Book Reviews
Fingerprints of God
NPR reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty uses journalism’s tools to explore the intersection of spirituality and science.
By Gregory M. Lamb | May 19, 2009 edition
Using the reporting and explanatory skills of a talented veteran journalist, Barbara Bradley Hagerty has written a compelling account of her quest to answer an age-old question: Is this all there is?
The result is Fingerprints of God, a book that sails the roiling waters between religion and science and is unlikely to make quick friends among either evangelical Christians or those in the scientific community who conclude that God cannot exist. But for readers who consider themselves to be spiritual seekers, Hagerty treads some fascinating territory.
Rather than dismissing science as the enemy of spirituality, she engages with it, seeking out scientific pioneers, the outliers who are doing intriguing work on the nature of the brain and consciousness. She also talks with ordinary people who’ve had extraordinary personal encounters, such as near-death or out-of-body experiences, that have changed their views of themselves, reality, and on the existence of an afterlife.
Hagerty, the religion correspondent for National Public Radio, comes to a less-than-startling conclusion: Science can neither prove nor disprove these great questions. But she also sees hints of a “paradigm shift” in science now under way – akin, perhaps, to the early 20th century when the work of Einstein and others took a quantum leap away from a universe based solely on 18th-century Newtonian physics.
“Hard science does not mean petrified science,” Hagerty posits. “The paradigm to exclude a divine intelligence, or ‘Other,’ or ‘God,’ to reduce all things to matter, has reigned triumphant for some four hundred years, since the dawn of the Age of Reason,” she continues. “Today, a small yet growing number of scientists are trying to chip away at the paradigm, suspecting that its feet are made of clay.”
While more than 90 percent of the general public believes in God, only 7 percent of elite scientists do, according to recent polls. In addition, “Half of Americans claim to have experienced a life-altering spiritual event that they could circle on the calendar in red ink,” she says.
Some researchers are willing to go on the record about what they’re finding, despite potential ridicule from colleagues. “I think the evidence strongly points in the direction of there being more than just this material world,” says Bruce Greyson, a psychiatry professor at the University of Virginia and a leading researcher on near-death experiences.
Adds scientist Dean Radin: “Science is a new enterprise. We are monkeys just out of the trees. And for us to be so arrogant as to imagine we’re close to understanding the universe is just insane.”
Hagerty, who has covered the Justice Department and Sept. 11 for NPR and spent more than a decade editing and reporting at The Christian Science Monitor, examines both sides of the story. She includes detailed explanations of how many scientists explain spiritual experiences as illusions, chemical reactions, mere tricks of the material brain. A “God spot” in the brain may be responsible for religious or spiritual feelings.
But, she and other researchers wonder, does the brain always cause the experiences – or sometimes respond to something external?
“‘God’ may not be, as the atheists have it, a delusion – but perhaps a conclusion driven by the math of the universe,” she says. “[R]ather than dispel the spiritual, science is cracking it open for all to see,” she adds. “It seems to me that the instruments of brain science are picking up something beyond this material world.”
While the book’s scientists and religious seers have engaging stories to tell, the most powerful narrative is that of Hagerty herself, laying bare her own spiritual journey. More than a decade of soul-searching took place before she was willing to write it, she says. Her story begins at a time of depression and physical illness in which she turns away from the religion of her childhood and young adult years, Christian Science. Though she doesn’t end up back inside that church home, she finds herself standing on its threshold and gazing inside admiringly.
“Without realizing it at first, I had looped back to the faith of my childhood,” she writes in the book’s conclusion. “I found myself staring squarely at [Christian Science founder] Mary Baker Eddy’s definition of God: ‘Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; all substance; intelligence.’ ”
She recounts physical healings experienced by her mother and grandmother, both practicing Christian Scientists, through prayer alone. At one point she calls on a Christian Science practitioner to pray with her to locate several minidisks with her research notes for the book that had been lost in the mail. A few weeks later a Postal Service manager phones to say they had been found.
Christian Science, she says, is “a religion that is, perhaps, a hundred years ahead of modern science – a religion that relies wholly on the power of thought to alter the body.”
The transcendent experiences she shares are not denominational, though they are intriguingly similar. No matter what their religious backgrounds, people who’ve had life-changing spiritual encounters – whether through a dramatic life event or consistent daily meditation and prayer – say they feel “a loving presence, infinitely intelligent and gentle,” she says. And “often, an overwhelming sense of unity with the universe – and, always, light.”
According to University of New Mexico researcher Bill Miller, she says, people’s priorities change after these profound spiritual experiences. “Before the experience, men ranked their top personal values as: wealth, adventure, achievement, pleasure, and being respected…. After the experience their top values were: spirituality, personal peace, family, God’s will, and honesty.”
Hagerty describes what she calls her own modest spiritual encounter as reminiscent of the words of British Anglican minister John Wesley: “My heart was strangely warmed.”
Hagerty writes with touching candor and honesty, but also with a journalist’s skeptical eye that demands facts and data. She worries that her religious upbringing, or perhaps even her genes, are influencing her conclusions. But in the end, she can’t help thinking that she’s onto something real that science is only beginning to understand. Something that people feel intuitively.
“Belief in God has not gone away, no matter how secular society has become or how much effort reductionist science has exerted to banish Him,” she says. “God has not gone away because people keep encountering Him, in unexplainable, intensely spiritual moments.”
Gregory M. Lamb is a Monitor staff writer.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Charles E Hansen | 05.19.09
Your reference to science and the “math of the universe” which lead directly toward your conclusion can be found in my recently released book, “The Technology of Love”. If you wish, I will arrange for you to receive a courtesy copy. I assure you that you will find it remarkably in line with your thoughts and research. It is academic level, but the average serious reader will also find it readable.
Sincerely yours,
Charles E. Hansen, Author………
3. Jack Tucker | 05.19.09
The fact remains that “Gods” are an invention of our own minds.
I was born & raised in Texas and have been surrounded by Christians of all kinds my entire life. The one common trait shared by all Christians I have known is they have their own unique interpretation of “God.”
Either “God” is a figment of our imaginations or has the unique ability to be whatever anyone wants him (it?) to be.
Logic dictates the former (figment of our imaginations).
But, to each his own.
4. Jack Thomas | 05.19.09
I agree with #1 - we are a continuous process not a static product. The process is self-assembly with a DNA instruction manual. Look up articles like http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514084122.htm
- it’s facinating and not pseudo-science.
5. S. Sandlin | 05.19.09
I believe scientists might have their answers for how we and all the earth came to be, but not the purpose behind the why.
6. N. Drake | 05.19.09
Tried to deny during the professionly employed years but the child and the old man trying to die,both, made a believer of me. Fingerprints for sure.
7. Jacob | 05.19.09
If people really understood who and what God is, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The concept of God is such that he is all-powerful. He can snap his fingers and the universe will blink out of existence, then he can snap again and the universe will return as if nothing happened. What is it about “all-powerful” that people don’t get? If God enters and departs our world and leaves no trace behind, it’s because an all-powerful being can cover his tracks very well. Therefore, trying to prove or disprove God’s existence is a futile and idiotic exercise.
The only problem we have today is that anti-intellectual fundamentalists wish to raise their children in an anti-intellectual manner and cannot seem to tolerate a school curriculum that teaches something different from their beliefs, even when that curriculum is based on sound science. Evolution is not a perfect theory, it does not claim to be a perfect theory, and there is very much room for an understanding of evolutionary theory to exist side by side with personal beliefs in one’s mind. Unfortunately, it is the nature of anti-intellectuals to erase any and all traces of doubt to create their own little sanitized world.
8. Rose | 05.19.09
Jack wrote:
Either “God” is a figment of our imaginations or has the unique ability to be whatever anyone wants him (it?) to be.
Logic dictates the former (figment of our imaginations).
The experience of God has always been highly personal, and what is illogical about that? I would imagine that God has many “unique abilities”. He has created us as unique individuals, no two of us the same. He also gave us egos that are so large that we can end up thinking/imagining we are all that is. Most religious traditions have texts that advise us to humble ourselves. It brings one closer to God.
9. Spensir | 05.19.09
Does there need to be a why? We all have our own whys none are false and none are correct, we just are.
10. Don Robertson | 05.19.09
People are silly. We do not know what god is. And nor do we know what god isn’t.
There are but two arguments that matter to us as human beings.
The first is the argument of the determinist, that the universe is a clockwork, along with everything in it.
The second argument is, we are more than sentient beings. We are sentient -moral- beings -with free will.
The first argument is easily defeated (with all apologies to Douglas R. Hofstadter and everyone else who believes otherwise).
The first argument is defeated by the notion that there are no choices for which there are not an infinite number of decisions possible. This is one requirement of an infinitely complex reality, one for which no one has even the slightest of viable appreciation for. No machine can choose as do we among the infinite -even once, -let alone repeatedly.
The second argument is not so easily defeated, -but- it places before us a nearly impossible task.
We would be moral in every one of our infinitely complex choices, were we to know how. We simply would always choose the moral choice. Were we capable of choosing the moral choice, we would have free will, and defeat the persistent -if imaginary- clockwork world of the determinists.
Were we even capable of simply requiring ourselves to ferret out the moral path, we could suggest we have free will, -and thus defeat the determinist’s pleadings.
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
Well… Now you know. The choice is yours, which ever world you want.
11. Harold P. Kron | 05.19.09
AMORC You may be interested in this organization. Look it up. Take care.
12. Jack Tucker | 05.19.09
To Rose, Message #8:
Thank you for demonstrating the point I raised in my previous comment:
“The one common trait shared by all Christians I have known is they have their own unique interpretation of ‘God.’”
Which also seems to be true for other people who claim belief in the existence of god(s).
Logic dictates that if “God” existed, then “God” would have fixed attributes identifying it as a “God.” Given the fact its only attribute seems to be whatever people want it to be, that indicates it is a figment of a person’s imagination.
