Scientists who believe in God

[Mike Strand]

In a post at or near the top of page 2, chaz said:

As god can mean anything from a white guy in the clouds who cares about what we eat, and who we sleep with TO a vague impersonal organising principle of the Universe, it does not mean much to offer numbers of scientists that are supposed to believe in god. God is a vague and diffuse concept.

I think it's important for a person to define or characterize what is meant by "God" as a prelude to an argument as to God's existence or non-existence. I also think many scientists who say they believe in God may have in mind Chaz's "vague impersonal organising principle of the Universe". This is not necessarily true of all scientists who say they believe in God, however. According to the book, "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, who led the successful Human Genome Project and argues for evolution, and who is also a Christian, God exists and uses evolution to bring about earth life forms.

I think the God whose existence is denied by most atheists we read about is the entity characterized as the supreme, supernatural Creator of the Universe, who loves humanity (homo sapiens), and who has tremendous (if not infinite)knowledge and power. For many folks, if not most, the existence of this God is probably easier to doubt than to believe in.

If you define God as "Love", or "The Best and most Worthy of Human Behavior", you have a different set of arguments as to whether God exists or not. If you define God as everything that is, whether understood or known by humanity or not, then barring arguments about "Is-ness", we might all have to agree that God exists.

[Jonathan.s]

It is worth recalling that Richard Dawkin's main argument against God in The God Delusion is that God, being creator of the whole universe, must be an extremely complex being, given that a being must be more complex than the thing he or she creates. He regards this as a slam-dunk argument, an argument that nobody who believes in God will ever be able to defeat.

However the major difficulty with this argument is that nowhere in theology (or religions generally), is God described as 'complex'. Usually God is described as 'perfectly simple', that is, not composed of parts, and eternal, that is, not beginning or ending in time. The fact that it is impossible to imagine such a being is also understood as a characteristic of the divine nature. (Terry Eagelton's scathing review of TGD is aptly named Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching.)

Clearly, religion means different things to different people. Many people, both believers and atheists, can't help but picture God in anthropomorphic form. It is interesting to note that the word 'Jupiter' is derived from a Sanskrit term meaning 'Sky-Father'. So 'Our Father who Art in Heaven', as in the famous Michaelangelo portrait of God creating Adam, is an obvious picture to form.

But a picture is all that it is.

In Indian religions, the idea of the God as Sky Father is often mocked by the teachers of the higher paths - or at best, treated as means to engage the person-in-the-street in the religous narratives of the tradition (in other words, a means of teaching). But most of the higher schools regard the Supreme as being completely beyond conceptual thinking, a higher reality that is only intelligible through meditation and insight (jñāna).

In ancient Western philosophy, the neo-Platonics were closest to the Indian understanding. Indeed in the original form of this teaching, the Supreme Being was not called 'God' at all, but 'The One', an idea that became fused with the Biblical notion of Deity during the formation of Christianity. Nevertheless some streams of Christianity retained the idea of a God beyond all words and descriptions. This is the approach of 'apophatic theology', the basis of the Way of meditation, which can (and does) co-exist peacefully with whatever discoveries science comes up with.

See Karen Armstrong's Case for God an in-depth exploration.

[ForgedinHell]

It is worth recalling that Richard Dawkin's main argument against God in The God Delusion is that God, being creator of the whole universe, must be an extremely complex being, given that a being must be more complex than the thing he or she creates. He regards this as a slam-dunk argument, an argument that nobody who believes in God will ever be able to defeat.

However the major difficulty with this argument is that nowhere in theology (or religions generally), is God described as 'complex'. Usually God is described as 'perfectly simple', that is, not composed of parts, and eternal, that is, not beginning or ending in time. The fact that it is impossible to imagine such a being is also understood as a characteristic of the divine nature. (Terry Eagelton's scathing review of TGD is aptly named Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching.)

Clearly, religion means different things to different people. Many people, both believers and atheists, can't help but picture God in anthropomorphic form. It is interesting to note that the word 'Jupiter' is derived from a Sanskrit term meaning 'Sky-Father'. So 'Our Father who Art in Heaven', as in the famous Michaelangelo portrait of God creating Adam, is an obvious picture to form.

But a picture is all that it is.

In Indian religions, the idea of the God as Sky Father is often mocked by the teachers of the higher paths - or at best, treated as means to engage the person-in-the-street in the religous narratives of the tradition (in other words, a means of teaching). But most of the higher schools regard the Supreme as being completely beyond conceptual thinking, a higher reality that is only intelligible through meditation and insight (jñāna).

