Out of body religious experiences

[TomOfSweden]

I feel a bit guilty for not being able to read this through properly. I'll do it when I have a chance.

Atheism is a huge family of faiths. My particular faith is called "apethiesm" which is a branch of atheism leaving it pretty much open. I don't call myself agnostic because they give credibility to today's religions. I don't. None of their supernatural theories have any evidence to back them up and their distribution on the planet seem to be pretty much random. These are the two main reasons I think they're all bogus. All the big ones are so old that people back then didn't have the tools to make a coherent case so it's not much we have to corroborate them. I think that all the ancient, (and even modern) theories of the nature of the supernatural is wrong, simply based on the fact that they have nothing to draw conclusions from. They have basically been guessing, which is nothing I will use as a basis for my faith.

The follow up question is off-course if science is better at explaining it. The answer is "no". The mathematicians Banach and Tarski found some pretty nasty holes in it.

If by supernatural we mean a force that is different than the forces we know of today I believe in the supernatural. If we call this force god I even believe in god.

To re-iterate. I don't have anything against religions. I think we need religions, (or similar constructs) to function as human beings. We need to be part of something greater to feel that we have a place in the world. I think that this need has caused us to draw unfounded conclusions. There's plenty of science that proves that atheists are more miserable than theists. They're doing something right.

I don't for a second doubt that there are people who speak to "god" and get meaningful answers. It doesn't prove that there exists god or anything supernatural, only that doing that is good for our mental well being. It proves that we don't need anybody else to feel love. And we all need love. Science can prove that humans need religion to be truly happy. At least it's a start.

I don't have problems with people saying that the idea of the Christian god is a novel one and keeping it as one of their possible theories. But as soon as an educated person says that they are convinced that it's the only one, then they've reduced themselves to the level below that which I'd thought possible for a thinking adult.

[Rhabbi]

Tom, just a quick question, how is saying I don't know giving crediblity to anything?

This is the main problem that atheist have, they are sure that there is no god, so they close their minds to the possiblity. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is no proof on either side of the debate, and refuse to make up their minds without proof.

[TomOfSweden]

Tom, just a quick question, how is saying I don't know giving crediblity to anything?

At least it's honest, which none of the other theories are. They are if you will a leap of faith. A leap of faith right out into the dark. It's deeply deluded and very very sad.

This is the main problem that atheist have, they are sure that there is no god, so they close their minds to the possiblity. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is no proof on either side of the debate, and refuse to make up their minds without proof.

You'll probably be able to find an atheist who can identify with that description if you look hard enough. I've never met one. Most, if not all atheists I've spoken to have based their choice of faith on available evidence. Super-naturalists don't have any. It's at best hearsay and "experiences" completely impossible for anybody or anything else to verify. I think most atheists simply reject that kind of evidence. They want something more tangible to take the "leap".

The only reason why I don't identify with agnostics is because it in common usage takes away any platform to attack the deists. Strictly speaking I am agnostic. The problem of the term is that it imagines a world where theism is on one side, atheism is on the other and agnostics are on both sides. As if the theists have a point worth taking into consideration. I reject that model of the world completely. I deny that we even know which side we're on. I think it's a stupid debate because we have so little information. It's like going to a small village in Congo and drawing conclusions about all Africans...In the tenth dimension. Why?!? What could we possibly think we can figure out? We're still on the fact finding stage still. We don't have enough information to even start working out anything.

Do you have an open mind about gravity? Do you worry about flying off into space one day? Do you worry about molecular cohesion seizing so that you sink into the pavement one day? Off-course not. Because you believe in science.

For some reason you've kept an open mind about this one little tiny detail of science because you want to cling to an ancient scientific theory of the nature of the world. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But be honest about it! Be honest about the fact that you have no idea if it's true or not. This is what you think is right. Fine. You'd like to go to heaven....but you have no idea! It's like going to the races and betting on a horse. If it wins, great. If it loses....well...that's.....great to. The important thing is that you understand that it's betting on a horse. It's just that with the scientific knowledge we have today, your odds really really really suck. If you tell people that you know god exists. It makes you a liar. If you don't understand it, it makes you an idiot.

