http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Er I believe in demons. At the moment I believe that Arun is possesed by the devil and the only solution is to deprive the devil the body that it is inhabiting, ie burn Arun at the stake.
Let no scientist or government stop me from doing this. Atleast I should have the freedom to propogate this truth. This is the truth that my religion taught me.
(Salem witch trials anybody)

Sorry for that outburst. But the point is that while religious freedom is good, so too is intellectual freedom, the freedom to criticise religions/theologies/religious practices. This intellectual freedom is probably the most needed for a civilised society

Infinitely more serious problems than whether God exists or not?
Thats debatable. I can see a whole lot of problems that have a root in irrational belief.

So i’ll merely point towards a few works which some (more so than others) may find interesting:

Nietzsche’s words and comments would be appropriate throughout this thread. See his “Beyond Good and Evil” for comments on morality, good/evil, whether to murder etc.

Nietzsche of course also had much to say on God’s Death (please let me indulge in this rather lengthy quotation):

“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now?
Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? ”

- Section 125, The Gay Science

Another relevant text would be The Last Temptation of Christ, a Martin Scorsese film from 1988. His rather interesting interpretation/retelling of the story of Jesus (played by William Dafoe with a thick NYC accent) strikes at the heart of how important myth and the power of story is at work in religion…

m

once again, i pray that you will realize that He exists; that you will let Him save you because we cannot do it ourselves; that you will follow Him for His plans are the best.

Sure, walking on water cannot be done…by us. It can be done by some insects Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is a God and that He created the universe. Would it not be so much easier for Him to walk on the water He made?

We have to remember that the Big Bang Theory is just a *theory* and that no one of us was actually here when it happened; we have to allow for the possibility of other theories like Intelligent Design (for those who cannot say G-o-d). In the same way, evolution is a theory as well; if we are the objective scientists we say we are we have to look at *all* possible explanations.

Maybe the aspect that disturbs some scientists so much is that God — and Jesus, when He walked the earth — violates many if not all physical laws and principles we know. But does He really? I really like this illustration: if an apple is supposed to fall to the ground and I catch it in midair, did I violate the laws of physics? Not really. I just intervened, in a manner that is ordered and scientifically sound as well.

Born to a virgin? It hasn’t happened before..again, to humans. (Parthenogenesis occurs in some animals.) But just before it never happened to anyone else before or after Jesus *does not* mean it cannot happen. For one, He’s God and we’re not. (Okay, so this might seem like circular reasoning, but please stay with me. ) Secondly, as scientists we know that just one counterexample disproves the entire theory or law, just like that. Our moms definitely weren’t virgins when we were born, so let’s look at another instance.

Jesus claimed that our bodies will be resurrected to eternal life if we follow Him and let Him save us. Suppose now that He did rise from the dead. Then by golly, it’s possible for us as well. Sure, nobody else we personally know rose from the dead before. But regardless of the billions of people who have died and decomposed on this planet, ONE counterexample (remember our scientific training) is enough. Yes, it is possible.

Obviously another thing that irks many scientists is when people say that “science can never prove or disprove the existence of a god”. This looks like a convenient way to stop all arguments eh? But again being a scientist I respectfully disagree. I have seen and heard many stories of people being encountered by God on their *own personal* level: whether one’s needs are emotional, psychological, physical, and so on. He meets you where you are. The fact that all-powerful God let Himself be born to mere mortals, work, sweat, defecate and die would show us that He adjusts to us so we could grasp Him.

For scientists, especially astronomists and cosmologers: “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?” (Psalm 8:3-4) He meets you where you are, including scientists like us

Okay, so we cannot see God. I cannot see energy and electrons either. Jesus obviously meant the same thing when He says “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

Wouldn’t it be scary to entrust your entire life to someone I cannot even see? But how different is it from a marriage vow, where I believe and hope that my spouse really will love me till death? How different is it from a child or a friend, who I hope will always be there for me? The relationship is still based on trust (which is another word for faith).

Just because it did not happen before, and just because we cannot perceive it, does not mean it’s not true.

In anything else, science holds that statement without question, but when it comes to the issue of God suddenly the barriers are up. Shouldn’t we be more objective? Maybe, just maybe, God is true.

We can even make our own experiments if we want…just to test the God hypothesis. Besides, if there really is no God, what have we got to lose? Blaise Pascal himself said this: “Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.”

“Come near to God and He will come near to you.” (James 4:8)

I do hope that you do I’ll be praying for you guys.

With all the love from a fellow scientist (who you cannot see and whose words you have to decide to believe),
Teci

Scientists could do a lot more for the world if they would stay off Jesus and the bible believe what ever you want just let others believe what they want !

I agree. But scientists actually stay off Jesus and the bible. It is Doctors of Philosophy who are out there preaching and trying to convert the souls of unconverted to their side of the religious fence. The esteemed owner of this blog is on the trenches coast to coast and he is preaching “…not only to the converted, but also to the skeptical.” This is not surprising because Doctor means teacher. To teach and to proselitize is in the job description of Doctors of Philosophy.

…there is no room in [the laws of physics] for … turning water into wine.