And, I repeat my closing remark: To each his own.
13. Waldo5 | 05.19.09
Excellent review and hopefully a most enjoyable book. With regard to those who wish to squelch or censor Darwin in the schools in favor of some religiously-based dogma, I am reminded of the movie, “Planet of the Apes” in which the intellectual so-called “scholars”–the chimpanzees–wished to erase any trace of evidence which actually and positively showed that humans once had the power to talk and create civilizations. Seems that some are doing this today to try to keep from children the knowledge of evolution. Evolution may have its drawbacks and not be perfect, but it is the only tried and true/researched method we have today to go on. So-called intelligent design would support the Adam and Eve fairy story.
14. J.D. | 05.20.09
Jack Tucker writes: Either “God” is a figment of our imaginations or has the unique ability to be whatever anyone wants him (it?)to be.
Logic dictates the former (figment of our imaginations).
Jack sounds like a trekkie “logic dictates”. I have nothing against trekkies. What I don’t appreciate are people who don’t think things out.
The field of Mathematics is the most perfect form of logic that exists. It is free from human opinion or emotion. It deals with facts. Mathematics can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god. If the most perfect form of logic cannot prove or disprove god’s existence, neither can any human form where personal opinion or emotion is involved.
Let’s just stick to true logic.
15. Bruce Evan Woods-Jack | 05.20.09
I read Ms. Hagerty’s article with great interest. Must confess that I am not on “the threshold” of the Christian Science Church, but firmly living and working inside! However, I had to tell you and your readers this article and hopefully the book are treating this subject from a new and helpful perspective. Well done to the author and she has certainly set up a new and interesting debate. Must ad ,though, in my experience God is a reality and not a delusion. Thank you for letting me comment.
Sincerely,
Bruce Woods-Jack, Kirkby Lonsdale, England
16. Jack Tucker | 05.20.09
J.D. said: “Mathematics can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god.”
Non-existence cannot be proven, nor is it required to be proven.
It is up to the person who claims existence to prove his claim. Non-existence is assumed until proven otherwise. Otherwise, delusional people in mental institutions would be considered sane.
Maybe you should think things through a little further.
In no case has anyone ever proven the existence of god(s). The logical assumption, based on that lack of evidence, is that the god(s) they claim to exist do not exist. Except in their own minds. In other words, a figment of their imaginations.
But, to each his own.
17. Tom | 05.20.09
Jack Tucker makes a very, very good point that J.D. chooses to brush aside instead of address head on. Your hypocrisy stinks.
18. Hari | 05.20.09
This is to “Jack Tucker”.
I will suggest to him and all a book “Autobiography of a Yogi” written by a great human “Paramahansa Yogananda”. Read it with an open mind from end to end.
This person had profound experiences as he grew up and he has documented those. He opened up fellowship societies in America. This is not some crazy nut job indian imagining things. Just read with an open mind.
Its available in all Barnes and Nobel stores.
God is without a doubt not a figment of anybody’s imagination. It is very sad how people go through life and never realize the presence of God in their lives. We who do still have doubts every step of the way. Thats the reason it calls for faith and for patience; patience when you wait for God to show you the way which happens when you have faith.
They say a sceptic cannot be convinced until God wishes him to be. May be one day a time will come when you the Jacks of the world will have a personal experience. But will your ego let you accept it?
Thats the problem with us humans, God could come in front of them and hit us with a shoe and still we will keep arguing and not realize it….
I just say read and experience.
19. Jack Tucker | 05.20.09
Thanks, Tim, but we are all hypocrites in our own unique ways. Just part of being a human.
Religion (”God belief”) is based primarily on emotions, not logic. It is understandable when religious people resort to illogical (hypocritical?) arguments attempting to make their points.
If we strip away all the verbiage & excuse making, the bottom line is, “I believe in god(s) because it makes me feel good.”
No logical argument or recitation of facts will alter those beliefs.
Which is why I include “To each his own” in my comments.
I’m not foolish (illogical?) enough to seriously believe my opinion will persuade true believers that the belief they hold that provides them with comfort is based on delusions.
Nor is that my intent, even if it were possible.
Religion (”God belief”) can be very beneficial for many people. Without it, they may very likely have a nervous breakdown. Which would not be good for anyone.
I have no problem with people who take comfort from their delusions until such time they attempt to impose their delusions on other people by force.
But, that is a different topic.
20. Hari | 05.20.09
This is again to Tom and Jack:
You do not need Math to prove the existence of God. Man created math as a tool to him measure things and do things in life. You cannot take Math as the basis of truth when you created it yourself.
How many years ago man thought earth revolved around the sun? How many years before that man thought earth is flat?
Man has no idea what he believes in is true or not untill somebody else comes along and completely disproves everything. So please dont rely on Man’s math abilities to prove God.
God can be proven by 2 means only. You need Faith and Patience. A belief that everything that happens is ordained by the will of God. Come down from your pedestal, be humble and go to a church or a temple or what ever your religion dictates - dont listen to those fathers in church etc - forget all sermons - just tell God you want to experience him and are ready to test him. Tell him you want to test him if you have the guts to do that. If you have a profound experience send me an email at hiyer 31 at gmail dot com. I will wait to hear from you. Do that. Go with faith to church and tell God you want to test him and that in your life time you want to prove that HE DOES NOT EXIST. DO THAT ONE THING FAITH FULLY - PROVE IT ONCE AND FOR ALL SO ALL OF US BELIEVERS CAN GET A LESSON - Do that and send me an email. I will wait to hear from you.
Amen!
21. Jack Tucker | 05.20.09
To Hari, MSG #18:
Thanks for the suggestion but I’m not searching for anything. I was a practicing Christian for over 30 years. As a child, I had no doubt whatsoever that “God” existed. But, I’m a long way from being a child.
As an adult, I spent years “searching for God”, including reading all kinds of books by all kinds of people.
Thanks for demonstrating my original point regarding people who attribute whatever they want to god(s) and then claim that proves the god(s) to which they refer exist.
To date, no one has ever proven the existence of god(s).
If it makes you a better person or makes you feel good to believe god(s) exist, that is a good thing. But, it is not evidence supporting your claim that god(s) exist.
To each his own.
22. Jack Tucker | 05.20.09
Thanks, again, Hari.
Okay, I’m ready to put your God to a test.
I’m going to buy a lottery ticket today, if he (it?) exists, I’ll be the sole winner of the jackpot.
Let the trials begin. . .
I’m not attempting to disprove anything. It’s not up to me to prove gods do not exist, that is an impossibility.
It is up to those who claim gods exist to prove their claims with something a bit more substantial than “have faith.” Lunatics have absolute faith their delusions are “real” but that does not make it so.
23. jeff | 05.20.09
I am heartened to see such a polite (mostly) discussion taking place regarding religion.
For the record I’m an atheist, but like many of you on this forum I also think that there are many things we don’t know about the universe, and probably we are just not intellectually capable of understanding. A dog can’t do calculus and humans probably can’t understand the true nature of the universe. Perhaps mysticism is a glimpse of a reality we can’t really comprehend.
Here’s a link to the first of several interesting articles by the same author. They include bringing about mystical experiences in the lab through the use of drugs, so if you don’t want to entertain the notion that your born-again experience might have just been some bad egg salad, don’t click the link below. 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104240746
24. J. Barry Weber | 05.20.09
20 May 2009
I know that I believe; I do not believe that I know. It’s a journey in
progress.
25. Don Robertson | 05.20.09
I read with amazement the novice philosophizing passing here as credible and cogent. The popular writer Richard Dawkins has performed a massive disservice to his swarmy cult of young followers -letting them think they have something -they do not have. There are no air-tight arguments in life.
Examples:
Jack Tucker states: “Non-existence is assumed until proven otherwise.”
I’m sorry, Jack. But a very long time ago, a very famous mathematician named Descartes who also turned out to be a far more important philosopher, convincingly demonstrated -the only thing that can be proved is -that because we can think, we can individually know we exist, the “Cogito”, Cogito ergo sum (in the Latin). Descartes determined, we could be fooled into believing literally everything else we might otherwise believe.
No has has ever disproved Descartes on this count in more than 300 years.
Someone named “Tom” immediately agreed with Jack, stating “Jack Tucker makes a very, very good point that J.D. chooses to brush aside instead of address head on. Your hypocrisy stinks.”
Really, Tom? I suppose you can verily-verily smell hypocrisy?
Jack Tucker then goes on to thank by misnaming Tom, “Tim” -for his grossly misplaced compliment stating, “Religion (”God belief”) is based primarily on emotions, not logic. It is understandable when religious people resort to illogical (hypocritical?) arguments attempting to make their points.”
Illogical? On emotions, not logic?? Jack???
Let’s back up.
Jack’s nimble circular reasoning is astonishing. Jack does not believe in God. Because Jack does not believe in God -he finds it easy to answer the question of religion by defining “religion” as “God belief”. Jack -hence has a ready-made defeat of any argument that might run up against his religion argument, -if we accept Jack’s worse-than-silly definition of religion as “God Belief”.
But, Jack? What if I do not accept your definition of religion? And what if I instead assert my own definition of religion to be -any system of belief -that requires a deity -recognized or simply logically necessary- in order to substantiate all or part of such a system of beliefs- ?
Uh, Jack… Your arguments crumble. And, Jack, any philosopher of modest training could show you have only a different religion upon which you base all your own assertions and the assumptions that underlie them.
Jack further offers proof of his logical superiority, saying it is emotional, this belief in God.
Jack is no doubt a Star Trek Spock-like character between his own two pointed ears.
Okay, Jack. Grab hold of this hot iron: -every logical conclusion, assertion anyone has or makes, agrees with, or assumes -is only logical in the human mind because of one thing. That one thing is the ta-da, the ah-ha!, that little feeling of pride one gets when they think they have thought something through logically. That’s logic, Jack.