In ancient Western philosophy, the neo-Platonics were closest to the Indian understanding. Indeed in the original form of this teaching, the Supreme Being was not called 'God' at all, but 'The One', an idea that became fused with the Biblical notion of Deity during the formation of Christianity. Nevertheless some streams of Christianity retained the idea of a God beyond all words and descriptions. This is the approach of 'apophatic theology', the basis of the Way of meditation, which can (and does) co-exist peacefully with whatever discoveries science comes up with.

See Karen Armstrong's Case for God an in-depth exploration.

You sure that is his main argument? I thought god being complicated and stuff was a given? I could have sworn Dawkins's main argument against god's existence is that there is not a single shred of credible evidence for his/her or its existence. So, Dawkins ignored the fact there is no evidence for god and just argued that because god was complicated and stuff it could not exist? This is a biology professor who studies complicated life forms that exist?

[Jonathan.s]

As regarding whether God can be said to exist, see this column from Huffington Post.

[ForgedinHell]

As regarding whether God can be said to exist, see this column from Huffington Post.

Like I stated, I am proud to be a sane atheist.

[chaz wyman]

Atheists are more liberal and tolerant, less neurotic; more willing to help the poor; more likely to be a member of the intellectual elite; more likely to be a scientist, and be one of the most eminent; more likely to be ethnically Jewish.

Left wingers not liberals are more likely to be atheists, new atheists are among the least tolerant people there is, atheists do little for the poor motivated by atheism whereas Christian charities do a lot. The intellectual elite? Is this a joke,? Bunch of poncey middle class cunts up their own arses at wine parties. What's so great about being a scientist? Oh I forgot, they're the new priesthood to new atheists. Israel doesn't even come close to a European country on surveys about atheism.

Sorry - but I have the book in from of me- I doubt that you do.
You are talking a lot of bollocks. I am using a study based on a long term meta-analysis.
You are talking about your personal prejudices.

[ForgedinHell]

Atheists are more liberal and tolerant, less neurotic; more willing to help the poor; more likely to be a member of the intellectual elite; more likely to be a scientist, and be one of the most eminent; more likely to be ethnically Jewish.

Left wingers not liberals are more likely to be atheists, new atheists are among the least tolerant people there is, atheists do little for the poor motivated by atheism whereas Christian charities do a lot. The intellectual elite? Is this a joke,? Bunch of poncey middle class cunts up their own arses at wine parties. What's so great about being a scientist? Oh I forgot, they're the new priesthood to new atheists. Israel doesn't even come close to a European country on surveys about atheism.

Sorry - but I have the book in from of me- I doubt that you do.
You are talking a lot of bollocks. I am using a study based on a long term meta-analysis.
You are talking about your personal prejudices.

Didn't you call me a walking idiot or some such thing days ago for stating that one can be an atheist and a Jew? I mean, I seem to recall me pointing out to you after you insulted me that you yourself claimed to be an atheist and a Jew on this very forum. And now, here you are, clutching a book, a book that states there are Jewish atheists? LOL. Damn, if you could be any dumber, I'm not sure I can handle the laughter.

[Kayla]

And yes, your own "personal experiences" should be disregarded if you believe that you have ever experienced anything supernatural, or the existence of any god.

why would i want to do that

the problem starts when people have a personal experience and decide to shove it down other peoples throats - which is probably the sort of association that religious experience has for you

but its a personal relationship - you may have heard people talk about personal relationship with jesus christ

but if they understand what they are saying then it is a personal relationship - so it is different for everyone

one mistake that a lot of people make is thinking that if god talks to them it means they are better than those to whom he does not speak - there is biblical basis for this view

for all i know the reason some people never hear from god is because they dont need to

[ForgedinHell]

And yes, your own "personal experiences" should be disregarded if you believe that you have ever experienced anything supernatural, or the existence of any god.

why would i want to do that

the problem starts when people have a personal experience and decide to shove it down other peoples throats - which is probably the sort of association that religious experience has for you

but its a personal relationship - you may have heard people talk about personal relationship with jesus christ

but if they understand what they are saying then it is a personal relationship - so it is different for everyone

one mistake that a lot of people make is thinking that if god talks to them it means they are better than those to whom he does not speak - there is biblical basis for this view

for all i know the reason some people never hear from god is because they dont need to

