:
"Communism was a faith and that it was only as strong as the failure of all other faiths."
Sometimes I wonder if the plan isn't to counter fundamentalist Islam with fundamentalist Christianity, or, at least, if that isn't the Islamic fundamentalist plan, something I think we should be careful about falling into.
Islamic extremists want to hijack the Muslim religion to justify their crimes. Drawing the understandable urge to go after these criminals along religious lines is what the terrorists want us to do. It gives them a legitimacy for their crimes that they do not deserve and, wittingly or unwittingly, encourages the rest of the Muslim world to look at them as religious martyrs, rather than as the criminals that they really are.
I find it curious that it was the last century that saw a clash of secular ideologies and that it will be this century that sees a clash of religious ideologies. Logically, one would think it would have happened the other way around: first we shed our myths and superstitions and then we fight over economic and political ideas.
I really think the concern over Christian fundamentalism is utterly exaggerated. First, fundamentalism represents a tiny minority among Christians. When people use the term "fundamentalist" in this context they usually mean Evangelicals or "born-again" Christians. Neither of the latter groups is disposed to take scripture literally.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ID/Evolution debate, using religion to question science is obviously idiotic. But so is using science to dismiss religion. When Richard Dawkins declares that science disproves religion he in fact goes well beyong the evidence and is making, not a scientific statement, but a metaphysical one. I think both sides in this debate are wrong. I shall have more to say about evolution in a forthcoming review (that species have changed and developed over the eons seems to me not so much proved as self-evident).
I look forward to reading that post. I think you're right that evolution is self-evident, but then so many things that seem obvious in hindsight take us a very long time to come around to. One could say, for example, that it was self-evident that the earth is round, that as you took your fishing boat out onto the seas, you noticed a sort of curvy, roundy bit at the horizon and that logic told you as landmarks disappeared over the horizon, that in fact what was happening was that you were going around something, something very big, like, for example, a giant sphere. Over the centuries many sailors thought the world was round (Columbus being one of them) despite the teachings of the church.
ReplyDeleteAs to the threat of Christian fundamentalism, I can understand America's desire to protect its national interest, but I get a little nervous when I hear George Bush refer to such things as the Axis of Evil, evil being a distinctly religious term.
It would make me feel personally more optimistic if this war on terrorism was framed in terms of rooting out terror cells in order to arrest the criminals who would do, or have done, murder, and arrest them, and that any religious inference, certainly emanating from our side, be resisted. Then there is no war - there is simply the capturing of criminals. I think that had it been handled this way immediately after 9/11, there would be much more active support for our cause among moderate Muslims who in my experience love the ideals represented by America.
The Vatican, meanwhile, is actively trying to cast the entire Muslim religion as a faith with ingrained fanatical tendencies that cannot be reasoned with, owing to Islam's claim that God gave specific instructions to one man in a dream, whereas Christianity represents more of a divine intervention from God and is therefore more adaptable. Take your pick: God incarnate walked the earth or God one night paid a visit to someone in a dream.
You can say the threat of Christian fundamentalism is way overblown. At the time I first encountered the idea, several years ago, I didn't think much of it, but I am beginning to become concerned. It is going to take a long time for the terrorist threat to be eliminated, assuming it ever is and having started it out on a religious footing, i.e., framing it in religious terms, we run the risk of gradually polarizing the world into religious camps; the idea that you will have to take a religious side: Christian or Islam. If you opt not to subscribe to Christianity or Islam, then you are a traitor on the devil's side and in your enemies camp. Over time it could descend into a war against the reasoning mind, and against free will, fought by both sides. This is not a situation I would like to see my children or my grandchildren stuck with when I have enjoyed the freedom in my life to speak my mind without fear of reprisal.
I am unaware of the church ever having insisted that the earth was flat. The view seems to have been accepted by every educated person long before Columbus (Aquinas casually refers to it in the early pages of the Summa - uses it to prove a point, in fact).
ReplyDeleteI do not consider "evil" a religious term. But then I actually knew someone once who got back at a junkie who had stolen his stash by dipping the junkie's needle (this was back before the disposable ones) in dog shit. Junkie's arm had to be amputated because of gangrene.
I don't think you need to get religion to think that's evil. Believe me, there are some bad dudes out there.
Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Father Damien - all religious and all doers of good.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- all atheists, and all doers of evil. Notice too how quickly atheist regimes were able to do evil and on how vast a scale. The church did plenty of bad things, but the non-religious not only played really good catch-up, but outdid the church in spades. How quickly the Church of Reason established a Reign of Terror.
We're both right. From the Oxford Dictionary:
ReplyDeleteevil
• adjective 1 deeply immoral and malevolent. 2 embodying or associated with the devil. 3 extremely unpleasant: an evil smell.
• noun 1 extreme wickedness and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force. 2 something harmful or undesirable.
On the church ever having insisted that the earth was flat, there're so many examples in the Bible and throughout history, my favorite being Cecco d'Ascoli. He was burned alive by the church in 1327 for promoting the round earth myth.
I don't think we can overlook the tyranny of despots, but I also don't think we should forget the tyranny religion has caused throughout history. Mengele might have placed people in ovens; the church tied them to stakes and burned them alive. The Inquistion saw torture and murder inflicted by the church all across Europe for a very long time.
You call science a 'Church of Reason', but science is not based on faith; it is based on evidence and freely admits those things it has not yet come to understand, unlike religion which claims to understand all kinds of things, like what death brings, and expects us to believe them without a shred of proof. Science can also not be blamed for the rise of the last century's despots. Political ideology was what they preached, not science, and they lost, not because God triumphed, but because ordinary men and women fought, and often died, for freedom.
I can find no confirmation that Cecco d'Ascoli was burned at the stake for teaching that the Earth was round. Indeed, your link says that "it is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church, and that it became practically nonexistent among the educated during and after the Middle Ages." (Interestingly, the same comment goes on to mention the church's opposition to the heliocentric system. No doubt true -- but true also of the consensus among scientists at the time of Galileo. That consensus favored the Tychonic system devised by Tycho Brahe - for two reasons: One, Tycho was the greatest astronomer of his day; two, everybody - including Galileo -- assumed that celestial orbits were circular, and circular orbits could not be mathematically reconciled with heliocentrism. Galileo knew that, so he was being a little intellectually dishonest himself. Kepler, not Galileo, demonstrated - and did not just preach - heliocentrism.)
ReplyDeleteTo be precise, the church never burned anybody at the stake. It handed people over to the civil authorities, and they burned them at the stake (which is a good reason to keep church and state at a safe distance from each other - see, I do favor separation of church and state; I just don't think one has to expunge every religious reference out of public life). Reputable scholars put the death toll of the Inquisistion at fairly modest levels, certainly nothing remotely comparable to the 20th-cetury totalitarian regimes - or even to the French Revolution itself. (Though it worth remembering that, as Kenneth Patchen put it, "there are no proportions in death.")
I did not call science a Church of Reason. I was referring, not to science, but to the Church of Reason established after the French Revolution.And science is based on faith more than you think. In fact, most of what we do is based on faith. If you acted only on the basis of certainty, you'd never walk out your door in the morning. And science has certainly had enough errors of its own in its history. The Tychonic system was harmless enough, bu the consensus against antisepsis to prevent puerperal fever, opposition to vaccination, etc., were not. George Washington died precisely because he got the best medical attention of his day.
There is no human endeavor that does not run the risk of error and even abuse. And yes, science in time corrects its errors. So does the church.
I can find no confirmation that Cecco d'Ascoli was burned at the stake for teaching that the Earth was round.
ReplyDeleteCecco d'Ascoli was officially sentenced by the Inquisition to be burned alive for trashing Dante's poetry, but this is thought by several historians to have been a trumped up charge since he was very outspoken on the subject of learning from nature, not scripture. Among other heresies, he believed that people were living on the other side of a spherical world which was a direct contradiction of scripture.
Andrew Dickson White, Professor of History at Cornell University, in his book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom gives a detailed account of the conflict between science and religion throughout the ages and has this to say about Cecco d'Ascoli:
"In Italy, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Church thought it necessary to deal with questions of this sort [the idea that the Earth was a sphere] by rack and fagot. In 1316 Peter of Abano, famous as a physician, having promulgated this with other obnoxious doctrines in science, only escaped the Inquisition by death; and in 1327 Cecco d'Ascoli, noted as an astronomer, was for this and other results of thought, which brought him under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna and burned alive at Florence. Nor was this all his punishment: Orcagna, whose terrible frescoes still exist on the walls of the Campo Santo at Pisa, immortalized Cecco by representing him in the flames of hell."
