Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 04, 2007, 04:21:52 PM
-
Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
POSTED: 6:15 p.m. EDT, April 4, 2007
By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN
Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.
I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God )
I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.
I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
-
Beach Bum, thanks for posting this! I like it! ;D
-
I'm not going to read it coz its poppy cock
-
Beach Bum, thanks for posting this! I like it! ;D
No problem. :)
-
He's a rarity.. Most prestigious scientists do not believe in a personal god.
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower
Oh brother.. The bible and gospels have proven to be historically inaccurate and full of fallacies.. This guy is clearly a religious apologist who probably doesn't believe in what he's saying. He doesn't know what Jesus said and didn't say or if he even existed.
According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians and least popular among biologists. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god[11]. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.[12
-
I'm not going to read it coz its poppy cock
actually good article mate..
hardly convincing..but..the intentions were good..
-
actually good article mate..
hardly convincing..but..the intentions were good..
Trying to show that scientists can be religious, but in reality they're not most of the time. Guys like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein use god when refering to the universe, but are not religious at all. Einstein was even quoted as saying he did not believe in a personal god.
This guy is an apologist.
-
He's a rarity.. Most prestigious scientists do not believe in a personal god.
Oh brother.. The bible and gospels have proven to be historically inaccurate and full of fallacies.. This guy is clearly a religious apologist who probably doesn't believe in what he's saying. He doesn't know what Jesus said and didn't say or if he even existed.
According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians and least popular among biologists. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god[11]. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.[12
So, assuming these numbers are accurate, as of 1996, 40 percent of scientists in the U.S. believe in a god and as of 1998 28 percent of NAS scientists believe in a god? Pretty significant numbers. Hardly confined to "Bible thumpers."
-
So, assuming these numbers are accurate, as of 1996, 40 percent of scientists in the U.S. believe in a god and as of 1998 28 percent of NAS scientists believe in a god? Pretty significant numbers. Hardly confined to "Bible thumpers."
28% is bad, but maybe you think otherwise as you probably also think Bush's approval rating of 30% is great. ;)
Back in the day, almost all scientists believed in god and so did most of the general public. Now less than half of all scientists believe in god, and 10% of the general polulation don't believe in god.
-
ive read his book "the langauge of god" and id have to say that is a poor book at best. horrible arguments. morality is his main argument, which is an assumption he never tries to establish.
and that feeling that there just has to be.
-
28% is bad, but maybe you think otherwise as you probably also think Bush's approval rating of 30% is great. ;)
Back in the day, almost all scientists believed in god and so did most of the general public. Now less than half of all scientists believe in god, and 10% of the general polulation don't believe in god.
Who is talking about Bush?
I think the 40 percent number, if accurate, is pretty significant. That's a huge number.
-
He's a rarity.. Most prestigious scientists do not believe in a personal god.
Somebody lied to you. ;D
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-
The bible and gospels have proven to be historically inaccurate and full of fallacies
When? Who told you that? List the proof, all the historical inaccuracies and all the fallacies. Where are they? Have you even read the Bible before?
-
Somebody lied to you. ;D
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Great info. You are the man loco.
-
Great info. You are the man loco.
Thanks, Beach Bum! ;D
-
Somebody lied to you. ;D
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Most of those scientists lived in eras where questioning god was career suicide. Instead of cutting and pasting from religious websites try and think the mentalities those scientists had. Also Einstein was a jew coming to a christian country and he had to say something to keep bible nuthuggers off of his back.
Mendel simply used the church to further his scientific career and get an education.
Despite what those scientists in the olden days might have believed we know that now it's a different tune with modern scientists. :P
-
Most of those scientists lived in eras where questioning god was career suicide. Instead of cutting and pasting from religious websites try and think the mentalities those scientists had. Also Einstein was a jew coming to a christian country and he had to say something to keep bible nuthuggers off of his back.
Mendel simply used the church to further his scientific career and get an education.
Despite what those scientists in the olden days might have believed we know that now it's a different tune with modern scientists. :P
No they didn't. Read again. They were not persecuted, and some of them lived after the protestant reformation, so your argument holds no water. Einstein had no bible huggers on his back.
If you are going to post bold statements like you have been posting, at least post some links, references and sources. You post as if you were making stuff up as you go. If you are going to argue with this, you're gonna have to do better than that.
-
Atleast admit that a lot of scientists these days are skeptical about god and religion. ::) And this will continue well into the future. Do you think the scientists you listed would be theists today? ;)
Einstein:
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.
The best you can say about him was that he was a deist, but that's pushing it. From his various quotes I think when he was refering to the universe when he used the term "god". That does not mean he believed in god outright, otherwise there wouldn't be contradicting quotes from him on the matter.