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

[Flaming_Redhead]

Be honest about the fact that you have no idea if it's true or not. This is what you think is right. Fine. You'd like to go to heaven....but you have no idea! It's like going to the races and betting on a horse. If it wins, great. If it loses....well...that's.....great to. The important thing is that you understand that it's betting on a horse. It's just that with the scientific knowledge we have today, your odds really really really suck. If you tell people that you know god exists. It makes you a liar. If you don't understand it, it makes you an idiot.

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

I have no idea if it's true or not. Happy? If I'd rather believe that I was created out of love by a divine being rather than the theory that I am descended from apes, that's my perogative. I understand perfectly that I'm betting on a horse. However, I'd rather take my chances betting for than against.

Tom, you know what happens when you assume....ass...u...me. *smiles* I go to church occasionally. I don't hold with religion on principal because I think all are missing some key element, like Jesus, or adding something they shouldn't, like legalism. That's another debate. I don't reject other religions because they all contain, as you pointed out, the same basic commandments as Christianity. Just because they have a different name for God than I do doesn't mean that's not his name.

Right about what? I don't know what Satanists say, but if they prefer to bet on a horse that's already lost....I suppose that's their perogative.

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="Red"]I have no idea if it's true or not. Happy? If I'd rather believe that I was created out of love by a divine being rather than the theory that I am descended from apes, that's my perogative. I understand perfectly that I'm betting on a horse. However, I'd rather take my chances betting for than against.

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think. Since I'm not a scientist I'll go with the majority of what they think. I don't have the required education to make my own scientific theory. I have a degree in logic, but that doesn't really help me in the evolutionary science debate. I strongly believe that knowing when to shut up and listen when one is out of ones depth is a virtue.

I believe that if suicide bombers aren't sure whether they'll get the 72 virgins or not might have helped keeping the New York skyline as it was.

[Rhabbi]

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think.

And exactly where did you get that statistic? I can cite numerous scientists who believe in God, either as Christians or Muslims. and I am sure thaere a few who are Hindus also, not to mention the other religions.

I believe that if suicide bombers aren't sure whether they'll get the 72 virgins or not might have helped keeping the New York skyline as it was.

Would it have Tom? If they actually believed that, why didn't they believe the rest of what the Koran teaches? They did not crash those jets into the WTC because of a belief in an afterlife, they did it because they oppose the freedoms we have in the United States. Yet they spent a few months here enjoying the benifits of those freedoms, which they could not get where they were from.

It was not religon that cause 9/11, it was economics and suppression. They resented what we have, and tried to take it away from us. The saddest part is that they have succedded to an extent. We are a country now that is willing to exchange freedom for a sense of security. Makes me want to move to out, but there is no where else to go.

[Flaming_Redhead]

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think. Since I'm not a scientist I'll go with the majority of what they think. I don't have the required education to make my own scientific theory. I have a degree in logic, but that doesn't really help me in the evolutionary science debate. I strongly believe that knowing when to shut up and listen when one is out of ones depth is a virtue.

How do you know I'm lying to myself? You sound like one of those commercials...4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne sugarless gum....lol Scientists are not infallible. They're constantly changing their theories. They tell us something is bad for us and that we should avoid it. A few years later, they tell us that is isn't as bad as they first thought, and, in fact, there really was no danger. How foolish did everyone feel who had believed the earth is flat only to discover that it's round? I think people are drawn to religion because in a changing world their Bible, Koran, etc., remains the same.

[tessa]

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

You can make any assumptions you want about people who go to church. But how about instead, you make a hypothesis about them, and then do the research necessary to prove to yourself whether it's true or not? Leave the assumptions to the lesser folks. You're better than that, Tom. That's my researched-based hypothesis being put to good use, hmm?

I don't know if all people who go to church reject other religions. I'm sure there are some who do, just like I'm sure there are some who don't. I am a "people who go to Church" person and I fall into the latter category- the non-rejecting kind (just saying in case you didn't care to look up a couple lines of text there).

If Christians deny that Satanists may be right, I'd have to ask which Satanists they've been talking to as there are as many "denominations" of Satanism as they're are in Christianity. Seems as if even the Dark-siders can't figure out what's true and what's not. But I will say this. I've witnessed for myself pure, unaffected evil. It's real and it's among us. I'm a Christian and while I won't say whether some Satanist is right or wrong, I know that evil is. But I also know that good is, too.

Yin and yang- the unity of opposites.

And I'm with Red (again). While the Pope may be a nice guy and all, I don't happen to ascribe to the notion that he has any more in-road to God than any of us do. No offense to any who believe differently, just as I hope no one wishes to offend me for my differences.

