While I can appreciate Mr. Collins attempt to find common ground with faith and science, his arguments and conclusions ring hypocritical. He criticizes people of faith for believing in a “God of the Gaps” while at the same time rationalizing his own faith by the gaps of the unexplained “existence of the Moral Law” and the need we all apparently have to believe in God. A simple investigation into the documented observations of the behavior of feral children, who rarely demonstrate a knowledge of right and wrong, one can scientifically conclude that the “Moral Law” he describes is a product of nurture, rather than of nature or from an unseen spiritual source. If he would simply admit that he has chosen to believe in God because it makes him happy, I could respect that.

Julian
Your message July 10.
I would hope I can credit you with a little more rational thought than to take that interpretation. By merely illustrating something surely cannot be construed as wishing you blindness. If I suggest you apply your brakes it does’nt mean I would hope you would crash ! Come on Julian ....please.........
Back to the issue of the merits of the tirade of Sam Harris on the excellent book by Francis Collins.

(1) Reading Harris’ review of Collins’ book, I was struck by its angry tone.  I don’t get it.  Does Harris think he’ll coerce people into siding with him - is he afraid his points won’t be enough?  (2) As someone who wishes for God to exist, and as a scientist, I was rather underwhelmed by Collins’ book.  However, I don’t understand why others feel threatened by it as Harris and various posters seems to be - I appreciate the man’s ideas and attempt to moderate two extremes.  (3) Why do anti-religionists feel the need to list everything negative that has ever been done in the name of religion?  Understand that religion is only an excuse - look deeper and these wars and atrocities were committed for less lofty reasons: quest for land and material goods a.k.a. greed, jealousy, psychological problems, fears & insecurities, whatever.  If you think that all these problems will go away if we remove religion from society, you’re dreaming.

In response to the phanthom ‘Julian’ July 10 2007
I see he is at it again on his hobby horse - the persecution of those who believe in God , The Great Architect, The Great Geometrician The Great God of the Universe. Could he come out into the light from under the cloak of ‘Julian’.
I recollect reading in the greatest book, with the largest circulation in the world, of a Saul of Tarsus who caused great suffering to the followers of Jesus Christ - The Son of God. Whilst on the road to Damascus he was stricken and lost his sight. That story will be a witness for long after we ( me and Julian) leave this eathly body when the preacher says “earth to earth and dust to dust in the sure and certain hope of a resurrection in the last days” .  Could it be possible that ‘Julian’ would have to experience a similar type of incident to see the light ? ? ?  Stranger things have happened --- Sooooo do’nt tempt providence ! Saul changed name to Paul and became one of the great disciples - When can welcome Saint “Julian”..............!!
Golding Kidd, Dublin, Ireland

I experience the responses of those who profess a belief in a god as the protestations of someone who does not want to let go of childhood. It’s as if the person’s identity as a naive innocent dependent, comforted by a faith that the good loving parent will succor and protect hi/r, is too precious to abandon. Letting go of such an identity is not the task of logic and evidence, which the child cannot really understand. Reason and reality will have no effect because religion is lived as if it actual experience instead of wishful imaginings. (The ghost outside the window at night is real to the frightened person) Not being able to separate fantasy from reality is fundamental flaw of religious experience. It is more likely that such a personal identity would be outgrown by a therapeutic process of examining life experiences and seeing if there is a more honest and realistic way of living, or being in the world. To be able to see and feel the power of ones own existence separate from a parent, without clinging to the memories and world of the past child is ultimately exhilarating, more fulfilling, and a much more truthful mature self.

“What you are trying to do is change the meaning of the millenuims old word MARRIAGE.”

Assuming your minuscule brain can do it, go learn history - look at the ancient civilizations and you’ll find plenty of examples of same-sex marriage. The only reason not to support same-sex marriage is the bible, and the bible has as much value as Alice in Wonderland - no, even less.