Without that small and often misplaced emotional feeling of pride and self-worth about what our mind has just come up with, there is nothing logical at all.
Nothing.
Logic itself, Jack… Are you listening here?
Logic itself is 100% emotional in nature, Jack.
26. jeff | 05.20.09
Well, the discussion WAS polite before Don Robertson decided to condescend to everyone - no doubt bouncing in his seat and cackling with barely suppressed glee the entire time. Personally, he hasn’t impressed me by his nodding acquaintance with Western Philosophy 101 and incoherent rant.
27. dan winter | 05.20.09
once you identify the symmetry of the electric field
(phase conjugate / fractal)
which creates the electric centripedal forces:
gravity
life force
mind
the nature of divine - peak perception / enlightenment are self evident..
http://www.goldenmean.info/budapest08/physicsoverview.html
as for the history of ‘god’ - I recommend anton parks (link at
http://www.goldenmean.info/scienceofalchemy
(with films
dan winter
danwinter@goldenmean.info
28. Eddy Merckx | 05.20.09
Don Robertson wrote, “Descartes determined, we could be fooled into believing literally everything else we might otherwise believe.”
Like being fooled into believing the existence of God?
One more question. Jacob wrote, “The concept of God is such that he [sic] is all-powerful. He can snap his fingers and the universe will blink out of existence, then he [sic] can snap again and the universe will return as if nothing happened.”
Why does God allow the existence of the Devil? Why was there an apple in the first place? Why didn’t God know they would take a bite?
29. L. Moore | 05.20.09
It’s called faith for a reason, you either have it, or you don’t.
Seems pretty straight forward to me, but I try not to over think things 
30. Jack Tucker | 05.20.09
Jeff said (msg 23): “For the record I’m an atheist, but like many of you on this forum I also think that there are many things we don’t know about the universe, and probably we are just not intellectually capable of understanding.”
We agree.
I am an atheist because no credible evidence supports believing supernatural entities exist. When someone provides any such evidence, I’ll no longer be an atheist.
Humans are too intellectually limited to even begin to grasp concepts such as eternity or infinity. There may be all kinds of gods & supernatural entities running around all over the place.
The problem being for those who claim they do & are is that there is no credible evidence to support those claims.
Until such time someone produces credible evidence supporting their claims supernatural entities exist, then I am compelled to remain an atheist.
31. Jack Tucker | 05.20.09
To Don Robertson, msg 25:
Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to correct my previous error regarding Tom in Msg 17. Tom, I wear bifocals & sometimes misread characters. My sincere apologies for referring to you as “Tim” in Msg 19.
Mr Robertson, you embarrass me with your attention. I hardly deserve the time & effort you made in your comment. Especially from a person with your intellect & education.
For the record, I’ve never read anything Dawkins wrote. The only thing I know about him is what others have reported.
Dawkins & I are roughly the same age (give or take a few years) so your assertion that “young people” are influenced by Dawkins seems to be out of place in your comment.
For the record, I’ve never seen a Star Trek episode. The entire concept was too silly to attract my attention. Still is.
I specifically followed the word “religion” with “God belief” in parentheses to indicate the meaning I was using. That is not my definition, that is a fairly standard definition for “religion.”
Philosophy is still debated today so I’m not sure I can agree with your claim that Descartes has never been proven wrong.
“I think, therefore, I am.” would also seem to mean “If I don’t think, I’m not.” Which is silly on its face. But, this is not a philosophy discussion so that will be the end of my comments about Descartes or philosophy.
Logic & emotion are not synonymous. You might want to refer to a dictionary.
Mr. Robertson, I have very limited intellect & formal education, so it may just be due to my own limitations, but it appears you made no points with which I can agree or disagree.
If you were attempting to make a point, please restate it without all the references to me personally.
Thanks.
32. Don Robertson | 05.20.09
Jack states, “I am an atheist because no credible evidence supports believing supernatural entities exist. When someone provides any such evidence, I’ll no longer be an atheist. […] Until such time someone produces credible evidence supporting their claims supernatural entities exist, then I am compelled to remain an atheist.”
Jack’s utterances seem to portray a class of philosophically ignoble comments here. These are proud atheists. That’s all fine. They seem to take pride in their offensiveness however, while lacking both cogency and any clear meaning.
Of course “supernatural entities” do not exist. The word “supernatural”, means those things that are above natural. Jack’s case always seems self-evident, when it is positioned as suspect in how he frames his assertions.
This is perhaps because he is not accustomed to looking for any path toward truth.
Jack’s choice of words from a lexicon larger than can express the reality around us is again a poor choice to begin with, unless one is seeking to make an assertion that something does not exist, so one can then claim, -proving non-existence is impossible! How utterly profound.
Our common lexicon is also far too small to express the reality that does exist around us. So, avoiding the misuse of the lexicon seems a paramount task if we are meant to impart anything of significance to others.
Jack claims to be “[…] compelled to be an atheist.” No, Jack. You are not compelled to be an atheist. No one compells you. You have made up your mind on insufficient evidence to claim to be compelled to be an atheist.
You certainly seem compelled to spout off -about being an atheist.
But your logical feats that have brought you to the precipice from which you so readily have jumped, is nothing conclusive. So why jump?
Like most young atheists, your position is neither cogent nor convincing. It is merely shrill, -and meant to be shrill.
One should perhaps first decide and espouse -what they do believe in- before they espouse a position that decries the beliefs of others, beliefs you have already insisted, you do not understand.
Just because you do not understand something does not mean it is not true. Take a look around. Do you see anything you understand, Jack?
For all those who come here to espouse their beliefs, -tell us what you believe, not what -of the beliefs of others- you do not believe.
I have made two assertions here in this comment chain, each having gone unchallenged. They are both profound.
1) The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
2) Without that small and often misplaced emotional feeling of pride and self-worth about what our mind has just come up with, there is nothing logical at all.
To these two assertions I will add-
The moral imperative I assert gives rise to a new knowledge set, Categorical Knowledge, that lauds over all empirical knowledge, -exactly as empirical knowledge was once seen to laud over superstition.
Categorical Knowledge is defined as knowledge that is true in every instance without exception. No scientific belief can make that claim. And neither can anyone make that claim about the non-existence of God or the vitality of any superstition.
These things so shrilly uttered here -simply cannot be proved.
But, like the Cogito, the moral imperative is beyond question -true in every instance. The Categorical Knowledge that derives from it -will encompass the next thousand years of human intellectual progress -if there is such a thing as human intellectual progress.
We shall see.
33. Humble Housewife | 05.20.09
Out here on the farm, we don’t waste time on human logic. God is Love and Truth. When the oldest of our free-range chickens broke her leg, we prayed by knowing and feeling Love’s presence would care for her, and His/Her perfection would be manifested. We knew this was true by the previous healing of our oldest son’s broken arm. Then,at that time, we knew that he couldn’t be separated from his Perfect Father/Mother God. We have also relied on God’s nature as Love to stop and disperse a huge storm descending on us. We protect our crops from the popular maladies the same way. Likewise, our good health. So did my parents, and my husband’s parents, and our four other grown children. Guidance, and prosperity also come from the the divine Intelligence that created the universe. God is Good. Does it surprise you that you cannot see infinite Spirit with human eyeballs, any more than you can find Him/Her by debate?
34. Carolyn | 05.20.09
Can the finite demand of the infinite, Self-existent that it prove itself in terms of the limited?
Can the infinite know of the finite?
Can the finite ever be satisfied when its nature is unsatisfying?
Can a scientist reasonably expect to find satiation.
God, undivided, being aware of His infinite Self-existence needs no validation & contains nothing to cry “Prove me!”
35. Ross M. | 05.20.09
Lets face it. Everybody worships something. Everyone has an idol. For many of us it is our career. The “god” in our life could also be our big house or fancy car. Maybe our favorite sports team. To others it is science, logic, etc. All those things or activities can not provide comfort or peace in a spiritual sense. We usually end up knowing that there is a far deeper reality. Love is from a Divine source, true worship is finding a sense of that presence in our inner spirit, not in material things or outside activities.
36. Miles | 05.20.09
Argue, argue, argue. It’s all the same words over and over from both sides. The problem is God can’t be disproved by science, and science can’t be disproved by God.
To those who believe in God: Stop wasting your time trying to prove God exist to people who have long ago closed their hearts to religion.
To those who do not believe in God: Stop thinking you are right. Your claim to know the “truth” is only one belief in a long line of others. Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Tao, Baha’i, Mysticism/Ancestor Worship,…Classical mythology, etc., all get more votes than you. Please take you seat.
37. Kubota Jushin | 05.21.09
You know, Miles a crucial, and beautiful point. When it gets right down to it, and the way people hold to it, atheism counts as just another religion. Many atheists are just as stuffy and closed-minded as the worst of Catholics or Protestant Christians or whatnot.
It would be a lot easier to just let people believe what the will or will not. I’m an atheist, and I also believe it’s healthy to believe in SOMETHING. Without it we would erode as people. This I believe, and therefore I don’t go around shoving my lack of belief in the faces of my friends who are Catholic or Baptist.
The philosophy we should all take up is something on the order of live and let live. No reason to be irrationally angry about it.
38. Jack Tucker | 05.21.09
To Don Robertson:
Please provide the evidence that supports God belief.
Thanks.
39. Wah | 05.21.09
Howdy folks, sorry I’m late to the discussion.
Let’s jump right in, shall we?
The big question just posed, “Please provide the evidence that supports God belief.”
A fun one to be sure. An impossible one to post, as the evidence required, as mentioned in the article and the book and others, is evidence of experience.
It was quite rightly pointed out that logic requires an emotional element. And by “emotional” I mean a physiological response in the brain. That’s another problem this discussion is having, as it is descending into ’semantic **** as core terms are being defined differently by participants (i.e. “religion”).
In fact all of our conceptions of the world, include those of logic and mathematics reside in our brains, and it is our emtional response to these thoughts that gives us the “aahh, that’s right” feeling of math. The sureness of knowledge.