We get to believe as we believe. Sometimes, it's just that simple.

[gagged_Louise]

If Christians deny that Satanists may be right, I'd have to ask which Satanists they've been talking to as there are as many "denominations" of Satanism as they're are in Christianity. Seems as if even the Dark-siders can't figure out what's true and what's not

"Some /other Satanist groups/ are into burning down churches and the like, but that's something I regard as highly unsatanistic activities."

-said by the leader of a Norwegian Satanist cult, interviewed on radio about his beliefs and other Satanists and pseudo-Satanists.

Well spoken, Tessa!

[TomOfSweden]

You can make any assumptions you want about people who go to church. But how about instead, you make a hypothesis about them, and then do the research necessary to prove to yourself whether it's true or not? Leave the assumptions to the lesser folks. You're better than that, Tom. That's my researched-based hypothesis being put to good use, hmm?

I don't know if all people who go to church reject other religions. I'm sure there are some who do, just like I'm sure there are some who don't. I am a "people who go to Church" person and I fall into the latter category- the non-rejecting kind (just saying in case you didn't care to look up a couple lines of text there).

So basically you call yourself belonging to a religion without denying that it could all be bullshit?

I know there's plenty of practising atheist Jews, so it doesn't seem contradictory to me.

[TomOfSweden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair

"O'Hair" was the correct spelling of her name. And silly me completely forgetting about communism. Not that I'd heard of her before. And off-course just because I can't think of any fundamentalist atheists. Doesn't mean there aren't any.

[Rhabbi]

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Agnostic

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

As you can see, there is a slight difference between them. Labeling your self as an atheist makes you dishonest, like all atheists. At least people who believe in god are honest about their views. I know of a few agnostics who challenge the views of theists, and their challenges are usually more informed and better thought out than those of atheists, because they are at least open to taking then seriously. Outright rejection of a viewpoint is a bias that is hard to overcome in a debate, something I know from experience the few times I have attempted to debate someone whose views were so skewed that I could not accept them.

As for your question, that would depend entirely on which Christian you asked. I know of quite a few Christians with a liberal viewpoint that would have no serious problem with that premise. If you do not believe me, just go look at those who want to point out all the similarities between all the worlds religions. The ones who would tell you that just because Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him, that does not mean that people who believe in Muhhommad will not get to heaven. After all, they worship the same God.

[TomOfSweden]

As you can see, there is a slight difference between them. Labeling your self as an atheist makes you dishonest, like all atheists. At least people who believe in god are honest about their views. I know of a few agnostics who challenge the views of theists, and their challenges are usually more informed and better thought out than those of atheists, because they are at least open to taking then seriously. Outright rejection of a viewpoint is a bias that is hard to overcome in a debate, something I know from experience the few times I have attempted to debate someone whose views were so skewed that I could not accept them.

As for your question, that would depend entirely on which Christian you asked. I know of quite a few Christians with a liberal viewpoint that would have no serious problem with that premise. If you do not believe me, just go look at those who want to point out all the similarities between all the worlds religions. The ones who would tell you that just because Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him, that does not mean that people who believe in Muhhommad will not get to heaven. After all, they worship the same God.

Ok, so my assumption was wrong. That's good. I explained the reason why I don't chose to call myself agnostic even though I don't deny the supernatural. The definitions of atheist and agnostic goes a lot deeper than that and they're both huge families of various faiths. And they also float in and out of each other. Just like there's huge families of various Christian faiths and their view on the super-natural apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

[Rhabbi]

Ok, so my assumption was wrong. That's good. I explained the reason why I don't chose to call myself agnostic even though I don't deny the supernatural. The definitions of atheist and agnostic goes a lot deeper than that and they're both huge families of various faiths. And they also float in and out of each other. Just like there's huge families of various Christian faiths and their view on the super-natural apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

The only overlap between an atheist and an agnostic comes because the atheist does not believe what he says. I have often said that I never met an honest atheist, and I still hold to that. There is no way you can prove there is no God, because it is impossible to prove a negative. If you are honest you have to call yourself agnostic.

[TomOfSweden]

The only overlap between an atheist and an agnostic comes because the atheist does not believe what he says. I have often said that I never met an honest atheist, and I still hold to that. There is no way you can prove there is no God, because it is impossible to prove a negative. If you are honest you have to call yourself agnostic.