Can any of you tell me how scientific method comes into play when someone imagines what happened “millions of years ago”?
Thank You

Statements of religious truths are mere declarations. Anything can be said without limits, and as long as it is believed by the faithful it is true. Such declarations have no substance because substance must pass the testing by logic and the support of evidence. I don’t think people who assert religious claims know what evidence means or what logic impels. Take the word “god”. It is logically impossible for it to have a coherent meaning. Long term and deep conditioning in childhood by parents and educators, before the brain is developed enough to separate fantasy from reality, forces acceptance of the impossible variety of contradictions and incoherent meanings about an invisible god world beyond the real world. It makes it possible for adults in late life, for example, to accept the words “Eternal, All-loving, All-knowing, All-powerful Participant in every detail of every instant of every human and natural event” as an aspect of reality, there to be talked to and asked for things, but of course, beyond the senses!!

Hi Golding,

My apologies if I came off as confrontational – that is the least of my intentions. I just wanted to reflect on what I perceive to be why non-religious people are worried about the current state of affairs. And you’re right, in the comments section of a book review, we should probably talk about the book, and the review!

On the topic of suffering, it can be suggested that all suffering is not caused by religion, but religion can cause needless suffering. In the case of marriage, in these parts if you are not married to your partner you can be denied certain benefits regarding the affairs of your partner, such as medical decisions and property inheritance. That’s where the suffering and injustice comes in. The label *does* make a difference.

On the topic of nom de plume, it has nothing to do with sincerity or conviction. It’s kind of a whimsical choice – since it doesn’t really matter, what the heck. Besides, I have a loving spouse and beautiful children and I don’t want some internet whacko to open a jihad against me or something like that

On the topic of the book and its review, I have not read the book and I have read the review. In the review there are excerpts from the book, which are enough to tell me that I don’t really need to read it. I realize that sounds like exactly the kind of close-mindedness that non-religious people are opposed to, but tell me this: is the rest of the book pretty much along the same lines as the quotes provided in the review? I feel confident that it is.

I realize that trying to convince a religious person that they’re wrong can be viewed as somewhat impolite. Some of the other members of my family are deeply religious, even young-earth creationists, and at family gatherings I tend to refrain from discussions about religion because I love my family so much. Trying to undermine the foundation of someone else’s belief system is a difficult proposition. And the views I’ve expressed – do I actually believe them? Or am I just playing the devil’s advocate?

My intention is not to “convert” anybody. I just want to get people who are on the fence to think a little harder.

Firstly I do not deny you the right to express your views but to distort the facts and attribute all the “SUFFERING” to people who have a faith & belief the “religious” is something that will not go unchallenged. Same-sex marriage for instance is an attempt at usurption of the marriage of man & woman. You can have a ‘civil-union’ of same sexes. You can if you wish seek to have the same ‘rights’ as those gained by conventional marriage. What you are trying to do is change the meaning of the millenuims old word MARRIAGE.
Secondly I always suspect the sincerity of those who choose a nom de plume as I consider they are ashamed to disclose their name or do not have the courage of their convictions and be up front .
Thirdly The Question is WHAT DO YOU THINK OF Collins’ ‘THE LANGUAGE OF GOD’ and Harris ‘The Language of Ignorance’ . I have specifically given Collins the large print and Harris the small print ! As I have said in a previous post the ‘religious’ or Christian do not claim to have ALL the answers and like all humans have fallen short. BUT have the humility to confess their sin and seek forgiveness . Likewise the Scientist (whether Christian atheist)/agnostic or other) do not have all the answers and are still searching .  It would be rewarding if we could all re-read Helen Helgesen posts..December 30 2006, December 31 2006 & June 2 2007 in order to have an informed understanding .....I have not seen any better on there posts !
Golding, Dublin, Ireland 9/7/2008

One may ask the question - “why does it matter what people believe?”

I think many non-religious people can answer that question with some or all of the following:

There are religious people that vote for legislation that bans same-sex marriage. Since homosexuality is part of nature and the mandate against it from religion is false, such laws and discrimination cause unneeded suffering.