Given that logical and mathematical logic resides in the brain, as does our entire conception of reality and the tools we use to define and interact with it, it is also logical (ha!) to conclude that God is a concept in our brains, as well.
A figment of the imagination as detractors would put it, a deep feeling in the soul as believers might declare. The way in which we define our feelings (our perception of emotions) alters the way in which we percieve and react to the stimuli of life.
Now, given that God is a concept of reality, and one many use to guide their actions (indeed, many use God conceptions as the rule of life, if you will), in one’s action are altered by ones conception of God, how can it then be said that God does not exist?
According to Newton, an object will not alter it’s motion with an interaction. If a motion, in this case a human’s motion in response to being slapped in the face, is moderated….and another cheek is turned, then that which altered the motion must be said to exist.
If what altered the motion was a concept of God, then God, to that individual, exists.
Yea, so…there ya go.
40. Wah | 05.21.09
Hmmm, needed a preview…
—
Now, given that God is a concept of reality, and one many use to guide their actions (indeed, many use God conceptions as the rule of life, if you will), IF one’s action are altered by one’s conception of God, how can it then be said that God does not exist?
According to Newton, an object will not alter its motion without an interaction with another object. If a motion, in this case a human’s motion in response to being slapped in the face, is altered….and, say, the other cheek is turned, then that which altered the motion must be said to exist.
—
41. Don Robertson | 05.21.09
Jack- As you have asked me to support evidence in believing there is a God, I will accommodate your ridiculous bait, if you will note first -the first line from my first post in this thread, “People are silly. We do not know what god is. And nor do we know what god isn’t.”
People are silly, Jack. Wild assumptions are set forth with just about every other word out of every human being’s mouth. You’re from Texas, you know what I’m talking about here, certainly! There are enough evidences of this truth -on the front page of every newspaper you or I have ever read. We as human beings make little more sense than our simian relatives swinging in the trees, or even than do the birds chirping in the trees.
If you think otherwise, you should try proving it to me. I do not believe it.
At a far deeper level, we have reason to question virtually every assertion made by men, -or groups of men. Does the state exist, Jack? No. The state does not exist.
Flags exist. Borders exist. Even the President exists. Most everyone has a conception of the state. -But the state itself does not exist. It only exists in our minds -individually- one at a time -and those conceptions will die with each of us one at a time too. So, then -where is the real state? It isn’t. It does not exist.
You cannot show the state to me, nor prove the state exists. I may fear the state. But I only fear what is -my impression- of something that I have been taught and learned is the state. The state itself, does not exist.
There are men who might come and knock at my door some night -and take me away -claiming to represent the state, -but they are just men- men who have their own conception of this thing we refer to as the state. But, Jack, their conception is not the same conception anyone else has of the state.
And in fact, no one has the same conception of the state anyone else has.
Most think the state exists. Most even think the state has a consciousness. We all have cursed the state. But none of it amounts to anything.
The state does not exist.
It is easy to prove something like the state does not exist, for it in fact does not exist. Now, how do we apply this idea to the human conception of God?
Long before there was a state, there was this conception of God, and indeed many Gods.
It is more difficult to say God doesn’t exist than it is to say that the state does not exist, -because the state is supposed to be right here, somewhere, even if it perpetually seems to have gone missing.
God on the other hand is not supposed to be anywhere, but instead everywhere.
So, we must examine other things that are everywhere, to see if we can prove they either do or do not exist.
Space seems everywhere. The Universe seems everywhere. Can we disprove their existence the same as we can disprove the existence of the state? I do not see how. We certainly can question the existence of space, and the Universe, but proving either does not exist -seems more difficult.
I can -through a long process of showing the fallibility of our senses show we have no concrete evidence to denote the existence of the Universe and space, but this is not really what we are looking for. We are looking for a way to disprove these things with common sense, and then apply the non-existence of space and the Universe to our long historic and pre-historic conception of God, -to say, either God exists, or God does not exist.
I have chosen this parallel, because space, the Universe and God are all supposed to be everywhere, -all at the same time.
Perhaps, because space, Universe and God all have a similar volume, they might be the same thing? As I originally stated, we cannot know what God is, nor what God is not.
This does not prove the existence of God, which seems to squirt away like soap when we grasp for it. Perhaps it is because we have not a good definition of God.
Let us define God as everything that is everywhere all at once then.
If we can swallow such a definition, we can come at least as close to proving the existence of God as we are to proving the existence of space or the Universe, which also seem to be everywhere all at once.
So then, instead of throwing out a small piece of our fallible human brains that seem to accommodate a belief in God -exactly the same way our fallible human brains accommodate the existence of space and the Universe, we should accept the existence of God as proved at least as well, -so that we do not miss out on the apparently intellectual benefit humans get from accommodating such a belief?
It is a fair supposition, especially as science has come up so lacking lately.
I think that is probably as close as I can get to proving the existence of God for you, Jack, -along this line of reasoning anyway. But, I think what I have said is sufficient to prove God exists to the same or greater degree than anything you might be able to prove exists.
You might choose to prove me less credible here by demonstrating to me you can prove something exists more conclusively than I have just proved God exists. I would welcome it.
So, I’ll let you have at it, if that is your ambition.
42. Jack Tucker | 05.21.09
To Wah:
Welcome to the discussion.
I stated my case in comment number 3.
I have yet to read anything that refutes that claim.
To clarify what I mean by “evidence,” let me use an example.
I can conclusivly prove to anyone who is not brain dead that electricity positively exists.
Touching a wire carrying sufficient current while grounded will conclusively demonstrate the existence of electricity to anyone regardless of intellect, education, or beliefs.
That demonstration can be repeated as often as necessary.
I have yet to read or hear anything that even comes close to that level of proof for the claim that gods exist. Until such time someone provides that kind of evidence, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is gods do not exist.
The moment anyone provides that kind of evidence, I’ll no longer be an atheist.
In the meantime, I repeat an earlier assertion, people believe in gods because it makes them feel good. That belief is based entirely on emotions (good feelings) and nothing else.
43. Jack Tucker | 05.21.09
To Don Robertson:
I asked a very simple question to which you replied with what I consider psycho-babble & chewing gum philosophy similar to what I heard in the 1960’s.
But, you failed to answer the question I posed.
Which is understandable because the reason I am an atheist is because there is no credible evidence supporting God belief.
Psycho-babble is not evidence of anything other than the babbler has no clue as to what he is attempting to prove.
44. Mike Granger | 05.21.09
For the skeptics of Divine Intelligence, view the documentary movie “Expelled” by Ben Stein. To those who ‘believe’ that God is simply and invention of our own minds, all I can say is that you are grossly BLIND and ignorant. The evidence of God is in everything, in everyone, everywhere. You’ll be in for quite a shock when you enter your graves.
45. Wah | 05.21.09
Jack,
As I mentioned, the evidence you are requesting is one of experience.
Your electric shock metaphor is apt. However, when one is touching upon the experience, direct experience, of God, it takes quite a bit more than an electric shock to wake most people up (from their perspective).
And I don’t mean in any spiritual revival praise Jebus kind of way, but in a sublime understanding that yes, we have an awesome understanding of the physical attributes of the world and ourselves, but even so, there is something further. Something that connects us all, everything and everyone together in this prison, or this paradise.
–
I have yet to read or hear anything that even comes close to that level of proof for the claim that gods exist. Until such time someone provides that kind of evidence, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is gods do not exist.
The moment anyone provides that kind of evidence, I’ll no longer be an atheist.
–
The thing about it is, and I can’t stress this enough. The only one who can provide that evidence is you, yourself. There are many means described throughout history to test these theories, mentioned in many of the various cultures as described in one of the comments above.
In my own experience, a direct and personal study is said histories and methods combined with the physical action of a very restricted diet, stenuous physical activity, and a deep and abiding desire to know, to see an answer was what it took. I pushed it to the edge, looked over…and saw…what I needed to see.
Something beyond myself, yet still apart of, and within me.
If you wish for an experiment to try, there’s one for you. Do it straight for a month or two, or six, or however long it takes. YMMV.
Or you can just wait until something happens to you. Something so extreme there is only one place to look for answers…beyond yourself, and the dictates of logic and reason. It happens to most of us at one point or another. Which explains the stats mentioned in the article and the general state of religion in the world (it ain’t a dying fad, just a very adaptive one).
46. rth | 05.21.09
Jack — who is to decide what “credible evidence” is — you? Sorry, — we know you’re not God, a terribly incurious thinker about the infinite, and your opinions lack the humility to be anything but absolutist like all too many atheists or religious fundamentalist. You seem fond of saying “to each his own” while calling anyone else’s own belief that doesn’t match yours as delusion. Well, if you really do believe “to each his own” then you must accept your cosmological opinions as delusions too. Yes — yes, with some humility.
I haven’t heard anyone define what the heck they’re talking about when they discuss God? Except Eddy Merckx — and the real Eddy was much more than better on the bike than this one is on-line — who says: “Why does God allow the existence of the Devil? Why was there an apple in the first place? Why didn’t God know they would take a bite?” This quote speaks to an singularly antiquated notion of a personified God that today seems “reasonably” uninformed, naive — hence the need for what sounds like an honest humble search that Barbara Bradly seems to be making in her book. We might just try reading the book and then reassess our judgments?… Unless we’re already absolutely sure.
And finally (for the moment) Jack — Just because we don’t know what we don’t know doesn’t mean we won’t or that we shouldn’t try and expect to or that someone else does know it. I don’t know how quantum physics works. Do neutrinos exist? How do we know? Did we know they “didn’t” exist before we knew they did? Good scientists usually don’t take null-hypothesis seriously before their experiments or they wouldn’t do the experiment? Sorry, but your “delusions” won’t hold much intellectual mass until you pack them with some humility.
47. Jack Tucker | 05.21.09
To Wah:
Repeating my earlier comment, I was a practicing Christian for over 30 years. I spent decades “searching for God.”
