Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote: Dawkins is a pretty clear example of a militant atheist and they do indeed tend to be the most vocal, especially on sites where they can create controversy. I also know some Christians who can be pretty militant, vocal and controversial as well. Frankly, at times I think there's some striking similarities between the extremes in both camps.

One quote that's always stuck with me:

Believe me, it is extremism that's the problem. I mean, I have been nauseated by the things that people of extreme faith say, many, many times in my life. Muslims, Evangelicals, all of them—and I have been nauseated by rabid Atheists who. . . are just as fervent, just as bigotted, and just as loudmouthed about their Athiesm as a fundamentalist.

Perry De Angelis - a sceptic and atheist.

touchingcloth wrote: One quote that's always stuck with me:

Believe me, it is extremism that's the problem. I mean, I have been nauseated by the things that people of extreme faith say, many, many times in my life. Muslims, Evangelicals, all of them—and I have been nauseated by rabid Atheists who. . . are just as fervent, just as bigotted, and just as loudmouthed about their Athiesm as a fundamentalist.

Perry De Angelis - a sceptic and atheist.

I don't have a problem with either «extreme faith» or «rabid atheists». I would rather deal with someone who is heartfelt in his belief rather than with a wishy washy person who says, «Yeah...whatever!» What the extreme faith/rabid atheists lack is a sense of charity*; they have replaced this with conceit/derision/judgement.

FL

*charity, another word for love.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I don't have a problem with either «extreme faith» or «rabid atheists».

I have a big problem with both, if they start leading to bigotry or worse.

touchingcloth wrote:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I don't have a problem with either «extreme faith» or «rabid atheists».

I have a big problem with both, if they start leading to bigotry or worse.

This is to your credit. It seems you prefer dealing with people more mature in their beliefs. After thinking about it, I agree with you. «Pitbull» atheists and «JunkYardDog» Christians are no fun to be around.

FL

DannyM wrote:Hmm. I know what the UK stats say, but we have to remember that a drop in congregations does not = a drop in Christians. Church politics/ethics/liberalism is an issue very close to my heart, Proinsias, so sound the bell and I'll give it to you from the hip, but I'd hate to rant away with a disinterested sparring partner...

I also believe the US to be a lot more Christian than the UK, or perhaps I should say a lot less secular. In the UK we are certainly largely Christian, but the chattering classes and liberalised institutions are becoming more and more secular; not only secular, but anti-religion and specifically Christianity. I'm happy with this to an extent, but not so happy for this to be portrayed as some sort of a proof of a decline in the Christian home/family. I certainly see a drop, but not a very significant drop.

Dan

I think this is where sats can become problematic. A drop in Church activity may not be equal to a drop in Christians but I do fell it has some bearing. I also feel that there is much less social pressure to be actively, visibly, engaged in Christianity than there once was. Determining numbers of 'real' Christians is rather tough. Unfortunately it is often the most vocal who are counted, those who keep their faith or lack of it quietly to themselves are rather difficult to fathom and I think this is where a huge number of people are.
I do also sense the anti religious sentiment and agree that much of it is directed at Christianity but then Christianity is the major religion here so any change in attitude towards religion in general is likely to be heavily influenced by and felt by Christianity, although Islam has also been in the firing range. As I would imagine an anti political sentiment would be mainly directed at Labour and the Tories.
From another point of view I do see many reject Christianity and declare atheism, in private not in public polls. It always seemed odd to me that those with little more than a basic grounding in Christianity somehow used the rejection of this to chuck out every other religion under the sun along with it. I often think this may come from the idea that Christianity is the best, certainly the way it was taught to me, so if you ditch that then nothing else stands a chance, but this is little more than me making stuff up.

touchingcloth wrote:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I don't have a problem with either «extreme faith» or «rabid atheists».

I have a big problem with both, if they start leading to bigotry or worse.

I think Stephen Jay Gould was particularly scathing of the fundamentalist atheist. I can't find the S.J.G quote I want but this will perhaps suffice; he's invoking the memory of his third-grade teacher, Mrs. McInerney, who would rap the knuckles of students who said/did particularly stupid things:

"To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time: science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simple can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action)."

While Im not a big Gould fan, I feel this quote to be one of the more sensible and rational quotes I have seen from any evolutionist on the "big" issue. It's not a fence-sitting quote at all - it is a fundamental truth.

As some have noted, a drop in attendance and support of institutional churches doesn't necessarily equate to a drop in "christians" in terms of their representation overall in society. Institutional christianity tends to define itself as the whole of christianity and historically that has been a reasonable corellation. It's also a convenient one as it is easier to measure things like attendance, membership, giving, employees, physical plant and offered programs, than it is to measure things like belief as all you have to go on in that case is self-reported and the definition of the operative word "christian" is so broad and inexact that in many cases it's almost a meaningless word anymore unless you narrow down to more specific component beliefs.

