Would You Transgress To Assist An...
Motoring10 mins ago
In This Science Age, Do People Have Faith In An Invisible God Almighty?
83 Answers
If they have no faith in Him now, could we expect a sudden burst of faith in the near future, when the worst comes and they are obliged to acknowledge their own helplessness and that of modern science?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yeah, right. Just what the world needs at this space in time. 'Scientists' working feverishly and faithfully day and night on behalf of their invisible 'friend' in an effort to fulfil His prophecy of Armageddon. The unwholesome marriage between faith and science has invariably proven to provide the gateway to some of the most unsavoury dangerously destructive deadly difficult to eradicate and fully neutralise cocktails ever devised, no less so when delivered fully assembled into the hands of equally morally prehistoric savages.
Hi I think religion is detrimental to humans. It poisons their mind. How can it be good if you can kill in the name of a god that doesn't exist. Or carry out rape and murder just to be forgives when you repent.
I used to believe in god just like I dd the tooth fairy. But when I developed a capacity to think and reason I lost my faith. Some people are too stupid or have a metal unbalance they can fill with their fairy tails.
I used to believe in god just like I dd the tooth fairy. But when I developed a capacity to think and reason I lost my faith. Some people are too stupid or have a metal unbalance they can fill with their fairy tails.
/many scientists are religious / Can you give some figures to substantiate that statement Khandro? Percentages would be nice.
If many scientists are closet theists ( they may be agnostics but that doesn't make them theists) then it supports my argument that this is not an 'age of scence'. You are being typically non-scientist, scrambling to find anything to support the point of view with which you are most comfortable whilst ignoring anything that contradicts that viewpoint.
If many scientists are closet theists ( they may be agnostics but that doesn't make them theists) then it supports my argument that this is not an 'age of scence'. You are being typically non-scientist, scrambling to find anything to support the point of view with which you are most comfortable whilst ignoring anything that contradicts that viewpoint.
jomifl; I did not say that many scientists are atheists in the day and "theists" after work I said, Or rather I quoted Sheldrake as saying that "a lot of scientists hold atheist 'beliefs' to their scientific cohort, but many are less resolute after they have finished the day job."* Which may include agnosticism or other positions.
*I do not have 'The Science Delusion' here with me now but that is my paraphrase of what he says, and I suspect there is truth in it. Many people find in the modern climate of opinion it easier to appear to subscribe to atheism because they do not wish to enter the tedious arguments forwarded on this site which is largely not to do not with a spiritual dimension to life, but to misunderstanding of what God is, or might be.
*I do not have 'The Science Delusion' here with me now but that is my paraphrase of what he says, and I suspect there is truth in it. Many people find in the modern climate of opinion it easier to appear to subscribe to atheism because they do not wish to enter the tedious arguments forwarded on this site which is largely not to do not with a spiritual dimension to life, but to misunderstanding of what God is, or might be.
@ Khandro. Must be such a drag for you, refuting all this tedium. Tedium is where you find it - I suspect you are using the word less to describe the actual arguments themselves, and more as part of your need to insult those with non-belief.
It's not as if these "tedious" arguments on AB are always brought up by non-believers, after all.At least as many are introduced by believers and the devout/spiritual. You yourself have started topics on atheism/belief, so you cannot find the arguments that "tedious".
And, at the end of the day, if you find such discussions a drag, why do you bother yourself to contribute? Is it out of a desire to offer the rest of us poor benighted ones the "benefit" of your wisdom?
Anyway - I have no idea how many scientists have a belief in a god or not- it really does not matter to me, provided they are not trying to teach stuff that is plainly at odds with observation and evidence. I am not sure that quoting Sheldrake helps your argument at all, personally; what I have read of his studies and interpretations leads me to conclude he attempts to configure observations and evidence to fit his own narrative more than anything else.
Regardless- I would be interested to know whether his contention that "many" (many? or some?) scientists are "closet theists" - describing themselves as non-believers during the day because they worried about ridicule from colleagues, but admitting their faith when they are off the clock - is supposition on his part, or whether he has any evidence. As I say, not that it matters too much, but it might be interesting.
Most of the studies suggest that religiosity is inversely proportional to education level especially in science - so the greater your level of educational attainment, the less likely you are to hold a belief in a deity. As an example, A 2009 Pew Study polled the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on belief in a higher power. Of those polled, 51% thought there was a higher power, compared with 95% of the general american public. Amongst those members of the National Academy of Science, the difference was even greater; Of those polled by discipline, the level of belief was around 5% in biologists and 7% in physics.
Polls can be tricky to interpret, for sure, but the level of difference displayed here is pretty striking.
It's not as if these "tedious" arguments on AB are always brought up by non-believers, after all.At least as many are introduced by believers and the devout/spiritual. You yourself have started topics on atheism/belief, so you cannot find the arguments that "tedious".