Well that's your opinion. In logic that's actually called argument from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy and I'd be happy to prove it for you if you don't believe me.

The whole problem with the philosophies regarding religion is that they all spring from a basis where they define their position in relation to existing religious beliefs. It quickly becomes polarised. Polarisation can only occur if there are two sides. I deny this is the case.

Apatheism, which I sort myself under, does strictly speaking count as both atheism and agnosticism. It's also known as practical atheism/agnosticism. It's the belief that we should work with what evidence we've got.

Since no supernatural religion has any verifiable proof to relate to, we're still at square one. We can only talk about the merits of the Christian theory of supernatural if we somehow can distinguish it from the Greek Pantheon, Norse myths or any other fantasy theory I just made up now. If we can't, then what's the point? Based on what we have to work with we still have no reason to treat the Christian view of the world as anything but fantasy.

That's why I call myself Atheist. I don't deny that the Christians could be right, but we haven't reached a point where we've got reason to even consider any of it, have we?

The Christian says, "I believe I'll go to heaven"
The Atheist says, "...and this belief is based on what?"
...and so it goes.

If we're to have a theological discussion, we need something to work with, don't we? Something we know is true. A starting point. Since its inception Christian theology is still only at a "what-if" stage. It's a pretty futile project. What if my cock really is a rocket and will go into space when I die? The reaction from anybody is at best a smile. But nobody will take it seriously until they see it happen, will they? Just like with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is still where Christianity is at today.

I understand that a Christian community can be a great and supportive and give lots of comfort and fill many social needs. It can provide a great framework for living ones life. The commandments include all the basic human values we share. Those are great to stick to. Why not just keep it at that? Why cling to ancient theories we should have moved on from long ago? What possible good can it do?

[Rhabbi]

Apatheism, which I sort myself under, does strictly speaking count as both atheism and agnosticism. It's also known as practical atheism/agnosticism. It's the belief that we should work with what evidence we've got.

Tom, if you were truly an apatheist, we would not be having this discussion, because you would not care what I believed.

an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of God as neither meaningful nor relevant to human affairs.

If this was truly your belief system you would simply let me believe what ever I wanted, and refuse to discuss it because it is totally irrelevant. I feel this way about some things, and I let people talk about them without any input from me.

All those people who believe in a massive conspiracy behind the JFK assassination are totally free to believe whatever they want. I do not even discuss it with them because I know their views have absolutely no impact on my life or society in general. That is the approach you would take if you truly believed what you claimed to believe, but because my faith actually conflicts with yours, whatever it actually is, you feel the need to argue your point of view. Just something to think about.

[John56{vg}]

Wolfscout and tessa, such wonderful points, thank you.

Tom,

I am sorry to jump on the bandwagon here but it sounds like the scientist is making the same assumptions and jumping to conclusions that SOME of the Christian right is. I know many religious people who are intelligent and tolerant of all beliefs. And they do not condemn me for mine.

And how is it different to say "Evolution does not exist because it isn't in the Bible." as to say, "How can Supernatural events take place when it is not in this Chemistry book, or physics Book, or whatever"

Faith is important to everybody. And I would say tolerance is important to the world and universe as a whole.

[Rhabbi]

Wolfscout and tessa, such wonderful points, thank you.

Tom,

I am sorry to jump on the bandwagon here but it sounds like the scientist is making the same assumptions and jumping to conclusions that SOME of the Christian right is. I know many religious people who are intelligent and tolerant of all beliefs. And they do not condemn me for mine.

And how is it different to say "Evolution does not exist because it isn't in the Bible." as to say, "How can Supernatural events take place when it is not in this Chemistry book, or physics Book, or whatever"

Faith is important to everybody. And I would say tolerance is important to the world and universe as a whole.

Well said John.

Tom, the problem you have is not that religion is talking about God and the supernatural, but that these views conflict with your faith. (I am using the second most common definition of faith here, ie. Belief in something not based on proof.) If you did not believe in the supernatural being non existent without a shred of proof to back up this belief, it would be a lot easier for you to let people who do believe in it walk in their ignorance.

I personally do not believe in ghosts, and have watched documentaries that claim to offer proof. If someone actually asks me for my opinion, I will tell them that ghosts have always been proved to be something explainable when investigated by a group of scientists and magicians, yet I do not feel a need to shove this view down peoples throat, because I can also acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong.