The result of that search is there is no credible evidence to support the claim that gods exist.
People choose to believe gods exist because it makes them feel good.
Which is what you said without realizing it.
We agree, people have to feel good about their beliefs that gods exist, otherwise they wouldn’t hold that belief. They wouldn’t hold that belief becuase good feelings are the only thing that supports the belief.
“Faith” and “good feelings” are not credible evidence supporting a claim that gods exist.
It’s just that simple.
48. Jack Tucker | 05.21.09
To rth:
I defined what I consider to be credible evidence in comment number 42.
I’m not sure what point you are attempting to make by referring to things we don’t know, but that seems to be irrelevant to the topic of this conversation, which is the existence of gods.
I am an atheist because there is no credible evidence to support the claim that gods exist.
Despite the gross misinterpretationn of the word atheist, it does not mean “there is no possibility whatsoever that gods exist.” That is an idiotic definition by any standard.
All things are possible, including the existence of gods. But, possible and exist are two entirely different statements.
“It is possible gods exist.” is a true statement.
“Gods exist.” is not a true statement until such time the claimant supports the claim with credible evidence. To date, no one has provided any such evidence.
And, because no one has ever provided credible evidence to support the claim gods exist, the only logical position is atheism. (definition: without belief in the existence of gods).
It’s not that complicated. The only complication seems to come from those who do not know what atheism means or who resort to illogical mental gymnastics attempting to prove something for which there is no credible evidentiary support.
49. Don Robertson | 05.21.09
Jack says, “[…] those […] who resort to illogical mental gymnastics attempting to prove something for which there is no credible evidentiary support.”
From Jacks post #3- “The fact remains that “Gods” are an invention of our own minds.”
Jack, the point you think have made -is nothing more than an invention of your own mind with no credible evidence to support it.
You seem to want to externalize the clear fallacy of the ah ha! moment of your “logical” mind.
It is a quantum leap for me.
Logic, were it to exist as you perceive it, should allow you to assert something that exists of a higher order than the faulty logic you keep throwing back out here, while discounting the meaningful and well-intended sentences of those who might disagree with your apparently faulty reasoning, as it is apparent to me and I have made clear why it is faulty by my estimation of it.
The loaded phrases and words, the ones that leave your argument half-cocked on a Texas Sidewinder’s hair trigger are no substitute for clear thinking.
What is it you believe that is at the bottom of your logic that makes you think you can assert convincingly that something does not exist? -Jack.
Is it science? Is science at the bottom of your logic? I have written a very short and cogent book addressing science entitled -A Critique of Pure Science. It is available on Amazon for $9.95 - as cheap as philosophy books come today.
This is a very real question you and everyone else must answer for themselves.
What is it that you believe?
Does anyone really believe in a clockwork Universe where we are merely the automatons of scientific fate? Are we just like the bees and the ants -only more technologically inclined?
I personally think that is quite silly. We might just as well proclaim ourselves devotés of witchcraft. I am well known for saying science is but witchcraft with a calculator.
I would assert -there are vast sweeps of reality that are entirely beyond our comprehension, -but which we can suspect and account for with a belief in things we know we cannot fully fathom -knowing of our sure blind spots.
Others would claim incredibly, we are near to knowing everything! I am not inclined to be so credulous of such claims, not even when made by great experts in science and politics. That’s just too wild a claim for a culture as in much trouble -as is our culture.
Maybe things are far more Utopian in Texas? It sounds like a very hot place to me -though. But then I am prejudiced having moved 450 miles north of Boston because Boston was just too hot -twenty some years ago.
These unknowns I write here about make our meager understanding of reality so insignificant, our statements are nearly meaningless against their vast and overwhelming backdrop until we accept a more humbled approach to epistemology.
Epistemology is the search for truth, for those who wonder.
Epistemology is not the truth, it is the search for it.
Jack is here claiming he has found the truth. There is no God.
Truth, everyone knows, is much rarer than that.
50. Jack Tucker | 05.22.09
Don Robertson said: “Jack is here claiming he has found the truth. There is no God.”
Actually, that’s not what I said but your opinions are apparently not influenced by anything other than what you want to believe.
But, you demonstrated the truth of that statement (even though it’s not what I said) when you failed to provide evidence supporting God belief.
Which is the primary reason I’m an atheist. In over 60 years, I have yet to encounter anyone who supported the claim that gods exist with credible evidence.
Not one; including you.
I’ve posted 10 or so comments on this board. My beliefs are expressed in those comments & do not not need to be repeated. Especially in light of the fact you clearly read what you want to read rather than what is actually written.
As an aside, given the commercial message you inserted in your comment, I cannot imagine wasting nearly $10 to buy a book of your incoherent musings.
51. Don Robertson | 05.22.09
Jack- You are incoherent to the extreme. You just made your closing statement a comment on a book I have written and published, a book you have never even thought of reading. Well, I guess you are well-informed if you know what is inside a book without opening the cover. You are a closed-minded old fool. And Jack, I am old as you.
Your case could be better made. I could make it better myself, -but alas, it is no use anyway. Your cause is lost.
A new argument has come to the fore, the product of our short excursion, even if it has fearfully not gone far from the shore on your account.
Pay close attention, now, -everyone. This is something new. And you’re going to want to follow it, for it substantiates free will, and, human progress at the same time.
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
As I have already asserted—without any challenge- the moral imperative is a categorically true statement, -meaning, one side of that line -and you are acting morally, and on the other side of that line you are acting immorally.
That does not mean we don’t all regularly straddle the line. We are all human. The moral imperative is a universally true -categorical- moral guidepost. Life coming in the future is simply far more important than life enjoying -the plenty and amazement- of the party that is life today.
Enjoy! But don’t mess it up for those who will follow us here!
Now… If we are to live our lives -not detracting from those innocent lives that should come in the future, -one of our moral duties is to protect diversity.
Diversity comes in many different flavors and -neighborhoods. One such diversity of human culture, is the broad range of beliefs about God.
As a philosopher, I have a moral duty known to me, and, one which I take time to explain to every other person on the planet. That moral duty commands all of us to respect and protect the diversity of religious belief.
It does not necessarily command us to believe in God -by this moral count.
But, that duty -to protect diversity- so that the rich, full nature of life we experience today is available to those coming in the future is a nearly paramount moral duty of all. There are greater moral duties, but few enough we can exclude almost any exception.
This moral duty relates to our pressing need to protect diversity for future generations of human beings that will come into this world. The necessity of not performing a eugenics-like expunging of different ways to believe in the world -arises from the categorical nature of the ultimate moral statement wrapped up in the moral imperative of life.
Again-
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
I have asked literally thousands of individuals -from all walks of life- to look for an exception to the moral imperative, and none has come up with a single possible exception. I have conscientiously looked for an exception myself.
I won’t ask Jack to look. I have enough respect for Jack’s consummate incoherence, and the incoherence of all those who ride their keyboards around the net exclaiming the death of God by their atheism, that -I don’t want to spend the time addressing Jack’s meager thoughts any longer.
Jack Tucker’s thoughts about God -are those of an intolerant, incoherent immoral bigot.
Jack Tucker thinks he can tell the world -the diversity we all see all around us relating to a wide variety of religious experience is stupid and ignorant and should be expunged from the rich, full human experience that is life.
Jack wants everyone to believe he is enlightened beyond his many years. I have asked Jack -what he believes-, but absolutely no response has come.
Look in the mirror, Jack. Look close. That is what you have found.
52. rmaccuswell | 05.22.09
Hmmm a delusion, imagination what. Jack I have not met you, only read something by a “Jack”, so by a logical deduction that cannot actually be proof so you must not exist. I mean after all same type of thing by reading the works of Lao Tzu, Confucious, the Apostles etc.
The fact why argue about something that is not real. Ultimately real or no, what happens after thislife etc etc, we do not know cannot know and will never know. Therefore logically it would seem life would be better not wasting time thinking about the issues, after all they are not real.
53. Robert Moore | 05.22.09
The idea that God is or isn’t is part of the process of discovery. The human question’s of life’s orgin and constant continuation is answered by the quote, “to know God is everlasting life”. By searching out questions is the existance of getting “to know God” and both everlasting and continual in our existance. Resistance is as useful as aceptance in the God discovery. It is to our shame that many just choose to ignore the question / search / discovery and move through life as a zombie.
54. Jack Tucker | 05.22.09
Mr. Robertson, you may be a “published author” (thanks to vanity press), but you aren’t much of a writer.
Non-fiction writing generally follows a pattern.
1. State your point.
2. Support your point.
3. Summarize your point & support for the point.
Your original comment in message 10 was a rambling, incoherent combination of words that had no discernible point.
I have yet to see you follow any known pattern in your rambling, incoherent remarks.
——————-
Morals are entirely subjective and depend on a person’s circumstances. Your claims about “moral imperatives” is about as nonsensical as it can get. Nonsensical because the primary “moral imperative” for any human is the imperative to survive.
You may want to study Maslow a bit more before writing your next book.
————————————–
For the record:
Humans invents gods because it makes them feel good. That is a logical thing to do. Whether the gods they invent exist to anyone else is totally irrelevant.
If I believed gods existed, I would never attempt to defend that belief to anyone. I would simply say, “I believe in gods because it makes me feel good.” and leave it at that.
Humble Housewife, Message #33, made the most intelligent comment on this board in reference to God belief.
If you believe, that’s great. And, you don’t need to justify it to anyone.
55. Jack Tucker | 05.23.09
rmaccusswell, you seem to have it backwards.
The fact that words are appearing on this screen is fairly conclusively evidence that “Jack” exists. It does not establish much of anything else about “Jack,” but it’s safe to assume “Jack” exists unless you want to argue that CSM is using a computer to auto-generate messages using the name Jack Tucker.
That’s possible but unlikely.