I'm not suggesting anyone physically harm you for your beliefs, or harm any religious person for their beliefs. I would fight to protect anyone from such abuse. My statement was simply a suggestion that in order for you to be rational, you should discard your personal experience. It is impossible to say that any personal experience is a peronal experience of god. How could you know? If you hear a voice in your head, it could be something your own mind has made up, an alien being playing a joke on you, a lesser demon being bored and wanting to have some fun, etc. There is nothing about hearing a voice that necessarily means that the voice came from god. The same would be true with respect to any vision. Even if you walked by a burning bush that could manage to say "hello," and that it was god, that would not mean that the brning bush was in fact god, now would it? This is especially true for those who believe god is infinite, all powerful, etc., there is simply no way of observing such a being. Therefore, since logically, no person can experience god, god would have to be illogical to try to prove itself through any contact, but an irrational god is contrary to the assertion of a wise one. While your experiences may give you comfort, they are not of god. Revelations do not occur.

[chaz wyman]

[

Didn't you call me a walking idiot or some such thing days ago for stating that one can be an atheist and a Jew? I mean, I seem to recall me pointing out to you after you insulted me that you yourself claimed to be an atheist and a Jew on this very forum. And now, here you are, clutching a book, a book that states there are Jewish atheists? LOL. Damn, if you could be any dumber, I'm not sure I can handle the laughter.

I'm quoting from a book. I would not personally think that such a category is a valid one. But it does have its uses, in identifying EX-jews in the category "atheist". Its shorthand to avoid having to explain to idiots.

Even you can use your imagination and reason.

As I have explained elsewhere being jewish usually means one or two of two things;
1) followers of the jewish religion,
2) a ethnic category by which jews have been identified and persecuted for millennia.

Category one is only as meaningful as Judaism is meaningful. Any religion is based on a set of falsehoods, which I reject. This term is used to identify people who share the delusion.
Category two is only as meaningful as the concept of race is meaningful. Jew as an ethnic category rises and stands on how much you choose to allow the humans species to be categorised into supposedly genetic groups. This for various reasons we might be inclined to discuss is also utterly deluded.
This terms is used to identify those that are born into 'jewish' (category one) families or who still share a surname with those associations.

[ForgedinHell]

[

Didn't you call me a walking idiot or some such thing days ago for stating that one can be an atheist and a Jew? I mean, I seem to recall me pointing out to you after you insulted me that you yourself claimed to be an atheist and a Jew on this very forum. And now, here you are, clutching a book, a book that states there are Jewish atheists? LOL. Damn, if you could be any dumber, I'm not sure I can handle the laughter.

I'm quoting from a book. I would not personally think that such a category is a valid one. But it does have its uses, in identifying EX-jews in the category "atheist". Its shorthand to avoid having to explain to idiots.

Even you can use your imagination and reason.

As I have explained elsewhere being jewish usually means one or two of two things;
1) followers of the jewish religion,
2) a ethnic category by which jews have been identified and persecuted for millennia.

Category one is only as meaningful as Judaism is meaningful. Any religion is based on a set of falsehoods, which I reject. This term is used to identify people who share the delusion.
Category two is only as meaningful as the concept of race is meaningful. Jew as an ethnic category rises and stands on how much you choose to allow the humans species to be categorised into supposedly genetic groups. This for various reasons we might be inclined to discuss is also utterly deluded.
This terms is used to identify those that are born into 'jewish' (category one) families or who still share a surname with those associations.

Does that book also have a category for ex-Catholic, ex-Baptist? If so, why? If the only distinguishing feature of a Jewish person is their religion, then once they abandon their religion, it would make no sense to refer to them as Jewish anything, even an ex-Jew. It's irrelevant.

Your mistake is that category 2 does not depend on races, because there are no such things as races in the human genome. Every racist has literally dedicated their life to a myth. Ethnic groups are different, and genetic markers also exist, so we can have ethnic Jews without having any such thing as races.

Now, you left out other categories. Like, for example, someone being an atheist Jew, as even rabbis may be atheists. Or, the category of someone who adopts a Jewish cultural mindset, like an Einstein or Rebecca Goldstein, as an example, while rejecting supernatural crap.

The fact remains, however, that there are genetic markers connecting Jews across the globe, and showing they descended from the Mid-East. Those studies aren't going away anytime soon.

[chaz wyman]

[

Didn't you call me a walking idiot or some such thing days ago for stating that one can be an atheist and a Jew? I mean, I seem to recall me pointing out to you after you insulted me that you yourself claimed to be an atheist and a Jew on this very forum. And now, here you are, clutching a book, a book that states there are Jewish atheists? LOL. Damn, if you could be any dumber, I'm not sure I can handle the laughter.