There are religious people that vote for legislation that bans stem cell research. Since fertilized embryos are just clumps of cells with no consciousness, and the “soul” doesn’t really exist, banning or restricting this research impedes medical progress that can be extremely helpful to many, and this causes unneeded suffering.

There are religious people that vote for legislation that bans abortion. Since fertilized embryos are just clumps of cells with no consciousness, and the “soul” doesn’t really exist, banning or restricting abortion causes unneeded suffering.

There are religious people that vote for legislation that bans the teaching of evolution in public schools. Since evolution is the fundamental driving force of all of nature, it should be taught in public schools.

There are religious people that don’t think that global warming is a real problem. Since there is evidence that it could be a real problem, we should take steps to reduce the contributing factors. Even if our understanding is insufficient and it turns out not to be a real problem, the risk is too great not to take action.

There are religious people that think that we don’t really need to be concerned with the environment or with the wars in the Middle East, since Christ is returning any time now and the Rapture is going to save them.

There are religious people that think that non-believers are infidels, and crash airliners filled with innocent people into skyscrapers. This causes a whole lot of unneeded suffering.

There are religious people that generally don’t use the scientific method or take things to their logical conclusion, which are much-needed traits in this complex world.

There are religious people that are prone to making strange decisions based on their faith, such as denying medical attention to their sick children, causing unneeded suffering.

And so on.

It has been said that atheism and agnosticism are religions themselves. I don’t get this. This is like saying that a completely disease-free person has a disease. It’s like saying that somebody who doesn’t follow any sports at all has a favorite team.

Religious people believe that our souls outlast our physical body and live on into eternity. What does it really mean to “live forever”? Doesn’t that mean “think forever”? Can you be “alive” in the human sense without thinking? Thinking is what brains do. If your brain stops thinking (which is medically demonstrable in dead people), how can you still be “alive”?

What about people with severe mental disabilities (read medical brain dysfunction)? Do they live forever as “normal” spirits? Would that not then be a different “soul”?

What about people that are born with normal brain functionality and get brain damage from an accident later in life, and then live the rest of their lives with that disability, gathering years of further experience and memories? Is their eternal soul the pre-accident one, or the post-accident one?

What about people who are blind or deaf from birth? Can their eternal souls see or hear?

It would be interesting to hear people’s points of view on these questions.

Jesus said “Love”.

It breaks my heart to think how badly Christians have f*#ked that up...I have too.  I deserve that love less than most and yet it is still there if I want it.

I am sorry...often I have judged instead of loved.

Excellent review.

Quoting from Steve:
“Yet, with a venomous-like attack, these men seem obsessed with their points-of-view.

Like the man who ruthlessly proclaims the evils of homosexuality, only to hide is own homosexual tendencies...”

And why is it that they want hide their own sexuality? It is because for millenia deranged and wicked prophets and preachers have taught people to fear and hate their own sexuality. It is amusing how some believers show crocodile-tears at the misery religion has instilled upon the LGBT community. How many men and women must commit suicide, due to the loathing of their own sexuality, before Jesus’ bloodthirst is satisfied? May be people like Harris and Prof. Dawkins want to attack because they want to end this sort of poison that is spread by religion.

I read Francis Collins’ book and while I was excited about the facts, I was not at all impressed with his conclusions. I am a Christian because no other system makes as much sense of the evidence. The evidence is available to us all. To pretend to have handled ALL the evidence would be silly. To claim to have handled enough evidence to make a rational decission about God should be easy. I can understand how impossible it might be to conclude that there is a God based on the actions of His followers. It doesn’t matter what title you put on us. We have acted and continue to act like idiots. That doesn’t void the reality of God. I have found truth many places that most Christians wouldn’t bother to look, but I want to understand people who don’t yet believe that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah. I understand why many Jews don’t believe it. But it is irrational and ignores the evidence. To the atheist I would like to say how sorry I am that you weren’t there when I met Jesus. He was at a McDonalds in southeastern Pennsylvania. He probably isn’t there anymore. He seems busy. We had a good talk. I talked to God and continue to talk to God. I would ask him to answer your questions, but I have many of my own. Why don’t you just ask him yourself. How crazy is that. You talking to someone who isn’t there. But what he is there. I get answers from who you say doesn’t exist. Who is the loser? Even if I’m a nut, then we’re both losers because you have no rational explanation for life or death or what happens after.