—————–
I have read CSM off and on for most of my adult life because I consider CSM to be a reliable & credible source for information. I’m not a Christian Scientist & know nothing about their doctrine, but their newspaper is one of the best in the business.
I posted a comment on CSM’s message boards for the first time in my life in comment number 3. I posted that comment because I was bored & amusing myself at the time. Little did I realize when I posted that comment that I would become the topic of this board.
I’m not arguing anything, I’m responding to comments directed at me. From my viewpoint, there’s nothing to argue. What people choose to believe is entirely up to them and beyond discussion. You either believe or you don’t and no argument is going to change that belief.
My point is fairly self-evident to anyone who knows anything about religious beliefs, so there’s really nothing to argue.
56. Don Robertson | 05.23.09
Jack Tucker’s moral relativism equates to: “[…] the primary “moral imperative” for any human is the imperative to survive.”
No doubt then, Jack, you are a determinist, one who believes that while our intellect may be greater than the ants and the bees, -in the end, we all end up failing your survival-test of morality and thus plummet into a nihilist nothingness.
Can you find nothing better to do with your life than to waste it telling everyone, it is no use! Your world stinks of sulfer, Jack. There is nothing you can do but take your time, your space and survive like an old goat. If you don’t have horns, you should have them.
You offer no so reassurance to the youth of the world, Jack. I suppose the subjectivist-realist Picasso painting of the sinister reality in which you live -is the most moral thing you have to offer anyone, even the young.
Well then, Take up arms, folks. Clear yourself a wide swath on this planet and make yourself at home whilst time lasts for you. Survive! Become a cannibal of humanity. After all, it is YOU who must survive!
Survive! Commands an old fool from Texas citing Abraham Maslow the early 20th Century Existentialist-Psychologist who was enlightened by writers of desperation and hatred of life -like Jean-Paul Sartre -Albert Camus and the tragic Arthur Schopenhauer -who was sure it would be better not to have been born at all. Such genius! Such towering intellect. Such abhorrent old fools -exist.
I am a 21st Century philosopher, Jack. One of the first of many to come. We will all be moral philosophers, Jack, because there are not arguments to defeat us.
You ought to have your commandment cut into stone and brought down from a mountain for all to heed, Jack.
No, Jack. You are wrong. Swallow your Texan-pride as big as it is.
This world is Paradise. You are but an old curmudgeon at the party of life, that’s all.
It is our most important moral duty to pass it on to all those who would follow us into this world -in at least as good shape as we found it, and hopefully much better. Shutting-up people like you will make it better.
Here is the proof your moral imperative is an aberration. -If you were attached to a machine that was shortly going to kill either YOU or the rest of humanity, -depending upon the setting of a switch within your reach- what is the moral choice for YOU to make?
You will avoid the answer. You are a coward, unwilling to face the moral reality. Your moral imperative is succinctly destroyed in very short order.
But, you would not have that, would you? Jack. No. You see it as your right and freedom to spend your time destroying some of the rich diversity that this planet had when you were born into it.
You would have everyone here believe YOU are God, and YOU have the knowledge necessary to know what should, and what should not be culled from the human experience.
No, Jack. As I said, you are a bigot. You stand on your soapbox telling all who will listen, believers in God are idiots!
Others who have made these exclamations of what amount to hatred have incited violence against others by their words, Jack. I doubt that is what you want. You are only looking to humiliate “God believers”.
But here, and now, you are the one ending up humiliated this time, Jack.
It is “logical”, says Jack. It is right here in MY head, -somewhere -says Jack.
57. Jack Tucker | 05.23.09
Don Robertson’s book of incoherent gibberish, in his own words:
“This work is a chronology of the author’s 2006 discovery of The Moral Imperative of Life, and, the subsequent discovery of Categorical Knowledge. Categorical Knowledge is a knowledge set that exists above superstition and empirical knowledge preëminently superintending all human knowledge. The work is a detailed discussion of the first three years during which Don Robertson has grappled with what these discoveries mean for free will, secular morality and the future. What he has found is a secular, non-relative moral sense that is destined to finally deliver civilization and the knowledge required to make the world a place better than we have let it become.”
Source: Amazon.com
According to Amazon, your book of incoherent gibberish is #1,414,749 in the best selling ranks.
That puts it right up there with Watch Grass Grow & Grow Rich.
You claimed to be a “published author” when the fact is your “publisher” is listed as “Create Space.” In other words, you published your own book. Or, will publish one if anyone is dumb enough to give you their money.
Create Space:
“Our free online publishing tools and Community can help you complete and sell your work.
Distribute on Amazon.com, your own website, and other retailers without setup fees or inventory.”
Source: http://www.createspace.com
——-
You claim to be a “21st century philosopher.”
In the promo for your book of incoherent gibberish, you claim you “grappled” (with your gibberish) for “3 years.”
Amazon reports your book of gibberish was “published” on January 6, 2009.
Your numbers do not add up. You could not have “found” a brand new philosophy in 2006, “grappled with it” for “3 years” AND published a book of your findings in January of 2009.
You appear to be a fraud & a charlatan preying on the weak & stupid.
In any case, your incoherent gibberish is beyond my interest so I’ll bid you farewell & good luck in your career as a huckster preying on the weak & stupid.
58. Don Robertson | 05.24.09
Well, Jack, what can I say? Thank you for the glowing endorsement of my literary and philosophic labor, “The New Epistemology of Morality and Truth”.
The terms with which you speak of my book could not help but draw some public attention to it. I only wish you could have mentioned “A Critique of Pure Science” and my soon-to-be-released, “An Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers - Precious Life - Empirical Knowledge” -which includes 100 paintings - all that I personally painted.
I humbly apologize -and- I must say I have but one glaring regret here, for which I apologize to Barbara Bradley Hagerty -and- Riverheard Books, her publisher.
That regret is -that I have not had the chance -yet- to read her book, “Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality” the subject of this clearly stimulating CS Monitor reviewer’s article. I promise to remedy this embarrassing personal shortcoming -and- to post a review of Barbara Hagerty’s no-doubt worthy personal effort on Amazon.com -as soon as I can-.
Again Jack, -Thank you. And thank you for mentioning CreateSpace an Amazon Company.
In wholesome gratitude, if you send me an email at donr(at)207me(dot)com, I’ll have a reviewer’s copy sent out to you -at no expense to you or to me- -so you can read the words on the pages themselves, and so you shouldn’t have to rely so much on rough guesswork.
For anyone else reading here - even faintly interested in what I have written, -my works are philosophic in nature, and do not generally brush up against God. -So do not be misled by the context of my comments. My works are not religious in genre. I am a writer of philosophy.
I write of personal philosophies and secular morality. I write philosophy that has turned the tables on trends in philosophy that stretch back to the Enlightenment.
My philosophic focus is -remaking the world so that it better reflects human needs by focusing on the epistemological shortcomings of empirical knowledge and the resulting empirical society we all live in and that is short on any positive guiding moral focus. I have put an end to any relative morality.
Jack will attest to that.
Much of what I write is wholly unintuitive to philosophies of the past. I am clearly a philosophy trail-blazer, which is why I write. I write what needs to be said. I am of the Twainist version and variety of philosophers.
One goal I have is to write my own version of -Innocents Abroad- before my time is done.
I am a moral philosopher, and -like Twain- I am proud of that statement.
Philosophy is the pinnacle of all worldly knowledge, and moral philosophy shines a positive light onto the only path there is -that leads us all toward the truth of life.
59. S. Sandlin | 05.24.09
Though I’m not a scientist by any means, I would suggest that, in science, there
is no good nor bad, but just is. And, if that is a scientific law, it cannot be
applied to the development of human wisdom and compassion. Therefore, I’d say
there must be a greater law than science–otherwise, we are of no more value
than the amoeba. Or do scientists believe this?
60. Don Robertson | 05.25.09
S. Sandlin-
Having contributed far more than my share here already, perhaps I should let well enough alone. Your view is no doubt innocent enough. But science cannot be held blameless. By an analogy, here is why.
If I were a scientist, and I discovered a way to create a device powerful enough that it could destroy the planet, a device that was so simple and inexpensive to make -that any talented high school sophomore could make it, -at minimal cost, -once the intellectual and scientific hurdle of understanding was cleared- a hurdle which I and no one else had cleared…
Would it be immoral for me to publish my findings on the Internet?
Obviously -this is a rhetorical moral question.
However consider, -what is the difference from this analogy and what is going on in hundreds of thousands of scientific laboratories all over the world? Are all these scientists -not- looking for that powerful scientific break-through? Yes, they are, certainly.
So then, -who is to blame for these things?
These scientists are gambling away the future -by their searching for this knowledge -knowledge humanity is not equipped to control. It is not even a gamble. They are condemning humanity to suffer their scientific discoveries.
One thing I have recently come to be able to express better, is that there are social diseases wrapped up in knowledge. Simply put, there is knowledge no human being should have, -and lots of it that we should not have. Just add knowledge, and you create a social disease of sorts. Re-read my rhetorical analogy again.
Experiment with the idea yourself. It works well. Give a culture certain knowledge, and it becomes diseased by that knowledge. It is an easy thing to observe by the history of small island nations that were inflicted in our near-term historic past with western knowledge and western ways.
Immediately the social disease we loosely refer to as “modernity” manifested itself.
It is always easier to find fault. It is far more difficult to assign solutions.
The solution might be to let everyone know, they each have immutable moral responsibilities that are being ignored, even trespassed upon.
I will say it again with greater emphasis- science is but another religion.
Until science realizes its own limitations, science is dead, -because science has become the supreme danger on the planet.
The old notion of amoral science you have expressed is naive -and is no longer viable, -not in an age of nuclear weaponry, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, robotics and biological weapons.
One thing the old empirical notions allowed many to believe, was that scientific progress automatically translated into human progress.
This notion has proved itself a tragic fallacy.