So you are saying that someone living in the 15th century wouldn't be considered a heretic for questioning the existence of god? Also keep in mind that atheism philosophy was not even in its infancy back then.
-
Atleast admit that a lot of scientists these days are skeptical about god and religion. ::) And this will continue well into the future. Do you think the scientists you listed would be theists today? ;)
Oh, yes. I admit it. A lot of scientist these days are skeptical about God and religion. This is very different from the statement that you made earlier, "Most prestigious scientists do not believe in a personal god. " which is not true. I was simply pointing that out.
The best you can say about him was that he was a deist, but that's pushing it. From his various quotes I think when he was refering to the universe when he used the term "god". That does not mean he believed in god outright, otherwise there wouldn't be contradicting quotes from him on the matter.
No, that's not pushing it. Yes, he might have said what you quoted above. Thanks for the quote by the way. That's more like it. But Einstein also said:
"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
"God does not play dice"
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
So you are saying that someone living in the 15th century wouldn't be considered a heretic for questioning the existence of god? Also keep in mind that atheism philosophy was not even in its infancy back then.
It doesn't matter. They did not believe in God, Jesus Christ or the Bible because they were persecuted. They were simply believers and scientists, no matter what. And actually, it was their believe in God that made them such great scientists:
Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science
Here is another:
The biblical world view has had a significant impact in the development of science. Professor Mehdi Golshani connotates a connection between a belief in the Biblical God and scientific breakthroughs by stating that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton and many other founders of science were all devout Christians. Western Science was largely constructed within the framework of a Christian world view, and was influenced by the following Biblical concepts:
1. "The conception of an omniscient and omnipotent personal God, Who made everything in accordance with a rational plan and purpose, contributed to the notion of a rationally structured creation."
2. "The notion of a transcendent God, Who exists separate from His creation, served to counter the notion that the physical world, or any part of it, is sacred. Since the entire physical world is a mere creation, it was thus a fit object of study and transformation."
3. "Since man was made in the image of God (Gen.1:26), which included rationality and creativity, it was deemed possible that man could discern the rational structure of the physical universe that God had made."
4. "The cultural mandate, which appointed man to be God's steward over creation (Gen1:28), provided the motivation for studying nature and for applying that study towards practical ends, at the same glorifying God for His wisdom and goodness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Golshani
-
I believe the term for people like Hawking, Einstein and Planck would be "Pantheist". Not Atheist, Not "Deist" but "Pantheist".
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism)
Here is some more information from Wikipedia concerning Einsteins views on religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views)
Here is an article where Richard Dawkins (author of 'God delusion') and aforementioned Francis Collins have a discussion about the existence of God and the role of science and religion in society.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html)
-
Great read, Wikidudeman! Thanks!
Here are my favorite parts of the debate. ;D
DAWKINS(Author of "The God Delusion"): I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.
COLLINS(Author of "The Language of God"): My God is not improbable to me. He has no need of a creation story for himself or to be fine-tuned by something else. God is the answer to all of those "How must it have come to be" questions.
DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.
TIME: Could the answer be God?
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
COLLINS: That's God.
DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.
-------------------------
DAWKINS: Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. However, what Dr. Collins has just been--may I call you Francis?
COLLINS: Oh, please, Richard, do so.
DAWKINS: What Francis was just saying about Genesis was, of course, a little private quarrel between him and his Fundamentalist colleagues ...
COLLINS: It's not so private. It's rather public. [Laughs.]
DAWKINS: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?
COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.
-
dawkins is the inferior in that argument. ive been saying all along that he is a poor spokeperson for atheism as he has no good arguments, and has no philosophical training per se. his arguments are strawmen and he falls into alot of logical pitfalls.
in one argument the other side and what about free will? his reply was "im not concerned with free will" haha, maybe because it puts your argument in shambles.
einstein was more of a deist. as he saw a deity creating the universe, as seperate. something that wound up the universe and let it be.
pantheism doesnt share this view. he was somewhat of a hybrid from his spiritual writing. he had deistic leanings, which are up for interpretation. shared spinoza's thoughts(pantheism).
-
dawkins is the inferior in that argument. ive been saying all along that he is a poor spokeperson for atheism as he has no good arguments, and has no philosophical training per se. his arguments are strawmen and he falls into alot of logical pitfalls.
I disagree. Dawkins is human and thus has flaws but to say that he has "no good arguments and no philosophical training" isn't true. Have you read any of his books?
in one argument the other side and what about free will? his reply was "im not concerned with free will" haha, maybe because it puts your argument in shambles.
I can't find that in the link I posted. What was the arguments?
einstein was more of a deist. as he saw a deity creating the universe, as seperate. something that wound up the universe and let it be.