Clearly this stimulating debate has solved a lot of problems. 

While, at least that’s how it is with me.  Most of the stuff Harris, Dawkins, and the rest have problems with seem to me kinda lame and unimportant compared with my own difficulties with regard to the Bible, but that may just be my personal prejudice coming into play.  Two of my ish:  Believing in evolution, I have to believe that death occurred before any fall came.  And I have trouble imagining how an anencephalic fetus could have a soul, or if not why God would cause one to be born in the first place.  And on, and on.

On the other hand, I don’t really feel I have any moral grounding to stand on if there isn’t a higher moral law.  No, I don’t think that humans have no sense of right or wrong without the Bible, or that they really need to rely on it or any other book at all for that sense, but right and wrong is meaningless if it doesn’t stem from something deeper.  Humanism is a total cop-out.  Harris is right, in my opinion, to be drawn to Buddhism (much as I have to admit that non-Asians adapting Buddhism has always seemed kinda faddish to me--- kinda racist, I know).  He is right because without God, I can only see three ways to stay sane.  One is to never think about the “deep mysteries of life”.  The other is to recognize that you are just part of the universe, that your morality, your loves, your hates, even your intellect (the hardest for most atheists) are only yours in the sense that events beyond your control have given them to you.  And just kinda join in the flow.  The last one is to just kinda do as you feel, be a renegade, dare God or the Universe or whatever to stop you, ala Genghis Khan, the Biblical Nebuchadnezzar, Cortez, whomever.  People who embrace the humanist philosophy, and claim to be satisfied with it, seem to me to be doth protestesting too mucheth, or however it goes. That’s why we find so many of them on the internet, and they always come off as insecure.  That’s just me, though, maybe they are genuinely a happy bunch who have truly managed to find happiness and brotherhood watching skeptical magicians debunk crap and call Christians “xtians” cause that’s somehow a major burn.

Ultimately, when it comes down to it, for me; I think it worthwhile to try to ask God, in a sincere manner to reveal himself to you, beyond the point of personal doubt.  If he does, there you go, if he doesn’t, while, there you go.  I’ve never believed in interventionist miracles, after all, if there is a God He designed the universe, so if He wanted some kinda virgin birth or whatever to happen, all He had to do is work it in to the grand scheme.  But if He has any personal relationship with us at all, all we gotta do is really want to know, right?  To me, God is something, that, if he/she/it exists, can only be proved/disproved on the personal level, because it isn’t happening on a greater level then that to my satisfaction.  Maybe that sounds lame to all the atheists out there who have better things to do, but for fools like me who waste a lot of time on facebook and youtube (I just keep getting older, damnit!), might as well give it a go.

I have been trying to analyse the comments on the two
books , ‘The Language of God’ so well crafted by Francis Collins and “The Language of Ignorance” which could not be considered a fair commentry on what the scientist & christian has to say. Some of the contributions from those who posted comments are not inspiring - suppose one could expect some frivoulous comments. So it would appear that there is nothing to be gained in suscribing to the conversation.

Thank you Scott for your post. It has been good in a way that SAM HARRIS sounded off with his critical review on ‘The Language of Ignorance’ . You see it gives the ‘non believer’ some solace when the ‘believer’ is attacked . Anyway what does it matter ?  Sam Harris, Dawkins etc etc are transient creatures - here today & gone tomorrow. BUT the Word of God endureth from generation to generation - forever, for eternity ! ......."What is man that I should be mindful of him ? “.  God just laughs !

Preface: I believe in evolution, the big bang, and Jesus Christ.

Here is an interesting thought for the Believers out there:  C.S. Lewis not only considered evolution, but considered the belief in Christ as the next step in evolution.  As the accelleration of the advances in evolution are due to enlarged capacity for reasoning and not so much physical advantages - you could deduce (by a large logical leap I admit) that the capacity to believe in Christ and have it change your life is evolutionary.  Belief systems as well as civilizations have become refined and advanced.  The basics of Christianity could be the next stage.