In the UK for example, and I'm very distant from it so I'm speaking from very general perception, there's a pretty clear delineation between institutional church and where more of the growth (or maintenance if you see it from that perspective) is taking place within home churches or simple churches. It's less measurable however and so it may tend to be undercounted or underestimated.

Simple church or home churches are more common in what are sometimes referred to as third world countries. It's beginning to trend slowly but at an accelerating pace in the US and Canada as well.

Canuckster1127 wrote:As some have noted, a drop in attendance and support of institutional churches doesn't necessarily equate to a drop in "christians" in terms of their representation overall in society. Institutional christianity tends to define itself as the whole of christianity and historically that has been a reasonable corellation. It's also a convenient one as it is easier to measure things like attendance, membership, giving, employees, physical plant and offered programs, than it is to measure things like belief as all you have to go on in that case is self-reported and the definition of the operative word "christian" is so broad and inexact that in many cases it's almost a meaningless word anymore unless you narrow down to more specific component beliefs.

In the UK for example, and I'm very distant from it so I'm speaking from very general perception, there's a pretty clear delineation between institutional church and where more of the growth (or maintenance if you see it from that perspective) is taking place within home churches or simple churches. It's less measurable however and so it may tend to be undercounted or underestimated.

Simple church or home churches are more common in what are sometimes referred to as third world countries. It's beginning to trend slowly but at an accelerating pace in the US and Canada as well.

Hi Bart,

I think this post has it nailed down about as tight as we can get. Good job. What strikes me is that, at least in the UK, we have this belief that the UK is so secular and decadent that we have lost almost all trace of religion. Now, I know this is not so. YOU know this is not so; at least you KNOW that this cannot be measured by declining congregations. So why can't the liberal elite see this? Or, do they see it but purposely swerve it in the pursuit of giving the UK an appearence (even if it's an illusion) of being almost completely secular? Even your own Dinesh D'Souza, whom I think is great (I have his What's so great about Christianity, and it is priceless), thinks the UK is now a secular country. Now, apart from government, which SHOULD be secular, and the elite institutions, like the BBC, I see no significant drop in Christianity. I think this illusion has got to be a master stroke, don't you?

God bless

Proinsias wrote:I think this is where sats can become problematic. A drop in Church activity may not be equal to a drop in Christians but I do fell it has some bearing. I also feel that there is much less social pressure to be actively, visibly, engaged in Christianity than there once was. Determining numbers of 'real' Christians is rather tough. Unfortunately it is often the most vocal who are counted, those who keep their faith or lack of it quietly to themselves are rather difficult to fathom and I think this is where a huge number of people are.
I do also sense the anti religious sentiment and agree that much of it is directed at Christianity but then Christianity is the major religion here so any change in attitude towards religion in general is likely to be heavily influenced by and felt by Christianity, although Islam has also been in the firing range. As I would imagine an anti political sentiment would be mainly directed at Labour and the Tories.
From another point of view I do see many reject Christianity and declare atheism, in private not in public polls. It always seemed odd to me that those with little more than a basic grounding in Christianity somehow used the rejection of this to chuck out every other religion under the sun along with it. I often think this may come from the idea that Christianity is the best, certainly the way it was taught to me, so if you ditch that then nothing else stands a chance, but this is little more than me making stuff up.

Okay. You and I see things somewhat differently. I think your talk of there being "must less social pressure" to be engaged in Christianity quite strange; I'd say that, since the so-called Enlightenment, where certain types have attempted to portray Christianity as intellectually backward, oppressive et cetera, there has been this constant drip-drip of false propaganda being put out by some atheist/scientists in an attempt to eternally stigmatise religion/Christianity. The truth is it has not worked. But, admittedly, we do have the false portrayal of the UK as almost entirely secular. THIS is still believed.

But, Proinsias, I ak you What makes Christianity so powerful, so enduring, throughout the world?

DannyM wrote:Now, apart from government, which SHOULD be secular...

Hey, I think you and I might find some common ground here, mate

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:Now, apart from government, which SHOULD be secular...

Hey, I think you and I might find some common ground here, mate

Careful mate, we'll be having a pint down the dog and duck next.

DannyM wrote:Okay. You and I see things somewhat differently. I think your talk of there being "must less social pressure" to be engaged in Christianity quite strange; I'd say that, since the so-called Enlightenment, where certain types have attempted to portray Christianity as intellectually backward, oppressive et cetera, there has been this constant drip-drip of false propaganda being put out by some atheist/scientists in an attempt to eternally stigmatise religion/Christianity. The truth is it has not worked. But, admittedly, we do have the false portrayal of the UK as almost entirely secular. THIS is still believed.

