God to scientists: Can't we all get along?

Just saw excerpts from an interesting film on the subject that quoted Einstein, a physicist, Rabbi's, a reverend, a Muslim group, Hindus, and personal experience. Some was about creationism and evolution not being mutually exclusive. http://www.vesselfilms.us/whatmean.htm

Want to know something interesting about Christianity? Read "Why the Jews rejected Jesus" by David Klinghoffer. This is not the only book to read; I mention it to illustrate the point you cannot truly understand the reality behind people's religious beliefs without examining opposing viewpoints.

The fact of the matter is, faith is personal. I am not the same type of atheist as Richard Dawkins, for example. As a trained scientist I prefer to answer questions by understanding what Nature tells us. My problem is not with religion at all (one can make a successful argument religious belief is evolutionarily plausible), but with a religious person crossing known boundaries by trying to explain natural occurrences with supernatural explanations.

Science does not answer "Why?" questions, i.e. questions of morality. This is why I reject most religions, because those religions require an absolute morality where there is no evidence for it and plenty of valid arguments for a flexible morality. BTW, I do NOT consider any of those arguments a license to kill, steal, or anything else that might hurt someone. Morality is very difficult to pin down. One does not need to be religious to have a good, healthy moral compass.

I am not anti-religion, I just don't want them stepping on provable reality. Evolution is a fact of life, depending on many separate disciplines to build the theory, and it answers many questions religious belief cannot.

On the other hand, science can only deal with nature, and may not be able to answer all questions. For example, in my opinion the human mind is an emergent property of having a big brain. As of today, science cannot tell us why the mind exists. However, recent experiments suggest that, like many things, there is not "mind or no mind" but a continuum. Chimps and elephants can self-recognize and self-contemplate, although not to the extent humans can. Dogs can self-recognize to a very limited extent, and can't self-contemplate at all. People have argued the mind is what separates us from the animals, but the more research is done the more we fill in the continuum from no thinking at all to the most advanced thinking machine in nature. If the mind is the soul, what does that mean? If it is, where do we draw the line between having a soul and not having one?

The key to getting along: have an open mind. Remember, even conservative Christians know this: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

I'll leave it at that. There's a lot more to this philosophical bit, but I'm running out of room. Happy thinking!

Bortz + Bowtie = Party I want to be invited to. The man amazes me with his sanity and scope of knowledge.

Ok, I will also say this:

The post was mostly tongue-in-cheek and meant to agree with your position of a higher power being far enough removed as to be unfathomable. Heck, I find my fellow man confusing enough - there is no doubt I would be unable to model and predict an omniscience beings desires.

Eric

But what is the nature of their disagreement? Probably about perspective since omniscience would imply all facts would be known (and assumed true?) so the only things left to disagree on is how each person viewed it... Though, is omniscience future proof and stateless? If one (or two) knew everything then theoretically the future is known too... therefore your arguments and the conclusions are known and the only thing left is to sip lemonade together on a porch and watch the sun set.

I find myself to be crankier and less accepting as I get older. (in my mid 30's now) When I was a teenager WOW, I was the paradigm of an Agnostic! Since then though, I have started thinking that although I truly support everyone having their own beliefs, I seem to be the minority in this country - and since I haven't ever gotten atheism shoved down my throat, I am left with a distast for the main organized religions.

I think the only thing stopping me from becoming a buddhist (aside from having to look up the spelling of 'buddhist') is the desire to respond to people on the internets. Obviously I am not yet on the path to inner peace.

Eric

Why is it so hard to believe that God set things in motion, and we evolved from there? At some point, we realized (became 'conscious' of) "good and evil" and became human, capable of committing sin. Free will is what sets us apart from animals.
We each began as two cells and evolved individually (Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny).
Some people don't understand that the Bible was handed down in a form other than what it is today: stories. There are basic truths in it, some told in allegories, as was the custom before the printed word, and before widespread literacy. (These folks also don't know enough history to understand that the calendar year we use today is not the same as it was, for example, in 560 B.C.)
At the same time, some people have turned "Darwinism" into a religion itself, with all the narrow-minded, red-faced, angry argumentativeness befitting a Southern Preacher damning everyone to hell on a Sunday morning. The "New Atheism" is a kind of "New Fundamentalism", just in different garb.
I do feel that it much too complex to divide into two sides, then fight about it. I also feel that Faith is a gift and when you have been hurt over and over by people calling themselves "faithful", "religious", "good","Christian" etc., it could make you write a book and take out all that hurt and anger on God and the people who warped your soul.
But 'Don't know much about history,
Don't know much biology,
Don't know much about French I took,
Don't know much about the science book...' doesn't qualify anyone to participate in a conversation about this subject.

and believe of their senses cannot sway people to accept evolution or the importance of science, I fail to see what a scientific paper will contribute in that regard.

Of course, ridicule and scorn don't seem to work either - so maybe dividing up the country with a border fence and some checkpoints will help the situation. :)

Eric