The problem with my reasoning is of course that Atheists and others could easily use that same argument against my thoughts.  It’s fun to throw it out there though.  Leaving room for Christ is more reasonable than to make every attempt to leave him out of the logic and arguments.  Like the gentleman below mentioned about the car engine: at some point everything becomes unexplained…

lymietony1:  Since you are so easily swayed by an idiotic book, I suggest you now try an intelligent one.  read anything by Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins and see if your imaginary friend really exists.  The arguments for him are vapid, and the arguments against areoverwhelming.

I just finished reading Dr.,Prof. Francis S. Collins book “The Language of God”. I came here to try to find a way of writting to him and saying this…

Thank God for you sir....and

thank you for God.

I am not as learned as some of you who have posted. I only know that for some time I have been pondering a way of telling my wife what was in my heart and mind. I was trying to give her an example of how God has created the universe and more importantly us. I was somewhere stuck on “stardust” as being the “clay” that He picked up to form us but just could’nt put what was in my mind and heart into words. I did’nt have the “key” or education to explain how the task of creation could have occurred.

See, I was told in 1980 that Darwin was no longer just a theory...in that there are scientific proofs of the existence of our world and how we all came about. Having been a catholic growing up, then becoming an agnostic perhaps because of the fact that the world seemed to me to be too messed up to have someone in charge. Mostly because He did’nt seem to be listening to me when I asked him to bring back to life a friend of mine when I was sixteen.

Then there was good ole Viet Nam and the absurdity of a country that tells lies, a couple of wives that did’nt work out and even Presidents that tell lies. Now we have actual people blowing themselves up because of what the people they respect have told them. NOT, necessarily because of religion or God but because there is something to be gained materialistically.

I was searching for WHY? HOW?

I believe I have now gotten my answers and I want to thank the author.

I read the book...and I understand it because I read the book. Some of you who comment on it especially Mr Harris, apparently have not read the book as it was intended to be read and have drawn false conclusions and find it necessary to jeer and poke that which you have not evolved sufficiently to understand.

Another few generations in your lines of evolution may render you a little more intelligent, careing and insightful...yea...perhaps worthy of the knowledge of God and his handiwork.

Just a little while ago I would not have had the where with all to read and comprehend this book or any book for I was somewhat ill with lyme disease and neuroborreliosis.

HE found out what I had and conveyed it to me.
HE then made it show up in my blood and be diagnosed.
HE humbled me because I needed humbleing and now he has lifted that illness perhaps for just a window of time for me to read and comprehend HIS LANGUAGE and the answer I asked for just a few days ago.

Co-incidence...."Things just happening that way” ?

I think not!

Perhaps someday, sometime we will all know the truth.

For me I believe I have found the truth...and the way.

tony

Hi Julian
You say you ‘have an open mind’ ...very generous of you ! To think that you might consider other views of a different hue that might convey a TRUTH. The God worshiped by Christians and others is the same God revered by many other faiths. The Bible teaches that ‘God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit & Truth”.  So each human soul has a choice to seek the Wisdom of the Creator & Sustainer of each one of us. It is NOT God who ‘causes unnecessary pain & suffering’ but He will guide and direct humanity to grow in wisdom and learn to cope with all that life may throw at them if they will have FAITH in His ways. .  Why are you trying to attribute blame to ?  Is’nt it one of humanity’s failings .......not to accept responsibility for their waywardness ?  Simple , when you think of it !

Why is Atheism such a bad word? It’s just A- (as in not) -Theism (as in convinced there is a God). As in “not associating with any mystic belief system”. The word “mystic” here is not intended as an insult, but merely indicating reliance on an invisible conscious force.

What is wrong with asking for the evidence of somthing? In our court system, we use evidence. There’s testimony as well, but in the situation where tesimony contradicts evidence, evidence wins. Jurors trust evidence. It’s the central mechanism of our justice system. When we leave the courtroom, why does evidence go out the window?