What law of physics forbids turning water into wine? On the contrary, modern academic physics as taught by Doctors of Philosophy allows turning of water into wine. After all we observe that water turns into wine when mixed with grape juice. What is miraculous is not turning water into wine but turning water into wine instantaneously. Instantaneous action at a distance has been a law of physics for more than three centuries.

Furthermore, turning water into wine can also be achieved by sending the bottle of grape juice into a roundtrip time travel through a standard wormhole in a standard spacetime. When the bottle is back to your overcrowded wedding party you can serve it as wine to the delight of the guests. This is a law of physics. No miracle here. Thousands of Doctors of Philosophy have been publishing physics papers on time travel and wormholes in Peer Reviewed journals for a long time now. You just need to be careful because the time traveling bottle of wine may have been contaminated with a little too much Hawking radiation.

Also, if you are concerned about radiation and other adverse effects of blackhole crossing which may reduce the quality of your grape juice you may try one of the most proved and true theories in physics ever: General Relativity. Just invoke the twin paradox and send two identical bottles bottled at the same time to do the twin paradox thing. While the bottle on earth will remain as grape juice, the other one traveling with the speed of light would become a good aged wine. You can even publish a paper on your twin paradox vintage as yet another proof of General Relativity.

So, no, however you slice it, modern academic physics has no laws forbidding making wine from water instantaneously. On the contrary, if you want to make wine instantaneously you have no choice but use the laws of physics.

What is forbidden, though, is an illiterate peasant who is not a Doctor of Philosophy impinging on the scientific territory of Doctors of Philosophy and claiming to perform miracles that only Doctors of Philosophy are allowed to perform in theory. Jesus has never gotten around to getting his Doctor of Philosophy degree so he has no right to conduct such miracles, ehem, scientific experiments. Jesus actually hated professional Doctors and Priests. This is why he stormed the temple.

You now see why physics is the modern religion. The same cosmic priests who call themselves nowadays Doctors of Philosophy just changed the name of the standard religious miracles and sell them to us as science.

I hope that you would think about the above facts before insulting modern Doctors of Philosophy again by saying that Doctors cannot turn water into wine by some simple time travel.

Don’t get me wrong, Jesus’ miracle is still a religious miracle and Doctors’ miracle is a scientific fact. The reason is simple: Jesus could not prove his miracles mathematically. Doctors of Philosophy will prove to you their miracles with immaculate mathematics. As immaculate as you know who.

Interesting, Sean (and btw mega congrats on your engagement). I feel exactly the opposite. The Cecil B. DeMille miracles leave me cold. It’s the almost mundane sight of Jesus stooping to the dust, spitting in it and applying the mud to the blind man’s eyes that I find compelling. Or turning on his doubters with the words, “Which of these is easier, to say your sins are forgiven…or rise up and walk,” before he grasps the cripple by the hand and pulls him up.

Parting the Red Sea does seem like a huge violation of the laws of nature. Curing a man whose eyes are defective … already in a sense not operating according the laws of nature …seems much more striking.

For what it’s worth.

The laws of physics and biology tell us something about how the world works, and there is no room in there for raising the dead and turning water into wine.

I’m sure this has been said in one of the 83 comments above (I think it was the point of comment number 2), but it is the sincere belief of religous people that walking on water and turning water to wine is against the laws of physics. It was supernatural, and was done for the very purpose of proving to the whitnessess that Jesus was God himself. They didn’t see him walking on water and say, “well I didn’t think that was possible, but I have studied enough physics yet”. They saw him walking on water and said “that’s impossible, who is this man?”.

There is a difference between argueing over the age of the earth and the virgin birth. There is evidence for the age of the earth that can be seen today. There is evidence for evolution that can be intrepreted today. There is no evidence over whether Mary had sex or not. As far as I can tell, no one has yet built a time machine and snapped a slide show on their camera phone. The only evidence we have is that it is agaist the laws of physics, and then must make the assumption that no event outside the laws of physics (as we understand them) has ever taken place.

To the religous person, that is the point. If it was natural and commen place for virgins to get pregnent, then Jesus birth would have no signifigance.

LOL — and data.

I wonder if CV needs a moderation system, a victim of its own popularity.

Sourav,

I don’t understand what your post means. Can you explain? Thanks.

I don’t understand

Is denial the best strategy, even if life is tough?

And it’s good to examine what about it is tough — whether it’s really survival, or society’s expectations you’re reacting to, or society’s expectations you internalized a long time ago.

***

Joseph,

I’d be careful about attributing any moral nobility to the making of the Constitution, or even the Bill of Rights. In many ways, it was a happy accident based on the collective experience, education, wisdom and circumstances of the delegates. They were tired of getting screwed on taxes by the Crown, they themselves or their recent ancestors were muzzled or persecuted for religious and policy beliefs, and they were afraid of concentration of power (whether in a sovereign, high population density areas, or the masses at large).

That said, the Constitution in a significant way allowed the US to become an economic and cultural powerhouse; but, not everyone thinks that’s a good thing. It’s definitely brought a material prosperity and religious freedom to US citizens, which were the Framers’ stated goals.

***

GP1 wrote:

[...] mystical hidden philosophy they call mathematics [...]

LOL — and data.

I wonder if CV needs a moderation system, a victim of its own popularity.

” The laws of physics and biology tell us something about how the world works, and there is no room in there for raising the dead and turning water into wine.”

It is interesting how for most people here physics and science are synonyms. Physics is *not* science. Physicists are the good old Scholastic Doctors of Philosophy who pretend to read the mind of God and raise the dead from dead since what is time travel but the old religious miracle of raising the dead from the dead. True, Doctors of Philosophy use nowadays their mystical hidden philosophy they call mathematics as the authority to justify their cosmogonic theories but that does not change anything. Cosmogony is still cosmogony whether Doctors use a two thousand year old book or three hundred years old book. PHYSICS = RELIGION.

But creationism *is* religion. While some creationism activists may have cynical profit-driven motives, or may be mostly motivated by loathing of “LIBERAL SCIENTISTS WHO THINK THEY’RE SMARTER THAN ME”, many no doubt believe in creationism because it is the only scenario that is compatible with their deeply held certainty that the Bible is literally true in its entirety. Debunking creationism, for these people, has to be resisted because they’ve been taught that it all has to be true, or it is all false.*

Yet scientists certainly *do* address creationism, so they *are* addressing religion.

It just doesn’t buy them anything to get combative about things which science can’t address, such as the (non)existence of God, given the lack of blatant evidence in the modern day. And if science can’t prove if there is or isn’t a God, then if there *is* a God, science can’t prove whether or not he was engaged in Earthly affairs in the past, unless, again, he left persistent evidence of clear miracle working. (ie, if he’d created a perfectly straight, foot-wide, twenty-mile high Doric column of ice on the banks of the Jordan which didn’t melt for two thousand years. That’d be pretty good evidence.)

Thus, given the state of the evidence – either there is no God, or there is and he has been quite discreet during recorded history. If there is a discreet God, then there is no good scientific argument against the proposition that he might have violated normal physical laws in a number of ephemeral ways a couple thousand years ago.

Scientists have been on much firmer ground arguing against miracles which are contemporary, or which happened long ago but left alleged artifacts.

I would suggest that scientists would be better off batting down reported “miracles” when they come up, to prevent “miracle creep” and keep miraculous explanations from becoming acceptable in science.

For one thing, this will probably be much less work than batting down creationism and ID, for which well-funded activists are agitating. There really isn’t a well-funded lobby working to fight debunkers of “Virgin Mary” sightings.

Second, some portion of claimed miracles will be by frauds, and debunking such frauds will be seen by many as a social good. Even the religious may appreciate a good logical debunking, for instance if scientists for some reason are asked for an opinion on the many bogus religious artifacts (bones of saints, etc) on EBay.

Finally, in the battle against “miraculous attribution,” you will have great friends among the lawyers and judges, who are no more likely to accept “God did it”.

*(For some reason they treat the Bible like a Jenga tower with Genesis at the bottom and Jesus at the top, and if any part is not 100% true then it takes down everything above it. If Genesis goes, Moses and Jesus come down as well. It’d be much easier if they took the relatively recent and relatively historical Jesus parts as the foundation that gives credibility to the whole, but allowed bits of the Bible to be interpreted more or less literally depending on how old they are and how directly they are connected to the Jesus parts. Then Genesis could be allowed to be metaphorical. But what do I know, I’m a slacker Buddhist.)

It seems to me that there is a significant difference between things like walking on water or turning water into wine, and things like creationism and astrology.

Walking on water and similar miracles are one-time, atomic, unique events, with no long-term effects. There are no predictions you can make from them, no objective artifacts we would see before or afterward which would act as evidence for or against such events having actually taken place. There is nothing we can point to and say “if water was turned to wine two thousand years ago, then we would expect to see a thin layer of grape flavonoids in sediments around the world, which we could call the BC/AD boundary”. There really are no predictions that can be made from such ephemeral events.

If one takes the existence of an involved omnipotent deity as a given, one can’t really say that the various physical laws known to science were not violated in those specific instances. After all, such events by definition violate the normal workings of the universe: that’s why they’re called miracles.

Simply put, physics alone is insufficient to deny anomalous unique events of the distant past if they are supposedly the work of an entity that is by definition not constrained by physics.

Scientists, of course, could take a position on the non-existence of that physics-flouting deity, in which case the miracles would not have been able to take place. Many may not wish to do that, either because of their personal religious beliefs, or because they have not seen evidence for or against the existence of God.

Anyway, as I said, things like Creationism and Astrology are very different.

Creationism is not such a tidy package, an ephemeral atomic event with no knock-on effects. It has to be reconciled with the evidence we see in the world and universe around us, and thus is subject to being disproven by science.

One-off miracles don’t bear this burden, thus are far easier to at least tolerate in a hazy “maybe it happened, if God exists, etc” fashion.

Astrology is another long-term, widely influential alleged phenomenon which is subject to scientific evaluation and debunking. In addition to the lack of scientific explanation, Astrology does make predictions, which can be tested.

(source of quote available on
http://www.mkgandhi.org/epigrams/a.htm )