Admittedly I am only talking from personal experience and what the older generations tell me personally. I wasn't really thinking about the Enlightenment. A generation or so ago I'm told non-religious marriages, or cross-religious marriages, were rather more taboo than they are today. Other things like breaking to your family that you are atheist or gay I feel carries less social pressure nowadays than it did a generation or two ago. I do see much of this tying in what I see as a decline in Christianity, in a wishy-washy sense, in general but I will allow for the notion that although what I see as Christianity around me on the decline Christianity if a more subtle nature may be doing something else entirely. As I think has already been mentioned, the least subtle are often the most heard.

But, Proinsias, I ak you What makes Christianity so powerful, so enduring, throughout the world?

Truthfully I don't really know. But I'll make something up anyway. Initially I think Constantine did play a great part in making it the 'next big thing' but that excuse begins to run a bit thin after a while, never mind nearly two thousand years. The other would be that Christianity may be so powerful and enduring as it appeals to those who wish to be powerful and endure. Eastern traditions are more about the illusion of the self, western indigenous religions seem to me in large part concerned with higher powers and how to utilize them in day to day life, Christianity paints itself to me as the fulfillment of the one true religion stemming back from the creation and a means to endure for all eternity with the greatest power of all, God.

Proinsias wrote:Admittedly I am only talking from personal experience and what the older generations tell me personally. I wasn't really thinking about the Enlightenment. A generation or so ago I'm told non-religious marriages, or cross-religious marriages, were rather more taboo than they are today. Other things like breaking to your family that you are atheist or gay I feel carries less social pressure nowadays than it did a generation or two ago. I do see much of this tying in what I see as a decline in Christianity, in a wishy-washy sense, in general but I will allow for the notion that although what I see as Christianity around me on the decline Christianity if a more subtle nature may be doing something else entirely. As I think has already been mentioned, the least subtle are often the most heard..

You're right in a sense- a significant sense. The existence of liberal churches have perpetuated this wishy-washy Christianity you speak of. I'd be wrong to side-step this, and this is a tragic issue. I'll give you an idea. (You may well know of this.) A few years ago, around '01/'02, the BBC commissioned a poll of leading British figures on attitudes to traditional Christian beliefs. Yes, the BBC thinking it can gauge public opinion. Now, among those polled were a number of clergy throughout the country. Out of the clergy alone, only 93% of them believed literally in the virgin birth. 93%! Say there were 200 clergy polled; that's 14 clergy who run their church with the belief that the virgin birth is not a literal historical event. If you were to continue with the trend that the poll suggests, which is admittedly a matter of choice, then you see how liberal the church in the UK has become. Now, this is just one twig on the branch of a tree and I won't get bogged down with it all and bore us both to tears. But this, in my opinion, is what causes the dwindling congregations. Don't mess with the traditional, central tenets of Christianity. Christians don't care whether Christianity appeals to outsiders if it means adjusting the truth of Christ.

Proinsias wrote:Truthfully I don't really know. But I'll make something up anyway. Initially I think Constantine did play a great part in making it the 'next big thing' but that excuse begins to run a bit thin after a while, never mind nearly two thousand years. The other would be that Christianity may be so powerful and enduring as it appeals to those who wish to be powerful and endure. Eastern traditions are more about the illusion of the self, western indigenous religions seem to me in large part concerned with higher powers and how to utilize them in day to day life, Christianity paints itself to me as the fulfillment of the one true religion stemming back from the creation and a means to endure for all eternity with the greatest power of all, God.

Constantine was definitely a god-send. But I believe the enduring appeal of Christianity is the truth of the bible and Jesus. The bible is the most accurate, historically verifiable, believable book in history. The independence of the authors of the four gospels from one another, for example, is almost unanimously accepted among scholars. It's not a case of blind belief in a book; it's that it has stood the test of time for 2000 years and counting. Not to mention the Holy Spirit guiding the billions of Christians in the world. I understand what you say about Christianity claiming the One true God, but has it ever occured to you, Proinsias, that this might be because this is true? I know that's easy for me to say, but multiple religions doesn't take away from the possibility of there being one true religion. I like your style, though. You appear to be pretty accurate on many issues, regardless of your non-christian position.

Zebulon wrote:Here is a short resume of the theory to the belief in God
Pascal's Wager (... known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three 'wagers' which appear in his Pensées, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is advantageous to not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who rejected previous theological arguments.

Pascal was a Mathematician, phylosopher and scientist who converted to christianity.

Type Blaise Pascal on Google and you will find a lot of information on his writings and thoughts.

Take care,

Zebulon

While I think this makes sense in theory, it would not work. You have to believe and love God and accept Christ with all your heart, not have him as the "back up" so to speak "just in case" he does actually exist.

PaulB007 wrote:While I think [Pascal's Wager] makes sense in theory, it would not work. You have to believe and love God and accept Christ with all your heart, not have him as the "back up" so to speak "just in case" he does actually exist.

Pascal was actually a man of deep faith. You'll see that if you read Pensées, the book where his «wager» is presented. It is an easy read.

I have no doubt that Pascal is with the Lord.

FL