A biologist or genetecist who doesn’t believe in evolution is like a car mechanic that believes that cars run by magic. We all know (don’t we?) that car engines really work by the force of expanding gas, from the release of pent-up molecular bond energy in a cloud of bond-breaking plasma we call flame. The expansion pushes a wall in a chamber and that wall is linked to a rotating shaft. Synchronized hatchways inject and remove the materials before and after the gas expansion. Many people don’t understand this, but it’s the way it is. Nobody seems to contest this. There’s plenty of evidence.

Similarly, many people don’t understand evolution because they don’t bother to read up on what evidence has been discoved, and what mechanism (DNA-based genetics) is behind it. It’s all out there. So now why do so many people contest it? If you get your head around the mechanisms involved, you can see how it can be the way things are. It’s not even a matter of belief - that would be like “believing” in nitrogen, the number 10, or Zebras.

Back to the car engine analogy: as with any understanding, as you dig deeper and deeper, there will eventually come a point where you can’t go any further. Car engine, yah, pistons, yah, crankshaft, yah, valves, yah, gasoline exploding, yah, molecular bond energy, yah, - wait! What is this energy thing? Is it not invisible, but real? Maybe there is something to this “cars work by magic” idea…

So could there be something mystical going on after all, behind the energy that drives all of existence? We just don’t know. We can have a gut feel that something is there, but we don’t have the right to push it on others. And, it doesn’t change the fact that car engines work. And it doesn’t change the fact that DNA-based genetics drives the adaptation and mutation of organisms that evolve over vast periods of time.

Why does Atheism exist? (This is a sincere question, BTW) Merely to refute the Church and the damage done by religion?  If so, why?  Why does Harris burn against the “ignorance” factor?  Does an atheist see anything amazing about the extraordinary coincidences involved in our existence?  Do you allow for anything greater?  Is there any absolutes in the world of an Atheist?

Believers and Non-believers will never allow each other to frame the arguments as they want:  I will continue to be an idiot, blind to evidence or lack thereof....and the non-believer will continue to try to be the God of thier own world, blind to thier own aches.  I value my heart too much, they value their own too little.  Is an Atheist capable of compassion for me?  I have it for him…

Julian , your propositions are not serious - perhaps you are jesting. There is no difficulty in seeing and experiencing the existence of God daily in all the wonders of the world about us. God is Spirit and those who worship in Spirit and truth. Difficult for you to understand until you know of the Greatness of His Love for you and can kneel in humility and ask for forgiveness for your unbelief..

Not at all—the biomolecules are almost inevitable (and are what “happened") given the physical world and its energetics.

A good text on biochemistry would get you over this hurdle; you are just too lacking in understanding and too willing to jump to untenable conclusions, such as “a gad musta done it.”

It is just amazing how all the ‘fireside’ theologians and experts try to find reasons and explanations and pretend to use philosophy and other means to make their point. Who was it said that “philosophy is the epitomy of demonic confusion”. Now I do not deny the contributors the right to have their say as long as their point is not solely based on ‘knowledge’ ( Agnostic ?). Have you heard ‘The fool says in his heart There is no God’. So in order to say something based on wisdom you need to be steeped in the Bible (both the Old Testament & New) , which has stood the test of much criticism over the centuries yet remains the most published and sold book in the world. So do us a favour and read mark and inwardly digest the Holy Scriptures so you will know the Divinity worthy of your worship.......The Immortal, Invisible, God only WISE , In Light inaccessible hid from our eyes,. Most blessed most glorious THE ANCIENT OF DAYS, Almighty victorious THY GREAT NAME WE PRAISE.
v 3 To all life thou givest, to both great and small; in all life thou livest , the true life of all; we blossom and flourish like leaves on the tree; and wither and perish but nought changeth thee.
W. Chalmers Smith (1824-1908) based on 1 Timothy 1:7 Psalm 36:6 . Profound words indeed.