This is the true scientific approach to a problem. I am willing to investigate what I believe and what I do not believe, and am willing to admit I do not have all the answers. There are things I know also.

Earlier you used the example of gravity in trying to poke holes in someones argument about having an open mind. I ignored this because I was sure that you knew that your argument was not a valid one. Gravity is a demonstrated fact, not a theory or a hypothesis. There are laws that govern the interaction of gravity on everything in the universe, including the totally massless photon.

Yet on a quantum level, the laws that we live by break down. Conservation of matter and energy do not apply. Gravity does not apply. Even the speed of light is no longer an effective barrier.

Can you tell me that God, if such a being exists, is not capable of interacting with the universe on a quantum level, thus producing things which appear to us to be supernatural? Just a little thought experiment, like Schroedinger's cat. Who is to say that that cat is not both dead and alive until we observe it? Current quantum theory tells us that that subatomic particle actually waits for us to open the box to check on the cat before it decides wehter or not to kill the cat. If anything smacks of the supernatural to me, it is the idea that a subatomic particle makes a decision based on what I do, yet scientific theory backs this up.

Who are we to say that the supernatural does not exist when we do not fully understand the natural?

[Sir_G]

Yet on a quantum level, the laws that we live by break down. Conservation of matter and energy do not apply. Gravity does not apply. Even the speed of light is no longer an effective barrier.

Can you tell me that God, if such a being exists, is not capable of interacting with the universe on a quantum level, thus producing things which appear to us to be supernatural? Just a little thought experiment, like Schroedinger's cat. Who is to say that that cat is not both dead and alive until we observe it? Current quantum theory tells us that that subatomic particle actually waits for us to open the box to check on the cat before it decides wehter or not to kill the cat. If anything smacks of the supernatural to me, it is the idea that a subatomic particle makes a decision based on what I do, yet scientific theory backs this up.

Who are we to say that the supernatural does not exist when we do not fully understand the natural?

This is fascinating stuff Rhabbi and from what little I know about the Heisenburg principle it sounds very much like it.

From memory he says that as you say subatomic particles can only act in one of two ways and will react the way the observer expects them to act. The same particle will then act in the other way when observed again with the second expectation of the observer.

The other slightly supernatural thing that Heisenburg principle espouses is that if you are looking for results at a subatomic level you will find them where you expect to. Some one else on the other hand may find them else where.

I have to admit I find the area where science and the supernatural meet fascinating and from my point of view the two are not mutually exclusive but go hand in hand and prove the existence of each other.

Books that people may be interested in reading are "Supernature" by Lyall Watson, "The Romeo Error" by the same author. And of course the "Tao of Physics" by Capra.

[Rhabbi]

This is fascinating stuff Rhabbi and from what little I know about the Heisenburg principle it sounds very much like it.

From memory he says that as you say subatomic particles can only act in one of two ways and will react the way the observer expects them to act. The same particle will then act in the other way when observed again with the second expectation of the observer.

The other slightly supernatural thing that Heisenburg principle espouses is that if you are looking for results at a subatomic level you will find them where you expect to. Some one else on the other hand may find them else where.

I have to admit I find the area where science and the supernatural meet fascinating and from my point of view the two are not mutually exclusive but go hand in hand and prove the existence of each other.

Books that people may be interested in reading are "Supernature" by Lyall Watson, "The Romeo Error" by the same author. And of course the "Tao of Physics" by Capra.

Yes, not only does the observer affect the experiment, he actually determines the outcome of it.

The theory is that a single photon will actually pass through two holes in a paper, thus producing an interference pattern with it self when passing through a prism. Although this sounds totally impossible to us who have learned to think in the macro physicists are actively pursuing ways to make this happen. The biggest problem is that if anyone actually observes the experiment the photon will always choose to go through one hole or the other. This means that the physicists actually have to determine how to observe this phenomenon without actually observing it, thus circumventing Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle.

[Alex Bragi]

A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be."
- Pope John Paul II

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

[TomOfSweden]

Wolfscout and tessa, such wonderful points, thank you.

Tom,

I am sorry to jump on the bandwagon here but it sounds like the scientist is making the same assumptions and jumping to conclusions that SOME of the Christian right is. I know many religious people who are intelligent and tolerant of all beliefs. And they do not condemn me for mine.