61. Jack Tucker | 05.25.09
To S. Sandlin:
The primary law for any species, including humans, is the law of survival. We all follow that law from the moment we are born until the day we die. The law is subject to interpretation based on a person’s circumstances, but it applies equally to all animals.
A newborn is a human in its purest form. A newborn has no “morals” or concept of anything other than the need to survive. Which is the foundation for everything that follows. All of which is learned by trial & error or watching those around us, primarily our parents.
“God” is a parent substitute in our later years. In Christian theology, the Old Testament God is the father figure (harsh disciplinarian); Jesus is the mother figure (self-sacrificing, comforting, forgiving).
Humans are little different than any other animal except we are capable of destroying the earth’s ability to support life as we know it. And, are quickly on that path due to overpopulation, not war.
I’m not sure where anyone gets the idea that humans have wisdom or objectively verifiable “morals”, but it cannot be based on observation. Humans as a species are entirely self-serving and very destructive.
62. Don Robertson | 05.25.09
Crazy-old and punch-drunk Jack Tucker has no idea when he’s been beaten, or that it is even possible to be beaten in this fight. Jack cannot figure out what hit him and knocked him unconscious and his argument right out of the ring of contention.
Jack, men have been marching off to war and sacrificing their lives for higher causes since long before the dawn of history. Men have been known to duel to the death over honor or an insult of a fair maiden.
You make up the history of humanity and talk about human nature just as if you live on another planet with another species. Does Texas breed such Kafkaesque men, Jack? I’ve known plenty of men from Texas, and you do not do them justice, Jack.
I’ll tell everyone what type of man Jack is. Not only is he such a small man -he cannot admit when he is licked, Jack isn’t a man who would read the book of a man better than he -by a country mile almost every day of the week- because Jack is just silly enough to be ashamed of his humanity -when he is beaten and made to look the fool.
Jack, we are all fools.
Stand up straight, Jack. Dust off your pride, Jack. You may be an old fool, but you are a man. You are not the worm you profess yourself to be. You have pride, Jack.
No worm has pride, do they?
No, Jack. Worms have no pride. And nor do they have morals.
But men do.
I know, given the necessary choice to protect the rest of humanity, you would lay down your own life quite willingly. You are a moral man -whether for the sake of your ridiculous argument, you like it or not.
I thank you for the good contest. But -I must admit to you- you stepped into the ring with a ringer. You never had a chance. You have my respect for your willingness to persevere against the obvious odds.
63. Syd. | 05.27.09
Having followed this argument for awhile I am really disappointed. Why does there always have to be winners and losers? Has it never occurred to any of you that the creationists and evolutionists do not necessarily preclude each other?–that there can be a synthesis of science and religion. Have any of you ever heard of the Templeton Prize? or read the works of a man named Wallace, a contemporary of Darwin? Seen or read any of the theories of “Intelligent Design”
Oh the sorry state of modern schooling, schooled but never educated
64. Jack Tucker | 05.27.09
In previous comments, I asserted that humans learn “morality” from our surroundings. This cannot be confirmed by science because children cannot be isolated to prove the assertion.
So, we are left with anecdotal evidence, such as this report from the BBC:
27 May 2009:
“Russian officials have taken a five-year-old Siberian girl into care, saying that she had apparently been “brought up” by cats and dogs.”
. . .
“Police said she had never been allowed outside and had adopted the behaviour of the animals she lived with.
They said she now “barked like a little dog” and jumped at the door when her carers left the room.”
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8070814.stm
Demonstrating that behavior (”morality”) is determined by our surroundings. Humans are not born with “morals,” they are learned by watching those around us.
65. Jack Tucker | 05.28.09
To Syd:
“Intelligent design” is not a scientific theory. It is called “creationism” and is based on religious beliefs.
A scientific theory can be falsified, religious beliefs cannot.
The only apparent argument comes from those who choose to label religious beliefs as a scientific theory.
The underlying problem with creationism is it offers no explanation as to who or what created the creator. When queried, creationists claim the creator has always existed. While at the same time arguing complex life required creation due to its complexity.
Which means the creator was either created or is not complex life.
Which appears to be a contradiction and negates the argument.
Creationists have no valid argument since their “theory” is based entirely on personal opinions or beliefs and nothing else. That is not a scientific theory and should not be taught or referred to as such.
66. Don Robertson | 05.28.09
All of Jack’s theories are standard model theory hundreds of years old.
Jack has failed to attempt to transcend his own model -in order that he might attain a better understanding. Jack does not contend he was raised by dogs.
Jack (I can only imagine) would contend that -even in Texas- what makes a human being is as much culture -as it is DNA.
There is a far better -and indeed necessary- understanding that accommodates both religion and science available to those who seek it. Jack does not seek it. Jack believes he can turn a blind eye to religion, and it will disappear. (I once had a tomcat who thought that about reality too!)
Here is how that other model works, even if Jack will not agree because of his reactionary, closed-minded and bigoted view of reality.
Jack states the standard model succinctly concerning intelligent design: “The only apparent argument comes from those who choose to label religious beliefs as a scientific theory.”
Clearly this is a logical assertion. However, logic itself is subject to STRANGE reasoning due to underlying assumptions that fail the logic test, as I have already indicated in this thread -in a previous post- unanswered by Jack or anyone else.
Those who can seek the new knowledge paradigm can immediately jump to the next level of understanding -that Jack would find impossible to accord with his own way of thinking because he is stranded upon his logic (which is easily proved faulty).
The new paradigm would allow us to conclude affirmatively -that while religion is not science, science is clearly just another religion -for it too requires a deity at its assumption-base FOR ANYONE TO BELIEVE any of the conclusions of science bear concrete truth in the real world. (Scientific truths are all mere approximations.)
Any scientific or even mathematical proposition can be proved a logical fallacy. This was proved long ago by Greek philosophers.
Where the common determinist argument fails is in the assumption that the Universe can be described deterministically, which these arguments contend is also scientifically. This essential argument of the determinists is no different from any other religious argument that states that the Universe can be understood religiously.
The common assumption is that the Universe can be understood. This is acceptable as a fallacy whether it is espoused by the religious or the determinist, because while this assumption cannot be proved a fallacy, surely -neither can it be proved truth -either by the religious or the scientific.
In epistemology, religion and science thus duel to a draw -completely. They equate at any level of truth fitness testing.
With this view in mind, -and a far greater appreciation for the infinitely complex reality that surrounds all of us-, we CAN make progress in our understanding, a search for a path toward truth.
That progress is slow -but sure.
We have the cogito, Cogito ergo sum, Descartes’ philosophic epiphany, -I think, there I am.
If this is indeed all we can know FOR SURE, then we must begin from there.
FROM THERE, a sentient being might also surmise: 1) I was not always here 2) I will not always be here 3) Conscious-life is good 4) There are others around me who seem to come and go with their own consciousness -as I have surmised I might have come and will likely go -and finally- 5) If I have any familiarity with these others, I should seek to live my life so I do not detract from the lives others will have -who will arrive and be here after I depart.
This is the moral imperative of life. Progress is indeed slow. Negative progress however, a debasement of our humanity is a fast and slippery slope.
It is possible today to shut the door to all humanity forever due to science.
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
If there are sentient beings who would wish to be sentient moral beings, they will need to strive to act morally.
We would all act morally, were we to know how, and -were it possible.
Thus, -in order to have free will-, and, -to defeat the determinist’s argument that life is entirely determined by fate- -that we are mere automatons-, sentient beings that call themselves human will need to strive to be moral sentient beings.
And Jack, the only argument against intelligent design is that we do not know what is intelligent, so how could we recognize intelligence by design?
67. Jack Tucker | 05.28.09
Mr. Robertson, this will be the last comment I will direct at you or your incomprehensible gibberish.
You have yet to make a point that can be disputed or discussed. You string words together for no discernible purpose in relation to the topic at hand.
My best guess, based on your incoherent gibberish, is you are promoting “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” as a “new philosophy.” That is not a new philosophy.
Your straw man arguments are indicative of a person with nothing to argue. You are arguing with the straw men you create & attribute to me. They are your straw men, not mine.
Accompanied by ad hominem attacks that appear to be from the mind of a 12 year old. Ad hominem attacks (personal attacks) demonstrate you have nothing to argue. Ad hominem attacks are total surrender to your opponent. In your case, a perceived opponent since I’m not arguing with you. I’m not arguing with you because you’ve made no points that can be argued.
I have no idea why you are posting comments since you have nothing to add to the conversation. Your only purpose for posting appears to be to advertise your book of incomprehenbible gibberish and to attack other posters.
Either of which is a clear violation of the rules set forth at the bottom of this page.
Your “new philosophy” apparently does not apply to you.
In any case, you are not my opponent and I’m not arguing with you because you have yet to post anything that can be argued. Your incomprehensible gibberish is torturous to read due to its incoherence.
When you learn to write and make clear points, I may respond to you. But, in the meantime, you are now being ignored.
Good luck promoting “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as a “new philosophy.
68. Don Robertson | 05.29.09
Jack- Thank you for what I value as your time and your more valuable -and even uncommon- attention. You have served a worthy purpose, even if you have not been able to discern it.
That you have been unable to appraise the value I see in our long exchange here is not surprising to me. Long ago I realized everyone sees themselves as the Übermensch, or -at least capable of expressing the thoughts of the Übermensch. It is an illusion common to the human psyche because we are most familiar and most comfortable with what happens between our own ears.
Your views expressed here exemplify this commonly self-assured ignorant bliss. To me, -I should point out-, you seem utterly blind to what is going on -on this comment board. But then, -I too am -ONLY- most familiar and most comfortable with what goes on between my own ears too.
In almost every way possible though -you have attempted to portray my posts as something other than what they have been, -or so it seem to me. This seems to have been done by you -all in order to attempt to debase any assertion I have made -and that you disagreed with-, and especially my assertion -that you should not be so willing to hang your arguments upon an ignorantly bigoted view concerning religion and the religious.