I'm quoting from a book. I would not personally think that such a category is a valid one. But it does have its uses, in identifying EX-jews in the category "atheist". Its shorthand to avoid having to explain to idiots.

Even you can use your imagination and reason.

As I have explained elsewhere being jewish usually means one or two of two things;
1) followers of the jewish religion,
2) a ethnic category by which jews have been identified and persecuted for millennia.

Category one is only as meaningful as Judaism is meaningful. Any religion is based on a set of falsehoods, which I reject. This term is used to identify people who share the delusion.
Category two is only as meaningful as the concept of race is meaningful. Jew as an ethnic category rises and stands on how much you choose to allow the humans species to be categorised into supposedly genetic groups. This for various reasons we might be inclined to discuss is also utterly deluded.
This terms is used to identify those that are born into 'jewish' (category one) families or who still share a surname with those associations.

Does that book also have a category for ex-Catholic, ex-Baptist? If so, why? If the only distinguishing feature of a Jewish person is their religion, then once they abandon their religion, it would make no sense to refer to them as Jewish anything, even an ex-Jew. It's irrelevant.

Your mistake is that category 2 does not depend on races, because there are no such things as races in the human genome. Every racist has literally dedicated their life to a myth. Ethnic groups are different, and genetic markers also exist, so we can have ethnic Jews without having any such thing as races.

Now, you left out other categories. Like, for example, someone being an atheist Jew, as even rabbis may be atheists. Or, the category of someone who adopts a Jewish cultural mindset, like an Einstein or Rebecca Goldstein, as an example, while rejecting supernatural crap.

The fact remains, however, that there are genetic markers connecting Jews across the globe, and showing they descended from the Mid-East. Those studies aren't going away anytime soon.

All this simply begs the question why an atheist likes to call himself Jewish?
I don't see why I would want to. Then I don't like calling myself English or American either. These categories are basically political.
Actually - I would not even see a reason to call myself an atheist if it were not for these idiots that believe in god and want to make sure you are either in their gang or not in their gang. Being an atheist is meaningless and I look forward to the time when the word is redundant.

[ForgedinHell]

All this simply begs the question why an atheist likes to call himself Jewish?
I don't see why I would want to. Then I don't like calling myself English or American either. These categories are basically political.
Actually - I would not even see a reason to call myself an atheist if it were not for these idiots that believe in god and want to make sure you are either in their gang or not in their gang. Being an atheist is meaningless and I look forward to the time when the word is redundant.

Chaz, I like calling myself Jewish because it ticks you off. For that reason alone, I'll say I am a Jew. And Chaz, you forget, you called yourself a Jew at least two times on this Forum. You know why? Because your hate manual states that if you follow anti-semitic statements, like the Jews control the US economy, with a statement that you are a Jew, then you can claim you aren't being anti-semitic. The problem for you anti-semites is that you are not Jews, and you slip up on when to call yourself a Jew or not. You think I haven't encountered little punks like you before?

[chaz wyman]

All this simply begs the question why an atheist likes to call himself Jewish?
I don't see why I would want to. Then I don't like calling myself English or American either. These categories are basically political.
Actually - I would not even see a reason to call myself an atheist if it were not for these idiots that believe in god and want to make sure you are either in their gang or not in their gang. Being an atheist is meaningless and I look forward to the time when the word is redundant.

Chaz, I like calling myself Jewish because it ticks you off. For that reason alone, I'll say I am a Jew. And Chaz, you forget, you called yourself a Jew at least two times on this Forum. You know why? Because your hate manual states that if you follow anti-semitic statements, like the Jews control the US economy, with a statement that you are a Jew, then you can claim you aren't being anti-semitic. The problem for you anti-semites is that you are not Jews, and you slip up on when to call yourself a Jew or not. You think I haven't encountered little punks like you before?

Some many contradictions so little time.
You figure them out!

[Kayla]

My statement was simply a suggestion that in order for you to be rational, you should discard your personal experience.

all our knowledge proceeds from personal experience how can we discard it

It is impossible to say that any personal experience is a peronal experience of god. How could you know? If you hear a voice in your head, it could be something your own mind has made up, an alien being playing a joke on you, a lesser demon being bored and wanting to have some fun, etc.

yes and maybe we all live in the matrix

i have heard voices in my head in the pathological sense - a bout of meningitis with insanely high fever will do that - they are nothing like god