And how is it different to say "Evolution does not exist because it isn't in the Bible." as to say, "How can Supernatural events take place when it is not in this Chemistry book, or physics Book, or whatever"

I see your point. That would be a fundamental atheist. But it becomes confusing since that's also denying science.

Faith is important to everybody. And I would say tolerance is important to the world and universe as a whole.

I'm not particularly tolerant. I think tolerance is important, but I don't tolerate making exceptions for people who should know better. I'm not cultural relativist. To take an extreme example, I will never tolerate female circumcision, no matter how much it's part of their religion. I would never make stupid ass appeasements just to make some religion happy. The most important thing is to be pragmatic at all times. Traditions and practices that don't work in any given situation should be dropped. No matter what Jesus said. If everybody has to go out of their way to make some religious dude happy, it's obviously gone too far.

If I'm to pigeon hole myself I'd call myself a "militant liberal".

[Rhabbi]

For those who have trouble believing that men of faith can be scientists. I received this from a Christian Group I am a member of.

DID YOU hear about the religious fundamentalist who wanted to teach physics at Cambridge University? This would-be instructor wasn't simply a Christian; he was so preoccupied with biblical prophecy that he wrote a book titled "Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John." Based on his reading of Daniel, in fact, he forecast the date of the Apocalypse: no earlier than 2060. He also calculated the year the world was created. When Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning," he determined, it means 3988 BC.

Not many modern universities are prepared to employ a science professor who espouses not merely "intelligent design" but out-and-out divine creation. This applicant's writings on astronomy, for example, include these thoughts on the solar system: "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being . . . He governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done."

Hire somebody with such views to teach physics? At a Baptist junior college deep in the Bible Belt, maybe, but the faculty would erupt if you tried it just about anywhere else. Many of them would echo Oxford's Richard Dawkins, the prominent evolutionary biologist, who writes in "The God Delusion" that he is "hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. . . . It subverts science and saps the intellect."

Equally blunt is Sam Harris, a PhD candidate in neuroscience and another unsparing foe of religion. "The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum," he has written. "The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science." Less elegant but more influential, the National Science Education Standards issued by the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 classified religion with "myths," "mystical inspiration," and "superstition" -- all of them quite incompatible with scientific study. Michael Dini, a biologist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, made headlines in 2003 over his policy of denying letters of recommendation for any graduate student who could not "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the question of mankind's origin. Science and religion, he said in an interview at the time, "shouldn't overlap."

But such considerations didn't keep Cambridge from hiring the theology- and Bible-drenched individual described above. Indeed, it named him to the prestigious Lucasian Chair of Mathematics -- in 1668. A good thing too, since Isaac Newton -- notwithstanding his religious fervor and intense interest in Biblical interpretation -- went on to become the most renowned scientist of his age, and arguably the most influential in history.

Newton's consuming interest in theology, eschatology, and the secrets of the Bible is the subject of a new exhibit at Hebrew University in Jerusalem (online at jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/Newton). His vast religious output -- an estimated 3 million words -- ranged from the dimensions of Solomon's Temple to a method of reckoning the date of Easter to the elucidation of Biblical symbols. "Newton was one of the last great Renaissance men," the curators observe, "a thinker who worked in mathematics, physics, optics, alchemy, history, theology, and the interpretation of prophecy and saw connections between them all." The 21st-century prejudice that religion invariably "subverts science" is refuted by the extraordinary figure who managed to discover the composition of light, deduce the laws of motion, invent calculus, compute the speed of sound, and define universal gravitation, all while believing deeply in the "domination of an intelligent and powerful Being." Far from subverting his scientific integrity, the exhibition notes, "Newton's piety served as one of his inspirations to study nature and what we today call science."

For Newton, it was axiomatic that religious inquiry and scientific investigation complemented each other. There were truths to be found in both of the "books" authored by God, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature -- or as Francis Bacon called them, the "book of God's word" and the "book of God's works." To study the world empirically did not mean abandoning religious faith. On the contrary: The more deeply the workings of Creation were understood, the closer one might come to the Creator. In the language of the 19th Psalm, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."

To be sure, religious dogma can be a blindfold, blocking truths from those who refuse to see them. Scientific dogma can have the same effect. Neither faith nor reason can answer every question. As Newton knew, the surer path to wisdom is the one that has room for both.

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 22, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/education...reason?mode=PF

Isn't it interesting that the same people who would point to the conflict between faith and science would hold Newton up as a great scientist?