And, at the end of the day, if you find such discussions a drag, why do you bother yourself to contribute? Is it out of a desire to offer the rest of us poor benighted ones the "benefit" of your wisdom?
Anyway - I have no idea how many scientists have a belief in a god or not- it really does not matter to me, provided they are not trying to teach stuff that is plainly at odds with observation and evidence. I am not sure that quoting Sheldrake helps your argument at all, personally; what I have read of his studies and interpretations leads me to conclude he attempts to configure observations and evidence to fit his own narrative more than anything else.
Regardless- I would be interested to know whether his contention that "many" (many? or some?) scientists are "closet theists" - describing themselves as non-believers during the day because they worried about ridicule from colleagues, but admitting their faith when they are off the clock - is supposition on his part, or whether he has any evidence. As I say, not that it matters too much, but it might be interesting.
Most of the studies suggest that religiosity is inversely proportional to education level especially in science - so the greater your level of educational attainment, the less likely you are to hold a belief in a deity. As an example, A 2009 Pew Study polled the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on belief in a higher power. Of those polled, 51% thought there was a higher power, compared with 95% of the general american public. Amongst those members of the National Academy of Science, the difference was even greater; Of those polled by discipline, the level of belief was around 5% in biologists and 7% in physics.
Polls can be tricky to interpret, for sure, but the level of difference displayed here is pretty striking.
Science figures out the puzzles and explains how things work and where we all came from but doesn't necessarily rule out the existence of any gods. The religious texts are almost certainly fiction and contain far too many myths and unrepeated miracles to be taken seriously but understanding the possible creation of everything from a big bang doesn't conclude that a god of some sort played a part in that. All that energy arising from the big bang must have come from somewhere, isn't one of the basic principles of physics that energy can't be created or destroyed?
Khandro, //they do not wish to enter the tedious arguments forwarded on this site which is largely not to do not with a spiritual dimension to life, but to misunderstanding of what God is, or might be.//
I realise you’ll probably ignore me – again – but you consistently attempt to give the impression that you have some sort of greater insight than the rest of us, but you never explain what your understanding of ‘God’ is. If anything is tedious, that is. Rather than continually post in this deliberately evasive and mystical manner, an explanation might just elicit some sensible discussion.
I realise you’ll probably ignore me – again – but you consistently attempt to give the impression that you have some sort of greater insight than the rest of us, but you never explain what your understanding of ‘God’ is. If anything is tedious, that is. Rather than continually post in this deliberately evasive and mystical manner, an explanation might just elicit some sensible discussion.
ck1 -- yes, but then the basic principles of Physics are also only held to apply while the Universe exists. In some sense, it created its own laws. What happened "before" is either not a valid question because there was no before, or doesn't matter too much because the Big Bang acts as a kind of information firewall, stopping us from seeing into the "before". As you can imagine, these sorts of questions very much stray into Metaphysics.
Jim, yes that's a good point, but there is only no 'before' in terms of our own understanding of time, as for whether our big bang was just a tiny spark emanating from some other event I guess we'll never know - personally I don't believe in god but I do think there are still a lot of questions that are still yet to be answered that, as far as I'm concerned, science can't necessarily answer
and the Apocalypse of St John the Divine certainly doesnt inhibit thought.
GL you say: "could we expect a sudden burst of faith in the near future...? "
well I suppose we could, but the whole thing is a bit apocalyptic innit ?
Rev 1:3 is misquoted again I am afraid: thank you for putting it in inverted commas so I can sort out which is the Divine word of God and which is Goodlife 21st cent spin.
The whole verse reads: Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
In Greek, the time is near obviously qualifies the whole verse:
ho gar kaipos engus - the time being near
which is very apocalyptic - and is basically saying that at the time it was written, they (writer and readers) were expecting the imminent Millenium.
Does it have any relevance to us ?
That is, because they (some people) were expecting the millenium 2000y ago to be imminent, does that mean we should ? I think the answer is no.
GL you say: "could we expect a sudden burst of faith in the near future...? "
well I suppose we could, but the whole thing is a bit apocalyptic innit ?
Rev 1:3 is misquoted again I am afraid: thank you for putting it in inverted commas so I can sort out which is the Divine word of God and which is Goodlife 21st cent spin.
The whole verse reads: Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
In Greek, the time is near obviously qualifies the whole verse:
ho gar kaipos engus - the time being near
which is very apocalyptic - and is basically saying that at the time it was written, they (writer and readers) were expecting the imminent Millenium.
Does it have any relevance to us ?
That is, because they (some people) were expecting the millenium 2000y ago to be imminent, does that mean we should ? I think the answer is no.
You may find Sheldrake a charlatan you are not alone in this, but thinking for myself I say he has a point. Outside of religion many people say differently in company from what they deep-down believe, for not wishing to appear too extreme. This happens daily in politics and why we have such things as secret ballots.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.