Yes religion is evil but has nothing to do with God. Man made religion not God, and the true meaning of religion is helping people, not forcing people to belive in what you belive. Do some history on religion

A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence

Human DNA is probably the best evidence that there is an intelligent creator. Lets see, a 3 billion letter instruction book . We “map” it but still have relatively no idea how to read it. Seems to me that it takes a major leap of faith to believe it just happened by accident.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Harris ignores the basic proposition of Mr. Collins.
The title of the book implies DNA is the language of god. The whole question involves where did life come from. Atheists assume some climactic event stirred up the elements to produce life.
Big problems emerge when around the definition of life. One of the key aspects of life is capacity to reproduce. The reproduction of life requires DNA, and few people are going to support the proposition that DNA was produced by some climactic physical event.
In order for Mr. Harris to challenge Mr. Collins belief that a transcendental being created life, he must counter with an enlightened alternative. This should include evidence of a reproductive power without DNA.
The same type of problem is posed by the Big Bang. Scientists tell us that prior to this event there was no time and no space. Some scientists have proposed the idea that immediately prior to the Big Bang there existed a particle of indescribable density without a clue as to where the particle came
from. According to Stephen Hawkin the equations used to to bring our knowledge of the universe to within 10 seconds of the Big Bang, do not work for the last 10 seconds.
It is not conceivable to many scientists that prior to the Big Bang was an eternal god. The reason for this is that metaphysical answers are not in their tool box.
Albert Einstein accepted the existance of a divine being. Steven Hawkin continually wrestles with the god issue.
There are only five theolocical beliefs available to agnostics(the family of I don’t know”.
1. there is no god; 2. there are many gods; 3. there is a god indifferent to mankind; 4. there is a cruel god; there is a god who is interested in the affairs of mankind. Each of these possible beliefs require a leap of faith.
One would assume anyone holding one of these beliefs could state the underlying evidence for such a belief.
Mr. Harris has resorted to the ploy of most atheists-trash the believer. Ridicule and vindictiveness characterize the communication of atheists.
Bertand Russell, the pre-eminent atheist, in one of his books summarizing his views on atheism concluded by saying, “therefore our soul’s habitation can be safely built only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair”.

It’s painful to read Sam Harris. He screams too much. It’s not something you would expect from a scientist. But he’s also human.

About Einstein, read wikipedia.

quote:
“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

quote:
In 1950, in a letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that “My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

I have to add:

quote:
Einstein championed the work of psychologist Paul Diel,[57] which posited a biological and psychological, rather than theological or sociological, basis for morality.[58]

I have just stared reading “The Language of God” and several points made out by Collins coincide with what I have ascertained in my own journey of knowledge.

To anyone that denies themselves the opportunity for greater understanding by closing their mind to the possibilities of discovery in our universe, you are robbing yourself of your, and humanity’s, potential.

There are many dangerous people who promote religions, just as there are many dangerous people that promote atheist views. Do not sell yourself short by blindly following one creed (including atheism) at the expense of personal development.

The universe is still largely a mystery which we’ve barely started to understand.

The message from Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, and others is this: if we all indeed live in a physical world that is independent of ourselves, it seems logical that we should examine that world to determine the truths about it. If we do that examination, and integrate the massive amounts of observations, eventually we will end up at this:

Things just happen. They just happen to happen.

There does not appear to be any demonstrable sign of guidance behind the universe. Things just happen. Childhood leukemia happens. Birth defects happen. A dad backs over and kills his child in his SUV. Planes crash. Good things happen too. Things JUST happen. Look around. It explains everything. It explains war. It explains peace. It explains Murphy’s Law.

Biological evolution doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and neither does anything else). There’s an old analogy about putting all the pieces of a watch in a box, and shaking it for a while, and having a complete working watch as a result. This analogy doesn’t have anything to do with reality. What would be better is to specify that each piece of the watch has little attractive surfaces on it, and the attraction is for the corresponding part that it would be connected to in a working watch. All the parts have the same type of attraction for their mating parts, and not for non-mating parts. Shake this box up for a while, and you eventually will get a watch. If you don’t, try again until you do. There is plenty of time.

