Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
"Un" Organized Religion Is Still Superstition

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by John Morgan Powell on April 11, 2001 16:32:38 UTC

You seem to justify your brand of religion because it's more liberal than the rest, it's not a biblical-inerrant sort of belief. You probably don't feel obligated to accept any particular set of religious beliefs, but what do you believe in? Where'd the ideas come from? Is the source reliable?

If you believe in God, why? The ancient peoples who came up with gods, and God, were superstitious science-illiterates. Why do you accept any of their ideas if they can't be confirmed today experimentally? You seem to be willing to retain a belief in God because science can't disprove it. I suspect you believe in God, not because science can't disprove it, but for some irrational basis such as a desire to believe, or you were taught it as a child, or some people you trust believe it.

If you believe in an afterlife, why? The ancient peoples who wanted to live after they died made these things up. They were superstitious science-illiterates. Why do you accept any of their ideas if they can't be confirmed today experimentally? You seem to be willing to retain a belief in an afterlife because science can't disprove it. I suspect that you believe in an afterlife, not because science can't disprove it, but for some irrational basis such as the desire to believe, or you were taught it as a child, or some people you trust believe they've spoken with the dead.

Theists seem to get into the God-science debate, not so much because they rely on science to guide most aspects of their lives, but because they want to retain their irrational beliefs, and can't bear to keep a belief that science has categorically disproven. I think it is more rational to ask whether there's sufficient scientific evidence FOR the belief rather than feeling secure just because there isn't definitive scientific proof AGAINST it.

Your comment is appropriate, but I was hoping for more discussion about Zindler's essay. Do you have more to say about that?

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins