In the race for Alabama governor, an advertisement bankrolled by the state teachers’ union attacked candidate Bradley Byrne because he supposedly supported teaching evolution. Byrne, worried about his political future, felt it necessary to deny the charge.
Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. Unless we are willing to expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our children.
This article was originally published with the title Faith and Foolishness.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
343 Comments
Add CommentScientists are not judged for scientific literacy on whether they believe in a scientific consensus and so the National Science Foundation not judging scientific literacy by belief is likewise appropriate. If you want a survey to measure attitudes towards science, fine but if science is not dogma but a process we can use, literacy should be judged by awareness of a valid scientific argument. It is scientific illiteracy when people think scientific truth is a poll on how many scientists say what and dangerous to the future of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome historical perspective is desperately needed here. When present-day scientific orthodoxy achieves the ranks of unquestionable "Truth" it proves no better than religious orthodoxy. Let us take every claim published in Scientific American since its inception and see how many formulations accepted as "truths" have been revised, amended, even tossed aside as new evidence or measurements or social norms have emerged. How foolish will today's scientific zealots appear 150 years from today? Will our descendants hold them responsible for their errors? If they are generous they will forgive our mistakes. If they are judicious they will fault our dogmatism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo respond to (2): The 'master race' crap spouted by Those-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named-In-Internet-"Discussions" was (a) a non-science-based lie used to convince many of their citizens of their superiority and the inferiority of others, (b) and thus a thinly veiled excuse for their actions. Even if That-Guy-That-Everyone-Thought-Was-The-Antichrist believed that bullshit himself, it still wasn't based on actual darwinism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSocial darwinism isn't scientific, it's just garbage dressed up to look like science if you don't look closely enough. And when that's what you base your morality on, well, garbage in, garbage out.
On (3), you think the Soviet Union promoted science and built their society on it? That's a funny one. The Soviets demanded that science must obey their political beliefs! Have you ever heard of Lysenkoism? http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2010/02/01/when-the-soviet-union-chose-the-wrong-side-on-genetics-and-evolution/
The early Soviet Union worshipped their own ideology above all else; not science. They built their society on an idology; everything else besides retaining power (or gaining power) was secondary. You might say that power was primary and ideology secondary, actually. Stalin was in power for a long time, though.
Things eventually did fall apart, but they never worked very well to begin with. State-managed economies just don't work well. Imagine that you are running a regulatory agency which is tasked with determining how many of each item that can possibly be manufactured, farmed, harvested, etc, will need to be produced in the next year, and which companies (or the equivalent) in the country should make how much of each item. First you'd have to have some idea of consumer demand. Or you could just arbitrarily dictate that there are X people in the country, and they will probably need so many shirts, pants, skirts, so much food, and there are so many people who work in jobs that need hammers (and then you will have hammer shortages because everyone needs a hammer) , and then you have to figure out what's needed to make those items... It all gets horrifically complicated. You could just say "WE NEED 500,000 GENERIC CARS. WHAT DO YOU NEED FOR THAT?" but then you start going back and forth with the companies making everything to ask what each thing takes... Even if you had Internet, which the Soviets didn't, state-managed economies tend to be unmanageable (did I mention inaccurate?) Predictions are not accurate, everything is thrown off...
What is the difference between knowledge and belief?Many real beliefs are called knowledge. For example the big bang, mathematical nonsense, is considered knowledge, and the belief in the existence of photons is knowledge whereas , scientifically, light is an electromagnetic wave
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor all that I am atheist myself, firmly accept (believe is not the right word) evolution and accept that the "Big-Bang" is probably a likely beginning of our known universe, if I'm not mistaken, the Big-Bang is not without alternates in the scientific (legitimate scientific) community. While there is lots of evidence for evolution, the "absolute" origin of the universe is still up for grabs. While I agree with Mr Krauss' article overall, I think the Big-Bang is a poor choice of an "example of scientific "belief" by the general public".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Big Bong should the beginning of the actual Universe and of our physical laws.Given the actual velocities of stars and the actual physics the stars should have had, by that theory, speeds of several times the velocity of light, c.. Therefore the Big Bang theory is a belief and should not be called knowledge
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting that Krauss wants to hold religious leaders accountable for actions he judges irrational. I guess I know of no organization or field of study (including science) that from time to time has not had some irrational ideas. And what is meant by being held accountable? Is there next some prescribed punishment. After 50 years as a non-believer I became a Christian and I strongly disagree with the treatment of Sister McBride, however, I believe the answer for her is to find a religion that has compassion and believes as she does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also interesting you bring up evolution as if it is rational thinking of scientist. I know you must be well aware that those who believe in and have faith in evolution also have no idea of the process by which how new species evolve. It certainly is not the gradual change model of Richard Dawkins. There is absolutely no evidence of such an activity. I am not proud of the U.S. low score on belief in evolution compared to the rest of the world. It at least does show that the U.S. does have stronger religious views. I happen to believe in evolution and that there is a process of macro evolution that we do not yet know, but I cannot fault others for not accepting my views just because I believe it. Furthermore, when scientists discover that unknown evolutionary process, stop the debate and present evolution to the public in a rational manner then you can expect religion will accept it as they have in all scientific discoveries in the past. Currently, that argument presented for macro evolution is full of "scientific" emotion with little evidence.
The Krauss article is a re-statement of problem that has been dealt with in SciAm before. Krauss is pointing out, as have Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others, that beliefs have consequences. He is simply stating, and rightly so, that the unfounded beliefs of religion often cause great harm to people, and that those who generate and promulgate this foolishness should be held accountable for the consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieving Christians who have posted comments above disagreeing with Mr. Krauss would certainly agree that true-believing Muslims who use lethal force against the infidels in order to defend their faith should be held accountable for their actions. Believing Christians would agree that the Muslim faith is not founded on (their) "truth", and that Muslims extremists should not get a pass when it comes to the consequences of irrational and often lethal actions based on their religious beliefs.
Yet Christians themselves are more than happy to look the other way when their beliefs, imposed on others, lead to the unnecessary injury and death of innocent people. Recent examples include the Catholic Church's stand forbidding use of condoms and the resulting death of thousands from AIDS in Africa, the stand of the Mormon Church on homosexuality and the consequent ruined lives and even suicides of hundreds of young gay Mormon men, and the irrational refusal of medical treatment by Christian Scientists that leads to dozens of cases of wholly avoidable morbidity and mortality each year.
We need more scientists like Mr. Krauss who are willing to speak out for reason over irrationality, science over religion, and point out the consequences of unfounded belief and its associated foolishness.
The author of this article should buy a dictionary to learn what is a myth. There is no proof that God does not exist but there are many proofs that photons do not exist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn "The Fixation of Belief", C. S. Pierce revealed the foundations of scientific hypothesizing that seemingly puts science on an equal footing with religion. That's not much of a stretch in the hands of serious scientists and theologians; however, to pit scientific reasoners against religious believers muddies waters significantly. Some believers respond from understanding, some political entanglements, some from beliefs that may even transcend their own ignorance thereby giving them a ground of there own from which to proceed whether it is scientifically valid or not. Nevertheless, using the term factual with regard to the big bang and evolution when our understanding of these notions are far from settled really begs the question of the commentary altogether. Ultimately, serious science vs. religion discussions take Wittgenstein's language games to be an appropriate point of departure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think many of you are missing the point of Krauss' article. Obviously scientific claims will change and new knowledge will be attained were todays "truths" will be wrong/incorrect. The point is we are dealing with what we know at the current time and using Science to understand the physical world instead of ancient books or fairy tales. That is the point Krauss is making. We all know we don't have the perfect understanding of how complex species came from simplier species, but we know the underlying idea is true. Darwin did not just write a thoery he discovered a partial truth. The details of how and when changes happened will be changing often.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo get back to my point; the big bang is modern fact. Now, there may be a multiverse, or "time before time" and many other explanations, edits and adds to the big bang where our explanation at this time may not even be familiar. However, a big explosion did happen to create time and space and that does not mean we should use fairy tales instead of science to explain how the universe began.
I think most of you are missing the entire point of his article. He is not being dogmatic regarding science. He is just saying people in the U.S. just do not accept the practice of science to understand the natural/physical world.
Thank You
Carson
Portland- Oregon
Your Comment: "Nevertheless, using the term factual with regard to the big bang and evolution when our understanding of these notions are far from settled really begs the question of the commentary altogether."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are just as real as Gravity. Our understanding and details may change in the future, however that does not make them not true. Also, it's better to use biology, chemistry, genetics, ect to explain the history of species and cosmology & astronomy to explain the history of the Universe than the non-scientific process of religious dogma. I'm sad by the ignorance of scientific american readers. FYI - I am not an athiest.
RE: missing the point - that God created the world 4000 years ago is not dogma. It is what some individuals believe. I don't know of any dogma that professes such a thing. Technically, dogma is an agreed-upon confession of faith by a community of believers. All I was trying to say is that no serious theologian presumes to be doing science when they discuss the creation as it is described in Genesis. Rather, they understand that they are participating in a different language game than scientists and that neither can truly critique the other in its own terms as any serious scientist would agree. That many, if not most, people do not see that distinction is unfortunate. There is a difference between calling a belief in Genesis creation knowledge and saying that it is a valid description of the history of the universe. By the way, I believe that gravity on the moon is not the same as gravity on earth. So, "they are just as real as Gravity" really isn't much of a critique of my point. I am not suggesting that Genesis makes good science. I am saying it is not valid to critique the claims of Genesis in terms of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific theories are not held to be true in any absolute sense. Solid reproducible evidence can change theories, as has been demonstrated by relativity and quantum theory. Certainly, the big bang theory is more tentative than evolution. They simply represent the best ideas we have at present that are consistent with the consensual evidence. Scientific theories do not produce suicide bombers and do not deny civil rights to non scientists, as does religious beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Reticence" is not a synonym for "reluctance!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Critical Mass the Faith and Foolishness article by Laurence Krauss it states "the sad fact that U.S. adults are less willing to accept evolution and the big bang as factual". The implication is that anyone who rejects the big bang theory is religiously biased. However, the big bang theory requires an acceptance of beliefs contradictory to established science and is not at all a very convincing theory. It is also more in line with the goddidit theory of creation because it presumes a finite beginning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe steady state theory has less contradictions but is not yet proven either. But not all those who believe in a steady state universe do so because of religious prejudices as the article implied. Some of us do not want to embrace the foolish faiths of science either because of their contradictions. We believe that truth never contradicts itself and search for the truth accordingly.
Individuals who believe scientific theories have not killed people are apparently unwilling to accept that once a materialistic assumption is attached to science, the historical record shows that pure science degenerates. Thus, an early defense of natural selection turned ugly with an eugenic movement that defined inferior races and then, for some, a master race, an idea forced WWII. At the same time, the Soviets with their godless materialism messed up science and their society, killing millions. The scientific method is self-correcting and beautiful but philosophical assumptions can turn it deadly. I cringe whenever SA editors start writing materialistic philosophy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy Response to Pro-Abortion Krauss
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby Francis J. Kelly, KHS,
Member Catholic Academy of Sciences in USA
President, The Catholic Association of Scientists and Engineers
To Laurence Krauss the bishop's
A monster from the wild
To stand against a wicked nun
Who blithely killed a child.
But I salute the bishop*
And must declare his heart
Beats for the throngs of babies
Whose deaths tear us apart.
Because it is for none to say
Which life doth Christ opine
The mother's-- who might come to Him
A bit before her time?
The child's-- whose prayers could raise her up
From pains in afterlife
And find a cure for cancer, too--
Rewarding sacrifice?
*Very Rev. Thomas Olmsted, Bishop of Pheonix
My Response to Pro-Abortion Krauss
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby Francis J. Kelly, Ph.D., KHS
Member Catholic Academy of Sciences in the USA
President, The Catholic Association of Scientists and Engineers
To Laurence Krauss, the bishop's *
A monster from the wild
To stand against a wicked nun
Who blithely killed a child.
But I salute the bishop
And must declare his heart
Beats for the throngs of infants
Whose deaths tear us apart.
Because it is for none to say
Which life doth Christ opine...
The mother's--who might come to Him
A bit before her time?
The child's--whose prayers could raise her up
From pains in afterlife
And find a cure for cancer too--
Rewarding sacrifice.
*Very Rev. Thomas Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix
The most rational teaching on AIDS is to be monogamous. AIDS would never have been the scourge it is were the world sufficiently monogamous. So who is being held accountable for these deaths?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive someone a condom and tell them to "go ahead"? Prove that they will use the condom 100% of the time. Prove that they won't have sex with a risky partner much more frequently.
You have your own cozy definition of "rational".
Unfortunately, Dr. Krauss engages in name-calling by calling the beliefs of Christian believers "irrational". I have no problem with his differences of opinion, but he needs to realize that many of the conclusions with which he disagrees, such as the Pope's decision to discourage condom use in Africa and the bishop's decision to discipline the hospital administrator were made by using chains of reasoning not unlike those used in science. His starting assumptions are obviously different from those of Catholics and evangelical Protestants, of course, so his conclusions will be different, but that does not mean that he is irrational. I wish he would do Christians the same favor: go ahead and disagree, but don't automatically assume that they are "irrational".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWords mean something and Dr. Krauss chose his carefully throughout his article to, in the end, attack one religion in particular - Catholics. He started his article citing numbers about people's religious beliefs influencing their views of scientific works. Then, after his summation of the figures, he laments the status of the thinking in the USA, in comparison to other countries. He quotes the "kindly" Dalai Lama and follows, rightly so, by condemning religious hatred in the Middle East. I imagined that Dr. Krauss was going to talk about the horrible things done in the name of religion. I thought he was going to denounce the murders, massacres or terrorists acts, something like the 9/11 attacks; but no, he was concerned with something, obviously for him, far more sinister. Dr. Krauss went on to speak of the absurd and unjust activities of the Church, namely, condom use to reduce aids & pedophilia; as if the first one was a baseless claim and the latter approved behavior of the Catholic Church for its priests and religious. He continues his essay by condemning all religious leaders and makes a call to hold them accountable for their ideas. Dr. Krauss give us the example of Bishop Olmsted excommunicating sister McBride, for recommending a legal abortion. Again, Dr. Krauss mixes thing a bit because the Catholic Church does not see abortion as legal and the sister penalty was in accordance with the law of the Church. As I see it, this was about two members of the clergy acting and being held accountable within the parameters of the faith that they have vowed to upheld. Where are the references to science or the law, in the bishop's judgment? Why is a religious in charge of a secular institution? If he or she will be faced with decisions that can be contrary to her or his religious beliefs, maybe shouldn't be there. Dr. Krauss' final reference, he calls the bishop a cleric, left me a bit puzzled because a cleric is a religious figure from another faith, not the Catholic faith. Or, perhaps, he is just ignorant and to him all religious leaders and religions are the same and have no difference in their beliefs, behaviors and views of men and women. Not an educated viewpoint, in my opinion, for a doctor that is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post is nonsense. The Terror in the French revolution had nothing to do with scientific beliefs and Stalin's Russia was anti science (look up Lysenko)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm afraid you are engaging in whining. There is no element of name calling in describing religious beliefs as irrational. Many believers themselves would accept that their beliefs do not stem from rational analysis but from 'faith' which is by definition irrational. It is also something of a stretch to claim that the Pope's irresponsible campaign against condoms or a bishop punishing someone for saving a life are the result of 'scientific chains of reasoning. They are the result of dogma not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver and over I see comments here about the similarities between science and religion. It is observed ad naseum that the vast majority of scientific theories are eventually demonstrated to be false and abandoned. This is true. Herein lies THE difference between religion and science. Science inherently challenges and discards ideas when new facts make it necessary. Religion clings desperately to their "facts" in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly science needs to be held accountable, but religion refuses to be.
plehpamer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are obviously insane and typical of the religious right we see in this country. You take partial truths and mix them with blind belief into, what you perceive as fact and then regurgitate it as if it were so. You are in fact a liar and a bearer of false witness.
The enlightenment was relative to the times. What seems like enlightenment compared to a previous time in our history, called the Dark Ages, brought to you by the church and religion, BTW were so much worse. The Guillotine, at the time, was considered to be an improvement over methods developed in the dark ages that allowed for executions that were designed to minimize the persons suffering where as the Church expended huge amounts of time, effort and money inventing new ways to torture and kill people in the most dragged out and horrendous methods imaginable. It would seem reasonable to declare that the Catholic Church invented the world's first serial killers and then made them saints.
Scientists were not the ones that bastardized Darwin’s Theory, it was people like Hitler’s SS that found anything in the world they could to demonize their enemies which did not fit the model of the master race. They then struck a deal with the Catholic Church in which a portioned all taxes collected by Germany were then donated to the Catholic Church of Rome. Racists and Fascist have bastardized evolution into their own twisted world view that has nothing to do with science nor fact. Pretty much identical in practice to what you just did in taking facts and twisting them into a lie to promote an agenda.
The Soviets, in fact Stalin in particular, did not like the idea of having competition from religion and systematically replaced their many religions with a religious form of communism. They took over the churches, holidays and such and replaced them with ideas and events that replaced those traditions. In fact this is nothing new for conquering belief systems. This is the exact same thing that Christians did. Every single “Christian” holiday is in fact a pagan holiday that was commandeered, renamed and re-branded to be a Christian holiday in order to make the forced conversion of the pagans a bit easier to succeed at.
We don’t need prayer to deliver us from evil. If you want to deliver us from evil then deliver us from Religion. Religion, like guns, does not kill people. But People often kill people in the name of a religion and sometimes use a gun to do so.
While many millions died at the hands of communism and fascism it pales in comparison to the atrocities of Pope Pius the 2nd, a saint that achieved a kill count of about 36 million. He was responsible for killing so many people in Europe that the economy collapsed throughout the entire continent for a century.
Religion brought us the dark ages for most of a millennia. The enlightenment brought us a guillotine only used for a couple of centuries and can not even come close to 1% of the “head count” of what the religious leaders brought us.
So stop your lying and rethink your evil ways.
Prescott E. Small | Data Loss Prevention Specialist
Baker Hughes, Inc.
Office: 281.209.7442
Cell: 281.827.9860
Blackberry: 281-202-9378
Prescott.Small@BakerHughes.com
http://www.bakerhughes.com | Advancing Reservoir Performance
________________________________________
This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, or have been inadvertently and erroneously referenced in the address line, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
JameDavis - religion is not a science. Putting Ology on the end of something does not render it science, Nor odes it render Science as a religion. Ology is the Study of:____________. So theology is the learning of theo, or god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheo derives from the Greek word Theos which means god.
Theology is simply learning about god.
Personally I prefer Beerology.
And please don't try to confuse things with the use of the word Scientology. Cause that has nothing to do with learning nor science.
Ology is "a branch of learning."
Science is "A field of study seeking to understand natural phenomena through repeated observations and experiments."
You may need to do some more reading, 10 years obviously has not been enough.
Creationist apologists must stop saying that there is no evidence for evolution, or that there is more evidence for creationism, or that we dont understand how species evolve. To say these things is to show absolute ignorance of the meaning of the word evidence. There is so much evidence in support evolution by natural selection that to deny it is simply ludicrous. Skepticism is good, dont take anyone's word for it, do some research, but please don't say there is no evidence, that is just stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe belief that one's particular god created the Earth 4000 or 6000 years ago is absolutely a religious dogma. It is based on counting all of the generations in the Biblical stories. 4000 years prior to the alleged birth of a god-man named Jesus, and 2000 years since then. In America, it's a commonly held dogma based on a literal reading of the Bible. 45% of Americans believe in a 6000 to 10,000 year old Earth based on what they read in the Bible and are told by their preachers. See below for accurate dates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdditionally, it is absolutely within the scope of science to critique the creation, genealogy, cosmology, biology claims in Genesis. Science shows that the "truth" presented in Genesis is completely, totally 100% wrong. Using the scientific method we know the Earth is about 4.6 Billion years old, the universe is between 13.5 billion and 14 billion years old, humans evolved from other lifeforms beginning with single-celled organisms about 3.5 billion years ago, there was never a first man and woman, snakes don't talk, there was no global flood 4,400 years ago, the first humans evolved in Africa, not Israel, Abraham and Moses never existed (this we know via textual analysis of the bible and the complete lack of archaeological and historical evidence). Going further, there is meager - some would say zero - historical evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even if he did, science rules out miracles, resurrection from death - including the mass resurrections in Matthew 27:52-53.
As for theology - which is not a science, as it's impossible to study the non-existent - here are a few choice quotes from some intellectual heroes of mine:
"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing;
it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities;
it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing."
-- Thomas Paine, founding father who coined the name the "United States of America," author of Common Sense and the Age of Reason, one of the USA's most important revolutionary, friend of Thomas Jefferson, who based much of the Declaration of Independence on Paine's ideas.
"To discuss endlessly what silly people mean when they say silly things may be amusing but can hardly be important."
- Bertrand Russell, English philosopher
James, you lost me at "Religion is a science".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot by the conventional meanings of either of the main words of that clause.
Not all thoughts are valid, not all statements are true.
Heretic... wrote "However, the big bang theory requires an acceptance of beliefs contradictory to established science and is not at all a very convincing theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a strange opinion.
Observe stars and galaxies and see that they are moving.
Use the physics of motion, relativistic OR Newtonian will do nicely, to figure out where they were before now.
Notice that looking back, they converge.
It really does not take a lot of gee-whiz suspension of disbelief.
Where did we lose you?
The hard part is figuring out what might have happened when everything was very close.
And what woo-woo to guess what happened "before" that?
If you do all the calcs with plain Newtonian mechanics, other observations are contradicted, but you'd still find that an awful lot of stuff was crammed into a small space some time ago. But you didn't question relativity explicitly... so don't bother with that exercise.
I am a bedraggled refugee from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church. It was my study of science - Astronomy and Astrophysics that turned me to Atheism. I have been an occassional reader of SciAM but have not read it for a while. I am please that the magazine published this article by Dr. Kraus. I have some of his talks on video, talks he has given at Atheist Conventions. I hold Dr. Kraus in very high esteem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also have bookss by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Haris and Dan Brown, all Atheists. They point out in no uncertain terms the danger Religion is to humans. Christopher Hitchens subtitles his book "God is not great" with "How Religion Poisons Everything". he is so right. I often quote it in my comments against religion on INternet Sites. I fear for the USA. Religion, especially Fundamentalist Christianity is turning itg into a 3rd. World Country that I call the United Chrisstian States of America.
I think SciAm was game publishing Dr. Kraus's article. Some of the comments here are quite outrageous and reflect how Religion is a Mental Health Hazard to Humanity.
Go easy on that big bong: you'll fry your brain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuote: the stand of the Mormon Church on homosexuality and the consequent ruined lives and even suicides of hundreds of young gay Mormon men
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: The fact that someone commits suicide is evidence of mental illness. The fact 'scientists' USE this suicide as an argument FOR homosexuality is sort of weird. They SAY there is nothing mentally wrong with homosexuals BUT say they commit suicide. Must be one of those 'DSM' improvements we hear about. Imho ..
"Only 33 percent of Americans agreed that the universe began with a big explosion. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I know enough about the Big Bang that I would disagree with that. Calling the Big Bang a "big explosion" is not very precise at all.
The problem with that is they're all lies. The French Terror had jack squat to do with the Enlightenment, and was no more bloody than things that had been done by other rulers before or since; eugenics predates Darwinism; the Soviet philosophy, to the extent that there was one, was hardly materialistic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree with this article. The atheist religion, with its politically, socially, and medically dangerous creation myth of "evolution", and its firm commitment to the destruction of public morals and promotion of the devolution of society into narcissistic individualism, must be stopped in its tracks. No amount of public scrutiny and legislative oversight is enough when it comes to exposing the fallacies and faults of this nineteenth-century pseudo-intellectual fad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the article, Mr. Krauss! Now, let's all pull together to eradicate the darkness and error of atheism!
As an ordained minister, regular ScAm reader, believer in evolution and perfectly fine with the Big Bang theory, I grow somewhat weary of religious people (especially Christians) being lumped together. Though I know Richard Dawkins would not agree, (yes, I have read Dawkins), I do not find a faith perspective and a scientific perspective to be fundamentally at odds with one another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI most often agree with the critique of the religious perspective found in the pages of ScAm, but also get frustrated that no differentiation exist between an informed, world affirming faith perspective and the view of religion that so often makes the pages of articles like this one. Religious belief can be a unifying force in personality and promote health as well as pathology.
Personally, I see very little difference between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism, (or even scientific fundamentalism?) but that does not mean that all believers of any faith are fundamentalist or hold to a pre-scientific, irrational world views.
If I disagree with anything about Mr Krauss's article, it is the fading cry of the baby going out the window with the bathwater.
k
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've said it before and I'll say it again. When science sticks to science and quits trying to subplant religion as the moral authority, then maybe religion will be more accepting of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that wisdom comes with age. I am able to recall very vividly my high school years in the 60's when homosexuals were routinely referred to psychiatrists and psychologist (trained men of science) for treatment so that they could be cured and become what was then defined as NORMAL. Need I point out that today the homosexuals and lesbians are routinely marrying, adopting children, and teaching their lifestyle in public schools? The same trained men of science now want us to accept the lifestyle they once classified as a mental illness. With this example, can anyone explain to me how the scientific body of thought is different from religious thought?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm disturbed and disappointed by the misconceptions within the comments themselves. Come on people, can't you see that the very fact that scientific theories are continuously being challenged and changed, to the point where the prevailing theories of the prior centuries seem silly now, is what make the scientific process superior to religion. In the latter, you're branded a heretic and ostracized for attempting to change the core beliefs of the faith. In science, there is positive motivation to seek out flaws in prevailing theory and to then modify the theory to make it stronger and account even better for reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut for a few quite enlightened individuals posting here, these comments are a great insight on the Christian States of America. Not so long ago, USA was held in the highest regard for its scientific progress (and not because it was "the land of the free", as many of you mistakenly thought), for its rapid technological development and for its highly educated people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese times are all but gone now, and most of the civilised people of the world only see a rising theocracy, a place where dangerous religious extremists stiffle any intellectual oposition and is as dangerous as the militant islamic states, if not more so.
A real shame, to see such potential and such early intelectual progress being slowly but steadily eroded...
@drafter: and I've said it before and will say it again... when religious fundamentalists stick to their own worship and quit trying to supplant proven science and force the teaching of their religious beliefs as science in our public education system then perhaps science will be more accepting of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@plehpamer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you correctly state ideas can be wrong and should be challenged. As the scientific ideas can and should be challenged so should religious ideas. The problem is one is accused of being intolerant if you criticize religious ideas. That is the problem.
Great article. It takes a firm stand without being dogmatic instead of indulging in the usual "Well-both-sides-have-a-point" wishywashiness. As a German expat living in Arizona, I am regularly stunned by the extent of medieval ignorance and stupidity this state's legislature is practicing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould the public have faith in the convictions of astrophysicists who claim that the big bang produced a universe now composed of 95% unidentified and undetectable dark stuff?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the public would have more confidence in astrophysics if it was explained that the dark stuff is merely a proxy for misunderstood observational evidence...
Iron Justice - Young gay men and women often commit suicide because they have been told by the religions they grew up in that their supposed 'creator' does not like and condems who they are. Can you imagine being told that you are not loved by your God? This is just another reason that the world will be a better place when we can throw off the yoke of religions that burdens all of us with prejudice and judgement of ourselves and others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo sad I missed out on this article earlier. I love it when the religious dimwits come out to play! Here's my troll feed:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBite me. Take your voodoo and witchcraft and shove it up your sanctimonious rear mouths. You people have been destroying civilizations since mankind first started to think fire was some kind of magical happenstance. The history of mankind is littered with the dead who failed to follow one or another of the thousands of gods you dimwit people feel the need to bow and scrape to. We're done with you. The Romans should've used hungrier lions, we won't make the same mistake this time. It's time to get rid of religion so mankind can flourish in a new age of morality and peace. There can be neither so long as religion exists. Your silly superstitious ways are done. Keep fighting the good fight, you might just destroy the world before we can stop you, as you hope, but we're committed to surviving without you.
Interestingly, under Lysenko, Russians rejected natural selection ("Darwinism") and believed they could cold condition crops ("Lamarckism" rejected by Darwin). The end result was that the Soviet Union experienced crop failure after crop failure and famine ensued. That's hardly the promotion or real science. The Soviets, instead, were promoting politics, or politics in the veil of "science." No less appropriate than quoting the Bible out of context to subjugate women or black people into subservient roles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs part of a protest against a freeway expansion through a local park, a native witch doctor held a four winds ceremony on the site of the Cold Spring, a sacred site for the Dakota. I had thought uniting with the Native Americans could strengthen our message, but I was deeply mistaken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter the superstitious tradition was described to us and packets of tobacco were distributed "so that our prayers would go to the four winds," the witch doctor informed us that since "women were unclean, they had to step out of the sacred circle." I immediately threw the tobacco pouch down and ground it down with my shoe." I was surprised that none of the other hippies and progressives did the same. Horrified to see the women dutifully step out of the circle. Were none of these activists going to protest this backwardness and vile tradition of sexism?
After that experience, I have had less and less tolerance for the willful ignorance and xenophobia engendered by religion as I have built a universal intolerance for the useless practice of belief itself. I look forward to a better world where those handicapped by belief will keep such stupidity deeply closeted for fear of job loss, demotion or general ridicule.
Within the context of Scientific American, Laurence Krauss article is an embarrassment. Self indulgent anti-religious polemics are not science American, Swiss, popular, or abstract.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoor mountaineer doesn't even understand the basics of scientific method. Religious dogma is accepted despite overwhelming evidence of its self contradictions, misconceptions and outright psychotic thrill in killing the "other."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that Classical mechanics has largely been supplanted by relativity is but one proof the dogma does not exist in science. Heck, newton's laws are still incredibly useful to accurately predict the flight of a baseball, the orbits of stars around galactic centers and to properly aim a probe to reach the outer planets. There is nothing so very useful in the rantings of bronze age men, half mad from starvation. There are no answers in those holy books. Not even the right questions. Why on earth would ration men maintain these dogmas?
Do keep in mind, the idea of inferior races and peoples long preceded Darwin and was well ingrained in European culture. Much of this came from Christianity would often determine that a people somehow inherited God's disfavor (the mark of Cain attributed to Africans), or that a people were subhuman and lacked souls altogether. All Darwin's theories did, was add a quasi-scientific spin to the same beliefs which were being tossed around for the previous 500+ years. It's kinda funny how some religious people try to claim that the theory of evolution ultimately gave rise to Nazism, but they forget about the Conquistadors. the Inquisition, the Crusades, the African slave trade, the destruction of native culture and societies, among others, mostly done in the name of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo consider the Inquisition, the crusades, the atrocities inflicted on native people, and the African slave trade, all of which was happening long before Darwin and even the Renaissance and the so-called age of enlightenment. Do keep in mine, the concept that some peoples and cultures are inferior is common in just about every group which ones to prove that they have the right to do whatever they wish. Long before, some peoples were seen to have earned God's disfavor or were somehow cursed, like the idea that Africans inherited the mark of Cain. In other cases, some peoples were seen as being subhuman and thus lacking souls. All the theory of Evolution did, was gave the same people a quasi-scientific idea to exploit and abuse which became a great tool as religion and thought was becoming too diverse to be as easy to exploit. Eugenics was sort of a "kinder" way of dealing with these perceived problems. rather then doing what was done before (i.e. slaughter and massacre).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has got to be one of the more bizarre lines of thought I have ever encountered. I suggest you re-read this article, as it applies directly to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithin the context of Scientific American, Laurence Krauss article is an embarrassment. Self indulgent anti-religious polemics are not science American, Swiss, popular, or abstract.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author, Krauss, is simply writing from a religious point of view--his own "faith and foolishness," which was not only demonstrablely "dangerous" to others who did not agree with his anti-religious stance, but downright fatal, e.g., 100+ million murdered in the 20th century for opposing the atheistic (and failed) experiment of dialectical materialism). Talk about a religious belief becoming dangerous!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrauss is one more "academic" who is blinded by his own religious orientation when he overgeneralizes by tarring with extreme examples those who believe that God has input into the the development of the cosmos and of life.
Academics of his ilk routinely practice "dangerous" racial and religious discrimination against Asians and white, lower class Christians in university admissions policies, according to a recent Princeton study. This is a blatant attempt at a new kind of Judenrein, promoting those who are most amenable to the social/religious agenda of their brave new world.
A more diligent scholar would have noted that even Darwin's theory of evolution was likely lifted from his own earlier religious experience.
Genesis chapter 1 offers a testable hypothesis suggesting a creation beginning with the "heavens," then the earth with its sequence of life emerging from a dark and chaotic world in stages (the "days" immediately described as indefinite periods--Gen 2:4) beginning with the simplest life forms to the most complex, to man. Darwin, who in his youth, planned a vocation in the Church, knew of Genesis 1 and this sequence. The only substantial difference lies in the assertion in scripture that God caused it, and in Darwin's lifted theory, that He did not.
Darwin's mechanistic and amoral notion of the "survival of the fittest" led philosopically to the joys of Nietzsche, Marx, fascism, and all the resulting joys of Krauss's religious tradition. "Dangerous religious ideas" you say?
For example, according to a recent Princeton U. study, his leftist academic community (heavily influenced by the religion of Marxism) routinely discriminates against high-achieving Asian
Thank you Arc for adding some good sense into this forum!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi All, I'm from Australia and I am assuming the majority of posters here are American. I would like to say that that it is quite terrifying that the majority of people from the USA (one of the most powerful nations) are so willing to let their religion blind them to good sense and reason. I can't stop you believing in your religion, but I can implore you to think about the consequences of your beliefs, because they ARE real and they affect people all over the world every day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author, Krauss, is simply writing from a religious point of view--his own "faith and foolishness," which was not only demonstrablely "dangerous" to others who did not agree with his anti-religious stance, but downright fatal, e.g., 100+ million murdered in the 20th century for opposing the atheistic (and failed) experiment of dialectical materialism). Talk about a religious belief becoming dangerous!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrauss is one more "academic" who is blinded by his own religious orientation when he overgeneralizes by tarring with extreme examples those who believe that God has input into the the development of the cosmos and of life.
Academics of his ilk routinely practice "dangerous" racial and religious discrimination against Asians and white, lower class Christians in university admissions policies, according to a recent Princeton study. This is a blatant attempt at a new kind of Judenrein, promoting those who are most amenable to the social/religious agenda of their brave new world.
A more diligent scholar would have noted that even Darwin's theory of evolution was likely lifted from his own earlier religious experience.
Genesis chapter 1 offers a testable hypothesis suggesting a creation beginning with the "heavens," then the earth with its sequence of life emerging from a dark and chaotic world in stages (the "days" immediately described as indefinite periods--Gen 2:4) beginning with the simplest life forms to the most complex, to man. Darwin, who in his youth, planned a vocation in the Church, knew of Genesis 1 and this sequence. The only substantial difference lies in the assertion in scripture that God caused it, and in Darwin's lifted theory, that He did not.
Darwin's mechanistic and amoral notion of the "survival of the fittest" led philosopically to Nietzsche, Marx, fascism, and all the resulting joys of this (and Krauss's) religious tradition. "Dangerous religious ideas" you say? Perhaps a world *with* Christianity, even with its often flawed proponents, isn't so dangerous after all.
How frightening to live in a country dominated by religious dogma. I wish my forefathers could have had the foresight to stay put in Europe where there seems to be less stupid. If I were younger I would attempt to return but since Im not and cant, Ill stay and continue to vote for reason until the religious majority manages to prohibit freedom of dissent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience & religion are ends of a broad spectrum. To the extent they present views in a language of the other, they come to agreement. Their versions begin to merge, with the end being foreseeable convergence which is not instant because the two fields are very different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCivilization set out to count millennia as if they were scratches on a wall until the Moon was attained. It was vital that a faith be instituted that the people were willing to follow. Just as Romans said to their conquered, "For you, the world began with Rome" and Germans "For you, the war is over", ancient theologians declared that the world had begun only six thousand years ago - evidently, when the Old Kingdom's Pharaohs built works like the Great Pyramids.
It is simply not possible for the average person to be fluent in scientific language for the convenience of scientists. Science is often obscure in the everyday, laborious work, toil, frustration, obligations, responsibilities, dedication, and necessity that constitutes the work of persons employed as other than scientists. I've been both. The scientists, of which I am very much one, are almost always the more intolerant in this century. Where the Church had to adapt, it yielded and it tries to adapt. Yet the church is THE leadership for families raising children and grandchildren.
When scientists yield that their endless quarreling with religion is a quarrel with human frailty, then perhaps they will learn to yield too, and try to speak the other's languages.
By presenting valued concepts one by one in forms that make sense in the concepts of the other, the other can think about it in what the other thinks is rational. The "firm" is vital in human constructions, because it a standard for good foundations in architectural works as well as good, enduring relationships in organizations. The Church found that the stars which seem not to move were the best stars in setting out to construct buildings and organizations. So the church calls the faint, visually non-moving stars a 'firmament'. So what?
Yet scientific intolerance appeared. Most external galaxies will not move relative to each other so much as their own diameter in an entire galactic cycle, visually or in actual truth. Yet scientists lose it all when theologians say external galaxies are a good representation of the religious idea of a firmament.
Consider the Fall of Man, the fall of Australopithecus, and the fall of Neanderthal, etc... May be, that of Homo Sapiens. Some say that is happening again, slowly.
I enjoyed Mr. Krauss' work "The Physics of Star Trek" and respect him as scientist. I appreciate his viewpoint, and he has some very valid points which we in the "religious community" (as opposed to the "scientific") tend to ignore or overlook. I think we would all be better off leaving the "science" to the scientists and the "theology" to the theologians. I think that if we would focus more on practicing what it is that we preach instead of insisting that everyone else believe a doctrine which we ourselves fail to practice time and again, then these questions and problems would resolve themselves. It is our fault that they do not. Rather than condemning Mr. Krauss for his views and opinions thereby proving his point, we ought to focus on our practice of compassion, concern, humility, non-judgment, detachment, forgiveness, and self-denial and self-abandonment just as Jesus Christ taught. It would be better to keep our mouths closed at his rightful criticism, than to open them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRev. Fr. Allen Bair
Krauss has written a rable-rousing call for action. But there is no doubt that he will disclaim any credit when his call for "accountability" results in radical deeds. He shows a serious misunderstanding of people when he says that radical atheists "...rarely condemn individuals but rather actions and ideas that deserve to be challenged." It is a severe delusion to think that radical atheists will not take radical action as severe as any fundamentalist. For proof of this, just peruse the internet sites where the conflict has become intensely heated. Read the name-calling harangues on scienceblogs.com, especially the pharyngula blog's reader comments which regularly post hate-filled anti-religion rants. Is Krauss so naive to think these radicals will limit their passion to only words?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrauss' rambling diatribe should have been more carefully thought out and edited, but I see that this tone of insiting atheists to action is becoming the hallmark of SciAm today.
In 2006, Krauss argued that "...by focusing on this [science-religion] conflict that scientisits not only demean religion, which I think is the intent of a number of them, but demean science." So why is he demeaning science by inflaming and polarizing scientists? Where is the persuasion that he called for in 2006?
G'day Clayton. You are right...it is scary living in a place where religion is so important. When I lived in Oz I was amazed at how secular it was. But then again, I was out bush working on the Moomba pipeline. Most of the workers were rough as guts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs these posts prove, many people here learn their history and science from their preachers. These preachers exchange ideas about how they can manipulate their flock by taking historical and scientific facts out of context. This is proven by the repetitive nature of the religious posts. The preachers tell their flock to invade scientific sites and the result is the same old dag from the same old sheep (OneEye, for example). I read these comments simply for the entertainment value.
Australians are very individualistic, and reckon that they can take care of themselves under any conditions. Most Americans just want to be a member of the club. Religion is the club that will let anyone join.
Cheers! Jeff with a J...my momma didn't name me no Goof.
I guess this article may contain some misjudgements, and ideas cannot or should be judged, they are just right or wrong. During the Franco times, a soccer referee got a court punishment as trigger of public upheavals when he signaled a penalty against the home team and the public began destroying furniture and attacking each others, an unacceptable sentence. Unless the religious autorithy advises something that is an aggression in itself -for example, the Bible tells repeatedly to the Yahveh chosen people to put chains on the kings and their nobilities- religious heads are not responsible of their followers actions after they criticize a fact, believers are not robots, and the confusion of the acts of persons and the person him or herself is just a matter of personality development. It's not strange that people that tend to attend the religious services is also more attached to childhood beliefs, probably both things are connected to personality traits. Circumcision probably induces a paranoid personality, and this personalities are prone to intolerance (DO YOU TOLERATE INTOLERANCE?) and aggressive responses. There is a lot of noise regarding pederasts in the clergy, I was told years ago that homosexuals were 10% of the Toronto Diocese religious persons, it's also again a matter of opportunity to satisfy some desires. I remember that some years before, a gay won a demand when they tryed to fire him as an Scout camp teacher, to avoid he started molesting children. The Pope said that homosexual sex is not compatible with an appointment as a religious man or woman, this concept should be respected, when you join a Church you know what you join. The teachings in the Bible are just that homosexual sex is undesirable, and gives an advise to refrain from it, and warns of possible ugly consequences. The matter is if you feel this is real. The laws and the governments are not for eliminating the fears and malaises of minorities, its function is just protective, in the origin, states gave only army, police and money making services. Nobody can expect a parliament to stablish what is good and what is evil. Law is a science belonging to the group of behavioural sciences, as it predicts with a reasonable certainty how the judges and public forces will act. The case of PHT woman is very sad, but doubts arise: who made her pregnant, knowing that it can put her to death? PHT is hardly curable, probably abortion added nothing to the womans wellbeing, and premature baby care techniques allow life of 700 gr fetuses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can see the ignorance reflected right here in the comments section. For example, a user above claims that the Enlightenment and the subsequent scientific revolution were the cause of various atrocities - conveniently ignoring all of the atrocities that have been perpetrated in the name of religion and glossing completely over the complex social causes of the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. This is a common refrain from religious people. I think they take comfort in these kinds of cherry-picked arguments. It's biased and really tragically ignorant. The causes of war are complex and it has happened throughout history with religion and without. It's safe to say that the period post-Jesus and pre-Enlightenment was not any less violent than what occurred before Jesus in the West. But that won't stop the cult-like ignorance that many Christians self-enforce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post is spot on. I would suggest that the reason there is such impassioned opposition to the slightest criticism of religion is because people are defending a house of cards. They cannot allow even the slightest doubt in, or their entire world view will collapse. Especially when that world-view is filled with hopeful fantasies like a benevolent God or some kind of heaven. Denial is a terrible thing but it is alive and well in the United States.
very much enjoyed the article and even more enjoyed the responses....these kind of articles bring out everyone...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscience...vs...religion
pelhpamer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will now share with you the advances that religion brought to mankind:
The Rack
The Rack was an instrument of torture often used in the Middle Ages, and a popular means of extricating confession. The victim was tied across a board by their ankles and wrists, rollers at either end of the board were turned by pulling the body in opposite directions until dislocation of every joint occurred. According to Puigblanch, quoted in Mason's History of the Inquisition,
"in this attitude he experienced eight strong contortions in his limbs, namely, two of the fleshy parts of the arms above the elbows, and two below; one on each thigh, and also on the legs."
Bound, the heretic, could then be subjected to other forms of torture for the exaltation of their faith.
Other forms included the detainee being fastened in a groove upon a table on his or her back. Suspended above was a gigantic pendulum, the ball of which had a sharp edge on the lower section, and the pendulum lengthen with every stroke. The victim sees this engine of destruction swinging to and fro only a short distance from ones eyes.
Momentarily the keen edge comes nearer, and at length cuts the skin, and gradually cuts deeper and deeper, until their life has fully expired.
The Stocks
With their feet in the stocks, two pieces of timber clamped together, over and under, both across each leg above the ankles. The soles of their feet then having been greased with lard, a blazing brazier was applied to them, and they were first blistered and then fried. At intervals a board was interposed between the fire and their feet and removed once they disobeyed the command to confess themselves of guilt for which they had been charged.
Being more painful, but less fatal than racking, this was the torture most in vogue when the subject chanced to be of the female sex. It was also favored in cases where children were to be persuaded to testify against their parents. Slighter tortures consisted of binding a piece of iron to a limb and putting a twister mark to force it inwards, as was pressing the fingers with rods between them, or removing a nail from fingers or toes, which were all highly practiced upon persons of not sufficient strength to support the pulley, rack, or fire.
Water Torture
The victim's nostrils were pinched shut, and eight quarts of fluid were poured down the victim's throat through a funnel. Other techniques included forcing a cloth down the throat, while pouring water, which made a swallowing reflex pushing it further down into the stomach producing all the agonies of suffocation by drowning until the victim lost consciousness. Instead of water, the torture was sometimes conducted with boiling water or vinegar.
Death occurs from distention or rupturing of the stomach. One of the many cases recorded by the Inquisition, was in 1598 concerning a captured man, who was accused of being a werewolf and "possessed by a demon" while in prison. The official report states only that he had such a thirst that he drank a large tubful of water so that his belly was "distended and hard", and then later died.
The Heretics Fork
This instrument consisted of two little forks one set against the other, with the four prongs plunged into the flesh, under the chin and above the chest, with hands secured firmly behind their backs. A small collar supported the instrument in such a manner that the victims were usually forced to hold their head erect, thus preventing any movement.
The forks did not penetrate any vital points, and thus suffering was prolonged and death was always nearly avoided. The pointed prongs on each end to crane the persons head made speech or movement near impossible. The Heretics Fork was very common during the height of the Spanish Inquisition.
The Pear
The pear was a torture device used on females. This device was inserted into the vagina, or mouth of the victim and then expanded by force of the screw to the maximum aperture setting of the victims cavity. The antrum would then irremediably become lacerated, nearly always fatally, ripping the tissue, flesh and membranes.
This item became extensively applied throughout the Spanish Inquisition to force confessions from those accused of Witchcraft. The pointed prongs at the end of the segments serve better to rip into the throat, the intestines or the cervix. Many paid dearly when the Pear was their fate.
The Branks
The Branks, also sometimes called Dame's Bridle, or Scold's Bridle comprised of a metal facial mask and spiked mouth depressor that was implemented on housewives up until the early 19th century. Many clergymen sustained in this husband's right to handle his wife, and to use "salutary restraints in every case of misbehavior" without the intervention of what some court records of 1824 referred to as "vexatious prosecutions."
Generally a husband would need only to accuse his wife of disagreeing with his decisions, at which the Branks could be applied. The subject would then be paraded through the streets, or chained to the market cross where she was exposed to public ridicule.
The Wheel
The wheel was one of the most popular and insidious methods of torture and execution practiced. The giant spiked wheel was able to break bodies as it rolled forward, causing the most agonizing and drawn-out death. Other forms include the "braided" wheel, where the victim would be tied to the execution dock or platform. Their limbs were spread and tied to stakes or iron rings on the ground. Slices of wood were placed under the main joints, wrists, ankles, knees, hips, and elbows. The executioner would then smash every joint with the iron-tyred edge of the wheel--however the executioner would avoid fatal blows to give the victim a painful death.
According to a German chronicler, the victim was transformed into a huge screaming puppet writhing in their own blood. It looked like a sea monster with four tentacles, and raw slimy shapeless flesh, mixed with splinters of bone. After the smashing had taken place the victim would literally be "braided" into the wheel and hung horizontally at the top of the pole.
The Breast Ripper
The name of this device speaks for itself. Women condemned of heresy, blasphemy, adultery, and witchcraft often felt the wrath of this device as it violently tore a breast from their torso.
This device was highly put into service during the massacre of the Danes.
Hanging cages
These cages were usually hung around the outsides of town halls and ducal palaces, they were also near the town's hall of justice and surprisingly cathedrals. The victim, naked and exposed, would slowly wither from hunger and thirst. The weather would second the victims death by heat stroke and sunburn in the summer and cold in the winter.
The victims and corpses were usually previously mutilated before being put in the cages to make a more edifying example of the punishment. The cadavers were left in the cages until the bones literally fell apart.
The Garotte
Originally, the garotte was simply hanging by another name. However, during Medieval times, executioners began to refine the use of rope until it became as feared and as vile as any serious punishments. Executioners first used the garotte to end the suffering of heretics broken on the wheel, but by the turn of the 18th century the seed of an idea involving slow strangulation was planted in the minds of lawmakers.
At first, garottes were nothing more than an upright post with a hole bored through. The victim would stand or sit on a seat in front of the post and chanting crowd, and a rope was looped around his or her neck. The ends of the cords were fed through the hole in the post. The executioner would then pull on both ends of the cord, or twist them tourniquet-styled, slowly strangling the victim. Later modifications included a spike fixed into the wood frame at the back of the victim's neck, parting the vertebrae as the rope tighten.
The Head Crusher
With the victim's chin placed on the lower bar, a screw then forces the cap down on the victims cranium. The recipients teeth are crushed and forced into the sockets to smash the surrounding bone. The eyes are compressed from their sockets and brain from the fractured skull.
This device, although not a form of capital punishment, is still used for interrogational purposes. It was to inflict extreme agony and shock and leave the victim in its grasp for hours. Other methods included the head screw (below) which was placed around the forehead and tighten. The accused became so frantic by the extreme panic of having their head crushed that they confessed to anything.
Burnt at the Stake
If the Inquisitor wanted to be sure no relics were left behind by an accused and convicted heretic, he would select death by burning at the stake as the preferred method of execution. With few exceptions, death came from being burned alive. Frequently, burning a victim at the stake was cause for a crowd. Not content to merely learn about the spectacle after it was over, the masses wanted to be entertained.
Reflecting on those facts, and understanding such events occurred "under the law," one can clearly understand how Thomas Hobbes (this is a contemporary biography) came to the conclusions he did about man in a state of nature.
If man is capable of such violence and inhumanity in a state of civilization, of what is he capable when there are no laws and there is no society?
(Carole D. Bos)
The Iron Maiden
The Iron Maiden or Virgin of Nuremberg was a tomb-sized container with folding doors. The object was to inflict punishment, then death. Upon the inside of the door were vicious spikes. As the prisoner was shut inside he or she would be pierced along the length of their body. The talons were not designed to kill outright.
The pinioned prisoner was left to slowly perish in the utmost pain. Some models included two spikes that were driven into the eyes causing blindness. One of these diabolical machines was exhibited in 1892.
The Strappado
One of the most common torture techniques. All one needed to set up a strappado was a sturdy rafter and a rope. The victim's wrists were bound behind their back, and the rope would be tossed over the beam.
The victim was repeatedly dropped from a height, so that their arms and shoulders would dislocate. This was a punishment of the Secret Tribunal until 1820.
The Boots
Also known as the bootikens. The legs of the patient were usually placed between two planks of wood, which they binded with cords and wedges. The torturer used a large, heavy hammer to pound the wedges, driving them closer together.
Forceful blows were used to squeeze the legs to jelly, lacerating flesh, protruding the shins, and crushing the bones; sometimes so that marrow gushed out. Once unloosed the bones fall to pieces, rendering the legs useless. This torture was most overwhelming, as one can imagine.
Judas Cradle
The victim was stripped, hoisted and hung over this pointed pyramid with iron belts. Their legs were stretched out frontwards, or their ankles pulled down by weights. The tormentor would then drop the accused onto the pyramid penetrating both orifices. With their muscles contracted, they were usually unable to relax and fall asleep.
As mentioned by Anne Barstowe, the torturers took high advantage of positions of authority to indulge in the most pornographic sessions of sexual control over heretics.
Unless we are willing to expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExposing religious irrationality, in my experience, leads to hostility. Its possible that it inspires more aggressive attempts by religious people to influence public policy. If Krauss wishes us to believe that exposing religious irrationality is an effective way of promoting secularism, he should offer some supporting evidence. Otherwise, he might as well be suggesting that we pray for secularism.
Ordinarily, a man who would callously let a woman die and orphan her children would be called a monster; this should not change just because he is a cleric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo true,the Catholic church is truly evil.
"Ordinarily, a man who would callously let a woman die and orphan her children would be called a monster; this should not change just because he is a cleric."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not the fact that he's a cleric that changes things; it's the fact that saving the woman means killing a fetus, which many people consider to be murder (I'm not one of them).
"... e.g., 100+ million murdered in the 20th century for opposing the ATHEISTIC (and failed) experiment of dialectical materialism). "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"For example, according to a recent Princeton U. study, his leftist academic community (heavily influenced by the RELIGION OF MARXISM) routinely discriminates against high-achieving Asian"
I've capitalized your contradiction to make it easier to spot. Your first assertion is wrong; the second one is right. The murderous ideologies of the 2oth century are, on careful examination, indistinguishable from religions: an absolute interpretation of the world uninfluenced by evidence, a spectacularly wrong belief that instant utopia can be achieved by their ideas, the belief that all who oppose them are inherently evil and worthy of any degree of violence.
Science is, has been and likely will be for the foreseeable future, the best tool form the betterment of human life. Religion, on the other hand, has been and continues to be a weight around mankind's neck, especially burdensome now that we are struggling with so many problems brought about by "go forth and multiply" and "inherit the Earth".
It's laughable to see some religious people claim religion's exclusive right to morality. If you see morality as a tool for social harmony (I do: what else is it good for?), what better tool than science (that is, rational thought supported by observation) to establish what is moral and immoral? Rules derived from some ancient tribal society, which may have been relevant then (it's debatable) but are hopelessly backward now?
Mankind has many problems to solve. It's truly sad that one of them is this inclination that some of us have towards irrationality. We would be far better off without it.
On my comment above, please read "...the best tool FOR the betterment...".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpell checking doesn't catch everything, alas.
Science is 'Knowledge based on verifiable facts'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is 'knowledge based on faith'.
Science requires logic explanation and repeatable processes which can be tested by anyone.
Religion is an explanation of the universe received from another person or organisation. Each religion has its own theory. Every church inside that religion has its own interpretation and each member inside that church has a further unique theory. The only requirement is that you absolutely believe yourself and that you think like a child and reason like a child (not my words).
What religion has always done is to reinterpret as facts became available. From the obvious sin of the village when the church get struck by the hand of god to an understanding of lightning. From torturing and killing scientist in the most sadistic fashion to accepting that the earth actually does revolve around the sun and that blood and not air run through your veins. From scraping a womans flesh from her body with sea shells because she is bewitched to honouring her as one of the greatest mathematicians in history.
How can you accept genetics but deny evolution? Some religious people will insist each individual is created by god while completely accepting the theory of 2 cells merging and replicating from there until a grown human exist. Take it one step back to explain the development of a species and suddenly it is outside the realm of gods plan (just their interpretation of course). Take note that their only logic is, my interpretation of the bible is that...
Those individuals must lighten up. Its been hundreds of years and we now know Galileo was correct and Darwin was correct. Time to reinterpret and move on. Even the Catholic church absolved both Bruno and Galileo (not sure what their position is about mistakenly torturing Bruno to death but lucky for him he is not a heretic anymore)
When someone asks you, do you believe in evolution, do you believe in the big bang, do you believe in mirror neurons , its time to move on. Reasoning with them is futile. Not because they are stupid but because they already know the ultimate answer and will not spend a gram of energy contemplating alternatives
Garotte was used as a way of death penalty in Spain until the death penalty withdrawal, only military of war connected crimes received shooting, that was considered a more honorable way of dying. Garotte doesn't strangle, it breaks the spine, causing instant death, like drop-hanging. When people were burnt alive, they were given drugs or strangled (see devils of Loudun), romans gave sedatives to the crucifyed. For a song on death penalty hear Javier Krahe's "La hoguera".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't big bang recently put into question by the idea that we are possibly already in black hole and that are matter has compressed to a point that compression cannot go any further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does that matter when science really can't answer this riddle of sorts. If you cannot get something from nothing then where does something begin. Within that line of thinking is where I find my own private religion apparently. Simply meaning that something created us in order to skip that law and we evolved from there. Then from there I take on the perspective of a kid watching ants in an ant farm.
As far as religions that are the more popular. I tend to think that they all had good ideas in the beginning, but somewhere along the way a lawyer got in the way and interpreted things in the wrong way as to mislead the masses and excuse the wrongs of there clients.
Hows that for a bit of crazy?
O lets all not forget that fact is only the most popularly held belief until it is proven wrong. Lets not forget science people that the world was indeed flat and then round and then that earth was the center of the universe then the sun then no we aren't exactly sure where the center is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't argue that religion is right or that science is only that when man is convinced he is right often he is wrong.
The beginning statement is more or less quoted from a teacher I had as a child that only wanted us to think beyond what is believed to be fact.
"After 50 years as a non-believer I became a Christian and I strongly disagree with the treatment of Sister McBride, however, I believe the answer for her is to find a religion that has compassion and believes as she does."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"STRONGLY DISAGREE"
I take offense to a person's life being proclaimed of lesser value based on the word of one who believes the "perfect creator of all existence" commanded people to sacrifice their children to it; accepted multiple human sacrifices; and supposedly sacrificed it's own "son".
"FIND A RELIGION"
You do not believe your deity is real. If you told your young child not to put their feet on your sofa would you expect that their visiting friends also heed your words? What if your child told their friend something similar to what you said, "You have to find a way of sitting on this sofa that suits you."
You argue for evidence while stating that you believe in a thing for which no evidence can be seen, has ever been seen, and from the purported lips of your master cannot EVER be seen, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation... for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."- Luke 17:20-21
When contradicting oneself it should occur not to leave a record. At least then one can just lie and say, "I didn't say that!"
My rejection of evolution puts me in distinguished company: "Darwin himself considered that the idea of evolution is unsatisfactory unless its mechanism can be explained. I agree, but since no one has explained to my satisfaction how evolution could happen I do not feel impelled to say that it has happened. I prefer to say that on this matter our information is inadequate." What fellow creationist wrote that statement? No creationist wrote it. Rather, the quote is from Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., who wrote it as part of the most devasting critique of darwinism encountered in my 31 years of research. It was part of the "Introduction" in one of the 1956 editions of "...Origin of Species..." Let me challenge anyone to find a copy of that edition of "...Origin..." Is this an example of censorship? Fortunately, the members of the Evolution Protest Movement received permission to publish that "Introduction" in booklet form. A copy is in my possession. The quote is on page 12.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy rejection of the alleged "big-bang," at least in its explosive
"explanation," also puts me in distinguished company: "...[T]he main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the big-bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome....I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory." [Sir Fred Hoyle. 1984. The big bang under attack. SCIENCE DIGEST, May, p. 8]. One has only to look at the images provided by NASA (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html) to understand the overwhelming order and complexity of cosmological structures. When has an explosion EVER produced order and complexity? An explosions does not produce order; rather, an explosion, in human experience, produces disorder. So much for mythology!
It should be pointed out that the most recent scientific review of the topic is quite skeptical on the 'Big Bang Theory'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html
One could just as easy have replaced the Word "Religious" with "Scientific" in the title of this Silly Inadequate and Polarizing Squib...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of Yesteryear's Science is now proven false and so tomorrow we will look at today's... Big Bang Theory is no different from the Flat Earth lack of understanding, but hardly a day goes by I don't hear it sold somehow.
Yes, Religious Leaders are as developed as much of "disclosed" Science... Few have enough Science to see the Potential to God, yet many discount it outright as if empirically understood.
How many did Science Kill in Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone ?
And how many more Millions by so many more "Clever" means ?
How Dangerous is Science!...? And proven so.
And What of the Deceit it expounds to even more with yet discredited beliefs ?
Faith is well proven, for it's importance and efficacy, for the conduits it opens at executive level, or is Science still to understand Placebo ?
Idiots you all who claim to know more, for sure to have less, White Coat or Silly Hat, fools all round.
I'm frightened. America increasingly resembles the Weimar republic towards the end. Will those of you in a position to do so please trigger your nukes in their silos before those who actively seek Armageddon get to play with the controls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeliefs have consequences. Ironically it is the endeavors of scientists that enable the religious nightmare. I just hope there are enough Americans whose devotion to humanity trumps their patriotism. I hope they prevail.
If religion was relly a science it should be willing and opened to critcs. That´s the true essence of science, "the denial of old ideas to build new knowledge". And religion is just the opposite, a conservative and absloute knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerica increasingly reminds me of the Weimar republic. From abroad it looks ungovernable. Frightening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are you going to do if those who hope for Armageddon get to play with the means of bringing it about?
I hope there are people whose loyalty to humanity exceeds their patriotism sufficiently to be prepared to set off those nukes in their silos. Better a cauterized North America than a charred planet.
How ironic that a population who left to their own devices would be throwing stones at each other due to differences in interpretation of obscure bronze age texts, could quite soon be in a position to reify their end times nightmares with access to almost half the entire military hardware on the planet. Courtesy of the much reviled scientists and engineers.
If this comment seems off topic then you have failed to understand the ramifications of Dr. Krauss' article.
Or it could be the fact that they would be ostracized by everyone in their community for having the audacity to try and love who they actually love. But fine, go ahead and blame the victim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Krauss is right; all religious leaders should be held accountable when their irrational ideas turn harmful like any other leader. What makes a cleric different from a self centered leader turned criminal? Is because the bishop beliefs are APPROVED by a God?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI grew up in a Christian country where contraception and abortion was illegal, thousands women died of complications of illegal abortions and thousands of children orphaned.
The law was imposed not at all driven by religious beliefs, but to increase the population. The leader was a criminal and eventually judged and sentenced to death.
Again why someone invoking God is not a criminal, but has moral values?
Mr. Krauss, thank you so much for writing this. The double standard we seem to have for religion, especially in America, is shocking. Of course people should be free to believe what they wish without fear of retribution or persecution, but that does not and should not make their views immune to criticism and rational debate. Far too often, people of faith are ignored or even praised when they proselytize their beliefs or put forward patently false ideas as scientific truth, while those who disagree with them are branded as intolerant and shut out of the conversation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not intolerant to maintain that the best current scientific explanation for a phenomenon should be the one taught in science class, and it is not intolerant to ask polite questions about how people reconcile their beliefs with other aspects of their lives. It consistently shocks me that it is considered normal and sometimes even righteous for the religious to espouse their beliefs as fact and attempt to convert skeptics, but it is considered religious intolerance for skeptics to ask those believers "why".
I have heard many a religious person tell me that I will go to hell if I do not do what they tell me to do or believe what they tell me to believe and heard many a listener tell me that they're "just trying to help" or "just acting in accordance with their beliefs". Those same believers, and bystanders who were willing to give the believers the benefit of the doubt, were quick to claim intolerance and tell me I was belittling their beliefs when I outlined the rationale behind my stance or asked them why they believed as they did or why I should accept their version of reality.
Religious freedom is an incredibly important human right. But freedom to believe as you wish without fear of persecution or government interference does not equal freedom from criticism or questioning. Questioning someone's ideas, or asking for explanation or evidence or rationale, is not a crime, or intolerance, or immorality. It is engaging in an open conversation about ideas. If anything is immoral, it is crying "intolerance" to shut down debate and stifle the search for truth.
to wshaun "Furthermore, when scientists discover that unknown evolutionary process, stop the debate and present evolution to the public in a rational manner then you can expect religion will accept it as they have in all scientific discoveries in the past."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean like how the earth isn't the center of the universe? How it's round not flat? How dismembering the body isn't an abomination?
You clearly know NOTHING about history if you think that Religion just accepted new scientific discoveries. At every turn they tried to supress the information and destroy its credibility until the idea became so logical NO ONE would follow the church, and THEN they changed their view.
Make no mistake, the church has been the most stubborn opposition to science in history.
Aside from the fact that most of these comments reveal a shocking unfamiliarity with even simple English grammar, they also confirm that even those who "believe" in evolution have little idea what it actually means. Biological evolution consists of nothing more than a change in the frequency of alleles in a breeding population. Such changes can lead to speciation, among other things, and this process has been observed any number of times. Evolution is not a "belief" it is a process that is evident in all the workings of biological nature and is hugely explanatory in a way that makes it undeniable in the face of massive evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't be idiotic. No single person, scientist or not, can be up to speed on every single topic of science. Acceptance of the consensus of experts in the field is the only option available to those who don't have time to repeat the experiments themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsensus is derived from a valid scientific argument, and invalid arguments are invariably killed off when their argument collapses in the face of evidence that disproves them. Recall, scientifically the Earth was once regarded as the center of the universe. That theory collapsed in the face of contrary evidence. As did the sun-centered universe. As did the "our galaxy IS the universe." As did the geosynclinal theory. As did Lamarckian evolution. All these theories had their supporters, and with the exception of Lamarckian evolution, all of my examples were the predominant theories of their time - against which rose a solitary or extremely limited number of opposing voices.
And those voices carried with them the one "silver bullet" that will potentially kill any theory at all - fact.
This isn't like religion, where any dummy can yammer up what he or she thinks is the way it is, and evidence against it gets ignored. This is about reality. If someone comes in and puts up a theory that says gravity results in an attractive force of 15 m/s/s, even though most people might simply wash over the opinion and say "Okay, sure," there will always be some who go back and test it and say "Hey, wait a minute, that's not what my experiment shows - it's only 10 m/s/s." The 10 will win, even if it is just one person among ten thousand who holds that view.
Why? Because the figure of 10 is demonstrably factual, and the figure of 15 is not.
Judging scientific literacy is very welcome. Analyzing and pointing out the strong correlation between the "faithful" and the "willfully ignorant" is completely and utterly legitimate.
It should be common practice, to shame the foolish dipsh*** who choose their favorite Jim-Jones religious views over demonstrably factual evidence.
You can see the ignorance reflected right here in the comments section. For example, a user above claims that the Enlightenment and the subsequent scientific revolution were the cause of various atrocities - conveniently ignoring all of the atrocities that have been perpetrated in the name of religion and glossing completely over the complex social causes of the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. This is a common refrain from religious people. I think they take comfort in these kinds of cherry-picked arguments. It's biased and really tragically ignorant. The causes of war are complex and it has happened throughout history with religion and without. It's safe to say that the period post-Jesus and pre-Enlightenment was not any less violent than what occurred before Jesus in the West. But that won't stop the cult-like ignorance that many Christians self-enforce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post is spot on. I would suggest that the reason there is such impassioned opposition to the slightest criticism of religion is because people are defending a house of cards. They cannot allow even the slightest doubt in, or their entire world view will collapse. Especially when that world-view is filled with hopeful fantasies like a benevolent God or some kind of heaven. Denial is a terrible thing but it is alive and well in the United States.
Don't be idiotic. No single person, scientist or not, can be up to speed on every single topic of science. Acceptance of the consensus of experts in the field is the only option available to those who don't have time to repeat the experiments themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsensus is derived from a valid scientific argument, and invalid arguments are invariably killed off when their argument collapses in the face of evidence that disproves them. Recall, scientifically the Earth was once regarded as the center of the universe. That theory collapsed in the face of contrary evidence. As did the sun-centered universe. As did the "our galaxy IS the universe." As did the geosynclinal theory. As did Lamarckian evolution. All these theories had their supporters, and with the exception of Lamarckian evolution, all of my examples were the predominant theories of their time - against which rose a solitary or extremely limited number of opposing voices.
And those voices carried with them the one "silver bullet" that will potentially kill any theory at all - fact.
This isn't like religion, where any dummy can yammer up what he or she thinks is the way it is, and evidence against it gets ignored. This is about reality. If someone comes in and puts up a theory that says gravity results in an attractive force of 15 m/s/s, even though most people might simply wash over the opinion and say "Okay, sure," there will always be some who go back and test it and say "Hey, wait a minute, that's not what my experiment shows - it's only 10 m/s/s." The 10 will win, even if it is just one person among ten thousand who holds that view.
Why? Because the figure of 10 is demonstrably factual, and the figure of 15 is not.
Judging scientific literacy is very welcome. Analyzing and pointing out the strong correlation between the "faithful" and the "willfully ignorant" is completely and utterly legitimate.
It should be common practice, to shame the foolish dipsh*** who choose their favorite Jim-Jones religious views over demonstrably factual evidence.
"O lets all not forget that fact is only the most popularly held belief until it is proven wrong. Lets not forget science people that the world was indeed flat and then round and then that earth was the center of the universe then the sun then no we aren't exactly sure where the center is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't argue that religion is right or that science is only that when man is convinced he is right often he is wrong."
That is exactly my point, made in an earlier reply. However, where you seem to consider the malleability of knowledge to be a bad thing, I consider it the greatest and most respectable aspect of the subject.
The changes to prevailing theory in science were made as a result of the discovery of new information. In spite of their incorrectness, the principles discovered by science will always be far, far more reliable than those of some imbecile flailing around on a church floor "speaking in tongues," or some pompous ass in a dress and a funny hat issuing decrees based on his reading of a several-thousand-year-old text written by over-intoxicated bronze-age nomads.
T
Bravo! I always subscribed that US scientists or any scientist for that matter owes to put back into the kitty. They got educated and practice science. They see daily that science is denigrated by those who know nothing and believe in childish beliefs as truth. They owe to donate time and expose all the anti-Science people for what they are charlatans who live from the credulity of fools. We all should tell it like it is and not as the charlatans want us to say it. I am not a scientist but I think the closest thing we have that dependably finds the truth is the scientific method. Nothing approach this most beautiful invention when it comes to truth. Clergy can scream whatever invective they may chose, the truth is with science never with religion. This is one of the reasons I am a Jewish atheist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe questions in the survey appear to be incorrectly worded. The question should be "Are you aware of the Big Bang and evolution" not do you believe in them. To enforce conformity in belief will take us back to the inquisition with bunson burners flaming as we purge the heretics. Enforced scientific belief is as nasty as enforced religious belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientist bigwigs are claiming the big bang and accelerating expanding universe and dark energy as factual rather then theory. There are other ways of explaining this phenomena. see: <http://novan.com/5th-forc.htm>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Dalai Lama said is a recent book: "When science trumps dogma, go with the science". The quote by the Dalai Lama in this blog entry does not validate the point being made. The point being made that science is being flouted by religion in story about the nun who was excommunicated is flawed also. She had no religious authority to permit the abortion, medical only. Totally understandable she would be excommunicated. This is an example of someone trying to place science vs. religion which helps solidify immature fundamentalist thinking on both sides. See Marilynne Robinson's "Absence of Mind". This blog post was a very superficial exploration of the issue. Thought better of Scientific American. No rigour here at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the article by Mr. Krauss particularly interesting and very instructive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany years ago there was a "theory" that religion was dying and that the advance of science would bury it altogether.
The "thinking" was that as scientific knowledge increased the "miracles" of technology would convince the religious that it was righteous to trust science, and the bogeyman of religion would be exorcised once and for all.
I rather liked the idea because it spoke to real intelligence, since it seemed to suggest a kindler, gentler approach to dealing with people of religious faith.
However, it seems that science have given up on the theory of religious people evolving to higher thinking and the carrot of tolerance has been abandoned for the big stick of ridicule and intimidation. Now it is scientists who are seeing the "end of the world" in religious incalcitrance (and statistics) that suggests that religion is somehow being revived.
Iwould ask Mr. Krauss and other like-minded thinkers not only to be more patient, but to have more "faith" in their "religious" theories. After all, with evolution being what it is, it is only a matter of time before religion, that last bastion of scientific resistance, succumbs to the inexorable march of progress.
Or is it that evolution needs a little help from its friends?
To be fair and balanced, why have no studies been done of one of the largest group of people on earth: Muslims. To leave them out of your grouping shows a deep and flawed bias on your part....you might come across a huge percentage of people on this planet that do not believe science on many, many issues. I agree that religious beliefs can be dangerous, particularly thinking of 9/11, however, your percentage is one that is equal to the percentage of Americans who believe that humans are too "sub" and require their intellectual guidance on all matters living even to the point of coercion. To be fair, I ask you what your political leanings are because they too affect the way studies are done, interpreted and purveyed to the public. I have come, after six decades, to understand that politics is also one of the largest and equally influential, not to say dangerous beliefs akin to religion...wouldn't your agree? To set the record straight, I am female, atheist, independent (Tea Party).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be fair and balanced, why have no studies been done of one of the largest group of people on earth: Muslims. To leave them out of your grouping shows a deep and flawed bias on your part....you might come across a huge percentage of people on this planet that do not believe science on many, many issues. I agree that religious beliefs can be dangerous, particularly thinking of 9/11, however, your percentage is one that is equal to the percentage of Americans who believe that humans are too "sub" and require their intellectual guidance on all matters living even to the point of coercion. To be fair, I ask you what your political leanings are because they too affect the way studies are done, interpreted and purveyed to the public. I have come, after six decades, to understand that politics is also one of the largest and equally influential, not to say dangerous beliefs akin to religion...wouldn't your agree? To set the record straight, I am female, atheist, independent (Tea Party).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisttheobald, your reply had me until the last paragraph and then, you become what you rail against. Human, isn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat man is insecure in his opinion of himself and his place in nature is magnificently obvious when reading these posts. We look for reasons for our existence, our observed superiority over lesser creatures, our ability to accumulate knowledge and to use it in a rational manner (some of the time, anyway). We, in our insecurity, doubt (some of us) that our evolution has endowed us with these abilities. So we look to some nebulous source, a god! Then over time we endow this god with attributes to explain phenomena that we do not understand. Let us shed this mantle of insecurity and ignorance and embrace all the knowledge we can gain through scientific pursuits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read a number of posts from early to last....not all, but it seems to me that we are debating an issue that rightly belongs in the realm of homo-sapiens. For, in the end, is it not humans that do the things most egregious, most benign and the most wonderful? It is not religion or politics, but human beings. We are the culprits and saviours. That we love to accuse, demean and demonize is just who and what we are: people. Some of us do not believe that we must use bad language and accusatory tones in our postings just be mannerly. Take me for instance, I could reply in kind to those that think being abusive is fine, but why waste my energy and emotions on hate? Let each of us look in the mirror and see if we understand who looks back at us and whether we like the image. The truth is that most would wish something a little better but some would be blind to what is looking back at them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an Australian subsriber to Scientific American, and have just perused the comments made about the article by Prof Krauss. I am astonished by the ducking and weaving of those who defend religious beliefs in the face of evolution, and other well established science. To blame science for the Gulag, the guillotine, and Nazi eugenics, is rediculous. Those whose beliefs are based on faith, cannot ignore the evidence provided by science. Where the two conflict, only science can provide evidence which can be rationally assessed. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, even if some of the detailed mechanisms at the gene level are yet to be revealed. How else have humans created such a variety of dogs, where none once existed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll beliefs have consequences - and science (the process, not the so-called knowledge or "scientific fact"), by definition, is often wrong. Authoritarianism masquerading as rational science is very possibly just as dangerous as any goofball religion you can find or dream up. Einstein said it best - "The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the Dalai Lama that the intent of the challenge of athiests is to posture intellectual superiority. The kick back is therefor more disregard for the scientific. Asians are predominately believers in the circular nature of a life force and are not "fist in face" challenged. Christians are satisfied with free will and often do not always make "scientificically" correct decisions, but are not always incorrect. The ethical conduct, when reflected by others, as encouraged by the Christian faith promotes trust and fair dealing. I have often believed that science is constrained by religious beliefs, and I also believe that science is not always presented to those of faith in a amiable manner, claiming more superior reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Krauss is correct, insofar as his description of religion and science goes. I wonder, however, if he is focusing on one aspect of religion in America. Many of us who are active religionists would in fact agree with his analysis and commentary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe fails to make his major point stick: that clergy who cause real harm should be held accountable. Most ordained persons in North America work for independent congregations with no linkages or responsibilities to larger systems. Even when a larger system (e.g., denomination) exists the standards of training can be close to zero. In the religious free market that is America there is little that can be done to change the reality, except, as Krauss suggests, make civil accountability greater.
As for the Dalai Lama's comment, Krauss should know that there are those who would wipe all religionists off the face of the earth. Hitler and Amin are two excellent modern examples.
I would like to see commentators like Krauss share their views on religious-based higher education. Does he really believe that nothing good can come out of Notre Dame or Boston College or Kenyon or SMU, let alone the historically black denominational colleges that have produced so many of the leaders that have helped change this society for the better?
I believe I understand Krauss' frustration at the level of science education in the U.S. He might also note the high percentage of people who when shown the Bill of Rights stated that it must have been written by a Communist. As a political scientist and a pastor I am often appalled at the lack of understanding my fellow citizens have of basic principles of human rights, let alone thier comprehension of the workings of the universe.
The Rev. Peter J. Van Hook, Ph.D.
Theology is a science? If so, then we have expanded the definition of "science" so as to render it meaningless. How would one go about using the scientific method to study God? Metaphysics is not based upon empirical understanding - it is philosophy. Religion is a quasi-philosophy. It generally lacks the sophistication or rigor to be considered philosophy per se. Theology is just the accumulated works of apologists who try to reconcile nonsense and reality and salvage their faith from its simple contradictions by adding layer upon layer of obfuscation. A priori commitments obstruct intellectual honesty. What appears a contradiction or absurdity to the honest observer becomes a paradox and enigma to the theologian. It is obscurantism at its best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheology is a science? If so, then we have expanded the definition of "science" so as to render it meaningless. How would one go about using the scientific method to study God? Metaphysics is not based upon empirical understanding - it is philosophy. Religion is a quasi-philosophy. It generally lacks the sophistication or rigor to be considered philosophy per se. Theology is just the accumulated works of apologists who try to reconcile nonsense and reality and salvage their faith from its simple contradictions by adding layer upon layer of obfuscation. A priori commitments obstruct intellectual honesty. What appears a contradiction or absurdity to the honest observer becomes a paradox and enigma to the theologian. It is obscurantism at its best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother voice to persecute those you don't agree with...I expect better our of Sci Am...remember the fiasco with the 'Amateur Scientist' column some years ago after the long time editor gave it up....the 'Forest Mims Affair'...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. Unless we are willing to expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisim glad people are willing to point that out
It is hard to criticize Professor Krause's argument, but it must be applied to science as well. Science, broadly defined, should be held accountable for the consequences of its ideas. e consequences include nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, eugenics and its implementation, global warming resulting from our science enabled production of excess carbon dioxide. In short, one-simple minded point deserves another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe vehemence and volume of antagonistic responses to Krauss's article are very disappointing. The obvious truths stated by the thoughtful Mr. Krauss seem to me to be self evident, and certainly verifiable, and indicate a very serious deterioration in the intellectual climate in America, where it is becoming more and more dangerous to question religion publicly, even in those cases where it is clearly factually, ethically and morally wrong. Science is sometimes wrong but improves in accuracy every year. Show me a religion that has that property. Evolution is a fact, whether people accept it or not, as is the approximately 13.5 billion year old age of our universe and the 4.2 or so billion year old age of Earth. Why some find such things so threatening is beyond my comprehension. Do people feel we shouldn't criticize other religions as well, e.g. the call to stone women to death for supposed adultery, or it only Christianity that can't be criticized? Do people intellectually capable of reading an article like Krauss's actually still believe Adam and Eve were real people and the world was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago? There lies madness, is all I can say. The idea that religion is a science is particularly preposterous, as is the contention that all theories are equal, a popular belief that is, I suppose growing. Scientific theories are based on observations and rational ideas about causation that can be tested against reality. Importantly, they can be proved or disproved. Beliefs, in contrast, are just that: ideas based largely on nothing much more substantial than superstition, muddled history, fantasies taught in childhood and myopic, biased views of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo people really believe a nun should be defrocked because she saved a woman's life at the expense of an unborn? I can't think of anything more inhumane and heartless, although perhaps it will lead to an awareness in this cruelly used nun of the true mean-spirited viciousness that underlies so much of religious belief.
When his followers asked Mohammed what heaven was like, he had to picture something that they were used to, like raping , thieving and killing. So he told them about something they surely would like. The 72 Virgins. His writers (Mohammed could neither read or write) wrote it down as that what heaven really was. Muslims will be in for a surprise after they die like blowing themselves up on advice of an Imam or leader.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllah or God is Love, not a murderer. He Himself could have killed those people if they displeased him.
So, why did He not do it? In order to get rid of some Imam inspired ignorants?
You have some points with respect to the current understanding of evolution however scientists know what they do not understand and seek to understand it scientifically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious fanatics however come up with fanciful notions which are demonstrably rubbish, that is what evidence there is shows them to be false.
Yes religious leaders should be held to account for such as the AIDS deaths in South Africa which are the result of the not just the Catholic Church's dogmatic adherence to anti-contraception views but also their proactive anti-contraception propaganda campaigns.
If a corporation failed to teach their employees proper safety procedures and their workers died as a result they would be prosecuted; what the Catholic Church has done is wilfully counter correct teachings with false ones which makes them far more culpable, I do not see why religions should be exempt from causing deaths where corporate entities would not.
Garedawg complains that because Catholics use previous decisions to reason toward current decisions that they use "chains of reasoning not unlike those used in science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing could be further from the truth, in both senses. In science, evidence tied to real events in the universe leads to testable conclusions. In religion proclamations (e.g. the sun revolves about the earth) lead to further proclamations. Whether these are conclusions based on evidence discovered in reality matters not a whit.
At least the scientific community is able to correct itself and drop outdated ideas. Religious movements are almost completely incapable of doing the same, without significant political threat, i.e., LDS and polygamy, Southern Christians and slavery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difference? Scientists are willing to say "I know what it would take for me to change my mind."
@plehpamer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The French Revolution was caused by social and economic factors and not science. Science wasn't even a catalyst.
2. The Nazi party was responsible for the "eugenics" movement and it was held accountable with many leaders being put to death. Although eugenics was based on scientific theory you could say the Nazi party was like those extremist religious zealots whose damaging teachings are based on the bible; not all religious people are whack jobs teaching and practising things that are dangerous and damaging but those that are should also be held to account just like the Nazis.
3. The Soviets promoted science over dogma however they also had a great many none scientific beliefs, such as the communist economic theory. Some of those responsible were held to account, others were not but not because they shouldn't be.
Science is no more responsible for tragic events that occur than the bible is. (You could say science no more kills people than guns do). I support Mr. Krauss's call to hold religious leaders accountable for the damage they do just as I hold a man who shoots someone accountable for that death too.
This misses the point that scientific endeavour advances knowledge. We have considerable evidence of evolution, we even have examples of it working today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one is denying there have been mistakes and more mistakes will be made but we know a great deal more today thanks to science than we would have done without it. We know for instance that the solar system is centred on the Sun and the Earth is not flat. We know that evolution is a fact though we may not understand all the jumps yet.
Religious dogma however seeks only to try to fit what is with their world view hence "young age creationism". It is stagnant.
No religion is not a science. Science looks at what is and tries to work out why. It deals in what it can see and seeks to explain it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study of a supreme being that brought this all together presumes the existence of something which cannot be seen and seeks to demonstrate it by interpreting what it can see in terms of that existence; it puts the cart before the horse as it were. Nonsense.
it is urgent to reform the tax status of religious organisations and the practice thereof. the Founding Fathers came up with a compromise that was appropriate for their time but it needs to be reconsidered. I propose to tax religious organisations like any other business, further: religious practice should be taxed like any other risky activity such as associative sport practice or clubs or driving vehicules , that is with a fee and registration to a state institution, and proper insurance. Anybody practicing without paperwork would be fined, like for a moving violation. It's time to recognize the cost of stupid ideologies to society, and people insisting on behaving like fools should pay for this luxury
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "big bang" is considered a theory by proper scientists not "knowledge". Theories are not immutable. Theories best explain what can be observed and are supported by experimentation. At present Science has a pretty good understanding of what happened very shortly after the point of creation however Science cannot and probably never will explain how creation actually came about - even the "big bang" has a glaring hole, what created or caused it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMathematical "nonsense" is clever juggling with numbers that I do not understand. It has predefined laws that governs how the numbers can be juggled (2+2 will always equal 4 for instance - not anything you want as Will Smith once said in his "metaphysical" interview) but these allow for a vast number of permutations. Most mathematical "nonsense" are also theories that then have to be backed up by experimentation and observation.
Photons is a name given to something that manifestly exists. We understand a lot about photons and how they interact with other things, we may not understand everything however.
Good Article. Straight and to the point and highlights some serious cultural problems. With regard to religion I class myself as an existential nihilist. I accept the big bang theory but quite frankly the origins of the universe are unimportant to me as the scientists delve deeper more questions surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMHO ANY organised religion is inherrently flawed and i see it as an antiquiated way to culturally and socially opress people with fear, not too different to Nazism or Communism. Everyone wants answers and wants to know the truth, but in reality this is unobtainable.
I think that science searches for answers rather than relies on hearsay like religion. it is a different approach for different reasons, and yes you can influence scientific study to present an outcome but this is true of anything that anyone does.
as Arc said on page one:
"We need more scientists like Mr. Krauss who are willing to speak out for reason over irrationality, science over religion, and point out the consequences of unfounded belief and its associated foolishness."
I agree.
Science has such a dubious tract record in promoting incorrect and harmful beliefs that many of us would rather err on the side of religious beliefs which teach us to love one another than believe in holocaust causing eugenics, false flu epidemics, DDT harmed nothing in the environment and the socialist utopia. My PhD commencement Nobel speaker told us that at least 50% of all we had struggled to master would be proven blatantly false or incorrectly interpreted with in 20 years, he just couldn't predict which 50%. So for the past 45 years I've tried to verify the facts and theories I taught my students in science but always told them to hang on to their religious beliefs to balance their lives. In 45 years I've seen dozens of supposed scientific laws modified and rejected and many theories that the most elite swore by upended and modified. Most people can't live with the ambiguity of science and want something more long lasting to build a life on. Me? I believe in a God who is so wise He designed a self perpetuating and self correcting plan for this earth and then allowed us to have the joy of discovery and experimentation to learn the plan. People who believe science or religion based on just what they can measure and experience will forever miss the bigger view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is just as guilty as religion in promoting beliefs that cause harm especially when backed by a powerful government. It is the nature of men when they get a little authority to use it to back their beliefs. And when you throw gold and commerce into the mix it shifts to the dark side as we see in Big Pharma and the USDA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Krauss opens his article with criticism of the National Science Foundation for removing the section of their report on evolution. Actually, I think they are correct to do so, if the purpose of the report is to "probe the public's understanding of science concepts." Acceptance of evolution is probably the worst measure, exactly because it is clouded by issues of faith rather than education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the real issue that Mr. Krauss is pointing to is that any time a group of people become so attached to a certain idea, be it commonly accepted scientific "fact" or an item of "faith," that they reject out of hand any conflicting information, there are damaging social consequences. This, I think was the Dalai Lama's point. Extremism is extremism, whether perpetrated by scientists or religious clerics. The remedy is an open mind, which holds all controversial ideas as tentative and remains curious about the unfolding of human knowledge. What we have on both sides of this issue is the pervasive human discomfort with uncertainty.
Evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is evidence for adaptation. Natural selection as it were, but not evolution. That is a leap of faith from adaptation. There is no supporting evidence of one species becoming another. Supposition, or faith yes. There is that but no evidence at all
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Krauss. Science and academia needn't make concessions to wholly unscientific sectarian dogma - if anything, the opposite is true. The poll referenced above clearly illustrates the very real link between religiosity and the irrational denial of observed reality. Why should respected institutions of learning be expected to deny the correlation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishuman beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this conclusion a fact or a fiction?
I have not seen any scientific fact proving this. But many scientific beliefs accepting this.
Every specie give offsprings of their own kind; is this not a scientific fact?
The problem is not scientific or religious, but philosphical, and until we understand that we will get nowhere. We must go beyond Modern legalism and Postmodern relativism to 21st century relational thought before we can reconcile science and theology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishuman beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this statement a scientific fact or a fiction? We know for sure that the offspring is like their parents but not a new species.
Moral issues can be badly treated by scientist as well by clergy. But is it not a fact that jews, aborigine in Tasmania, blacks and others were considered "lower" species because of the evolution theory? Clergy as scientist can err badly. We are still human race.
What an arrogant article by Mr. Krause. You wear you faith as much on your sleeve as does any dogmatist. It takes just as much faith to adhere to the Big Bang theory of the origin of the present universe as it does to believe that God created it. Neither the secular atheist, nor the religiously faithful can go back in time to witness the event, so the exercise of studying it becomes academic, at best. Science, if one can admit it, does not purport to be a complete data set, by any means. As a cursory glance at the history of science exemplifies, mankind is consistently revising it's scientific point-of-view, proving that science does not equal perfect knowledge. And if we can be honest enough to acknowledge the flaws that must inherently exist in this imperfect system, then we are left with faith, once again as the basis of belief in both science and theistic religions. So, Mr. Krauss, you can quietly step down from your intellectually superior high horse now, and join the rest of the faithful striving her in the dirt for Truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems a lot of people really don't understand what' science ' or the ' scientific method ' mean. Science is not technology or some set of material products. Is it not a process by which we satisfy our need to understand how the material world is put together and functions? Science does not set a ' value ' on discovered ' truth' - we consider and continue the search. Similar to people who misunderstand or refuse to accept the basic definition of ' liberalism '. There isn't much chance of getting closer to the ' truth ' when one is locked into a static belief system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is regrettable that Lawrence M. Krauss has elected to use his column in Scientific American to spew his anti-religious beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf he wishes to dislike religion, so be it. Scientific American is a journal to communicate science to interested non-scientists, not a journal for self indulgent antagonistic polemics.
What he has written is not science, and was not intended to be science.
Mr. Krauss should not have degraded a science journal by using it to articulate his political beliefs.
Unbelievably twisted. I simply do not know where to begin. First of all atheists do not kill each other over how they disbelieve in god, but those handicapped by belief in things they don't understand, nor question routinely kill each other over belief. Both the Koran and the old testament tell the chosen few to kill the heathen. God truly is not great.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole body of knowledge aptly explained by the theory of natural selection does not require one's belief. Unlike your gods wholly made-up in fevered, long dead minds, evolution will not stop being a force of development of life if you don't believe in it.
Instead, one learns a few things (see: Paleontology) and one is therefore convinced by such things, but if you have not bothered to learn anything, why expose your pitiful ignorance for the world to mock?
And the guy
"Religious leaders need to be held accountable for their ideas"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow absolutely fascinating, thought control. Could we do this same thing with journalist and politicians?
"Religious leaders need to be held accountable for their ideas"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow absolutely fascinating, thought control. Could we do this same thing with journalist and politicians?
When you navel gazing idiots wake up, what part of sharia law will be the excuse of you execution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhining about so called christian conservatives not believing every alarmist call for more iron rice bowl grant funding in the name of science, while ignoring the militant call to prayer and more importantly Obedience, is an absurd comedy.
IF what scientist report is true then testing will surely confirm it, if on the other hand conjecture and force are allowed scope and opportunity, then the will of the prophet will be done. In the name of grant approval and profits of course.
This will probably cause eye-rolls... but when I (an Evangelical who leans toward Evolution) see a stat that says 55 percent of white Evangelicals disagree with me... that is *good* news. I see it as a glass half-full phenomenon. I do think that scientists such as Francis Collins (the Evangelical who headed up the human genome project and currently heads the NIH) are helping. We can use more scientists who are multi-disciplinary, perhaps taking up theology and helping us without expertise in either to sort some of this out as far as what it means to our faith. But if I understood those stats correctly, I'm mildly encouraged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrauss starts with a condemnation of the National Science Board, and ends with a rant against the Vatican? What the #@%# does the Vatican and Sister McBride have to do with the National Science Board. Man, that's way off topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulation to Krauss on alienating everyone who might have previously been sympathetic to his point of view. His new atheist firebrand mind-set has gained the attention of lots of extremists on both sides, and lost the moderates who might have been persuaded by rational debate. Krauss, and the SciAm editors have done an extreme disservice to science by attacking so many in just one little rant.
Why can't SciAM just go back to science. Come out of this bunker mentality of "science must fight all religion".
There are many things we can’t go back and witness, yet the evidence nonetheless supports them. We cannot go back to witness the origins of the sun or the earth, yet we have dating techniques and stellar and geological evidence which allow us to test ideas about them. We cannot go back in time to witness dinosaurs, yet there is such evidence that their existence is now considered fact. An inability to go back and see an event is not evidence against it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big bang is the prevailing theory for the development of the universe; there is significant evidence for it. To claim that "It takes just as much faith to adhere to the Big Bang theory of the origin of the present universe as it does to believe that God created it," is intellectually dishonest; what evidence is there that God created the universe? What part of the idea is testable, and how would you disprove it? You wouldn’t; it’s not testable and is not subject to being disproven—it’s based on faith. The big bang theory makes testable predictions and is subject to being disproven. If it’s conclusively disproven, it will be abandoned—it’s based on facts.
You’re correct that science isn’t a complete data set; it doesn’t claim to be. The point of science is to test ideas and get rid of false ones. The fact that science is constantly revised is what makes it different from faith: scientific ideas can be disproven. Those that stand the test of time and thousands of people who would love to disprove them and cash in on the grant money are accepted, though they remain subject to being disproven in the future. You are correct that science does not equal perfect knowledge. It equals the best, facts-based explanation we have, which will continue to be revised with more information.
You claim faith “as the basis of belief in both science and theistic religions.” That is untrue. When a scientific idea is disproven, it is abandoned in favor of an idea that fits the evidence; that’s the opposite of faith. When a tenet of faith is disproven, it’s either deemed not literal and therefore now untestable, or those who believe in it literally ignore the facts or attack those who present them. And this applies only to tenets of faith that can be disproved; most can’t be tested at all. That’s the difference between science and faith. Science is testable and based on facts. Faith is generally not testable, and is not subject to facts. To claim that science is faith-based is to deliberately mischaracterize and misrepresent science; it is intellectually dishonest.
I just want to know who died and made Mr. Krauss God?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis comment is just a hodgepodge without clarity.Go to the point man,it is anti religious the mere act of ask questions without the holier than thou send you packing to hell? What kind of mentality the religious right is selling to the believers in this USA of today? Don't we have enought intolerance as it is now when our president is compared to anything but a human being because he is black? And follow the yellow brick road and you will encounter the rabbit's hole to Alice in Wonderland...Salvador Viana...8/5/2010...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's also scary is that those who deny obvious scientific principles are allowed to vote.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I find to be in conflict is the idea that religious fundamentalists believe that God created nature and the universe but refuse to consider the evidence that is found in nature and the universe. If God created them, did he plant false evidence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that more people do understand what "science" and the "scientific method" stand for. . . . Science is not some enigmatic tower of knowledge, beyond the grasp of common sense. In fact, the very foundation of science is observation, experimentation, and analysis. But which of us can ever say, "I know everything", so that the analysis of observed facts is flawless? That, I repeat, is arrogance in a nutshell. I do not believe in the Big Bang because I do not see the irrefutable evidence to support this as an undeniable fact. I choose to believe God on matters that are beyond human conception. Tell me, what was before the supposed Big Bang? You can only say, "I don't know!". Whereas, I can say God was before all things. I approach evolution from the same rationale. There is no way to observe the past, therefore, we must make a choice as to what we have faith in: the imperfect mind of man, with his unsure and phychologically abstracted observations, or the Almighty God of Heaven. With His flawless Logos. We all have faith in something, I beg you to choose wisely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy this big debate about evolution. every thing evolves, from simpler to more complex. just analyse these arguments for and against evolution themselves. these arguments have evolved to be more complex. think about GOD. form animals or forces of nature, god (in the consciousness of many men) has evolved to be omnipotent and omnipresent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisare we afraid or ashamed of our animal origins form monkey's (a term used to deride dumb actions of others, culturally prevalent all around the world?). is that why we want to run down evolution.
i wish to state that the concept of GOD also will evolve. we are waitin for the next messiah for that to happen
xstnhealer wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I choose to believe God on matters that are beyond human conception. Tell me, what was before the supposed Big Bang? You can only say, "I don't know!". Whereas, I can say God was before all things. I approach evolution from the same rationale. There is no way to observe the past, therefore, we must make a choice as to what we have faith in: the imperfect mind of man, with his unsure and phychologically abstracted observations, or the Almighty God of Heaven. With His flawless Logos. We all have faith in something, I beg you to choose wisely."
You are of course free to believe whatever you choose, and I as an atheist will fight for your right to do so. But I draw the line at creating artificial, unproven and unprovable explanations for things that, at least for now, are beyond my knowledge, just to aleviate the discomfort of not knowing everything right now. Where does this process stop?
Is it enough to create, out of our ignorance, a deity to explain what we can't? Do we have to start collectively worshiping such an entity? Justify our moral rules by saying that they come from it? Engage in blood-curdling cruelty in its name?
And it all started with an innocent attempt to light a dark corner of our knowledge; the point is, when you introduce irrationality into the system, you're ensuring that sometime, somewhere, the system will go to its ultimate consequences (Murphy's law).
A point often missed by many religious people is that, while it's one's personal prerogative to choose what one believes, the moment we step outside our personal sphere and start telling others what to do, we have better be prepared to present them with valid, convincing arguments.
So, religious people, I respectfully urge you all to go back to the drawing board and design better reasons for us skeptics to adhere to your way of thinking. We promise to subject them to thorough testing, and to adopt them if they pass with flying colours. No need to thank us, its what we believe in.
To oldvic:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely agree with your comment. Especially so regarding the fact that religious belief should remain confined to the personal sphere.
I am also surprised - frightened even - by the number of people who confuse science and its methodology with "ideology", or see it as another form of "religion" based on creed.
Why is it sad that Americans believe less & less in evolution? Without believing in any particular religion, evolution cannot "create" such an incredibly complex creature like a human being let alone all the other creatures, plants etc, because evolution by it's very nature cannot plan such advanced organisms. Evolution is a series of accidents & mutations so if you imagine a beautiful woman or girl, are you saying that she was just a mutation or accident? If only you see how ridiculus that sounds. One does not have to be Steven Hawking to see this, it is so obvious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am of the same opinion as Chryses. I like to read Scientific American but I don't understand how they can unequivicaly speak against a Created world in favour of an evolutionary one. Everything is far too well designed for the creatures therein to have simply evolved. I'm not against the Big Bang as there is nothing, as far as I know, that says exactly how God created this world and universe, just that he created it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubject: Evolution --- a false belief based on invalid assumptions of singularities and speculated non-observables.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHighly educated Evolutionists as Lawrence M. Krauss ( Faith and Foolishness August 2010) have no problem insisting their inherently analogue view of natural history, Evolution, is truth certain. And yet these same Evolutionists are disgruntled when average Americans fail to respond positively in larger numbers to the inherently digital poll statement human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species. Which set of gggg&.gggg-grandparents do Evolutionists wish to declare a fact certainty as being the first of the different species? Would that be both of these gggg&.gggg-grandparents or just one? Surely the delusional genomic and origins beliefs of Evolutionists trump any real world scientific facts that might have been observed. Do Evolutionists thus also believe there is a homo pan sapiens in the common past of humans and modern chimpanzees or would that be homo sapiens pan? Or, even better, how about mythicus Evolutionist #1 as the most recent fact certain common ancestor!
Dan Baright
Lebanon MO
You are worried about Christianity? Have you heard of the global Islamic jihad? Have you heard of women being stoned and mutilated for getting raped and fleeing abuse? Have you heard of hundreds of innocents getting murdered weekly by jihadist suicide bombers? Do you have an objective sense of perspective?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrithee tell me when it is that religious beliefs do not become dangerous?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSad that Scientific American can't distinguish between a fact and a scientific theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have the right to believe as you wish. I have no desire to change what you believe of God. But conflating faith and science dishonest. The difference between the two is simple. As you write, when you are asked a question you do not know the answer to you say "God was before all things," whereas a scientist says "I don't know" and then, and this is the part you left out, they try to find the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct that science isn’t complete and our knowledge isn’t perfect. I’d be very surprised if you heard a scientist claim that, because if it were true it would be the end--hang up your lab coat and go home. Science is the search for truth. It’s a process. An imperfect process, true. Sometimes we make mistakes, and we correct ourselves and each other with new evidence. But the key is that it’s a process based on fact. The ideas and explanations science puts forward are supported by evidence and make testable predictions. Can you test your assertion that "God was before all things?" If the existence of an intangible, omnipotent God were wrong, would it ever be possible to prove it? Of course not. That is what makes science different from religion, that is the leap of faith, and it is dishonest to insist otherwise.
As for the big bang, you are free to believe as you wish. But to claim you don’t believe something because it’s the past is ridiculous, and to claim you can’t make observations about the past is wrong. We accept things that we did not witness all the time, or do you not believe that dinosaurs were living beings once, and were not always bones? Witnessing an event is only one type of evidence. If it were required to accept anything, only trials with witnesses would go forward. That isn’t the case, because there are other types of evidence; things are left behind after an event. You’re holding a scientific theory to a standard of evidence so stringent that we execute people on far, far less, and so contorted and cherry-picked that if applied to everything, we would believe nothing.
So, short of a time machine, what would convince you? What needs more support, and what kind does it need? Because it seems from your post that nothing would change your mind, that you simply choose to believe otherwise and supply lack of time travel as an excuse. It’s your choice. But it is a rejection of evidence based on faith, and to pretend otherwise, to act as if you are rejecting one type of faith for another, is just a pretty play on words to make it seem more palatable and is, again, dishonest.
Yes believes have consequences. But let me get this straight, are you saying the big bang and evolution theories are facts? Everyone one in the scientific community accepts the evidence as an undeniable proof of how our universe and human species began? So they are not just theories anymore explaining to the best of our knowledge how we came to be? And that there are no other plausible theories within the community explaining our beginnings? Hmmm. Maybe you should watch the Science Channel's "Through the Wormhole."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has no more proven evolution as factual as can anyone prove God is real. Science though try's very hard in claimimg evolution as absolute fact and must be adopted internationally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love cosmology,I marvel at the knowledge these cosmologist impart to me in my monthly magazine, but I have read nothing over the years that would deny the existance of a supreme creator. On the contrary the bible explains in simple terms how planets/suns came into being and scientists are agreeing,although they may not know it.
As for evolution,the whole concept is without proof,it's all theory and speculation,to teach this in schools as fact is unacceptable and dangerous.
There are many who will bear testomony of God through personal experience and I am one of them.Whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not,no one can find fault in that doctrine.There are many sects who for one reason or other make up their own rules/doctrines,which quite frankly I'm amazed anyone takes them seriously.
Sister McBride works in an area where decisions have to be made reguarly on medical grounds,would those who condemn her prefer both died
Unbelievable to read the opinions of the unaware stated as fact on this board. Relating to the article's title, there is NO time when religious beliefs are not dangerous. Anyone who disagrees proves the point!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink! One can never prove faith, otherwise it is no longer faith. Belief in what is unseen, such as evolution, the Big Bang, God, takes a measure of blind faith to fill in the empty spaces our minds deny. What atheists call the ignorance of religion is simply an honest and reasonable acknowledgement of the reality of the human condition: That there are things we will never, and can never know. What is science today can be barbarism tomorrow. You will argue, "What about the crusades, or Islamic extremism, or the God of the Bible's orders to wipe out entire cities?". That is where faith enters the picture. I cannot speak for Muslims, so I will leave that to a Muslim to answer. But I can speak for Christian and/or Israelite so-called attrocities. The Israelites did as God instructed. Just as you do what your boss tells you to do, so did the Israelites do what their "boss" told them to do. And your boss doesn't tell you to do something bad for the company, but rather something needful. If you see a child doing something harmful to another child, you are going to intervene. It is no different with adults, cities, or nations. America touts herself the world police, entering into disputes like the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Afganistan, etc. We go in on moral grounds, and it is no different in the cases of Israel and the Crusades. If we see a wrong and do nothing, are we not complicite? You have chosen to judge in ignorance. Have you read the Scripture in an attempt to understand the reasons for God's commands against the Cananites, or the reasons for the pope to commision the Crusades? Also, people sometimes do not do as God commands, or as the leadership commands, but God, or the leadship is mischaracterized due to the actions of the disobedient, or depraved. Atheists who judge God Almighty would be wise to speak from understanding rather than ignorantly making sweeping overgeneralizations spoken out of personal and uninformed biases. Open the book and attempt to understand the rationale instead of blindly judging out of an uninformed and self-justifying perspective. People are apt pupils of conflict and they will use any excuse to force their perspective upon another. If you truly knew what the Lord Jesus taught and lived, you would truly feel foolish writing against Him and His true followers. Christianity is, from the perspective of a true follower of Christ, a reality, not a religion. It isn't a set of rules, but a relationship with the living God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement that “the whole concept" of evolution "is without proof” is untrue. There is in fact significant evidence for evolution. Evidence in the fossil record and comparative anatomy—from homologous and vestigal structures to transitional species—and in molecular biology and genetics, in which homologous genes can be compared across thousands of interrelated species, all support evolution as the explanation for the biodiversity of life. The theory makes predictions and statements about life that can and have been tested. Despite hundreds of years and the tests of thousands of scientists, evolution remains the accepted explanation. It is supported by a truly staggering amount of evidence. This information is easily accessible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour claim that it’s “theory and speculation” makes little sense. In science, a theory is a well-established model that explains observations, is supported by significant evidence, and makes predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is the most accepted, best-supported explanation. Gravity is explained by the theory of general relativity. Theory in science does not mean “speculation”. It means the best, most well-supported explanation we currently have, which has survived many attempts to prove it wrong. In science, theory is very close to fact, in that it is so well-supported that the core of it is almost universally accepted by those in the field, though there may be some debate and revision about minor parts of it.
To teach evolution in schools is no more “unacceptable and dangerous” than teaching relativity. It’s no more dangerous than teaching gravity or electromagnetism. To teach evolution is to teach the standard, near-universally accepted explanation for an important phenomenon, which is supported by overwhelming evidence.
In another vein entirely, why are you “amazed” that other sects are taken seriously while claiming that “no one can find fault” with yours? If we admit we’re operating purely in the realm of faith, how is anyone else’s faith more or less warranted than your own? Since religion operates outside the realm of proof—you can’t disprove God, because He’s God; an all-powerful God who wants to be undetected is indistinguishable from no God—why is your or my version of God any more believable than anyone else’s? Every sect essentially “makes up their own rules”. They are rules they believe come from God; why is their God less worthy of being taken seriously than yours?
The Mormon Church's stand against homosexuality is right and most will agree whether religious or not.Gay men or lesbians no matter how you try to dress it up,is an unnatural sexual act.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dictionary describes it as Perversion: abnormal or unacceptable sexual behavior. Society has become tolerant through fear of persecution,not through so-called modern ideological persuasion.
You speak of unfounded belief,you miss the whole point of religion...it is founded on faith,no one will ever furnish absolute proof of life after death,however there are many throughout the world who will bear testimony that they know there is a supreme being.
How many would bear testimony that they know through personal experience that evolution is right.Scientists (not all Scientists) dismiss religion out of hand because they can't prove it. Yet there are thousands out there who could tell them stories that would make their toes curl.
Religion is mre believeable than phony evolution.
Your insistence on lumping well-supported scientific theories together with statements of pure faith is still dishonest, and is getting tiresome. "Evolution, the Big Bang, God", you continually write, as if the existence of these things are remotely comparable. They are not. Belief in God is a matter of faith. It's untestable and unprovable, and that's okay--it's faith. But evolution and the big bang are well-supported scientific theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are supported by evidence--facts. You continually bash them as “unseen”, as if it is impossible for there to be evidence for an event if you did not personally witness it, which is dishonest in itself. Suspects leave footprints and DNA at crime scenes; people can be executed on evidence that does not include an eyewitness. Is believing that the Peloponnesian War took place a matter of faith because no one now living witnessed it? Or do we accept the evidence of excavated battlegrounds and the accounts left behind? Is believing that dinosaurs once walked the earth a matter of pure faith because humans were not alive at that time? Or do we accept the overwhelming evidence of the fossils they left behind?
There is significant evidence for the big bang theory. It is the best current model for the development for the universe. There is overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution. It is the near-universally accepted model for the diversity of life These are based on facts and evidence. I’m tired of writing about them, but they’re easily available to anyone who cares to look. To pretend that they are based on faith is one of the more common falsehoods advanced by opponents of these theories, who nearly universally want to advance an untestable, unprovable, evidence-free theological explanation instead. You’re free to believe what you want to believe, evidence or not. If you were to say simply that you believe God did x, I would not object to your faith. But to claim that accepted, supported scientific theories are just as faith based as “God did it” is to flat-out lie, and that is wrong.
"… Relating to the article's title, there is NO time when religious beliefs are not dangerous. Anyone who disagrees proves the point!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt will be amusing to watch you substantiate that bald assertion - should you be foolish enough to try.
Science is only science if something can be falsified. If it has no bearing as to a falsification it's simply not science If a supreme being for two thousand years came down and said he were a complete lie it would be science as far as he goes. If I don't like my life I need to change it before I go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Recent examples include the Catholic Church's stand forbidding use of condoms and the resulting death of thousands from AIDS in Africa."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that only 5% of Africans are Catholic I can't see how you can lay the AIDS problem at the feet of the Catholic Church.
Also, the Catholic Church can't forbid anything outside of the Vatican state. African people are free to use condoms any time they want. However the Catholic Church teaches the best way to avoid contracting HIV/AIDS is to avoid sex before marriage and if married stay faithful to your spouse.
Sounds like good advice to me.
I applaud your excellent presentation. Scientific theories cannot be called theories until an overwhelming amount of evidence has been observed and tested. I fully understand how you feel when you say you are tired of reiterating the evidence. In circumstances such as these, I recall a phrase that I read in a book by Theodosius Dobzhansky. He was commenting on discussing ideas with strickt creationists. He said that their mindset "makes arguments futile and facts useless." It is unfortunate that no amount of reason and evidence can, in any way, influence a strict creationist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo loisedw:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a European, it is with a considerable amount of astonishement that I have followed the present debate. We often read about the current anti-scientific and irrational attitude of a large portion of the public in the USA. But one has to be faced by something like this collection of comments on the website of an important science magazine to truly appreciate its magnitude.
You quote Theodosius Dobzhansky as saying that the mindset of creationists "makes arguments futile and facts useless". In view of what I have seen in this discussion, that statement seems to be absolutely correct.
In many of the comments it is interesting to observe their sophistication in the use of deliberate ignorance and their argumentation done in bad faith (no pun intended....).
johnmcragin; 08/07/10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA 11th century Arab wrote (approvimately): "Anything that exists had a begining; anything that had a beginning had a cause; the Earth exists hence had a beginning; hence had a cause." Man tries to discribe Cause as manlike: jealous (Cause said to Abraham," I am a jealous God!)" Mohammad, in his Quran, discribes Cause as merciful and compassionate. Moses spoke with Cause on a mountain where a burning bush created 10 laws (commandments) -- very good guidance for men who believed and could only explane in a man made language on stone tablets as super natural. Man's promoton of self as "in the image of Cause," is a real stretch. God has no manhood !
Cause may have chosen a black hole and thrown herself into it causing the creation of our universe. -- The Big Bang !
Imam's who profess to know the will of God are egoistic to excess. Those Imam's who authorize murder deserve to have their Mosques struck by a little Bang! And Cause could manage that if She wished.
Give thanks to Cause for our little home here on Earth. Don't presume to represent Her in your misdeeds.
You are absolutely right!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people opposing the author give him the best arguments that he is absolutely right. The statement ""truths" have been revised, amended, even tossed aside as new evidence or measurements or social norms have emerged" is only true in a scientific culture, it would never be true in a religious culture. Their so called "truths" will never be revised since the religious authority could be challenged. It is the struggle for power which leads to the acceptance of foolishness. Their is almost no system which is immune against the weaknesses of the personality of leaders. Remember Darwin's struggle to get accepted by the scientific community. Most of the reasoning against Darwin was not rational, it was just foolish. At least one can observe an evolution in the science area, where as religions remain stuck and get more and more absurd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been an avid reader and supporter of Scientific American since the mid 80's. I was stunned when National Geographic took on the premise that religion and persons who believe in God are basically a subculture within the Human experience. Now I see this same kind of trash being touted by a magizine that has long held a healthy view of Religion and it's impact on humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho cares how Americans think "in relation to the world". Just because a culture has reached a conclusion within it's own demenses does NOT mean that we need to include that line of thinking in our culture. Case in point; Anyone who has been to Japan and really seen the country and it's people will know that the following statement is true. Japanese people not normally associated with Americans (in other words, don't have to work with us in a day to day enviornment) live much like they have for hundreds. Honor is not a byword to them. Nor is compassion. It is a way of life. Americanized Japanese take the worst of our culture and include it into their own. As an American who has travelled extensively and lived in Japan, I am disgusted by what we have done to the Japanese/Okinowan people.
Now, this once respected magazine, who so dutifully brought us the cutting edge of science has devolved into yet another Rag trying to influence Politics and Americans that because Chinese (taught from birth that Christ does not exist) who, at gunpoint march over a cliff, we Americans should do the same.
Shame on you Scientific American, and Shame on America.
Given by my hand on this day, by the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Gary J. Bronson
Chief Operations Specialist
U.S. Navy Retired
Disabled American Veteran
Si vis pacem¶ bellum
The one fact that is ignored by both sides of this argument is that we all have the same common goals, we just go about them in different ways. We all want to be good parents and spouses. We want our country to do well. We want to be successful financially. Most of all we want to be happy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we could all focus on the common goals, we might all actually achieve them.
just as an aside....check out Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb by Stephen Jay Gould
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjust as an aside, check out Ever Since Darwin and The Panda's Thumb by Steven Jay Gould. Think u might find it interestin'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're correct that the Catholic church cannot forbid anything with actual physical force outside the Vatican. But it can and does do it with spiritual force all the time. If you're the religious leader for a group of people and you tell them a lie, they will often believe you--and the church has lied. It has not just told Africans not to use condoms in favor of abstinence--which, you are correct, would work if applied universally--but it has actually on multiple occasions claimed that condoms are ineffective at stopping HIV, which is a lie. And when the Pope says "condoms don't work", he's not speaking as the head of the Catholic church anymore; like it or not, he's claiming a knowledge of science that will be believed by more than just Catholics, who do not have the means to check his claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe result of this, of course, increased spread of HIV/AIDS.
Saying "no sex before marriage" is easy when you're standing on the outside of this situation, but the fact is that women in many of these countries have basically no power whatsoever, even over their own bodies. In some of these countries, over half of the women have been raped. In many of these countries, women have no legal right to refuse sex to their husbands. If a woman is raped by an HIV positive man, she gets HIV. If a husband goes out and sleeps with an HIV positive woman and comes back and sleeps with his wife, she will get HIV. In the second situation, which is very common, the husband using condoms for his extramarital sex would protect the wife, who has no power to stop him even if she knew. But he was told "condoms don't work" by the Pope, or by another man who was at the Pope's address, so his wife gets HIV.
I agree that the entire problem cannot be laid at the feet of the Catholic church; there are a lot of other factors involved. But they have done harm. For a man and an organization that claim to have the weight of God behind them to wade into a situation this complicated and important and flat-out lie about something that could save lives is absolutely abhorrent.
Another quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky, "It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Poor Mountaineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut at least within the scientific community there is an understanding that 'truths' can be "revised, amended, even tossed aside as new evidence or measurements or social norms ... emerge".
How many religions routinely do that as new knowledge comes to light?
Quote: far more reliable than those of some imbecile flailing around on a church floor "speaking in tongues,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: We SHOULD listen to a person with no morals who ODDS ARE lied and cheated his way through medical school ? I think I will have to stick to those bound BY morals and who DIDN'T odds are lie and cheat their way through medical school. IE: study done in Virginia which found when the older doctors' papers were checked by computer found that SO MANY HAD CHEATED they had to quit the study because they believed it would destroy the Virginia medical system.
They've ALSO shown a severe lack of morals in atheists DUE TO a lack of a moral compass which is **instilled** in 'religious people' .
THIS is the outcome of a lack of moral compass.
"Physicians, anxious about their bottom line, perform more services to compensate for declining fees"
"Physicians are performing fewer less-profitable services in favor of additional more profitable ones"
Very interesting response. Interesting because with every word it concedes a most important rationale: that you base the belief you hold upon what you can see and comprehend, or information that you feel is trustworthy. You called my comparison of science to religious faiths as a lie, yet my belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is based upon facts that I trust from sources that I trust. The Saviors disciples witnessed the risen Christ and wrote about that factual experience. Not just that, but for an altruistic religion, that profits the participants no worldly advantage, to advance with the level of devotion we see in the "evidentiary" documentation, serves as historical proof that my faith in God is a reasonable conclusion in response to that evidence. Furthermore, Christ Himself, the same Jesus of Nazereth raised from the dead, faired the varacity of Hebrew scripture by revering it as sacred. So, you see, the Christian faith is also based upon evidence, facts that support the faith I have in it. Therefore, you have the evidence for your faith in science, and I have my evidence for faith in the God of my Savior. Just as you believe that the polyponesian war occurred because historians recorded it, and archaeological evidence suggests that the history is true, I believe that the Bible records factual history and AE suggests that the history is true. You have your faithin science, and I have my, no less " factual", faith in God. We simply weigh the evidence with different measures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, regarding the false appeal to authority concerning the theory of evolution and the Big Bang, I'll leave that to others to argue. God bless, xstnhealer
It is encouraging to see, in these later days, that «Scientific American» is willing and able to publish Professor Krauss' call for religious leaders to be held responsible for the views that they propagate (which may or may not be the same as those they themselves hold). By the same token, it is discouraging to see that the US National Science Foundation elected to refrain from reporting on the US publics attitude towards evolution and the big bang in the latest edition of «Science and Engineering Indicators». To claim that this decision is motivated by a concern for « valid scientific argument» and that scientific attitudes not be measured by an adherence to «dogma» is disingenuous - had that been the case, the survey would have posed the questions and then followed up by examining the nature of the evidence on which responders claimed to base their viewpoint. One can help but wonder what it signifies that the status of intellectual inquiry in the United States has deteriorated to the point where a government agency like the NSF no longer dares query the public on attitudes toward current scientific theory....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHenri
I’m tiring of this, because if you’re going to claim that trusting your senses is an act of faith then we go down a road where no idea is valid over any other because no facts count. By that logic, unicorns could be jumping up and down before your eyes; to say they aren’t is an act of faith, because it’s trusting your senses. I’m not going down that rabbit hole, so this is my last try.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour “evidence” is based on two things: that the disciples wrote down the events of the New Testament and that the idea caught on. You claim AE supports the resurrection; would you care to expound? Because without that, we’re left with having faith that the account written down was factual, and that it reaches us in its original form.
But when studying history, we rarely take documents of that age which have been through revisions directly at face value. We compare them to many independent sources and to physical evidence. If an ancient historian wrote there was a battle at a site and included several accounts of it in his book, which was heavily revised many years after he died, we would look for other accounts and try to find and analyze the battlefield before accepting it. It doesn’t mean that the writings aren’t true, but accepting them at their word without significant additional evidence would be an act of faith. (And believing that everything else in that book is true because one piece of it is believable is another leap of faith entirely)
As for your claim that having so many believers so many years later is "historical proof”: Many ideas advance with a high level of devotion—any other religion you’d care to note. That a lot of people believe something doesn’t make it more factual, unless those people are backed by more evidence. The earth was believed to be the center of the solar system for thousands of years. That didn’t make it fact.
Overwhelming, hard, re-verifiable evidence for a thing—fossil record, comparative anatomy, vestigal and homologous structures, gene homology, well-documented and often repeatable instances of adaptation and selection in the lab or the field—is different than having faith that what is contained in a document written and repeatedly revised thousands of years ago is the truth because many people also think so. If you have faith in it, if you trust those sources, that is absolutely your right. But to trust them is a leap of faith in a way that accepting overwhelming, verifiable, and repeatable physical evidence is not, and my point in all of this is that insisting that the two are the same is dishonest.
The vast majority of these responses are deplorable: marred by misspellings, incomprehensible language and utter ignorance regarding both history and the nature of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Krauss' commentary is a model of excellence by comparison. And he is right to be concerned, not only by the American public's scientific ignorance, but by recent efforts to ignore or cover it up. This takes place in the context of sweeping cuts to our educational system, and an increasing number of reports that document the decline of American educational standards on a global scale.
The scientific method continues to produce a picture of the universe ever more complex, mysterious, and darkly beautiful. By answering one question we raise a dozen more, and even the truths told by today's science may be overturned by the science of the morrow. But in all these rapturous permutations, the scientific method remains irrevocably hostile to religion, superstition, to mysticism of any kind. Insisting upon education does not turn science into a dogma; it rather sets it far apart from any of the religious philosophies that preceded it.
Evolution is at the center of the biological sciences, and no sophistry can transform public ignorance into skeptical, scientific virtue. I pity the one who would so abuse their reason as to try and conjure a science from superstition.
Hello again Cass314, you have mistaken my points on almost every issue. I have not arguedstrutting your senses is and act of faith, nor have I argued that AE supports the resurrection, I also did not Claim that having so many believers so many years later is "historical proof", just to name a few of your, I assume, unintentional misrepresentations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy argent is simple, really. You attempt to claim that science is unbiased faithless truth because it is based upon evidence and observable facts, yet, the Christian "faith" also stands upon a scholarly level of evidence and observable facts as well. So you are left with an inescapable conundrum: Either science and religion are faith-based, or science and religion are not faith-based, since, in certain disciplines, both are fact-based.
Furthermore, Christs ministry did not end well, to put it mildly. From even the opinion of His own disciples, His death marked the end of the hope that He was the promised Messiah. Truly, only an event of awful proportions could have fueled the ministry of the disciples of Jesus. So, the fact that the leaderless ministry of Jesus, Whom Roman historians admit was crucified and died, would, or even could, continue evidences the validity of the resurrection (not the growth many years later).
darouet,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... This takes place in the context of sweeping cuts to our educational system ..."
That statement is false.
The amount spent per pupil has, and continues to increase.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
The reports of the decline of American educational standards document a degraded educational system, not an underfunded one.
You appear to be unfamiliar with the subject material.
What experiments have there been in theology?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the radical atheists in question rarely condemn individuals but rather actions and ideas that deserve to be challenged."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently you've forgotten about Communist atheism. Lots of Communists atheists have killed or persecuted religionists in the last 100 years.
None! It is faith based. But just as science infers conclusions based upon evidence observed, so also is the faith in Jesus based upon observations not only in our own lives, but also in the AE that supports the varsity of scripture. I observe that human beings, via social science, tend to abandon failed ventures, and that those disenchanted people need to see positive proof to turn around their disappointment. This is exactly what we observe with the followers of Christ. He died, they were scattered, and only a transformative event could have made such faithful followers. This is what we observe in the NT, a ministry that, from a worldly perspective, hadfailed. But, we know that the story didn't end there. So, the most logical and simplest explanation is that they actually witnessed the risen Christ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuote: even the truths told by today's science may be overturned by the science of the morrow
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: You say this as if this bolsters your argument that science is SUPERIOR to religion. You fully admit that science has proven itself MANY TIMES to be FULL OF IT . But on the other hand you say religion is FULL OF IT. Now THIS using your scientific method makes one SUPERIOR to the other ? The ONLY superiority I see in YOUR argument is the fact YOU seem to 'feel' superior.
I get angry when I see how Religion is poisoning the United CHRISTIAN States of America. I am a bedraggled refugee from the "Holy" Heretical Roman Catholic Church, now proudly ATHEIST. Religion is turning America into a 3rd. World Country. I see how Texas is becoming a joke. Well it was when two of it's brain dead citizens, Daddy and Baby, "Dubya" Bush were elected to the White House
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Bible Belt States are a laughing stock because the FundaMENTAList Christians believe the World was "created" in 4004 BCE on October 3rd. at 9:00 am. Many of these people "believe" the Sermon On The Mount was preached by rev. Billy Graham, not Jesus. Many of these Bible Belt States led by Texas are voting for "Intelligent Design" ("Creation") to be taught in public schools instead of the truth of Evolution.
I fear for the future of your country. Wake up America and give up thjis stupidity.
Sciam Forum: Critical Mass. August 9, 2010
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural historians have, in my view, long gotten away with using a very weak and unscientific definition of fact. In the more rigorous sciences, it is generally accepted that there is a distinction to be made between facts, laws, and theories and these distinctions hold even if a particular law or theory is well confirmed and believed to be true. Facts, such as observations related to an apple falling can be verified and re-verified and then used to formulate a law of gravity and thereafter used to confirm the law. Theories are generally considered to be supposed or actual explanations of facts and laws but are not themselves facts. Thus, laws or theories are never considered to be facts.
Similarly, the definition of homology after Darwin has long been abused by natural historians. Prior to Darwin, naturalists, using the same definition that is in Darwins ORIGINS, had recognized homologies between organisms. This definition of homology compares to modern definitions in chemistry and mathematics but not to modern biology. That is, the modern biological definition has been changed to reflect the certainty that the evangelicals of Evolution have had concerning their belief that homology necessarily implies relationship. After Darwin, discovering ever more morphological homologies thus became convincing evidence of Evolution in the minds of Evolutionists.
This same false thinking regards homologies has carried over into genetics. However, it ought to be obvious that the duplication of genomes by means of descent is clearly and verifiably but one of several means of obtaining the exact duplication of genomic sequence complexity, including errors. Consider, for example, that microchips dont duplicate themselves and that, similarly, the nature of any possible global origins of life scenario implies zillions of possibilities for global chemical homologies.
@HereticofTruth's: "However, the big bang theory requires an acceptance of beliefs contradictory to established science and is not at all a very convincing theory. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUm. As an astronomer of 15 years, and familiar with the copious amounts of evidence in support of the unfortunately named "Big Bang", I take issue with this characterization of the evidence.
The idea that the universe began hot and dense and expanded rapidly outward is supported by pretty much all of astronomy. Specifically: The existence, temperature, and distribution of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, the abundances elements in the intergalactic medium (which exactly match predicted values), the actual measured expansion of the universe via red-shift studies, the evolution of galaxies and stars (seen in deep field studies), the apparent distribution of "Dark Matter" (which reveals itself in studies of both the CMB and gravitational lensing) and the Isotropic ("same everywhere") nature of universe on the largest scale.
The so-called "problems" with the big bang theory are generally stem from our ignorance fundamental physics. In other words, we know, from many lines of evidence, THAT the universe expanded, we need to nail down the specifics of fundamental physics to learn HOW this happened. The Large Hadron Collider is designed to attempt to address a number of these issues.
To characterize The Big Bang as "not a very convincing theory" requires, to my mind, willful ignorance of the evidence and theory itself.
And where does this information come from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you happen to be talking about inflation, there's nothing in General relativity that prohibits space itself from expanding at faster than the speed of light. When this happens, the objects simply "fall over the horizon" to one another and seem to disappear. Our universe has such a horizon.
I just want to know who died and made Mr. Krauss God?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod.
What you say makes zero sense. The fact that science purposely & continuously subjects itself to intense scrutiny & revision is the very foundation of its inherent credibility. The opposite is true for religion, which stands pat on its own system of mythology, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Primitive superstitions have no place in the modern world. Religion is the enemy of progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe a lot of the comments on here, do a lot of Scientific American readers not even read this magazine, do they buy it and just leave it on the coffee table to impress their neighbours. The ignorance of some the comments of this piece would be out of place in a tabloid newspaper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of evolution hasn't been proven yet...erm what? All the data for the big bang theory isn't in yet. So I will continue to believe in my particular magic man in the sky which of course I have no evidence for but I was taught it as a child and see no reason to disbelieve it is true.
Also there are different people of the world who also believe in their particular magic man in the sky which they also have no evidence for but they believe it's the right religion. Though they are wrong because my magic man in the sky is obviously the right magic man in the sky because my local holy man tells me so. Therefore their local holy man must be wrong because his worship is different from mine.
Religion/god/s is a mind virus, get over it already. Join us in reality it's a great place.
There is a strange thing about evolution and human beings - not everyone evolves. In fact many human beings wandering the planet today have brains stuck in the bronze age. That's why they believe in the bronze age slave-owner manual genocidal bible. Many of them (or maybe most of them) are afraid to even be tempted by knowledge, as their creation myth Eve was which got her kicked out of paradise by her creator. They pray to not be tempted by knowledge and delivered from evil - which is knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristians murdered millions to squelch knowledge - even Gallileo had to apologize for knowing that the earth was flat and revolved around the sun.
The real danger of these theocRATs is that they believe that only certain people are human beings. That's how they rationalized slavery, world wide genocide, and today denying equal rights to anyone who is not heterosexual.
Maybe if enough of those theocRATs get methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus they might begin to believe in evolution.
eccles,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... Many of these Bible Belt States led by Texas are voting for "Intelligent Design" ("Creation") to be taught in public schools instead of the truth of Evolution. ..."
You do, I presume, have evidence to support this claim - that ID is to be taught in public schools instead of the theory of Evolution? I suspect that what you meant to say is that ID is to be presented in public schools as an alternative to the also taught theory of evolution. But I may be mistaken, and you really do believe that the proposals in these many states are to teach ID instead of the theory of evolution.
Please substantiate your claim with scientific evidence. Urls to the relevant propositions will be quite adequate.
Remember now, they must reference legal proposals to teach ID instead of - not in addition to - the theory of evolution, and they must be from 'many' states - five or six will do nicely.
Congratulations on your change of faith, for being an atheist (proud or otherwise) requires an absolute belief in an unprovable proposition; that God does not exist.
The proponents of "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" have ignored some obvious rational conclusions in their attempt to include their "theory" in science classes as an alternative to evolution. "Creationism" is not based on science or the scientific method. "Creationism" ignores the fact that faith, by definition, is not verifiable by scientific method. Most importantly, presenting "Creationism" as an alternative scientific theory recommits The Original Sin, knowledge of good and bad, to validate the claims made by those who support this concept.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Creationism" can't state a real problem, form a testable hypothesis, observe an experiment, interpret useful data, or draw a valid conclusion. No scientific method, no science.
Those who doubt that the scientific method works should hang up the cell phone, turn off the computer, give your car to charity, deed your house to a homeless family, remove all your clothes, walk into the wilderness, and survive on the remaining fruits of God's creation. But keep you faith, as you will be born again in the Kingkon of Heaven after you suffer for the sins of those who must live in a world where knowledge, be it good or evil, is survival.
Ignorance is no longer bliss. Thank you Adam and Eve.
tichead,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn what way does your post at 10:47 PM on 08/09/10 justify Mr. Krauss' use of his column in a popular science oriented magazine to spew his anti-religious and unscientific beliefs?
Where in that did I ignore factual evidence in favor of a dips*** belief system? Or did you just invent that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, in that case we should hold it responsible for the removal of Smallpox, Polio, the Measles, taking us to the moon, making literacy available to everyone, etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet off your simpleminded equivalences and go have a sandwich. Religious ideas are idiotic opinions without basis in reality - and when they damage or endanger people, the bearers of those foolish ideas should be held responsible.
Science is simply the gathering of knowledge based on fact. There is no "Pope" of science telling anyone what is right and what is not. The attempt to equate the two is among the weakest of arguments - I would suggest in the future before you try voicing such douchebaggery again, you look at what you are about to suggest and reconsider.
It might save you from future embarrassment.
for many years i have given this matter of religion a great deal of thought, and i have come to, what i think is the best solution, and that is to SILENCE THE CLERGY. no preacher or imam or rabi or priest should be allowed to stand at the podium and blither nonesense harmful in any way to rational human behavior. speak the truth, show evidence, or shut the hell up or go to jail. i understand the temptation to lie and fool inocent people into giving their money away to you the clergy. easy money, tax free, and let us not forget political power to be gained. the clergy has no shame as it laughs all the way to the bank (think ted haggard and others like him). any developed modern day society shoould not allow thease sharletons to spread their fear and lies to people to scared to come to terms with simply not knwoing the answer to the mistery of our existance. its ok not to know, and for sure better than beliving lies and farytales.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfor many years i have given this matter of religion a great deal of thought, and i have come to, what i think is the best solution, and that is to SILENCE THE CLERGY. no preacher or imam or rabi or priest should be allowed to stand at the podium and blither nonesense harmful in any way to rational human behavior. speak the truth, show evidence, or shut the hell up or go to jail. i understand the temptation to lie and fool inocent people into giving their money away to you the clergy. easy money, tax free, and let us not forget political power to be gained. the clergy has no shame as it laughs all the way to the bank (think ted haggard and others like him). any developed modern day society shoould not allow thease sharletons to spread their fear and lies to people to scared to come to terms with simply not knwoing the answer to the mistery of our existance. its ok not to know, and for sure better than beliving lies and farytales.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a response to Krauss's article: http://www.wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/August-2010/Culture-Faith-and-Foolishness.aspx
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRJ13 (at 09:38 & 09:39)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... speak the truth ..."
Ah, and one can only presume that 'good people' like those who believe as you do, will be the ones who decide what is 'Truth', eh?
To whom, might I ask, will you turn to if their notion of 'Truth' ever differs from yours? It would seem that you would turn to the gaoler, wouldn't you?
You would do well to start your Crusade for Truth by adopting some of the conventions other people employ to communicate (sharletons <> charlatans).
Mr, Krauss refers to irrationality of belief in reference to religion, as if religion was the only system to hold irrational thoughts. The geocentric model lasted for generations, despite incredible innacuracy, and it was conscidered science at the time. I happen to be a Christian, and at least like to think I am somewhat scientifically knowledgeable. I disagree with decisions religous leaders have made, but I also disagree with the leaders who encourage others to rationalize their prejudice. But it is hardly unique to Christianity. In Nazi Germany it was "scientifically proven" Jews were inferior, rationalizing thier systematic slaughter. As I do not claim that everything any person says is true, I do not believe you should condem an entire system of belief simply because one person, or even multiple people are corrupt. I may be a bit of a cynic, but as far as I'm concerned it's part of human nature to corrupt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that religion and religious beliefs do not undergo the same rigor or rule-of-measure that scientific theories must undergo. Somehow people refer to "faith" as the "unquestionable absolute truth"...to remain unchallenged...something that would never happen in the real world of Science and the search for Knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific theories are held to a higher standard by researchers than faith-based laws proposed by religious leaders and blindly supported by their followers. Unlike religious sects, the rule-of-measure that the world of scientific knowledge must undergo is far more critical of "verification before acceptance." Somehow, the word "faith" exonerates religion from any futher challenges by those seeking the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientific theories are held to a higher standard by researchers than faith-based laws proposed by religious leaders and blindly supported by their followers. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's test your theory : "Thou shall not kill" faith based law.
Partial birth abortion - what is been killed is not a human. Current standard which makes this procedure legal.
The first law has been around for thousand of years, The second one, we are still debating. Even after all the scientific knowledge and evidence of the development of the fetus, there is no certainty of what is been killed. I wonder how future generations will view us, in regards to knowledge and reason.
This is the first time that I engaged in such a discussion.
For my benefit, can someone provide the countries and respective figures of the millions of people killed by Catholics or Christians? How many thousands of years was the geocentric system the accepted theory? Approximate figures will suffice. I ask these questions in the name of science, of course.
After seen in this forum, the amount of "tolerance" given to religious belief and religious persons by our atheist brethren, one wonders what about religion infuriates them more. I believe that it has to do with the fact that humans can't overcome death and they fear the unknown. This makes them feel somehow cheated. After all, they know so much about everything that they can't stand that a simple believer knows as much as they do - and I would dare say even more - as to what happens after we pass.
pedrense wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Scientific theories are held to a higher standard by researchers than faith-based laws proposed by religious leaders and blindly supported by their followers.
Let's test your theory : "Thou shall not kill" faith based law.
Why faith based? It stands to reason that any society that allows unsanctioned murder wont last long. Theres no reason to assume that the rule against murder has to be religious or even that it began as a result of religion. Many animal species have conflict resolution mechanisms that prevent killing (big, bad wolves, for instance).
For my benefit, can someone provide the countries and respective figures of the millions of people killed by Catholics or Christians?
You shouldnt ask others to do the work you can do yourself. Could it be that you dont want to do it, for fear of what you may find? And remember, we atheists arent criticizing Christians, were criticizing religion in general.
How many thousands of years was the geocentric system the accepted theory? Approximate figures will suffice. I ask these questions in the name of science, of course.
It first appeared in ancient Greece around the 4th century BC, and in its latest centuries it had become the explanation enforced by religious authorities. I repeat: enforced truth , not accepted theory, and enforced by religion. Remember Galileo?
All this to say that I dont get why youre using this as an argument. It really doesnt bolster you position.
After seen in this forum, the amount of "tolerance" given to religious belief and religious persons by our atheist brethren, one wonders what about religion infuriates them more.
Youre mistaking tolerance for passive acceptance; disagreement is not intolerance. As to what displeases me (not infuriates ; are you projecting your own emotions on me? Thats not cricket), Id say its the fact that many religious people come here to a rational discussion, their main argument is I believe. and them they get all worked up when we point out that its not enough. Its extremely tiring.
I believe that it has to do with the fact that humans can't overcome death and they fear the unknown. This makes them feel somehow cheated. After all, they know so much about everything that they can't stand that a simple believer knows as much as they do - and I would dare say even more - as to what happens after we pass.
I dont like the idea of death any more than you do, but I refuse to invent unsubstantiated fantasies to allay my fears. As I see it, the world is as it is, not as I would like it to be.
And please refrain from saying that blind belief leads to knowledge. It really doesnt.
On my comment above there should be quotes around pedrense's phrases, because I put them there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho took away my quotes? It can't have been God. Come on, you quote thief, come forward!
oldvic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou did not enter your text directly into SciAm's posting text box, but first prepared it using a different editor, and then cut and pasted the post into it.
Many text editors provide characters that SciAm's posting tool turns into distractions.
It is part of the entertainment package here.
I suspected as much, but now I'm sure. Thanks for the info!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe excommunicated Sister Margaret is so lucky, she can now choose a better religion, as so many have done over the ages, the schisms in all religions are amazing, and reflect on obvious human intolerance and stupidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBest we keep separate! Let the fundamentalists have America and Afghanistan, we can all go to Australia and really move on. There would be nothing to stop us sending food and medicine aid to the overpopulated God-botherers, but they must stay away with their crackpot ideas!
Science is not dogma, it evolves humanity towards a better understanding.
You just generalized entire countries, you should be ashamed of yourself... or maybe add one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristians of the US... slavery? OK then
I disagree with commenter Password. The article suggests, which I think is a valid observation, that if one had a good science education, then religious beliefs would be impossible to embrace. The NSF survey hid the ugly truth about the science illiteracy of many Americans, which was the wrong thing to do. One only has to watch a show like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire to see almost everyone fumble on the simplest science questions--things I knew in the 6th grade. By the way, according to a poll taken by the PEW Research Center, only 6% of scientists are Republican. That helps to explain why Bush was elected twice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree with commenter Password. The article suggests, which I think is a valid observation, that if one had a good science education, then religious beliefs would be impossible to embrace. The NSF survey hid the ugly truth about the science illiteracy of many Americans, which was the wrong thing to do. One only has to watch a show like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire to see almost everyone fumble on the simplest science questions--things I knew in the 6th grade. By the way, according to a poll taken by the PEW Research Center, only 6% of scientists are Republican. That helps to explain why Bush was elected twice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious faith is the product of the way we, human beings, think about uncertainties of our living existence and the apprehension that we experience thinking about our mortality and the unknown that we all face. Because of our human brain development, we can look ahead of the future, project into the possibility of death, which other non-human living beings may not. Different human societies have evolved elaborate beliefs and rituals to address this fear of uncertainty of conscious living experience, which we all feel deep down. Religion is a way to redirect our thoughts away from feeling the existential angst, One may label it as a collective belief reflecting the subculture in which people grow up with, and it is not subject to the same standard of validation of a scientific truth, as we use. Historically, religious beliefs have often contributed to wars, fanatic adherence to one's particular faith, and intolerance of other religious faiths, and militant or non-militant proselytizing. We are still struggling with the issue of tolerance and acceptance of various faiths, and considering them as reflection of our innate human nature to deal with our universal existential anxiety, and we are often hung up on the defense or validation of" truth" behind our faiths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Youre mistaking tolerance for passive acceptance; disagreement is not intolerance. As to what displeases me (not infuriates ; are you projecting your own emotions on me? Thats not cricket)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess that wishing for "hungrier lions", the use of all caps to ask for accountability for religious leaders, for example, are expressions of sensible, calm and rational discourse, my bad.
"You shouldn't ask others to do the work you can do yourself. Could it be that you dont want to do it, for fear of what you may find? And remember, we atheists aren't criticizing Christians, were criticizing religion in general."
I only asked for the information that these people already had - see how quick you were to bring up Galileo? That was the true test, to back up all the claims, priceless. Let me give you an example: atheist communist Joseph Stalin starved to death millions of his own country folk in the middle of the 20th century. Simple enough, is it not? And, yes Catholics and Christians were the religions named, you can go back and look it up for yourself, as you have aptly shown me. Read again the article from Dr. Krauss and see who he names as the example for his hit piece.
"I dont like the idea of death any more than you do, but I refuse to invent unsubstantiated fantasies to allay my fears." Am I the one projecting? One of Pope John Paul II favorite quotes was "Be not afraid" and that is how I think about many things, not just death. What for you are unsubstantiated fantasies to me are reasons for hope.
"And please refrain from saying that blind belief leads to knowledge. It really doesnt."
I'm waiting for the counterpoint or whatever proof you have that God does not exist.
Ah, by the way, cricket? Enough said.
pedrense at 03:28 PM on 08/11/10,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... I'm waiting for the counterpoint or whatever proof you have that God does not exist ..."
I hope that you are very, very patient.
After reading 227 comments, many with highly inflammatory (not to mention illegal) suggestions about repressing religions or even retalliation against religious leaders and their followers, does it occur to anyone that Krauss cares nothing about your opinions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrauss throws mud to start this fight, and then he watches quietly as the hatred and fear escalate. Will he shrug it off as mere venting? If someone is inflamed enough to act on his demand to hold religious leaders accountable, will he be held accountable for encouraging those acts? By calling Bishop Olmsted a monster, he has certainly de-humanized him. Isn't that the first step toward violence?
In the past, Krauss has cultivated a reputation as a moderate, or at least a non-militant, in the science -religion debate. If he has any intention of repairing this reputation, he must at least apologize for starting this SciAm slugfest. But I do not expect any apology, if only because he has not responded to a single comment here. He doesn't care that he may have started something very irrational with this call-to-action.
I was perplexed by Dr. Krausss statements, the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality and religious beliefs force some people to choose between knowledge and myth . Are there really only two options, either you believe in the obvious fact of evolution or you are brainwashed by your religion? Can I not, with an honest heart, look at the amazing complexity of life and wonder how it could all come about by chance collisions of molecules? Isnt chaos supposed to increase over time? As a high school science teacher, I encourage my students to question scientific theories. Dr. Krauss dont be so dismayed by the survey results. Perhaps some of those who questioned evolution had looked long and hard at the scientific evidence and still concluded that the theory of evolution just doesnt provide a satisfactory explanation to the origin of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I guess that wishing for "hungrier lions", the use of all caps to ask for accountability for religious leaders, for example, are expressions of sensible, calm and rational discourse, my bad. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll start by pointing out that you got none of those from me. But our side in this discussion is only human. We are dismayed by the growing numbers of people who choose (or are led to, most likely) irrational belief over the pursuit of real knowledge. We know that this is not the way forward; we know that, at a moment in history that requires us to be clear-minded, it's an obscene waste of time that will only compound our problems. So, I'm not surprised that even rational atheists sometimes choose to vent. At least, they're not blowing themselves up along with innocent people in the name of an imaginary absolute.
"I only asked for the information that these people already had - see how quick you were to bring up Galileo? That was the true test, to back up all the claims, priceless. Let me give you an example: atheist communist Joseph Stalin starved to death millions of his own country folk in the middle of the 20th century. Simple enough, is it not? And, yes Catholics and Christians were the religions named, you can go back and look it up for yourself, as you have aptly shown me. Read again the article from Dr. Krauss and see who he names as the example for his hit piece. "
Galileo was an example, not the whole encyclopedia. There's only so much space here. I repeat, you can find the information you asked for easily, and, more to the point, so can those you challenged in your original post.
I said it elsewhere in this discussion, but communism isn't an example of an atheist ideology. While it claimed to be one, its practice (which is what matters) was indistinguishable from that of many religions: the infallible leader (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Kim Il Chung, Castro, etc.), the priest caste (Communist Party members) the sacred texts ("The Capital", the Little Red Book), the mummified saints (Lenin).
(I ran out of space, I'll continue on another comment.)
So, I'd say that communism, nazism, and so many other "isms" that directly caused hundreds of millions of deaths recently are nothing more than political ideologies that shamelessly use many of the same methods of religion. That some of them claim to subscribe to atheism doesn't change the reality of their actions. Look at North Korea, for instance: they've gone to the point of creating a mystical story to explain the birth of their current leader. If that's not religion...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And, yes Catholics and Christians were the religions named, you can go back and look it up for yourself, as you have aptly shown me. Read again the article from Dr. Krauss and see who he names as the example for his hit piece. "
Dr. Krauss lives in a mostly Christian country. It's not surprising that he chooses a relevant example for his story, all the more so because it's Christians in the US who are attempting to force their beliefs and moral rules on the whole country (no, I'm not saying that all Christians do that).
"Am I the one projecting? One of Pope John Paul II favorite quotes was "Be not afraid" and that is how I think about many things, not just death. What for you are unsubstantiated fantasies to me are reasons for hope. "
If that works for you, by all means, go on. Just remember that it doesn't work for others.
"And please refrain from saying that blind belief leads to knowledge. It really doesnt."
I'm waiting for the counterpoint or whatever proof you have that God does not exist."
Let's say that I'm sitting in a room with no view of the outside and I hear a noise. I tell myself "Sounds like rain.". At this point I may choose to believe it is rain, and leave it at that, or I may choose to go to the door, open it and look outside.
The former is belief, the latter is knowledge. I much prefer the last one, because the sound of rain is mostly white noise and there are many possible sources of white noise.
Concerning proof of the non-existence of God, I think you have it backwards: we're under no obligation to show you that God doesn't exist. We're not the ones claiming an unseen entity: it's religious people, who believe such things, that must present their evidence (evidence, not belief) so that the rest of us may be convinced.
Let me quote from Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If such evidence surfaces, you know where to find us.
"Ah, by the way, cricket? Enough said. "
I concede the point, but only because you made me chuckle.
oldvic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... Concerning proof of the non-existence of God, I think you have it backwards: we're under no obligation to show you that God doesn't exist ..."
Those who are atheists assert that the proposition "God does not exist" is true, they do so without proof. Their faith in their unprovable belief is logically indistinguishable from those who assert, again in the absence of proof, that the proposition "God exists" is true.
Touching, yet ironic, no?
Chryses wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Those who are atheists assert that the proposition "God does not exist" is true, they do so without proof. Their faith in their unprovable belief is logically indistinguishable from those who assert, again in the absence of proof, that the proposition "God exists" is true. Touching, yet ironic, no?"
Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that atheists are such as you define them (more on that latter). An atheist looks at the world and what does he see?
In the early years of recorded history, to keep it simple, science explained nothing and religion explained everything. As time went by, science started to amass a considerable and constantly growing body of knowledge using the scientific method. This has allowed mankind to gain an unprecedented degree of control over its destiny.
What happened to religion in the mean time? Its worldview was forced to a constant (and ongoing) retreat. Its proponents are forced to reach for such "ad hoc" explanations as "don't interpret our texts literally", after centuries of putting people to death for daring to do otherwise.
What's an atheist to do? Which is the lesser of two evils, absolute belief in the absence of God or absolute belief in God's existence?
You see, atheists, even as defined on your terms, tend to look around them at reality in order to ground their beliefs. Simple statistics tells our atheist "much better to side with the geeks, at least they deliver". And logic also dictates that "if all the data is not known, judge by the final result".
On your description of atheists, it's very narrow and, in my opinion, it fails to recognize that there are probably as many flavours of atheism as there are of religious belief.
A religious person may think God is a bearded white patriarch, an Indian looking person, a divine snake, a retinue of characters (polytheists), a stone, a tree, assorted animals, a disembodied entity found nowhere and everywhere, and so on ad nauseam.
Why would atheists have to conform to your idea of them? Speaking only for myself, I can say that I'm an atheist until someone proves me wrong.
Is it an absolute belief? No, it's a "working certainty": something with such a high probability that to waste time and effort worrying about it is not an option.
This is something we all do, routinely, during ordinary life. We go to sleep with the working certainty that during the night the atmosphere won't suddenly vanish into outer space and kill us. The probability of such a disaster is not zero, but to worry about it every night is pointless.
"... On your description of atheists, it's very narrow and, in my opinion, it fails to recognize that there are probably as many flavours of atheism as there are of religious belief ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is self-indulgent redefinition to suit your purposes. I expected better of you.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"the doctrine or belief that there is no God" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
"a disbelief in the existence of deity / the doctrine that there is no deity" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
If you wish to use English to communicate, you will accept standard definitions. If you feel the need to redefine words to suit your opinions, don't be surprised if people ignore what you have to say.
If you'll excuse the metaphor, there is no sin in saying (with pride if you wish, but definitely with intellectual honesty), that you are agnostic.
"That is self-indulgent redefinition to suit your purposes. I expected better of you."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry for your disappointment.
"Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"the doctrine or belief that there is no God" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
"a disbelief in the existence of deity / the doctrine that there is no deity" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism"
Notice the multiple definitions, the words "commonly" and "or", which mean the concept has some leeway built into it. See also the word "disbelief". Is it absolute? Are there no degrees in disbelief? When someone says "I don't believe in God", is the person saying "There is no God", "I'm almost certain there is no God", "No one has ever presented any evidence of the existence of God", or what?
Remember, reality gives rise to definitions, not the other way around. That would be "the tail that wags the dog".
"If you wish to use English to communicate, you will accept standard definitions. If you feel the need to redefine words to suit your opinions, don't be surprised if people ignore what you have to say."
My arguments (which are far wider than this linguistic/conceptual disagreement) are either valid or not. The fact that you're ignoring them leads me to believe that you feel unable to counter them or that you deem this little definitional grain of sand to be more important. I'm sure you can do better than that.
"If you'll excuse the metaphor, there is no sin in saying (with pride if you wish, but definitely with intellectual honesty), that you are agnostic."
Change the label if you wish, the contents of the bottle (my arguments) remain the same.
All religous belief is a developmental aberation. People involved in such cultism need to be deprogramed and counseled with rational emotive therapy until they realize that the world in which they believed they lived in is not the world in which they live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoldvic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... Notice the multiple definitions, the words 'commonly' and 'or', which mean the concept has some leeway built into it. See also the word 'disbelief'. Is it absolute? Are there no degrees in disbelief? When someone says 'I don't believe in God', is the person saying 'There is no God', 'I'm almost certain there is no God', 'No one has ever presented any evidence of the existence of God', or what? ..."
Disbelief (noun): the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
Theists assert the truth of the proposition "God exists".
Agnostics do not believe that God exists. Their position is that while the proposition "God exists" may be false, in the absence of proofs, either for or against, the truth of the proposition remains indeterminate. Agnosticism does permit a range of opinion.
Atheists assert the truth of the proposition "God does not exist".
If you claim to be an atheist, you have professed your Faith in an unproven belief.
"... Remember, reality gives rise to definitions, not the other way around. That would be "the tail that wags the dog ...".
Yes, as regards misuse of language, the only tool at our disposal for communicating and attempting to persuade one another about the truth or falsity of this or that claim, the reality of your posts, which you cannot change, remains on display for any to read.
"... My arguments (which are far wider than this linguistic/conceptual disagreement) are either valid or not. ..."
This is yet another example of (intentional?) sloppiness. Do please identify the category or class of arguments, of which the above is but an example, that are "wider" than conceptual disagreements. If two people cannot agree on the conceptual basis for discourse, discourse cannot (not merely will not, but cannot) occur, as there is no basis upon which the discussion may be founded.
"... Change the label if you wish, the contents of the bottle (my arguments) remain the same."
I couldn't agree with you more.
jasonabdon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... People involved in such cultism need to be deprogramed and counseled with rational emotive therapy until they realize ..."
Absolutely! There is no room in your Brave New World for individual freedoms or beliefs. Go forth and create your Utopia!
"If you claim to be an atheist, you have professed your Faith in an unproven belief."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a shocker for you: I have other unproven beliefs. I believe that through appropriate methods, it's possible for us to know the world with increasing accuracy. As far as I can tell, no one has rigorously demonstrated this; however, the results of our efforts are all around us, which is why I'm comfortable with that belief. I'll keep an eye out for anyone who can put the matter to rest, because I also believe that knowledge overwhelmingly surpasses belief.
The world around us, you see, isn't a "black and white" logical discussion. It's complex, confusing, filled with shades of grey. To refuse to see that is to misunderstand life, I think.
"Yes, as regards misuse of language, the only tool at our disposal for communicating and attempting to persuade one another about the truth or falsity of this or that claim, the reality of your posts, which you cannot change, remains on display for any to read."
Strictly speaking I agree with you, since your sentence can also be understood as meaning that there's no misuse of language. If your meaning was the opposite, you may have been unclear.
"... My arguments (which are far wider than this linguistic/conceptual disagreement) are either valid or not. ..."
This is yet another example of (intentional?) sloppiness. Do please identify the category or class of arguments, of which the above is but an example, that are "wider" than conceptual disagreements. If two people cannot agree on the conceptual basis for discourse, discourse cannot (not merely will not, but cannot) occur, as there is no basis upon which the discussion may be founded.
Wider than "this linguistic/conceptual disagreement", is what I wrote.
The arguments I talked about are those contained in the post that gave rise to our dialogue, the gist of which is "It's far likelier to be right to deny God and to embrace science than to do the opposite.". On that comment I also said why I thought so.
My problem with your position is that you seem more interested in debating the tool (language) than in debating the issue (comparative merits of the atheistic/religious outlook).
I'm having trouble with the character counter, so I'll continue here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen two people want to achieve a result during a discussion, they quickly resolve such disputes and return to the matter at hand. I'm not seeing such an interest in you.
Please note that in about four hours I'll be leaving for the weekend and will only be able to return here next Monday.
Religion/Ideology/Nationalism has appeared to me as a coping strategy. Coping with inequality and fairness (the poor and suffering are the most righteous). Coping with death of others and our impending demise (after all we end up in a good place where we see them again). Coping with voilent oppression of States and other religions by having an organized group that has our back (aka going tribal).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, coping strategies can and do go awry if not grounded in balanced reflection (reality, data, historical benchmarking). Take the old west posse for a simple example of the concept. They formed for a reason, i.e. reduce cattle rustling. But if they were not disbanded soon after they reached their goal they would find more and more relatively minor crimes until at some point the punishment doesn't fit the crime, or there was no crime at all, and the "posse" is more of a rampaging mob.
An old aetheist buddy of mine also equated the creation of religion to the creation of footwear. They both started as coping strategies and tools to help us live better with less pain and fear but they also make us dependent and more reckless. They prevent damage and enable in some ways (generally short-term) but damage and destroy in other ways (generally longer-term).
I agree with the article. I agree that people must be responsible for their beliefs. I agree that once the "Posse" becomes unreproachble they become exponentially more powerful. I believe silence infers agreement. Finally, I believe there are far too few voices of reason in a world were every nut can broadcast his/her rubbish upon the world. I hope the message in the article is not lost in the noise...
oldvic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlas, our schedules prevent continuous repartee.
"... I have a shocker for you: I have other unproven beliefs ..."
I'm sure you do. Most people do. I am pleased that you, if not some of the other contributors to this forum, acknowledge that atheism is a faith-based system.
"... I'll keep an eye out for anyone who can put the matter to rest, because I also believe that knowledge overwhelmingly surpasses belief ..."
In re the first portion of the above: if, after several thousand years of thoughtful debate by intelligent people, a subject remains fundamentally unresolved, I am willing to wager that the subject will remain unresolved for quite some time to come.
As to the second portion, I trust that you are familiar (at least in principle, I have found the details quite difficult) with Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems? You may be surprised how relevant that work is to the subject at hand. His proof of them limits the bounds of what can be proved in (any but trivial) axiomatic systems. To the extent that the human mind is equivalent to a Turing machine, and that the 'machine' is consistent, then Gödel's incompleteness theorems would apply to it.
What that means is that there are true statements that humans cannot, even in principle, prove. Those statements require an individual's faith to assert as true.
Hey folks,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy the divergence away from Krauss' main point? His article doesn't claim that all religion is irrational! It merely claims that SOME religious leaders have irrational, dangerous ideas, and for some reason Krauss thinks that they are exempt from criticism. Frankly, he stated his idea very poorly. His case is weak because he chose to attack the Catholic church, which we all know has been criticized up the wazoo for the last few centuries with impunity, not only for real scandals (the excommunication example was very minor; the press is chock full of stronger ones.), but even for fictional scandals (see any Dan Brown novel).
Well, we also know that it's pretty safe to criticize the Catholic church. So why didn't Krauss mention the Branch Davidians or another of the more well-armed groups? That might be a little braver. And while he's at it, why didn't Krauss excoriate the political leaders who seem immune from criticism for their dangerous, irrational ideas, like war, death penalty, abortion ... Oops, did I mention some ideas that YOU support? I guess it doesn't sound so good to be held responsible for an idea if YOU believe in it.
For all his self righteous indignation, lately Krauss has failed miserably as a writer. Yes, I know, his book sales show that we should all be such failures! Maybe he wrote this piece to get some notoriety and up the book sales? Could it be that he's getting more militant because Dawkins gets all the attention, and book sales. Good luck with that.
oldvic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciam's post size limitations are part of that entertainment package I mentioned earlier.
"Wider than 'this linguistic/conceptual disagreement', is what I wrote."
Respectfully, no; that is not what you wrote. What you wrote at 03:13 AM on 08/13/10, and which I quote again is "... My arguments (which are far wider than this linguistic/conceptual disagreement) are either valid or not. ..."; a rather different statement.
"... 'It's far likelier to be right to deny God and to embrace science than to do the opposite.' On that comment I also said why I thought so. ..."
There is a serious weakness in your position as stated above. To begin, permit me to point out that one need not deny God to embrace Science. As a corollary, one need not deny Science to embrace God, although that wicked little man seems ignorant of this fact. Indeed, if the existence or non-existence of God is an undecidable proposition, then one is even more likely to be right to separate the two and consider their validity independently. Setting aside the 'God question' for the moment, on what basis do you propose to 'embrace science'? Surely not on some strict logical positivist "if it cannot be supported empirically, then it is not science"? You will lose large swathes of theoretical science if you do. No, your terms of admission must be looser than that. Not too loose, of course, otherwise pseudo-sciences like Astrology will seek admission. Getting the right balance of both the empirical and the metaphysical may be trickier than you imagine, but if the definition proves to be elusive, how can you embrace that which you cannot define?
tichead,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Chryses and oldvic: please take it outside."
Now, now. I'm sure that you'll agree with me that everyone is entitled to their opinion - although it would seem that there are many others who would not - on both sides of the house. Faith is funny that way, is it not?
Actually, I'm a bit surprised that you take umbrage with oldvic and I. There are any number of far rougher conversations in this forum, and yet you complain about ours. Odd that. Is it because we are thoughtfully addressing the points made by the other, rather than merely vilifying each other?
Chryses: You are right. My apologies. Your discussion with oldvic has been very civil compared to some of the more passionate posts this touchy subject has generated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a born-again, devout Christian who believes in scientific observations that support both the Big Bang and the evolution of life from supernova explosions of giant stars, a more ancient evolutionary time frame of all life forms on this planet. (Evolution of humans from lower life forms is a more recent historical perspective.) Did God have anything to do with any of it? I CHOOSE to believe that He did. My scientific understanding has not rendered God obsolete in my belief systems. The story in Genesis is, thankfully, vague.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy belief systems of religion and science do not mix just like water and oil inhabiting the same glass do not mix. I experience mental anguish only when I use rationale from either system to effect the other or read other people's attempts to do so. The two just do not mix. IMO, science and religion were/are never meant to mix. Any attempts to discuss, debate, or influence one with the other is FUTILE. Any surveys that address religion in relation to scientific knowledge or vice versa are ALSO FUTILE. Can't be done. Making arguments in relation to those surveys is taking futility to an extreme. Now that is irrational. Sorry Dr. Krauss, but stick to physics. You are irrational and mean-spirited when you attempt to discuss religious beliefs especially if you approach the discussion from the premise that religious belief systems are irrational. That position renders your auguments irrational.
SAH mom,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile you are, as are we all, entitled to an opinion, Science (big ‘S’) is an organized effort to understand our universe without needing to add, ‘in my opinion’. Further, Science and Religion do make predictions that are testable by the other. For example the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ action of God (Judeo/Christian ethical monotheism fits the religion criteria, based upon the ‘pro God’ responses in this forum, but the documented notion predates that) as advanced by theologians has been restated by scientists. The physicist Georges Lemaître originally advanced the scientific formulation. If you follow the link, you may find interesting reading. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)
Other religious claims have not had as quite that resounding affirmation from the folk in lab coats.
So wherever the predictions of one the two knowledge systems are testable by the other, they will be – and rightly so. Human knowledge is in the balance. We are enriched when we learn what is, or is not true.
Right on! Absolutely 100% agree. Religion is destroying America and in the process adding to the overall misery quotient of the world. As if religious nonsense in the Meddle East were not enough to demonstrate the foolishness of religion, America has developed its own version of fundamentalist lunacy which threatens to destroy science education which can only lead to a weakening of the USA. What lunacy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrobbrownsyd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... America has developed its own version of fundamentalist lunacy which threatens to destroy science education which can only lead to a weakening of the USA ..."
An interesting claim. What is this fundamentalist lunacy that America has developed ?
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI use IMO to preface only the statement that I believe that efforts to debate science vs. religion are futile. Why? Out of respect for the participants in this discussion, including myself, since I have entered this irrational discussion.
IMO does not weaken an argument. Scientists offer their "opinion" of factual truth all the time. Ii is opinion of fact, quite frankly, because THE SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED!!! Scientific opinions of fact should be persuasive by virtue of HONEST experimentation and analysis followed by duplication of results, but always with a skeptical mind open to future experimental challenge. No need for hubris.
As to the survey results referenced...maybe scientists and educators are the professionals that should take a bite out of the humility pie. You make cause and effect assumptions from a survey? Maybe just maybe, the ignorant masses aren't quite so ignorant. Maybe some responses represent the belief that they don't swallow all scientific theory as here-to-fore fact written in stone. Afterall, the "science is settled" argument is unscientific, in scientific terms. Maybe some of the unenlightened have not, to date, been enlightened by the "facts" of science because "scientific educators" have approached the "ignorant masses" from an arrogant, elitist "I know better than thou"...I am here to save your sorry soul from the depths of your own stupidity" approach (an approach you attribute to religious leaders). From the behavioral and/or cognitive human psychology viewpoint, arrogant, elitist approaches (whether conscience or non-conscience) handicap scientists/educators/religious arguments at the onset.
I also refute the historical perspective that traditional religious beliefs are the underlying cause of all/most human conflict and, therefore, should be eliminated. That perspective is naive. Human conflict is driven by primitive survival instincts wrapped up in "truth" belief systems. Fear, hate, love, goodness, arrogance, hubris, greed, power, selfishness, deception, selflessness, are a few of the primitive instincts. "Truth" belief systems include politics, economics, religion, science, history, experience, culture, geography, etc. These are relative. Conflict is never defined, at the onset, in primitive terms but always in terms of the scapegoat of "truth". "Truth" scapegoat belief systems, of which religion is one, always justify the perspective for each participant in a conflict.
SAH mom,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany people, myself included, differentiate between fact, and opinion. While both are nouns, you, I, and everyone who uses English to communicate, place far greater confidence in what we believe are facts than we do in what we refer to as opinion. Indeed, if the two were synonymous we would tend to use either one or the other, but not both. If one does not distinguish between facts (the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant) and opinions (Albert Einstein changed his opinion of Georges Lemaître's hypothesis after Hubble's data was published) then one can claim to know very little indeed. Most people prefer to know, or at least like to think they know, the difference between fact and opinion.
While one might question the soundness of the opinions expressed by the more perfervid posters to this forum, I must disagree with your claim that the subject matter is irrational. Permit me to bring to your attention that the mere fact that you are attempting to present a particular perspective in a coherent and plausible manner, buttressed by supporting arguments is itself an entirely rational enterprise. My rebuttals to the points you (and others) raise are also rational - to the extent permitted by my limited abilities.
"... Afterall, the "science is settled" argument is unscientific, in scientific terms ..."
If you make that claim as a blanket assertion, then I must again disagree with you. Take as an example, the subject of optics. At one time the details were sufficiently ambiguous that their explanation and resolution were active, fruitful lines of scientific research. They having now been resolved, the subject matter has been moved from a scientific enterprise to an engineering one. The 'science' of optics is 'settled'.
I close by pointing out that the final paragraph is an opinion expressed as a set of unsubstantiated truth claims, not a fact, and conclude by observing that your disagreement with "... the historical perspective that traditional religious beliefs are the underlying cause of all/most human conflict ..." is not at all the same as a refutation. I readily accept that you disagree with the proposition, but as you have not provided any evidence to support your opinion, you have failed to prove the proposition to be false or erroneous. You have, therefore, failed to refute the proposition.
Wow! The woo is strong with the readers of scientific America, why do you even read this magazine, shouldn't you be reading astrology monthly or Homeopathy weekly. This is a science magazine for people who live in reality. I mean you know what we observe all around us, what is testable etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is a bunch of bronze age stories, you have to be really pathetic and gullible to believe them. Seriously it's embarressing cut it out. You don't just believe that there is something out there or a deist god. You believe that Christianity is true. That god impregnated a Jewish minx and he went around preforming magic tricks. Seriously if you were not indoctrinated with this rubbish as a child do you even think you would accept it as an adult. You really do believe in magic, ho you don't like it called that but in the end of the day you believe Harry Potter is true. Magic exist though you don't have any evidence to support it, how could you. Get real and grow up, please join us in reality it's really not so bad.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll try to answer as compactly as I can. I agree that pure belief, pure atheism and even pure agnosticism are faith based. From that it doesn't follow that they can't be compared using reality as a check. Like everything else, they should be treated that way.
When in the course of normal conversation I call myself an atheist, what I mean is:
- pure belief is unacceptable, because it is unsupported by evidence and it introduces a dangerous amount of irrationality into our outlook. This gives rise to dangerous manipulations by those that are either blinded by faith or would cynically exploit it for their purposes (a point made by Dr. Krauss in the article, obviously in his own words);
- pure agnosticism, which I take to mean "God's existence is undecidable" is also an untested, faith based idea: how are we to know if it's true? Maybe in the future we will be able to know for sure. Time will tell, but to state it in those terms now is also an act of faith, and, I might add, often a way to evade the debate when comparing religious belief to other systems, which tends to leave the discussion undecided;
- pure atheism denies the existence of God, an unproven belief. But this unproven belief has a lot on its side: absence of evidence, for a start; the fact that it fosters alternative, effective ways to increase our knowledge (science); its big resistance to outside manipulation because it remains firmly attached to reality.
On a continuum from pure belief to pure atheism, with agnosticism sitting on the net, as it were, I place myself decidedly closer to atheism. That is why, as I said above, during the course of normal conversation I call myself an atheist. If pressed for details, as you have done, then I give my explanation.
I'm familiar with the popular explanations of G�del' theorems. I seriously doubt I'd be able to follow his demonstration, which apparently is quite technical, but I've often had some fun with things like "This sentence is false".
The demonstrated existence of undecidable propositions doesn't, in my view, mean we have to abandon our methods. There are many decidable propositions; just because we found a banana peel in the stairway it doesn't mean we have to stop using it: we need only to be aware of such limits to our knowledge. And, once we get over the dismay caused by the existence of such limits, we should remember that finding them has actually increased our information about the world.
Finally, when you ask how I can embrace what I can't define, my reply is: "I look at results".
Chryses and DODO,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am curious...what kind of work do you do? Are you currently engaged in hypothetical sudy of an academic subject? What professional training have you completed? Do you have advanced degrees of any kind? If so, what did you learn from your fellowships and graduate studies about cognitive approaches to scientific study (or any theoretical study)? Do you read professional journals? Are you published in any professional journals? Do you have a degree in journalism?
Have you ever been exposed to religious influence or activity on a personal basis? What led to your active cognitive denial of spiritual belief? How did that happen? What fosters the anger and disgust?
Have you studied Alinsky?
Do you think I follow astrology or homeopathy?
Dodo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo.....let me get this straight.....do you really think that I am pathetic, gullible, childish.....engaged in magic, fantasy.....oh, and worst of all.....psychotic-as in out of touch with reality?
Is that your objective, scientific and factual opinion of who and what I REALLY (as in reality) am?
Do I have to be accepted into an organized club to offer comments that will be considered legitimate on this website?
Where and how did you learn to express yourself using English grammar and prose?
Kraus is right. Religion cannot bring harm to innocent people and minorities with their lies an misguided moral judgments.It is callously immoral to kill a sentient human being, mother of children who love and need her, wife of a man who loves her, who presumably has friends, a job, a life, for the sake of an unsentient embryo or fetus who threatens to kill her and may not even live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKraus is right. Religion cannot bring harm to innocent people and minorities with their lies an misguided moral judgments.It is callously immoral to kill a sentient human being, mother of children who love and need her, wife of a man who loves her, who presumably has friends, a job, a life, for the sake of an unsentient embryo or fetus who threatens to kill her and may not even live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSAH mom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy comments were not aimed at you specifically but if you believe in a personal god them you have to believe in magic, that natural laws have been abrogated in the past. As this is a science magazine then if such claims are presented they have to be justified. Religion is not a harmless belief it has consequences, already this morning I've just heard on the radio about two people being stoned to death in Afghanistan for adultery FFS. This lunacy has to be met head on and stopped. This is just one of the many atrocities carried out by religious authorities on a daily basis. That's why this article is important.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe agree to agree:
I gladly change the word refute to disagree. Thankyou for the suggestion.
We can agree to disagree:
1. The science is never settled.
Pursuit of knowledge and life experience renders me incapable of accepting as "settled" anything that another human mind suggests as explanation for anything. I am the epitomy of the skeptical mind. Concerning the example of the invariant speed of light within a vacuum.....I believe that to be challenged by some theoretical physicists. Concerning the field of optics.....can you be 100% certain that nothing new is proposed or might be proposed in the future about the cited field of optics?
2. I communicate in terms of opinion or opinion of fact.
See #1. I was taught, from a very early age thru graduate studies, of the importance and wisdom of questioning everything. Never automatically accept as truth either written or spoken words. "Within academic circles always communicate in a skeptical manner," thus saith my professors.
3. I agree to disagree with myself.
There is one and only one area of disagreement with #2. I believe in God because I freely choose to believe in God. Period. I stand on blind faith in my God. I require no proof other than the biblical phrase "only by the grace of God, thru FAITH, am I saved". If I ever need to have proof or evidence of God, then I am operating outside of sheer faith. Therefore, to entertain or argue the belief that there is no evidence to prove God exists is pointless. If I ever become an agnostic, atheist, or whatever, it is because I simply no longer choose to believe in God. It couldn't be any simpler. And furthermore, I acknowledge that this makes me totally selfish. It takes no more effort on my part than to affirm between God and myself that I believe in God to be "saved". If there is life after death I am so rewarded, and if not, I suffer nothing. All other aspects of Christianity are secondary and relative to that one passage.
Ask me if I believe murder is wrong. My answer, "of course".
Aske me if I believe in the sanctity of the unborn. My answer, "of course". Ask me if I believe in abortion. My answer, "I have an adopted daughter." Do I faithfully tithe? "Not always." Did Mary have a virgin birth? What difference does it make? Is my standing with God altered? "Of course not". Get the drift?
4. Debating religion in terms of rational science, for me, is pointless (irrational)
See #3.
SAH mom,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I am curious ... Do you have a degree in journalism?"
Neither my nor your credentials are at issue.
"... Have you ever been exposed to religious influence or activity on a personal basis? What led to your active cognitive denial of spiritual belief? ... astrology or homeopathy?"
In order: Yes. I do not have an 'active cognitive denial of spiritual belief', the implication of which is that one must invest intellectual effort to not believe, which is an unsubstantiated assumption. It has not occurred. I am neither angry nor disgusted. I have not studied Alinsky. I do not know if you follow astrology or homeopathy. I will admit that as you claim to be comfortable with two of the sometimes contentious scientific theories of origins (universe, life) I presume that you follow/concur /agree with neither of what I consider to be pseudo-sciences.
Daer Dr. Krauss. I have finished your article Faith and Foolishness, Scientific American August 2010. And I agree with what you said. But I would like you to think about this, the big bang is a highly religious event. Something was created out of nothing. I know that you will explain to me all the theories that we have. But it all boils down to FAITH. Thanks Darryl Phillips
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDaveDodo007 ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... if you believe in a personal god them you have to believe in magic ..."
I think you are mistaken. You are making the assumption that if there is a God, there must be magic. Why are you making that assumption, and why do you believe it to be true?
The proposition that God exists does not - as far as I can tell - imply that magic exists.
"... As this is a science magazine then if such claims are presented they have to be justified. ..."
Yes, please do provide some evidence, or at least a rational argument, why anyone should believe your assumption to be true.
I doubt that you will be successful.
"... That's why this article is important."
This article was neither scientific nor important. Care to debate this claim?
SAH mom,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#1 In re Optics: Because some event may or may not happen in the future does not change a relationship that exists now.
#2 I know that I have not, nor do I think anyone else here has suggested that you "automatically accept as truth either written or spoken", only to reflect in the fullness of time upon the evidence at hand.
#3 I'm quite certain that I have not suggested that you - or anyone - should or should not believe in God. As a matter of fact, if you read some of my other posts to this forum, you'll see that I have merely suggested that both theists and atheist are faithful people, to one degree or another.
#4 I suspect (while admitting that I might be very, very wrong) that there is more than enough rationality in both Science and Religion that neither will go away anytime soon.
The whole idea that Science and Religion must butt heads and cannot coexist easily is a relatively recent phenomenon. Historically, they usually have. While it is obviously false that the two have never clashed, they are not mutually exclusive. Too many people today assume that it's either one or the other, and never the two shall meet, and that's ridiculous. Sure, sometimes religious leaders are hostile to scientists, and scientists (and even wicked little men who know better) are sometimes gratuitously hostile or demeaning to religious people, but that does not mean the two disciplines are by nature opposed. What you're thinking about is the 'conflict model' of Science and Religion interaction. That's only one of several ways of describing the interaction between the two. The conflict model is a fabrication - and I mean fabrication - of the late nineteenth century. Two men, John Draper and Andrew Dixon White, created it only a hundred and thirty odd years ago and they had specific political and social purposes when making their case. The most darkly amusing thing is, the foundations for their work are almost totally unreliable.
I am not at all making this up. I could go on about these two 'gentlemen' for a long, long, time. Who knows, as a counterbalance to the self-indulgent, anti-religious political piece Mr. Krauss published, perhaps I should show the origins of the essentially degrading idea of the conflict model.
oldvic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to agree with me that theism, agnosticism, and atheism are faith based, I would have already had to have made that claim.
I have not done so.
I remind you that theism and atheism are faith based; claiming 'x' to be true while acknowledging that there is no proof of 'x'. If one accepts as fact that there currently exists no proof for the existence of this 'x' and that there currently exists no proof of the non-existence of this 'x', then it is a mistake to claim that agnosticism is untested. Agnosticism, which posits that there exists no proof of God's existence and that there exists no proof of God's non-existence, recognizes that there exists no proof of either proposition. It follows then that agnosticism is not based on faith, but fact, and this is in stark contrast to the other two positions.
I have not pressed you for details of your faith; you have volunteered that you have other 'unproven beliefs', which I accepted as commonplace.
"... The demonstrated existence of undecidable propositions doesn't, in my view, mean we have to abandon our methods ..."
I think I have not suggested we do so. I am pleased that you recognize that some propositions are undecidable. Given that acceptance, and your stated receptiveness to results influencing your decisions I am a bit perplexed why you would cling to a position that has been debated for more than two thousand years without resolution.
What does magic have to do with my/any religious beliefs? Why do you disparage religious constructs in such a petulant manner, especially considering that this is a "science" magazine? I am hardly inclined to respond to justify anything in response to your comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I do want to address is the characterization and level of alarm expressed by the phrase "lunacy has to be stopped". I will do so in a general comment format.
Chryses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if not magic then lets hear what other process can achieve the following:
Resurrect the dead?
Turn water into wine instantly?
Feed the 5,000 with just two fish and five loaves?
Cast out demons?
and don't even get me started on talking snake and donkey, parting seas, living inside big fish, saving animals on a large wooden boat. punishing sycophantic Job. I'll love to hear your none magic process for all these.
The article is important because unscientific and non-rational thinking is dangerous.
SAH mom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook if you want to live in a land the adheres to bronze age moral codes given to people by their imaginary friend in the sky fine, you're welcome to it. I find it totally disgusting and hope science and reason and education will one day stamp out such barbarism.
DaveDodo007,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou avoided responding to my question, so I will present it a second time.
You posted (at 11:00 AM on 08/16/10) "... if you believe in a personal god them you have to believe in magic ..." along with other debatable statements. I think you are mistaken. You are making the assumption that if there is a God, there must be magic.
Your truth claim has the logical form "If 'A' is true, then 'B' must be true". Let us now replace the symbols A, & B with the two nouns you used - 'god' and 'magic'.
Why are you making that assumption, and why do you believe it to be true? The proposition that God exists does not - as far as I can tell - imply that magic exists.
Further, you also claimed in the same sentence "... ,that natural laws have been abrogated in the past." Notice that the proposition 'natural laws have been abrogated in the past' is determined in your sentence by a belief that God exists. Therefore, this second part of your sentence takes the form "'C' is true because 'A' is true."
You stated "My comments were not aimed at you specifically but if you believe in a personal god them you have to believe in magic, that natural laws have been abrogated in the past." You have therefore, as I have shown, made the claim that if anyone believes in God, then it necessarily follows that they must believe in magic and that natural laws have been abrogated in the past.
I ask you again to present your explanation(s) as to why you believe this to be true.
Do you remember your very next sentence?
"As this is a science magazine then if such claims are presented they have to be justified."
Please explain yourself.
"In order to agree with me that theism, agnosticism, and atheism are faith based, I would have already had to have made that claim. I have not done so."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right. The claim is mine.
"Agnosticism, which posits that there exists no proof of God's existence and that there exists no proof of God's non-existence, recognizes that there exists no proof of either proposition. It follows then that agnosticism is not based on faith, but fact, and this is in stark contrast to the other two positions."
Let's look at some independent definitions of agnosticism: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0013910#m_en_gb0013910 "Agnostic: a person who BELIEVES that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/topics/believers-and-non-believers/definition-of-agnostic_1 "Agnostic: someone who does not know or BELIEVES that it is impossible to know whether a god exists."
Juicy bits in capitals. You may say that's not your idea of agnosticism, and from your comments it seems you'd rather defend that agnosticism claims that the existence of God is PROBABLY undecidable, but as you can see the matter is not settled.
"I am pleased that you recognize that some propositions are undecidable. Given that acceptance, and your stated receptiveness to results influencing your decisions I am a bit perplexed why you would cling to a position that has been debated for more than two thousand years without resolution."
You may have heard of "Ockham's razor", which can be said to state "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''. It's also often put forward as the thumb rule: "Between two competing explanations of the same fact, the simplest is the likeliest to be true."
This is not a demonstrated principle, but if you talk to scientists they'll tell you it's a criterium of last resort when the data available don't let them choose between competing theories.
I like Ockham's razor a lot. It lets me "shave" the hairs of confusion and make choices with limited information.
So, faced with the choice between agnosticism (as I see it, not necessarily as you see it) and atheism, I tell myself: "Why pay for two when one does the same job?". Why accept even the possibility of an intangible god on top of the world, if the world itself is enough?
And might we not say also, that if God's existence is undecidable, that means God is also irrelevant (otherwise, there would be manifestations for us to witness). Why bother with such an entity? Time to end the debate, I think.
"Recent examples include the Catholic Church's stand forbidding use of condoms and the resulting death of thousands from AIDS in Africa"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've never gotten the "scientific logic" of this kind of statement. First, we are to believe that Catholics in Africa are so brainwashed by the Vatican that when told not to use condoms they readily comply. However when the Vatican, who has them brainwashed remember, tells them to remain celibate if unmarried and chaste (monogomous) in marriage, these mindless zombies of the Church completely ignore the Vatican and end up spreading AIDs through casual unprotected sex with multiple partners. It just doesn't add up.
Sorry, I say this about every religious debate. God is so powerful that he doesn't need to exist. Therefore, man made god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't the question whether God "does" or "does not" exist. The question of whether he "needs" to exist or not doesn't enter into the equation. I don't "need" to drink beer, but I do anyway. I "need" a million dollars, but I don't have a million dollars. Besides, your premise doesn't support your conclusion. But I'll give you brownie points for a fine example of choplogic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the article is about the power that religion has over rational thought, and the harm that it can cause. The power is so great that people choose to ignore facts and science in favor of dogma. I know better than to argue with the believers because they believe that god is on their side and they will not be dissuaded by rational argument or facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince I know that the jewish/christian/muslim god doesn't exist, my premise and conclusion make perfect sense. I certainly don't care if you get it or not, and I don't need your brownie points, pal. I've done quite well on my own. You are slic...I am Notslic.
We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end. -Gilbert Keith Chesterton
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDogma is only bad when it isn't actually the truth. You speak of it as if it is only always bad.
"There are two kinds of people in the world, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic."
-G.K. Chesterton
We all hold dogmas. That which we believe to be true. Some just don't realize that they hold dogmas.
...it’s unfortunate when there are Christians that feel they have to deny their reason for the sake of their faith. http://ht.ly/2nAHa
I'm sure your ignorance of the differences among the different faiths is useful for you to more easily hold your dogma that all believers cannot be swayed by rational thought. It also probably helps you to believe that you are thinking rationally. However I invite you to investigate the Roman Catholic faith and the pillars of faith and reason that it is built on. You might learn something.
"...construal of all religion as fundamentalism is, in fact, itself a fundamentalism..." http://ht.ly/2kTvc
oldvic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased upon the definitions YOU presented, it would seem that you are unequivocally an agnostic. Juicy bits in capitals.
"... Time to end the debate, I think"
You have always been in a position to not debate further.
notslic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... Since I know that the jewish/christian/muslim god doesn't exist ..."
What a quaint notion.
Upon what do you base your faith?
Chryses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Your truth claim has the logical form "If 'A' is true, then 'B' must be true". Let us now replace the symbols A, & B with the two nouns you used - 'god' and 'magic'.”
I see you have conveniently left out the personal part of god. I wouldn't care either way if a deist god existed, one who didn't create the universe and doesn't interact with humanity and well doesn't do anything at all really. I shrug my shoulders at such a god and accept it might not be a magic god, in fact why call it god at all.
Now a personal god and magic is a different matter. A personal god has to be a magic god. This personal god creates a universe just so it can have a personal relationship with one species on one blue speck in the corner of one galaxy. It communicates through burning bushes, transcribes scripture through magic means so humans so they can write it's books. Hears and answers prayers of billions of people through what means other than magic. God said “let there be light and it was done and it was good” what's that if it's not an enchantment. It speaks and light is created, if that's not a spell then the word has no meaning. It's magic pure and simple. A personal god is a magic god as he cannot achieve it's goals by any other means that science can evaluate.
I will happy withdraw the word 'magic' only if I'm given a plausible alternative process for all the claims made for a personal god. Though I know I'm wasting my time because theist will always try to obfuscate the issue and play silly semantic games. They will do anything to avoid admitting that there is no evidence for any personal god and they believe in one because they want to.
Chryses...Despite my better judgment, I will answer your question with one simple example of why I know your god does not exist. Powerful and intelligent enough to create the heavens and the earth, and all the intricate life therein, your god still gives cancer to innocent little children and sends busses full of kids going to bible camp off of bridges. You are foolish to believe in a god that gets a kick out of causing so much misery. Also, according to your bible, your arrogance is a sin. Lighten up, sweetheart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrion9...Same old things from the same old brainwashed mouths. Your beliefs make you a slave. I am truly free to make up my own mind, based on facts that I can learn.
Bye bye, I'm done.
DaveDodo007,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I see you have conveniently left out the personal part of god. I wouldn't care either way if a deist god existed, one who didn't create the universe and doesn't interact with humanity and well doesn't do anything at all really. I shrug my shoulders at such a god and accept it might not be a magic god, in fact why call it god at all."
As I am sure you are aware, 'personal' is an adjective, which modifies the noun 'God'. If it will give you the fortitude to answer the question I now pose a third time ...
You posted (at 11:00 AM on 08/16/10) "... if you believe in a personal god them you have to believe in magic ..." along with other debatable statements. I think you are mistaken. You are making the assumption that if there is a God, there must be magic.
Your truth claim has the logical form "If 'A' is true, then 'B' must be true". Let us now replace the symbols A, & B with the two referents you used - 'personal god' and 'magic'.
Why are you making that assumption, and why do you believe it to be true? The proposition that God (personal or otherwise) exists does not - as far as I can tell - imply that magic exists.
Further, you also claimed in the same sentence "... ,that natural laws have been abrogated in the past." Notice that the proposition 'natural laws have been abrogated in the past' is determined in your sentence by a belief that God exists. Therefore, this second part of your sentence takes the form "'C' is true because 'A' is true."
You stated, "My comments were not aimed at you specifically but if you believe in a personal god them you have to believe in magic, that natural laws have been abrogated in the past." You have therefore, as I have shown, made the claim that if anyone believes in a personal God, then it necessarily follows that they must believe in magic and that natural laws have been abrogated in the past.
I ask you again to present your explanation(s) as to why you believe this to be true.
Do you remember your next sentence?
"As this is a science magazine then if such claims are presented they have to be justified."
Please explain yourself, or acknowledge that you cannot justify your rather outré claim.
notslic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Chryses...Despite my better judgment, I will answer your question with one simple example of why I know your god does not exist. . . ."
I feel honored.
"... Powerful and intelligent enough to create the heavens and the earth, and all the intricate life therein, your god still gives cancer to innocent little children and sends busses full of kids going to bible camp off of bridges ..."
I take it that you have difficulty in reconciling Evil and God. As you should be aware, the existence of evil in the world does not preclude God. It does make the ethical monotheist apologists work for a living, but the notion that the two cannot coexist is laughably false. Rather than trying to squeeze a gloss on the subject into the space limitations imposed by SciAm, I'll provide you with a link to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil#Religious_concepts_of_evil
"... You are foolish to believe in a god that gets a kick out of causing so much misery ..."
What makes you think that I believe in God? Is it the fact that I point out that atheists are people of faith? What makes you believe that a (hypothetical) God 'gets a kick out of causing so much misery'? For that matter, what makes you think that a (hypothetical) God causes ANY misery?
"... Also, according to your bible, your arrogance is a sin ..."
To what arrogance of mine are you referring? That I identify the logical faults of the 'pro-atheist' crowd? If I correct you, steer you away from error, surely you should praise me, not condemn me?
"... Lighten up, sweetheart ..."
I, unlike some, have remained civil. If you take the time to look, you will find that I have always let the other lead. Only after receiving antagonism do I return it.
"... Bye bye, I'm done."
More evidence of a merciful God.
Chryses...if you don't believe in god, but continue to make these arguments, then you are just someone who wants to argue without purpose. Very ugly indeed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was a successful attorney for over 20 years and all I have to say about you is, you wouldn't have won a single case against me, and you would be filing against your own clients for your fees. Unsuccessfully, I might add.
You are slic...I am notslic.
notslic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... I was a successful attorney for over 20 years ..."
You must have used good arguments back then.
"... I am notslic."
Oh, how right you are.
Case closed.
Chryses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I thought obfuscation and semantics, is that all you have got. I don't care if you have a deist god. A vapourist non-material entity, go for it knock yourself out. Claim it's not magic I wont argue.
Jewish/Christian/Muslim god on the other hand is a magic god, It has magic powers and I have given you enough examples which of course you choose to ignore.
'Personal' is an adjective, which modifies the noun 'God'
and so what?
People believe in this personal god and here lies the problem, they have to submit themselves to it's will, it has rules and rituals which they have to follow, these gods always have authority figures that of course know what their god wants (magic perhaps.)
If you are arguing for a deist god I'm out of here.
If you are arguing for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god then drop the philosophy 101 navel glazing and lets talk.
DaveDodo007,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it fair to say that you are unable or unwilling to substantiate your claim?
You know, the one you posted (at 11:00 AM on 08/16/10) "... if you believe in a personal god them you have to believe in magic ..." along with other debatable statements.
I think you are mistaken about that. You are making the assumption that if there is a God, there must be magic.
Now you are claiming that “. . . Jewish/Christian/Muslim god on the other hand is a magic god, It has magic powers . . .”
Why do you believe such things? How do you know this to be true? What evidence do you have to support your claims? Do you often make claims you cannot back up?
This is, as someone said elsewhere in this forum, “…a science magazine then [sic] if such claims are presented they have to be justified."
Don’t you agree?
Chryses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 - And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Look lets move on from my poorly written earlier post, I still stand by it in principle though I wish I had been more concise in the way It was worded but I was just trying to get a rise out of the theists at the time. Take a look at 1.3 shall we. That is magic, it could not be any more magic if god itself had twinkled it's nose and waved a magic wand and said abracadabra.
The Abrahamic monolithic god did all that (well not really) but lets concentrate on 1.3:
“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” My claim/assumption is that this is magic, show my claim/assumption to be invalid. That's all I ask.
"You have always been in a position to not debate further."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter posting my comment I realized that this misinterpretation might happen, but it was too late and I had to leave work to go home.
What I meant with ending the debate was, it's time to end the debate that you said has been going on for the last 2000 years, not our exchange. If two sides can't reach a consensus for 2000 years, then something is fundamentally wrong with the debate, and both sides should take a break and re-examine their arguments.
I hope that's cleared my stand on our debate.
(Sigh) My non-native English sometimes betrays me. The last sentence should be "I hope that's made my stand on our debate clear".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoldvic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect that this debate has lasted quite a bit longer that the last 2,000 years. As heirs to the Judeo/Christian religious tradition, that portion of the debate being the part with which we have passing familiarity, we use it as a proxy for the whole, yes?
You are, by now, you probably aware that my position is that this is a pair of truth claims that are undecideable. Humans being as they are, most find this an unacceptable resolution, and so they make a decision based on persuasive evidence rather than withholding judgment on what many consider an important issue. The delta between persuasion and proof is faith in their personal choice.
I suggest that there is nothing at all wrong with the arguments presented, but that the subject is one without a definitive answer. While I may be mistaken, this position does provide an answer to the question, "Why, after many years of thoughtful debate by some very intelligent people, has there been no resolution to the question of the existence or non-existence of God?"
"You are, by now, you probably aware that my position is that this is a pair of truth claims that are undecideable. Humans being as they are, most find this an unacceptable resolution, and so they make a decision based on persuasive evidence rather than withholding judgment on what many consider an important issue. The delta between persuasion and proof is faith in their personal choice."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree with this; I'd only like to point out that, in my opinion, one of the sides has more convincing evidence that its position is at least closer to the truth (its outlook produces actual results in terms of knowledge of the world, and refrains from creating unnecessarily complex explanations for what surrounds us).
And that's what caused me to choose my side in this matter.
"I suggest that there is nothing at all wrong with the arguments presented, but that the subject is one without a definitive answer. While I may be mistaken, this position does provide an answer to the question, "Why, after many years of thoughtful debate by some very intelligent people, has there been no resolution to the question of the existence or non-existence of God?"
I haven't studied the history of the debate in detail; that said, I have yet to hear an argument from religious people that even gives me pause. I'm sure the atheist side has committed its own "sins" during the discussion, if only because atheists are only human, and sometimes in the heat of battle we forget the goal and start obsessing about the fight itself. But when all is said and done, I see no reason to change sides. As I said before, I remain open to any good evidence that may surface, at least before my expiration date.
After that, I'm likely to become even more set in my ways...
oldvic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI begrudge no one the convictions of their faith.
DaveDodo007,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Look lets move on from my poorly written earlier post, I still stand by it in principle though I wish I had been more concise in the way It was worded but I was just trying to get a rise out of the theists at the time."
I shall take that as a grudging admission that you are unable to substantiate your claim that if there is a (personal) God, there must be magic. You did succeed in focusing my attention on it, so in that sense you were quite successful.
I believe that you have selected your quotes from the King James Version. Other translations provide different POVs. To whit: http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1
It seems that you take exception to the apparent arbitrary violation of the laws of physics; that matter and energy were created in violation of that which we are taught "matter/energy (with a nod of our heads towards AE) can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed from one form into another."
I base it upon "Take a look at 1.3 shall we. That is magic, it could not be any more magic if god itself had twinkled it's nose and waved a magic wand and said abracadabra."
Is that a reasonable interpretation of your post?
There is an entire world...a universe, in fact...that is full of provable circumstantial evidence (and growing every day) that god does not exist. There is one book of ancient stories written by men without knowledge (and in competition with other gods!) that is indirect and unprovable evidence that god does exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe burden has been met. Case truly closed.
I thing, that not only religious leaders need to be held accountable for their ideas. Everyone should, for example politicians, espacially leftist politicians and leftist political leaders which so often make false, double-faced promisess. Scientists also, espacially these claiming that have the best knowledge about everything, about life, universe, its origins etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisloveslawyerjokes,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is an entire world...a universe, in fact...that is full of provable circumstantial evidence (and growing every day) that god does not exist ..."
It is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to remain possible. And the several billion theists are direct evidence that yours is one opinion among many, not a fact.
There is one book of ancient stories written by men without knowledge (and in competition with other gods!) ..."
That is a claim false many times. The grandest falsehood is that there is but one book. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Judeo/Christian God serves as a convenient proxy for the God(s) which have been posited since before recorded history. There are many, many books. Even if, for convenience's sake, the debate is limited to the proxy, then there remain many books. The use of the adjective 'ancient' is an effort to prejudice the case, as we all know that the latest is the greatest. I mean, how reliable could those stories be? As they are not compliant with our contemporary standards, we can safely dismiss them. Another falsehood is that the authors were without knowledge. What knowledge? If a prerequisite to writing about God is a working understanding of Weak Neutral Currents, then you are arguing your case before a Kangaroo Court of Science, the ruling of which is preordained. That there may, or may not have been (or are) competing faith belief systems - Atheism comes to mind - is irrelevant to the proposition that God does or does not exist.
"... that is indirect and unprovable evidence that god does exist."
Your first claim for the non-existence of God rests on, and I quote you again, "circumstantial evidence" that is by its very nature indirect. Now you claim that the indirect evidence presented by your opponents' is somehow inadequate. It would seem, judging by what you posted, that you think the significance of indirect evidence depends upon whether you are using it to buttress you case or not.
"The burden has been met. Case truly closed."
Sticking with the (essentially inappropriate) legal metaphor, then an accurate claim would be for a Scottish Verdict of "not proven".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
Follow your faith. Believe whatever you wish, but do please try to avoid assuming that anyone who doesn't think like you is wrong.
Cell phone? ...check. Automobile? ...check. Heart surgeon? ...check. iPod? ...check. Microwave? ...check. Air conditioning? ...check. Information systems? ...check. Jet airplane? ...check. Antibiotics? ...check. Fiber Optics? etc. etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution? Oh hell no!! That's just a great big science-y conspiracy!
C'mon, America. Get real. Lets move beyond the Boogey-man and avoid being the laughing stock of history.
Sol Invictus,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you also saddened about the woeful, willful ignorance so many American's have about (Darwin's) theory of Evolution?
Chryses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI shall take that as a grudging admission that you are unable to substantiate your claim that if there is a (personal) God, there must be magic. You did succeed in focusing my attention on it, so in that sense you were quite successful.
Don't flatter yourself, I threw you a bone just to see where you are coming from. I want this discussion to move on to another level. An agnostic who believes that belief is a good thing is scary to me. You obviously don't read the news much. Superstition and lack of critical thing is always bad imho.
I believe that you have selected your quotes from the King James Version. Other translations provide different POVs. To whit: http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1
I just googled Let their be light. Then copy and paste.
It seems that you take exception to the apparent arbitrary violation of the laws of physics; that matter and energy were created in violation of that which we are taught "matter/energy (with a nod of our heads towards AE) can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed from one form into another."
Take exception! I find it laughable, maybe one day technology will allow mankind or any other advance species to do this. All the god/s on offer are not technological gods, they are magic gods that were made up by primitive people.
I base it upon "Take a look at 1.3 shall we. That is magic, it could not be any more magic if god itself had twinkled it's nose and waved a magic wand and said abracadabra."
Is that a reasonable interpretation of your post?
No, see above.
DaveDodo007,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo that we get to enjoy such subtle insights as
"Lack of critical thinking, duh.
Why no edit button?"
Forever.
DaveDodo007,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem confused.
"Don't flatter yourself, ..."
That would refer to my interpretation of your "Look lets move on from my poorly written earlier post ..." as an admission that you are incapable of supporting the one you posted (at 11:00 AM on 08/16/10) "... if you believe in a personal god them you have to believe in magic ..." And yet now you imply that you can. You haven't yet, and I doubt that you'll ever be able to, no matter how often you try to redirect the thread.
"... I threw you a bone just to see where you are coming from ..."
I shall keep it as a souvenir. Whenever I think of it, I shall think of you.
"... I want this discussion to move on to another level ..."
Do try to keep in mind that a discussion requires that you involve more than just yourself. Replying to questions other people ask, commenting on observations other people make, and defending some of the more amusing claims you make are also part of the discussion.
"... An agnostic who believes that belief is a good thing is scary to me ..."
It shouldn't be. You have made it quite clear that you believe that God does not exist, even though you cannot prove it. Your belief that God does not exist is an act of faith. You, and all atheists are a group of True Believers whose intellectual position is indistinguishable from that of, oh Southern Baptists, or perhaps Lutherans. As Faith is the only thing that keeps all of you going in your Beliefs, it would be terribly mean spirited of be to not approve of it.
No. I should not seem scary to you because I think that your Belief is a Good Thing
"... You obviously don't read the news much ..." Yet another unsupported truth claim.
In re the Creation: "... Take exception! I find it laughable, ..."
Yet you acknowledge that the event occurred as the Big Bang. It is laughable to read people rant about the "illogic" of the Creation, and at the same time, accept as received wisdom, the Scientific theory proposed by a Belgian Jesuit priest.
"... maybe one day technology will allow mankind or any other advance species to do this ..."
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Clarke, Arthur, "Profiles of The Future", 1961)
"... All the god/s on offer are not technological gods, they are magic gods that were made up by primitive people ..."
Primitive people, eh? And how should the people who you suggest might be able to "do" Creation in your previous sentence be perceived by people such as us?
As Gods.
Sorry, but the issue of pedophilia among the clergy has nothing to do with ideas about Science. Introducing this topic into such a discussion is indeed indicative of an agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article certainly did point out the consequence(s) of beliefs not founded in reality. Good on the author.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat article to you refer to, if any? Your tangent is about destructive acts and holding people accountable, but not as clearly as can be simply stated with references to the same issues brought up in September's issue. At best, the need to expose destructive dictates made by 'religious' personages should be addressed in ABC; i.e., big descriptions make for big denial, no?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Belief" is a word that scientists should use with great caution because it implies acceptance without evidence. Theories like "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" enjoy considerable support from observable evidence but to assume that these theories are "true" is to mix metaphysics with objective science. The history of science is filled with theories that had to be either modified or discarded completely in the face of new observations. I think it is vital that scientists remember that the scientific process is a tool that can be used to enhance understanding and leave the search for "truth" to the philosophers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy problem with scientific fact versus religious belief is that our scientific viewpoints are very much a belief system. I happen to have been raised within the 'science is knowledge/fact' believe system. I believe in the theory of evolution and the big bang theory, but I like to think I tinge my belief in those 'facts' with the knowledge that they are at bottom beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not proven evolution or the big bang theory to myself or anyone else. I don't understand all the scientific knowledge that has been the stepping stones for those theories. I don't understand the scientific instruments that are used to study those fields of science. I don't know anybody in either of those fields who could explain those things to me. I was raised with those as factual theories. I believe them to be true. I don't see any reason not to believe them, so I continue to do so, however, should anyone ask me to prove - or even sufficiently explain - either of those theories I would be dumbfounded.
You may say that there is adequate scientific evidence to support both theories, but have you investigated and proved all the science supporting that evidence? Do we really know that the scientific method is infallible? I believe fossil evidence based on carbon dating while not understanding how carbon dating works. How can anyone claim knowledge to be fact unless they understand how that knowledge was achieved and what makes it so certain?
Even if there is a cadre of scientists who can say with complete certainty that evolution and the big bang are both facts, they would have a difficult time proving it to me - not because I am against either idea, but because I am not steeped in the necessary science to be able to understand the proofs. And yet I believe.
Thank you for an excellant article. I agree that clerics should be held accountable for their words and actions. I was raised a Catholic(orthodox). I was counseled for years by parish priest to stay in my tumultous marriage or "burn in hell." I was faced with several illnesses and trying to cope with domestic violence, raqising 4 kids and birth control issues. I was already in hell. From birthing complications, bad blood transfusion, lung surgery and cancer, I finally got a divorce, left the church and its false teachings in order to survive. The children and I have dealt with the trauma for years and for what? I am now in a Master's of Psychology program studying for specialization in family and marriage therapy. I hope that I will be able to help others find their own truth, and to move forward in a factual and enlightened manner. Thank you again on an great aarticle!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course they are. It's called peer review. Your entire argument fails as it's based on a false assumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh yes, I remember Galileo, and Inquisitions, and slaughter of the Arawaks. Of course religion leads to noble behavior. /snark
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course they are. It's called peer review and irrational views don't survive for long. Your argument fails as it's based on a false assumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about all the mighty wars started in the name of religion and righteous indignation? You probably can't think of one that didn't include one or both sides claiming 'god' was on their side.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't get too carried away with denunciations of central control. The internet, with its two-way communication leads to Amazon and Google ads, which are very close to being harvestable for a central planning system. Of course, distortions of demand by neuromartketing (MIT has an online course with a chapter on it) could affect predictive quality, plus OR minus. Perhaps central planning with an assist from neuromarketing would make the system work, eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, I've read religion for many decades, and the only science in it is the neuroscience of addictive behavior. There isn't any science of the supernatural, BY DEFINITION.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. Wave or particle is just the context we set at the beginning of a particular experiment. A |= A only holds true for definable things. Disparaging science because it acknowledges areas it doesn't understand fully DOESN'T imply supernaturalism, just the unknown. The supernatural, as things as yet unknown, is subject to probability, which is the nemesis of religion, which never seems to pass the predictability test. God never acts, so why worry?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@arc - Your comment makes me wish SciAm had a rating system... excellent thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're an inspiration and monument to human excellence. Carry on!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe we should believe in a skeptical Goddess in a lab coat and horn-rim glasses, with her hair in a bun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOrmondotvos,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I take it from your posts that you approve of Krauss’ anti-religious and unscientific article published in SciAm?
decemberjazz,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat was the 'Science' in Krauss' article here in SciAm?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Voltaire said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." It is significant that many of the Christians who have commented have said "I choose to believe..." When you choose to believe statements without proof, you're jumping out at random, and it is solely a mattert of chance whether you land on universal love and brotherhood or Jim Jones or the perpetraters of the ultimate faith based action at the World Trade Center. This is why all belief systems based on faith without proof have the tendency to end in the atrocities committed by the Christ Cracies and Islamaniacs both before and after the Middle Ages.
Also, when you believe that a religious leader has control over whether you spend eternity in bliss or agony, there is no limit on what that leader can make you do, particularly if what you are ordered to do is purportedly commanded by an alleged Ultimate Determiner of what is good or bad. That is why, while the rulers of Germany during World War II never officially admitted to the mass slaughter they were carrying out in the concentration camps, the Christians burned people alive at the stake in public, without shame and proudly. I am aware that there are liberal Christians, and liberal members of other religions, who accept evolution and the big bang, and even support and campaign for abortion rights and Gay rights, but the tendency of even the most liberal religions all have the danger of ending up in absurdity and atrocity.
As for those who blame the atrocities of Hitler on Atheism, Hitler was not even an Atheism. In fact he made Atheism illegal during his rule.
There is a danger in being a true believer in any set of statements, even Atheism. That danger is demonstated by Atalinist Russia where those who made a secular religion out os Marxism-Leninism competed with Hitler in the number of people they killed. That is why I have doubts about "holding religious leaders accountable for the harm they do," even if they persuade a large number of other people to commit mass suicide or die because they put their trust in faith instead of medical care. John Stuart Mill in ON LIBERTY pointed out that humans can never have absolute certainty on any question. There is always a chance that an statement, however improbable might turn out to be true and how are we to learn the arguments for that statement if its supporters are not even allowed to speak. It is only when adults are responsible for children dying because of their beliefs that
they should be held accountable.
Robert Halfhill,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" 'As Voltaire said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." '..."
Too true! I'm thinking about one of the assumptions made in order to do science, causality.
"... It is significant that many of the Christians who have commented have said "I choose to believe..." "
Yes indeeed it is! Most Theists acknowledge that their behavior is an act of faith. Most Atheists, who believe as true the unprovable claim that God does not exist, do not have the courage to do so.
"... even the most liberal religions all have the danger of ending up in absurdity and atrocity ..."
They do often get carried away by their theories, don't they?
"... As for those who blame the atrocities of Hitler on Atheism, Hitler was not even an Atheism [sic] ..."
Now the tens of millions who perished under Communism, on the other hand ...
"... It is only when adults are responsible for children dying because of their beliefs that they should be held accountable."
Oh, I don't know. Isn't an adult's life as valuable as that of a child?
Proof of evolution exists and it can actually occur during our lifetime. However, although an athiest myself I do not discard the theory that sometime in the distant past, possibly during the time of the Sumerians, human beings have been altered to their present form and intelligence by the manipulation of our genes by another species (check the bible).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am putting the finshing touches on my article, Materialism and Foolishness: When Atheistic Beliefs Become Dangerous
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismach7x15,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Materialism and Foolishness: When Atheistic Beliefs Become Dangerous"
LOL! You'll have to post it in 123456 installments. SciAm's editors will never challenge Krauss' Dogma!
I would certainly agree that some religious beliefs may illogical, incorrect and mean-spirited, but we have to worry about a "slippery slope" where anybody aggrieved by a particular religious claim can allege "dangerousness" in order to stifle or outlaw whatever value, opinion or belief he is opposed to. What this kind of practice may lead to is the doctrine of strict liability for anyone expressing an unpopular notion or who criticizes or expresses doubt about any idea sanctioned by powerful interest groups. It may sound like a good way of combatting error but we can do without truth squads in a free society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to: Nate Phelps
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Over and over I see comments here about the similarities between science and religion. It is observed ad naseum that the vast majority of scientific theories are eventually demonstrated to be false and abandoned. This is true. Herein lies THE difference between religion and science. Science inherently challenges and discards ideas when new facts make it necessary. Religion clings desperately to their "facts" in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Certainly science needs to be held accountable, but religion refuses to be. "
Religion in it's true sense does not claim anything to be fact, but rather to be "Word". It is strange for you to describe religion and the religious to be "clinging" to our beliefs and doctrine despite evidence to the contrary.
As far as I can see, there is no real evidence to dispute the existence of a higher power but only evidence to affirm it. We still have no idea where the spark of creation originated, and only know that it required immense power and creative force to create our existence. Since that is all that The Bible posits, the two lines of thought remain aligned.
You are wonderful, would love to hear more of your thoughts, Michael137
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Mr. Krauss for giving me hope that someone has the courage and fortitude and long term vision to speak the truth to ignorance. I'm ashamed of the reasoned US citizens for allowing a group of people called "religious" to undermine our education and progress in almost every endeavor. My frustration and yes hatred continues to grow for this behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you really comparing the proactive killing of the infidel with the Catholic Church's stand? You're saying that any entity that declares their belief system is responsible for the consequences that following that belief system creates? The church didn't spread AIDS! Your argument is more flawed than even Krausses. Spiritual faith is never viewed as rational by nonbelievers. Your truths require much greater leaps of faith than that of a believer. The foolishness lies in Krausses and your arrogance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy fear is that a great percentage of Americans do not know the definition of science or anything about the scientific method and evidence. Religious dogma has condemned thinking and logic, only to take us back thousands of years, and leaving our future in technology, economy, and biology in question. This blind regressive dogma creates fear and hatred in our culture, the reverse of what being "religious" is supposed to be about. It is truly frightening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBirdsong,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"My fear is that a great percentage of Americans do not know the definition of science or anything about the scientific method and evidence ..."
Amusing. Because of a failure of the Educational System, you seem to look elsewhere for an explanation.
"... Religious dogma has condemned thinking and logic, ..."
It would seem that you are unaware of history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
"... only to take us back thousands of years, and leaving our future in technology, economy, and biology in question ..."
You do, of course, have evidence to support your claim?
"... This blind regressive dogma creates fear and hatred in our culture, the reverse of what being "religious" is supposed to be about ..."
If you do not mind me asking, about which "blind regressive dogma" are you referring?
"... It is truly frightening."
Which it?
Science is always open to revision. That is its essence, to search for the truth knowing it is elusive. That kind of knowledge, "knowing," means acknowledgement. Notice that within the word acknowledgement is the word know. Science does not make claims of knowledge, it only claims the probability that something is the case, meaning true. It acknowledges that the possibility exists that something might have been missed or not yet discovered. That is also implied in the word 'probability.' Most of the time humans operate on probability, the probability that the world actually is as they perceive it since it is the nature of their capacity for sense perceptions to delay the reception in the brain of what is perceived due to the course the data has to travel along the nerves and across synapses. Hence all experience is always historical and never "in the moment." When humans don't rely on what is 'probably' the case through experiential experiment, called empirical evidence, they resort to intentional fantasy or mythologies that either they have made up themselves or borrow from historical others to explain the physical or mental phenomenon they experience. The reason why some "present-day" science become orthodoxical is because there are some principles that have yet to be unproven such as the two laws of thermodynamics. If these or any other principles are ever challenged and proved to be amiss, the science orthodoxy will change. If you need a definition of principle then I suggest that you educate yourself as to its meaning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout science you would not be making comments on this forum. Have you had that bigger view? So tell us what is it like? Is it personal or does everyone have the same bigger view?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShenonymous,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Science is always open to revision ..."
You are mistaken.
Theories are replaced, not revised. Einstein's Theory of Relativity replaced Newton's Theory of Mechanics for objects moving at high velocities, it did not revise it. Quantum Theory replaced Newton's Theory of Mechanics for objects that are very small, it did not revise it.
"... Notice that within the word acknowledgement is the word know ..."
That is an irrelevant coincidence. That is not true for many languages.
"... Science does not make claims of knowledge, it only claims the probability that something is the case, meaning true ..."
You are mistaken.
Theories are claimed to be true descriptions of Nature. Some are better than others, and last longer.
"... If you need a definition of principle then I suggest that you educate yourself as to its meaning."
Yes, I too recommend doing so.
Mr. Krauss objects to the Dalai Lama calling people "atheist extremists" and then instantly brings up a personal example that proves the Dalai Lama's point. When a person from the Vatican gives a paper at a conference on science and public policy, Krauss objects to the person simply because of the organization he represents, and specifying two objections that almost assuredly had nothing to do with the paper, and that surely misrepresented that organization's (the Catholic Church's) position on those two issues (since they were both caricatures of the "evil" church). And then Krauss wonders why he got called on it, by other participants at that conference. Yet he ascribes it to craven-ness on the part of the others in the face of powerful institutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis attitude strikes me as the very definition of "extremist".
Krauss would probably agree with the flyer that I received a couple of years ago from the group that publishes the Skeptical Inquirer, asking me to contribute to help them fight the disquieting rise of religious belief in Eastern Europe. The implication (left unspoken) was that the conditions in Eastern Europe BEFORE the rise of religious belief was better (when Communism was suppressing it). Or when that same group published a breathless report on a visit to China just before the 2008 Olympics, telling us how that country is more progressive because it won't tolerate silly belief systems like the Falun Gong (the implication being that America ought to follow in its steps).
No Mr. Krauss, atheist extremism is pretty nasty stuff, and you fit the profile all too well.
If I were asked to respond to a survey that asked whether or not I agreed with the statement that the universe began with a big explosion, I would assume the authors of the survey were scientifically illiterate. I would then hang up the phone or throw away the survey.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing that we hypothesize about the "Big Bang" has anything whatsoever to do with an explosion which is an exothermic reaction resulting in the production and rapid expansion of gas.
It is interesting that only 33% of Americans got this absurd item "wrong" compared to 78% of the Japanese who either don't know what a explosion is, or they have never heard of the "Big Bang."
It is interesting that cosmologists and religious fundamentalist would be likely to offer the same "correct" negative response to this survey item, while the great unwashed and unknowing in the middle of the intellectual continuun, including the author of this column, would actually gree with it.
Phew! It is a most solid endorsement of Scientific American's readership that for once the comments present a rational bias, rather than the usual fallacious meat-head dogma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBravo Professor Krauss, and to the readers who took the time to weigh in on the side of the enlightenment.
I'm delighted at the rational bias of the comments. It reflects well on the Readership of the Scientific American that most comments, including those of some people of faith that the enlightenment is safe and well, well mostly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, science and eugenics, socialism and the others are not the same. Linking them with words, doesn't make it so either. Has science been wrong in the past? Yes, and science is the first to admit this. Religion does not. It claims to have all the answers, however, this has been continuously eroding away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismlangdon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... Has science been wrong in the past? Yes, and science is the first to admit this. Religion does not. It claims to have all the answers, ..."
Can you support that claim with evidence?
hi this is new user and i really like this site
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease notice that this discussion is descending into polemics. Look at the nature of human thought- logic is a late addition to the mental processes. the process present in even the most primitive nervous systems, that can hardly be considered MINDS, is one of responding to preconceived wishes (go for food, avoid perceived dangers such as moving shadows, etc)- our minds fare used to seek evidence to confirm our pre-existing innate prejudices and desires. Science is not a Thing or a Body Of Knowledge- it is a New Way of looking at the world- the scientific method utilizes observation and experiment and accepts falsifiability. it is the only self-correcting method of thought available to us. all others are based on pre-existing ideas concepts or wishes and try to prove them by logic whenever logical inconsistencies arise. The scientific method encourages one to change hypotheses if they do not conform to reality. If religion were "scientific", the Problem of Evil would require us to reconsider that God is beneficent and omnipotent and to entertain the idea that God is either beneficent and not omnipotent, omnipotent and often not beneficent, or that we have two (or more) Gods, Good and Evil, etc (the Manichean Heresy, whose believers were slaughtered). Try espousing such concepts to the non-scientific world and see if you come out alive. try that way of thinking within the scientific community and you may win a Nobel Prize or stir up experimenters to test your hypothesis- and compel you not to die at the burning stake but to revise your hypotheses. quite a difference. henry kaminer md
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishenrykaminer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Please notice that this discussion is descending into polemics ..."
That's not what lucasdigital posted in #336, "I'm delighted at the rational bias of the comments." Where are these polemics.
".... Science is not a Thing or a Body Of Knowledge ..."
That's an interesting claim. What is it about Physics, Chemistry, or Biology that leads you to claim that Science is not a Body of Knowledge?
Much of the commentary is dissimulative in intent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvaguely ad hominem while attempting disguise as comment rather than generalized attack.
Organized religions appear to have a history of virulent attack on what can be termed heretics and heretical thinking. This is what we see here in the immense comment column.
A well-supported theory of these attempts at denial (yes, paralleled by climate change denial in the face of massive and clear evidence from the polar regions as well as from millions of measurements across the earth, present and proxy), as well as the rhetorical twisting done to avoid reasoned response to overwhelming evidence (in this case, that no deity with any special interest in our species exists, or has sent any reliable word through literature, nor that evidence of any process of biological development and change is anything but evolutionary and emergent from the complex physics and chemistry of this detectable universe) is known in psychology as Cognitive Dissonance Theory.
The theory shows that humans will use all skill and any method seen by themselves to fend off cognitive dissonance, defined as entertaining logically conflicting beliefs. Aside from some anxiety and more persistent and pervasive personality disorders, in which there is some evidence of cognitive dissonance and denial leading to severe distress, we see numerous fallacious traps, of which only one I note here.
Repeated testing of the human trait of increasingly vehement denial in the face of evidence when the individual feels emotional attachment to a belief clearly untrue, is reflected in the informal exhibit of this comment column.
- No one will change a belief to which they have attached other beliefs, one being likely her: the denier would lose their hoped-for eternal life. In their minds the imaginary loss or suffering would be singularly greater than any social or other gains they would attain.
Their protestations are inappropriate in a journal which studies the spectrum of scientific method and its resultant conclusions, from physical to behavioral sciences.
There are and have been sciences and scientists who study and have studied the very characteristics commentors have exhibited here. The only visible value in the commentary is more anecdotal support for cognitive dissonance theory, along, perhaps, with observation of the methods of rhetorical skill in evasion and dissimulation.
'... A well-supported theory of these attempts at denial ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo which attempts at denial do you refer?
"... (yes, paralleled by climate change denial in the face of massive and clear evidence from the polar regions as well as from millions of measurements across the earth, present and proxy) ..."
Are you associating climate change denial with religious belief, or as a religious belief?
"... , as well as the rhetorical twisting done to avoid reasoned response to overwhelming evidence (in this case, that no deity with any special interest in our species exists, ..."
Will you be able to present this "overwhelming evidence" of the absence of the deity to which you refer?
"... The theory shows that humans will use all skill and any method seen by themselves to fend off cognitive dissonance, defined as entertaining logically conflicting beliefs ...."
Actually, the theory proposes that the behavior will occur, it does not show that it will.
"... Aside from some anxiety and more persistent and pervasive personality disorders, in which there is some evidence of cognitive dissonance and denial leading to severe distress, we see numerous fallacious traps, of which only one I note here ..."
And the one you claim to have noted would be ... what?
"... Repeated testing of the human trait of increasingly vehement denial in the face of evidence when the individual feels emotional attachment to a belief clearly untrue, is reflected in the informal exhibit of this comment column ..."
An interesting claim. are you able to substantiate it?
"... - No one will change a belief to which they have attached other beliefs, ..."
That is not supported by the evidence; people often change their opinions about what they believe is correct.
'... one being likely her: the denier would lose their hoped-for eternal life ..."
That is true only for those whose religions promise eternal life. What about those whose religions do not? It seems that you are assuming a limited span of religious beliefs. why is that?
"... In their minds the imaginary loss or suffering would be singularly greater than any social or other gains they would attain ..."
Again, it seems that you are assuming an Ethical Monotheistic Deity. Why?
What about asking the question: are leaders responsible for the actions of their followers? If the sauce is good for the goose, its good for the gander. This would lead one to ask is the left responsible for the destruction OWS created? Is the left responsbile for the more than 160 million people killed in the name of socialism and communism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismorp: that argument is called an "argument from ignorance," and makes me question whether you or most of the comments on here have any type of research background. To state that there is no evidence that god does not exist is like stating a man is sitting under a tin roof and hears no raindrops; therefore, he presumes it is not raining without going outside to check. You can't prove or disprove god in that way. Science would be happy to state there is a god if they had any type of evidence to substantiate it. I would be happy as an agnostic to acquiece if there was valid proof. Unfortunately, there is not and therefore religion is considered faith based b/c it requires faith. "...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." This biblical paraphrase is somewhat lacking and erroneous even as written. To the contrary there is evidence that photons exist depending on what laws you are speaking of and whether you are talking about particles or waves. That is the complaint I have about religion versus science. Science has substantiated some religion tenets such as the mormon's idea that smoking is harmful. We now know it causes lung cancer. However, the mormons are wrong concerning coffee. Coffee has many healthy benefits. A few on here have stated that science makes errors. Yes, but science admits those errors and corrects them when religion never (or rarely) does even if people continue to get hurt. Science requires some type of theory and substantiation of that theory. Religion just requires a person to state "god told them so" and that is proof enough for most faith minded individuals. It pushes in thoughts on vaccination, faith healing, condom use, monogomy, use of gardisil for HPV, treatment of HIV and I could go on. Let science answers these questions, not religion which most often is wrong and archaic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is so full of holes, lies, and untruths that I don't know where to start. You sound bitter!? I am a physician and I didn't cheat through medical school. I'm agnostic and moral. Would you trust you little children with a catholic priest b/c they must be moral? You are as ridiculous and insane as your arguments! Proof of religious fanaticism and how crazy an dangerous religious ideals are!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this