Joseph McCabe, a former Franciscan Monk, wrote in his book, The Story of Religious Controversy:
"By that time Cecco d'Ascoli, a professor at Bologna University, had taken up the mission, and was imploring men to turn from the sawdust of Scholasticism to the study of nature. On a faked charge he was handed over to the Inquisition and, in 1327, burned alive."
Samuel Lewis Morgan, a lifelong Pastor and dedicated student of the Bible, in his book, The Bible: A Progressive Revelation, wrote:
"In 1327 the astronomer Cecco d'Ascoli was driven from his professorship and burned alive at Florence for declaring his belief in the antipodes and for other heresies."
your link says that "it is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church, and that it became practically nonexistent among the educated during and after the Middle Ages."
It also lists Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabalaand as religious proponents of a flat Earth and says "many of the early Fathers were flat Earthers."
The Bible is also littered with references to a flat Earth. We can dispute each of the following references, but to me they read like the writers of the Bible without doubt believed in a flat Earth:
Isaiah 11:12; Ezekiel 7:2; Revelation 7:1; Daniel 4:10-11, 20; Matthew 4:8; Luke 4:5; Revelation 1:7; Deut. 5:8; 13:7; 28:64; 33:17; I Samuel 2:10; Psalms 48:10; 61:2; 65:5; 88(89):11-12; 98:3; 103:3; 104:2-3; 135; Proverbs 17:24; 30:4; Isaiah 5:2; 11:2; Jeremiah 25:33; Job 37:3; Revelation 20:8; Isaiah 40:22; Job 22:14; Amos 9:6; Matthew 24:31.
Close to where I am currently living in Wales is what is known as the Map of Mundi which "reveals how 13th century scholars interpreted the world in spiritual and geographical terms." It is a map of a flat Earth, a circle, not a sphere, with Rome at the center. If there was ever any doubt about what the Church in the Middle Ages believed with regard to the shape of the Earth, one need only glance at this map to confirm that they believed it was flat. It is obvious when you see the map that it is meant to represent a flat circle, not a sphere.
Interestingly, the same comment goes on to mention the church's opposition to the heliocentric system. No doubt true -- but true also of the consensus among scientists at the time of Galileo
It was the Church who tortured Galileo for his heliocentric views, not his scientific contemporaries.
To be precise, the church never burned anybody at the stake. It handed people over to the civil authorities, and they burned them at the stake.
I think it's fair to say the Church burned people at the stake since the burning took place on its orders.
Reputable scholars put the death toll of the Inquisistion at fairly modest levels, certainly nothing remotely comparable to the 20th-cetury totalitarian regimes - or even to the French Revolution itself.
We don't have accurate figures of how many people the Church persecuted and murdered during the Inquisition, but we know from accounts of the time that it was a frequent occurrence. I don't think anyone can argue that the time of the Inquisition was a nice time to be alive. While I agree that in subsequent periods of history more people were put to death than during the Inquisition, keep in mind that there were a lot more people alive, certainly in the 20th century, than there were during the Inquisition, and also that the methods of elimination were (and are) much more efficient than ever they were in the past.
And science is based on faith more than you think.
I think the difference is that science does not ask us to take it at its word. It offers evidence to support its claims. The Church does not. If religion were subjected to the rigorous proofs required under the scientific method, it would not stand up. The Church has always required that people follow it in blind faith for the very simple reason that it can offer no proof for its claims. This is not the first time in history that the Church has been questioned, but this time around it will have to bend because it does not have the option of terrorizing people into keeping the faith or of murdering those who disagree with them.
science in time corrects its errors. So does the church.
I'd be interested in a few examples of some important things the Catholic church admitted it got wrong. My understanding is that it has immunized itself from ever having to admit errors on anything important to it through its doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church, Papal Infallibility being one channel of it. To invoke it, all the Pope has to do is label whatever he says a solemn papal definition or ex cathedra teaching and the rest of us are expected to accept it as free from error for all time because something called the Holy Spirit "will not allow the Church to err in its belief or teaching." Anything labeled 'definitive' and 'binding' can never be wrong.
Frank, in case you hadn't guessed, the previous comment is mine.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think we can agree that d'Ascoli was burned at the stake for what was regarded as heresy. That some church fathers - according to one source - were flat earthers does not take away from the fact that this was never the church's position. Also, as I say, Thomas Aquinas felt confident enough about it to use it as a proof. He certainly seemed to take the spherical earth for granted. It was, after all, a pretty old notion, observable by looking at the horizon from any seacoast.
ReplyDeleteI did not say it was not the church who persecuted Galileo. I said that its positon was the accepted position among scientists of that day - and Galileo's was not - and Galileo held his position while knowing full well that there were mathematical problems that he could not resolve. I don't approve of what happened to Galileo. I merely say that it is a bit more complex than it is usually presented. (Owen Barfield is good on this.)
Apparently, your epistemology admits only provable things as being true. But many true things are not provable. You cannot "prove" that you exist. Yet you do exist. You have an immediate experience of yourself. Now, if people otherwise sane and otherwise honest have experiences that they regard as transcendent, what would you have them do? Deny what they have experienced because it cannot be proved? Say that it is not a "true" experience because it does not come up to "scientific" standards? No one has ever seen a quantum. It can only be inferred, not observed. And science confers no moral certitude - Mengele was a scientist, too.
As long as science and relgion and politics and art remain human activities they will be subject to human limitations. Science is not the only source of truth. I think poetry is as great a source of truth. Keep reading it and you may agree with me. Also, if you get a chance, read the piece about Auden that I linked to this morning. I am rather beat just now - have been writing all day.
You cannot "prove" that you exist.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned this before and I probably should have asked you what you meant. I can prove that I exist. Unlike God, I show up in person. ;-)
Now, if people otherwise sane and otherwise honest have experiences that they regard as transcendent, what would you have them do? Deny what they have experienced because it cannot be proved? Say that it is not a "true" experience because it does not come up to "scientific" standards?
I think it reasonable to ask them to analyse it, maybe ask them what they had for dinner the previous night. I'm kidding. I agree there are aspects of life that we do not currently understand, but this doesn't mean it is due to a God. As mentioned in another thread: if one man says he experienced God in some way, it is a revelation to him alone. When he tells others about it, it becomes hearsay. I am free to believe or disbelieve him and when I hear people saying they regularly experience God and that God tells them things, I invariably exercise my right to disbelieve them. This is not to discredit a person's personal experience - they may well be sensing or experiencing something - only that the feelings they are experiencing are not necessarily a manifestation of 'God'.
No one has ever seen a quantum. It can only be inferred, not observed.
This is true, but when you look up into the sky, you cannot see a black hole through any telescope either. It is only by observing the effects of the enormous gravitational force exerted by the black hole on the surrounding stars that we can figure out where it is. We can also figure out where a black hole is by photographing levels of radiation our eyes cannot see.
It is the same with Quantum Mechanics. It is the behavior of atomic particles that allows us to understand the properties and behavior of subatomic particles. When you look at your arm, you cannot see the tiny cells that make up your skin anymore than you can see the miniature dustmites crawling on the tiny hairs of your arm. This does not mean that they are not there. People will say “Aha, just because you can’t see God doesn’t mean God isn’t there.” What makes all the difference is being able to test our theories through the use of our reasoning minds, whether it’s through using the microscope or the telescope or the very advanced equipment used to predict the mass of subatomic particles.
God is just an idea. It’s not even a theory since a theory requires evidence to support it. The idea of God does not come with evidence. Science may not currently be able to show me a pretty picture of a subatomic particle, but if I can be shown the math and the observations that support the theory for their existence, I’ll take that over several thousand-year-old fables about a superbeing no one has ever been able to prove the existence of.
And science confers no moral certitude - Mengele was a scientist, too.
You're right. We have to provide our own moral certitude. Mengele was a scientist, but he was also a very cruel man, but knew when ordinary people found out what he had been up to, he would be killed, and he ran for his life.
We do not need a religion to protect us from ourselves, or from the worst manifestation of ourselves. It is up to us to do that and it comes naturally to us to want to do that. We are all born with a highly developed sense of moral justice that our parents help to hone in raising us.
I have heard the view from some atheists that since there is no God, we are free to do whatever the hell we want. What does it matter? These people have two things in common. First, they tend to be extremely selfish, and second, in my experience they are in the minority.
Science is not the only source of truth. I think poetry is as great a source of truth. Keep reading it and you may agree with me.
From my limited exposure so far, I agree that poetry can be a beautiful expression of truth and a source of great inspiration.