[TomOfSweden]

For those who have trouble believing that men of faith can be scientists. I received this from a Christian Group I am a member of.



By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 22, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/education...reason?mode=PF

Isn't it interesting that the same people who would point to the conflict between faith and science would hold Newton up as a great scientist?

1) Physics is not a very controversial subject any longer. The pope bent over and took it in the ass a looooong time ago.

2) Maybe he is a great teacher and has understood to keep his personal convictions separate from actually doing his job.

3) When Newton was alive the evolution of science was at a radically different place. It was way before Shopenhaur, Nietzsche and Thomas Khun. In the age of Newton a supernatural god was still the scientifically best way to explain the nature of the world. Science evolves.

4) Maybe it's not true. It sounds a bit strange that a guy with those kinds of beliefs could be hired to a position like that. Being a fundamentalist of any sort should discount him from any kind of scholarly position anywhere. I'm guessing the journalist had a go at creativity.

[Rhabbi]

1) Physics is not a very controversial subject any longer. The pope bent over and took it in the ass a looooong time ago.

Physics not controversial? You must look at different science magazines than I do. Quantum physics is so far fetched that even Hawking does not understand it all.

2) Maybe he is a great teacher and has understood to keep his personal convictions separate from actually doing his job.

Or maybe he did not see the conflict. to a man of faith a study of creation in all its complexity only strengthens that faith.

3) When Newton was alive the evolution of science was at a radically different place. It was way before Shopenhaur, Nietzsche and Thomas Khun. In the age of Newton a supernatural god was still the scientifically best way to explain the nature of the world. Science evolves.

True, and perhaps it will again swing to the understanding that God is the best explanation.

4) Maybe it's not true. It sounds a bit strange that a guy with those kinds of beliefs could be hired to a position like that. Being a fundamentalist of any sort should discount him from any kind of scholarly position anywhere. I'm guessing the journalist had a go at creativity.

Actually Newton's theological writings are widely available to anyone who cares to look for them. But maybe they were all planted to try to discredit him by rival scientists.

Here is an exerpt from Newton's biography from the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment (2002)

Theology

The need for a thorough reformation in Christianity was also an abiding feature of Newton’s thought. That Newton looked forward to a reformation instead of back to that of Protestantism signals his distance from the majority of his religious contemporaries. But for a man who saw the Trinity—and much else besides—as a blight on the Church, the view was a natural one. The more than half century Newton devoted to the study of theology was motivated by a desire to recover primitive Christianity from such corruptions. This project formed part of his commitment to the tradition of the prisca sapientia, the Renaissance idea that the ancients had possessed true knowledge about God and the world. In order to retrieve pure doctrine, Newton carried out an immense historical survey of Jewish and Christian theology. His research traced the rise of idolatry and monkery, along with the doctrinal damage done by Athanasius and his followers. A massive 425-page ecclesiastical history entitled “Of the Church” was but one product of these efforts. Surviving extensive notes and ink sketches show that he also sifted through biblical and Talmudic sources in order to reconstruct the plan of the Jerusalem Temple. Not only did he believe that the Temple and its ritual provided a backdrop to the visions of Revelation, but he also saw it, along with certain other ancient temples, as a model of the heliocentric solar system—knowledge of which the ancients had subsequently lost.

Newton discovered in the Scriptures that the Father alone is the One True God of Israel. Jesus Christ, preexistent and miraculously born, was God’s literal Son but not “very God of very God” in the Trinitarian sense. Although Newton’s Christ is not to be worshipped directly or invoked in prayer, he still occupies an elevated position, both through the atonement wrought by his shed blood and his powerful apocalyptic role at the end of time. Newton had nothing but disdain for the monks and Trinitarian “homoousians”who corrupted this pure doctrine with metaphysics and doctrinally novel terms. These same agents of false doctrine introduced the unbiblical notion of the immortality of the soul to unpin Catholic saint worship. Eternal life, Newton believed, is granted only after resurrection. Even the orthodox teaching on the Devil and demons did not stand before Newton’s reformation. Evil spirits came to represent distempers of the mind and the Devil a symbol for human lust. These latter ideas do not derive from some putative incipient rationalism, but likely from the logic of his belief in a God of dominion Whose sovereignty does not allow the existence of lesser deities, and possibly from his reading of analogous ideas in ancient rabbinic thought and contemporary accounts of idolatry.