If you would like to be with like-minded fools, I would suggest the Richard Dawkins site, where I suspect you would experience a great epiphany in your own reaction to the commonly nauseous atheist attitude.
Jack, the CS Monitor article being discussed here is a review of a book important enough to have received a CS Monitor Book Review. It is a book that has gone to great length to weave together a fabric connecting the religious experience and the scientific experience.
You have come here to say, the religious experience is somehow analogous to your statement, “Lunatics have absolute faith their delusions are “real” but that does not make it so.”
Lunatics-? Jack? At this point in your repeatedly asserted position, you had clearly lost your way.
Regardless what you or any other socially-acting-out atheist might ever assert, religion is a valuable asset in the intellectual community of man, Jack. It is a fair statement to say, the depth of human consciousness is in large part learned -and also- responsible to the intellectual diversity humans developed by the religious experience of humans throughout history and prehistory.
Religion is a far more valued intellectual asset than the combined intellectual contributions of all the atheists who ever existed, and that likely will ever exist, if simply because these atheist-arguments made attempting to prove something that cannot be proved are generally no more cogent than are your own arguments about morality, Jack.
You have steadfastly refused to acknowledge your own morality from start to finish here, Jack. Regardless, it is there. You are a moral human being. You cannot suppress it. Otherwise, -you would not bother to take the time to inform all your readers here -that you suspect I am a “a fraud & a charlatan preying on the weak & stupid.” -and further by implication, that you are (predictably) the one true Übermensch.
FYI, Jack, the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” philosophy you reference and wrongly attribute to my assertions here -is the humanitarian philosophy common in today’s broader ethos. It is not what I have been saying, as anyone who has been reading here will recognize, less you of course…
I have been instead pointing out -we all have a paramount moral obligation to do for the future, what we would have had the past do for us, -because if we do not, we could end up shutting the door to all humanity in the future by our immoral willingness to gamble away the future -trying to make the present more to our own selfish liking.
One of those moral obligations we all have to the future -is to protect the intellectual diversity represented by religious beliefs in society.
If we are to be sentient beings, and particularly sentient moral beings, we should feel a moral obligation to protect the diversity represented by religious beliefs, because these beliefs are assets those in the future will appreciate in their experience of life.
If everyone thought they were as smart and clever as you apparently think you are, (-good for you, Jack-) we would all feel our gambles were sure bets, -and- we would all ignore our moral responsibility not to be so reckless with the one world any human will likely ever inhabit.
This world has been called The Garden of Eden, Jack, and, it is the only world any human likely will ever know.
69. Jack Tucker | 05.29.09
Since I have let Mr. Robertson’s straw man arguments go unchallenged, I am making this final response to his incoherent gibberish:
Mr. Robertson continues to repeat his straw man argument that I am opposed to religion. After inventing his straw man, he proceeds to argue with it as if he is proving something.
I am not opposed to religion and specifically said so in comment #19.
It is entirely logical and acceptable for people to invent beneficent gods (”religion”).
Unlike Mr. Robertson, I am not so ignorant or arrogant as to presume I am qualified to tell others how to live their lives or what to believe. We all live according to our own best interests. Other than singular, specific interests, interests we rarely share with anyone else in a personal sense. Including our beliefs, whatever they may be.
It is no one else’s business, absent criminal behavior, what anyone chooses to believe.
——
Mr. Robertson invents a second straw man implying I said people have no morals. Which he also argues with.
I never made any such claim. I specifically said our morality is determined by our surroundings and experiences. No two people have the same morals, even within families.
———-
This comment is being posted to ensure casual readers are not deceived by Mr. Robertson’s repeated straw man arguments claiming I am opposed to religion or that people have no morals.
I trust most CSM readers are intelligent enough to see through his straw man arguments.
70. Don Robertson | 05.29.09
Jack, when you state, -”Morals are entirely subjective and depend on a person’s circumstances. Your claims [my claim] about “moral imperatives” is about as nonsensical as it can get. Nonsensical because the primary “moral imperative” for any human is the imperative to survive.”- you are saying there are no morals that really mean anything beyond what a rat might feel for morals, –”survive”!
Given the chance -you declined an invitation to refute my moral imperative that I have left wide open to you -claiming it to be both inclusively and exclusively categorical. We will close with that again -in a moral choice I offered to you earlier.
In your post #19 that you ridiculously cite as substantiating your support of religion, -you state -in absurdly condescendingly fashion, “I’m not foolish (illogical?) enough to seriously believe my opinion will persuade true believers that the belief they hold that provides them with comfort is based on delusions. […] Religion (”God belief”) can be very beneficial for many people. Without it, they may very likely have a nervous breakdown. Which would not be good for anyone.”
So -Jack-, while you return late to assert you are not opposed to religion, -by slipping in these notions that the religious are mentally unfit, ill, and delusional, you have clearly demonstrated a position opposed to religion.
Deny it all you want.
You have also come late to say you believe human beings have morals, and even the sort of morals YOU WOULD URGE THEM TO HAVE, but you are not indicating YOU have any moral by your statements, quite the contrary. You are asserting you will do whatever YOU think is right DEPENDING ENTIRELY on the situation.
I have previously asked you what you believe, Jack. You gave no response. Your morals are -then- impossible to decipher, because there are reasons behind human morals.
And despite my long patience in describing good reasons for both a non-relative morality and a morally necessary support of religion in society, you continue to assert -no one has the right to tell anyone how they might consider living their lives -except you- by your swaggering suggestions -of course.
So, I will ask you AGAIN, Jack. –If you were attached to a machine that was shortly going to kill either YOU or the rest of humanity, -depending upon the setting of a switch within your reach- what is the moral choice for YOU to make?
And if you do turn out to be so cordial and accommodating to answer that question, you might also provide everyone here with the benefit of your logical reasoning behind your choice.
Let that be your THIRD last word here. By it you can affirm your morality for all.
71. Don Robertson | 06.01.09
I want to close here -wishing Jack well, all else who held on to the very last, -and any who read these comments in the future.
It should be -for some- a recognizable irony -that a moral philosopher should step into this small -but historic- fray to provide evidence of -not just the fallibility of the modern, scientific atheism, but also -to consider the moral necessity of the intellectual diversity of thought provided by religion in society.
Everyone will think as they may, but also some will recognize, a philosopher strives always to point -to a path- that leads toward truth. This is what philosophers have done throughout history, if all too often -errantly so.
Anyone else, who thinks they may have found truth, should take note here, and be made aware. There are philosophers who have exhausted their life’s work, -who have never found any specific truth.
The Universe is infinitely-infinitely complex. This is a categorically true statement, -or so it seems for the mean time -which encircles all of us. To state one knows truth, one must -impossibly- unravel this complexity.
When anything is measured against the backdrop of an infinitely-infinitely complex reality, its self-evidence fades like a gnat viewed from a distance.
Not only are our senses inadequate to sense the vast majority of reality, -our consciousness is vaporous enough that we all are easily convinced that every individual consciousness, scheme and conception is a shared and learned experience, -and nothing much more.
If life is not a dream, it is closer to being a dream than anything else we can point to.
Should a philosopher someday tap on your shoulder -and suddenly awaken you into his consciousness- understand -he too is whistling in the dark.
-Best to all.
72. Cameron Wilson | 06.25.09
@Mike Granger (44) — Unfortunately, I believe you’ll be drastically shocked once you enter your grave. Or, you probably won’t as I believe there is nothing after you die so no emotion will matter regardless. And please don’t cite horribly inaccurate movies even though they had a good production value and a prominent figure-head. Just because Ben Stein was the main speaker in the movie does not give any credence to the position. If that were seriously your only qualification for the authenticity or accuracy, you’d be an atheist. (see Einstein, Galileo, Hawkins, etc., etc., ad (near) infinitum)
Here, this might clear your head about the load of bull “Exposed” filled yours with: http://www.expelledexposed.com/
73. Cameron Wilson | 06.25.09
EDIT: I realized after my post that Galileo was quite religious and Einstein may not have classified himself as an “atheist”. — Forgive my momentary lapse in judgement due to my emotion of the ignorance being portrayed. However, Einstein was certainly a non-believer (agnostic) and was very outspoken against the concept of “God”:
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm
So before anyone chastises me about my comment, let me rephrase:
“If that were seriously your only qualification for the authenticity or accuracy, you’d be an atheist. (see Einstein, Galileo, Hawkins, etc., etc., ad (near) infinitum)”
to
“If that were seriously your only qualification for the authenticity or accuracy, you’d be an non-believer/agnostic/atheist. (see Einstein, Hawkins, Chomsky, Weinberg, Feynmen, Crick, Turing, Russell, Freud, Epicurus, Searle, Sagan, Gould, Dawkins, Dennet, Leaky, Pinker, etc., etc., ad (near) infinitum)”
74. john | 10.02.09
Yes, yes…the discussion of God, religion, Life, Truth, Death et al is endless, variable, simple, debateable, complex, exciting, dull, fruitful, healing, confusing…and on and on… so……read Ms. Hagerty’s thoughtful book, ” Fingerprints of God.” . I loved it. Well written, informative, spiritual, good humored, serious, loving, educational with many, many spiritual experiences and ideas to reflect on. You will learn things from reading “Fingerprints of God. ” If not, read it again, OK? Please.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Kyrre | 05.19.09
Anyone who uses the term “just matter” probably hasen’t listened to a physicist of the more cosmological fields for very long.
And anyone who thinks “matter” is what “science” is about hasn’t talked with an evolutionary biologist either. Yes, we are made out of matter (what would a real”spirit world” consist of by the way?), but we are not matter but what matter does. There may not be a single atom left in you of the cells that fused when you were conceived, your cells are continuously replaced, and there is no little thing in you that is “you” while the rest is “matter”. You are not a piece of matter but a process. If you think that is too mundane, too understandable, not fantastic enough, you with all respect are probably deluding yourself that you understand something that you do not.