I doubt 'deist' would be the correct term. 'Pantheist' is more in sync with Einsteins quotes.
pantheism doesnt share this view. he was somewhat of a hybrid from his spiritual writing. he had deistic leanings, which are up for interpretation. shared spinoza's thoughts(pantheism).
I think the following quote..
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
suggests pantheism over Deism. Pantheism is the belief that the universe itself is "God" per say and Einstein said that he believes in a God that "who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world".
-
ive read his book yes, its not very good and pales in comparison to many good atheists(if there is such a thing ;D).
ive said probably 10 times on this site that he agreed with spinoza and many of his thought from ethics. however, the universe is the god, or divinity in the universe is pantheism. einstein in the book quantum questions expresses numerous times he thought of a creator(implying deism) who "wound up the universe and let it be"
flew also agrees with this thought process now. "a form of deism, in line with spinoza".
theres no real point in arguing about it, ive said what you've said in ten different threads, and agreed with you above. i just dont think he was a full on pantheist(monist), but had some deity type leanings from his writings on spiritual matters.
as for dawkins, his arguments are poor, can be dissected easily and is simply preaching to the choir. nothing new or original about his writing. he is a zoologist, evolutionary biologist. why does that make him an expert in atheism? evolution has nothing to do with godly matters. that is my problem.
-
ive read his book yes, its not very good and pales in comparison to many good atheists(if there is such a thing ;D).
How?
ive said probably 10 times on this site that he agreed with spinoza and many of his thought from ethics. however, the universe is the god, or divinity in the universe is pantheism. einstein in the book quantum questions expresses numerous times he thought of a creator(implying deism) who "wound up the universe and let it be"
Do you have a source for that?
as for dawkins, his arguments are poor, can be dissected easily and is simply preaching to the choir.
1. Give me an example of an Argument of Dawkins being "dissected easily". Then 'dissect' it. You dissect it. Don't post a link of where you think it's been 'dissected'.
2. Dawkins wrote his book "The God delusion" with the intention of having people of all beliefs read it. He's not trying to preach to any choir.
nothing new or original about his writing.
Actually many of his arguments are novel. Including his "climbing mount improbable" example. However, After hundreds of years of religious debate, there aren't many "new" or "original" arguments concerning theism vs atheism.
he is a zoologist, evolutionary biologist. why does that make him an expert in atheism? evolution has nothing to do with godly matters. that is my problem.
He's not an expert in Atheism. He is a famous Atheist. I don't even know what being an "expert in atheism" would entail. Dawkins knows a lot about religion and science and when combined, can make very good arguments.
-
How?
Do you have a source for that?
1. Give me an example of an Argument of Dawkins being "dissected easily". Then 'dissect' it. You dissect it. Don't post a link of where you think it's been 'dissected'.
2. Dawkins wrote his book "The God delusion" with the intention of having people of all beliefs read it. He's not trying to preach to any choir.
Actually many of his arguments are novel. Including his "climbing mount improbable" example. However, After hundreds of years of religious debate, there aren't many "new" or "original" arguments concerning theism vs atheism.
He's not an expert in Atheism. He is a famous Atheist. I don't even know what being an "expert in atheism" would entail. Dawkins knows a lot about religion and science and when combined, can make very good arguments.
1)because its unintelligent drivle ;D.
2)quantum questions by ken wilber
3)post the argument you like and ill have at it. im not going through the trouble. i assume the book your reffering to is the god delusion? since he's wrote many books.
4) he is preaching to the choir especially with arguments that attack the astrocities done in the name of religion. entertaining but moot
5)someone with phd in theology, religious works, or philosophy would suffice. he is none of the above and knows how much? evolutionary biologists arent my idea of religious giants. a better book is wonder of the world by varghese.
-
quantum questions is a great book, that has all the spiritual writings of great physicists, like bohm, eddington, einstein, planck. good read, you should check it out. ken wilber is also an amazing philosopher, perhaps the best in his particular field if you can quantify it.
-
1)because its unintelligent drivle ;D.
I asked for examples.
2)quantum questions by ken wilber
What does this have to do with anything?
3)post the argument you like and ill have at it. im not going through the trouble. i assume the book your reffering to is the god delusion? since he's wrote many books.
I'm not the one who said his arguments are bunk. You did. You also claimed that you have read his book. So YOU give me an example of one of his arguments and refute it for me.
4) he is preaching to the choir especially with arguments that attack the astrocities done in the name of religion. entertaining but moot
Atrocities*
How is this preaching to the choir? Why can't religious people take note of the atrocities from religion?
5)someone with phd in theology, religious works, or philosophy would suffice.