All of these researches were carried out in private. Quite apart from the attendant social stigmatization, denial of the Trinity was a punishable offence throughout Newton’s lifetime. Newton in any case believed that the higher truths of religion were not fit for the masses. Theological knowledge was divided into “milk for babes” and “meat for elders”, and he put in the latter class an elite remnant class who alone were able to understand the deeper meanings of faith. And thus he revealed his heresy only to an inner circle of similarly-minded friends. One such adept was John Locke, himself a biblical scholar, with whom Newton discussed matters of theology through the 1690s and to whom he sent a treatise of antitrinitarian textual criticism to be published anonymously on the Continent (Newton suppressed it at the last minute for fear of exposure). Powerfully impressed by Newton’s theological acumen, Locke described him as “a very valuable man not onely for his wonderful skill in Mathematicks but in divinity too and his great knowledg in the Scriptures where in I know few his equals.” Newton’s religious outlook resembled contemporary Non-Conformity and shows strong doctrinal analogies with Judaism, pre-Nicene Christianity and contemporary biblicist antitrinitarian movements such as the Socinians.

Prophetic beliefs

Newton wrote his first large prophetic treatises in the 1670s and continued to study biblical prophecy until the end of his days. He sought to uncover the meaning of the various symbols of the Books of Daniel and Revelation, along with their fulfilments in history past and future. His hermeneutics tended to the literal and his eschatology was strongly premillenarian. He believed in the return of Christ, the restoration of the Jews to Israel, the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple and the coming Kingdom of God on earth—for which Newton believed one should pray every day. Such was the passion of his prophetic faith that any attempts to portray Newton as some sort of proto-deist are doomed to failure. For Newton the exact accomplishment of prophecy formed one of the most powerful arguments for a deity. On the other hand, Newton was unhappy with those who set prophetic dates and thereby brought discredit on Christianity when they failed. This did not stop Newton himself from making prophetic calculations, from which his own dates can be extrapolated. These show that he put the parousia off well beyond his own lifetime to the nineteenth or twentieth centuries at the earliest. Newton also believed that the final reformation of Christianity would not happen until around this time, a realization that likely reinforced his Nicodemism. Newton saw in prophetic hermeneutics one of the greatest intellectual challenges. For him, the interpretation of prophecy and the correct identification of the seducing power of Antichrist was seen as “no idle speculation, no matter of indifferency but a duty of the greatest moment.”

As you can see, not exactly a friend of the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually Newton's theological writings are widely available to anyone who cares to look for them. But maybe they were all planted to try to discredit him by rival scientists.

Here is an exerpt from Newton's biography from the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment (2002)

I don't deny that Newton was both Christian and a great scientist. I'm not sure what it is you're misunderstanding. If there's two doors to chose from, I'll do all the research I can before picking one. But if there really is a third door that I didn't see because science hadn't reached that point yet, then I don't include it in my research, even though all scientists after it will.

We had a similar discussion about Darwin in the Creationism debate. When Darwin wrote his theory it was still just a theory and very badly supported by evidence. When Einstein wrote his theory of relativity it was completely and utterly devoid of any proof. But later, both these theories where corroborated by experiments.

Newton made loads of research into the Bible. Numerology if I remember correctly. None of that has yet to be corroborated. I don't doubt for a second it was serious research. His religious theories haven't reached a point where there's any point in taking them seriously. Maybe at some point in the future we'll see some. But until then there's no point in believing in the Christian god is there?

[TomOfSweden]

Aw....shit. For somebody who'd badly over worked and with no time what so ever to spare. I frequent this site a lot. Stressssssss.

I'm trying to keep myself away from this place but it's very very hard.

[tessa]

I'm trying to keep myself away from this place but it's very very hard.

What's hard? Oh, please be what I'm thinking! If so, got any pictures of that???



I jest. ~looks at Red laughing at me~ Seriously, I do!

Sorry you're overworked. Better than being underworked, right?

[Flaming_Redhead]

What's hard? Oh, please be what I'm thinking! If so, got any pictures of that???



I jest. ~looks at Red laughing at me~ Seriously, I do!

Uh-huh. *nods knowingly* I believe you.

*whispers* How did you know I was hanging around to see it, too?

[tessa]

*whispers* How did you know I was hanging around to see it, too?

Well duh!

~giggles outrageously~

Who knows ya, baby?