See this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&mode=user&search; =

This is how chemistry works. The parts attract each other in complex ways. The shaking of the box is the thermal and photonic energy from the sun. If you want to blame all of existence on somthing, let it be the laws of nature.

About morality, it can be suggested that such a dismal and pointless outlook cannot sustain any moral system. There is really no reason that must be true. A person who thinks that morality must have a supernatural foundation might say “how dare you be so arrogant as to think that you can decide the difference between right and wrong without the creator’s influence?” Well, I can decide that I can move away from my parents and live on my own, start a business, make the rules, employ people, contribute to the local community, and vote in a civilzation based on free enterprise and liberty. How dare I? How can I think I can make my own decisions? Likewise, I can create a personal morality based on decisions that are common sense to me. Pain, suffering, deceit, theft, and other ills do not need supernatural edict to be on my list of sins. I can decide myself. All it takes is the courage to look existence in the face and take charge of your own life, both in your community and in your philosophy.

It’s a very heavy thought. Things JUST happened to happen. It flies in the face of what most everybody you’ll meet on the street believes. All these caring, friendly, community-oriented child-rearing people are philosophically exactly backwards in their thinking, if it’s true. It’s an abhorrent concept to them. But what’s does the physical evidence say?

If we are indeed on our own here, and we want our children to be happy, we do need to work towards an indefinitely sustainable society. This means doing just about everything that the politically-active Christian Right is opposed to. Stop global warming, end petrolium reliance, research the stem cells, global government, etc. Harris, Dennett, and Dawkins are trying to point this out. That, and the Islamic “inquisitionists from the 14th century armed with modern weapons”.

I think the message from these authors needs to be seriously considered.

“Les Sleeth, I get your emotional reaction to Harris but does that really justify your claim that he is wrong. What, again, is wrong with his stance besides the fact that it makes you angry.”

What makes you think I am angry?  My answer to his points was far less “emotional” than everything, and I literally mean everything, that I’ve heard/read from him.

I look for reason, evidence, and impartiality from people whose opinions I hope to trust, but instead all I observe in Harris is a man so emotionally freaked about religion that he can’t stay logical, objective, or fair.  He is a “believer” every bit as much as the religious he is so down on . . . it’s just that he thinks his beliefs are “right” and that that perfectly justifies his blind faith in things that haven’t been proven.

I clearly stated “what . . . is wrong with his stance.” Must I repeat it?  He, and all radical atheists I’ve read, go psychotic over religion’s irrationality, but have absolutely no problem buying science nonsense.  Physicalness has never, not once, been observed organizing itself past the few steps of the self-organizing behavior of crystals, autocatalytic reactions, Belouzov-Zhabotinsky and Brusselator reactions, Bernard cells and other limited physical self-organization.  Yet here he and other atheists are suggesting theists are deluded while they believe with all their being in physicalism!  Hypocracy to the utmost because Harris’ objection (on the surface at least) is believing so ardently before the evidence supports the belief.

The universe may be conscious, but science might not be the epistomology to determine that.  It’s only the “believers” in the infinite knowing abilities of empiricism who act like everything claimed not-empirical is bull.  Well, the incestuous little self-reinforcing group of scienctism fanatics may all agree that science can know all knowable aspects of reality, but the rest of the world isn’t yet ready to buy it.

Look, I don’t have the answer, but no one does.  Science seems to have all the answers about physical stuff, but that doesn’t mean all is physical.  If one uses a method to explore reality that only reveals physicalness (i.e., science), is one smart to conclude all is physical?  Or should one realize one’s skills, and the power it brings people today in our technological setting, may cause one to puff up with one’s own self-importance and overlook that reality to date has never been fully accounted for?

A better attitude is reflected by one my favorite thinkers, Richard Feynman, who says, “Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth . . .  In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet.  Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.”

Les Sleeth, I get your emotional reaction to Harris but does that really justify your claim that he is wrong. What, again, is wrong with his sta