How would someone with a Phd in theology or philosophy be considered an "expert in atheism"? Atheism isn't a religion or for that matter even a philosophy. It's simply the lack of belief in a God or gods. Dawkins never claims to be an "expert in atheism" for that matter.
he is none of the above and knows how much?
He's a very smart man.
evolutionary biologists arent my idea of religious giants.
You don't need a degree in theology to be keen about religious ideas.
a better book is wonder of the world by varghese.
I would recommend Daniel Dennett over Varghese.
-
I asked for examples.
What does this have to do with anything?
I'm not the one who said his arguments are bunk. You did. You also claimed that you have read his book. So YOU give me an example of one of his arguments and refute it for me.
Atrocities*
How is this preaching to the choir? Why can't religious people take note of the atrocities from religion?
How would someone with a Phd in theology or philosophy be considered an "expert in atheism"? Atheism isn't a religion or for that matter even a philosophy. It's simply the lack of belief in a God or gods. Dawkins never claims to be an "expert in atheism" for that matter.
He's a very smart man.
You don't need a degree in theology to be keen about religious ideas.
I would recommend Daniel Dennett over Varghese.
atheistic philosophers ala antony flew.
to argue adequetely about religion i would assume a phd in theology or philosophy of religion would suffice. atheism has many philosophical standpoints or ideologies or arguments for.
quantum questions is the source.
im not writing out arguments then, debating myself. i dont have enough time or desire to do that. ive already went over it umpteen times.
i guess it depends on how you define philosophy, its a nebulous term for the most part.
-
atheistic philosophers ala antony flew.
He's not an Atheist.
to argue adequetely about religion i would assume a phd in theology or philosophy of religion would suffice. atheism has many philosophical standpoints or ideologies or arguments for.
I can list many PHD's in theology who know nothing about atheism and many people without phd's who know a lot about it. I don't see how having a 'degree' designates one an 'expert in atheism". Someone can know all of the arguments for atheism without holding any degrees.
quantum questions is the source.
What source? Please quote what you're responding to so I know what you're responding to.
-
He's not an Atheist.
I can list many PHD's in theology who know nothing about atheism and many people without phd's who know a lot about it. I don't see how having a 'degree' designates one an 'expert in atheism". Someone can know all of the arguments for atheism without holding any degrees.
What source? Please quote what you're responding to so I know what you're responding to.
i get the feeling your hurt by my corrections on your mistakes such as the "edge of the universe" or "infinities cant expand", "infinite amount of time". especially when you say antony flew is not an atheist. while being correct, he is a pantheist of sorts(spinoza) this was only very recently. for the first i dont know 70 years or how ever old the guy is, he was an avid atheist, perhaps the most famous. he was converted after reading, wonder of the world, a great book. have you read it.
because atheism can be considered philosophy, especially since it adresses ontology(being) and metaphysical questions, which are in the realm of philosophy. hence, people whos education deals with this material usually are the most competant in it.
just kidding about the hurt feelings...... just wanted you to melt at your computer for a second.
-
i get the feeling your hurt by my corrections on your mistakes such as the "edge of the universe" or "infinities cant expand", "infinite amount of time".
What corrections? I'm right.
especially when you say antony flew is not an atheist. while being correct, he is a pantheist of sorts(spinoza) this was only very recently. for the first i dont know 70 years or how ever old the guy is, he was an avid atheist, perhaps the most famous. he was converted after reading, wonder of the world, a great book. have you read it.
So?
because atheism can be considered philosophy, especially since it adresses ontology(being) and metaphysical questions, which are in the realm of philosophy. hence, people whos education deals with this material usually are the most competant in it.
I don't quite understand what you're saying. Atheism itself isn't a philosophy. It's true that atheists can use philosophy to support their beliefs but this doesn't mean that atheism itself is a philosophy.
-
What corrections? I'm right.
So?
I don't quite understand what you're saying. Atheism itself isn't a philosophy. It's true that atheists can use philosophy to support their beliefs but this doesn't mean that atheism itself is a philosophy.
there is no edge to the universe, we dont know if infinities can expand in real life, the universe could be infinite. Read a book by paul davies he adresses this question throughly, although i cant remember the specific answer ;D. infinite refers to size, not time. in god and the new physics he argues about a finite and infinite universe, along with many paradoxes about time.
so? my point exactly, why even type that.
"because atheism can be considered philosophy, especially since it adresses ontology(being) and metaphysical questions, which are in the realm of philosophy. hence, people whos education deals with this material usually are the most competant in it".
the term atheistic philosopher is used alot, as well since its a direct opposite of a religious belief theism, and a faith, people who usually argue for, argue against, hence dawkins and many other famous debates.