Einstein: The Bible Is Pretty Childish

[head-case]

So is this your thorough analysis of the situation using 'common sense'? With all that science has to offer, I would think you would provide a better explanation for your ideas. You seem to ascribe to the notion that, if something can be explained scientifically, that explanation automatically is THE REASON. I don't discount scientific explanations, but you have no way to verify your assumption.

This not the place for a detailed scientific exposition and I don't have the patience for it.  These notions are not original, they have been treated in great detail many times by many people.  "The reason" is not a scientific term.  Things don't happen because there is a reason, they just happen, without any reason.  It is people who want to find a reason for everything. 

Let me ask you this:
Is the concept of God a human fabrication as an explanation for why we are here? OR
Is the concept of God a human fabrication as a rationalization for cooperative behaviour?

As long as both the answers point out that God is a farce, it doesn't matter if they're contradictory. Are these both scientific theories as well?

Religion satisfies both needs, there is no contradiction involved.  You eat with your mouth and you breath with your mouth.  It serves two purposes.

[head-case]

You'd have more time for science if you wasted less time justifying your childish superstitions.

You have no idea how incredibly childish this sounds to someone like me who is both a scientist and who believes in God (but not in Santa Claus).

[Al Moritz]

You'd have more time for science if you wasted less time justifying your childish superstitions.

Wow. Am I supposed to be impressed with your "clever" answer?

[PSmith08]

I wasn't aware that M used this terminology, it is a fairly straight forward analogy. 

When humans had no understanding or control over how the world worked they needed something to motivate them.  They also had instincts for cooperative behavior (as most animals do) but needed something to rationalize it).  God was the answer.  People now have science, and are like grown-ups who have credit cards and don't have to ask Santa to bring them presents if they're good.

The bible has sections that claim to be history but they don't seem to be very accurate. 

While I am exceedingly pleased to see that Eric can still stir the pot with his tendencies to throw an out-of-context quote or truism around, it strikes me as necessary to say that the flippant comment on the Bible's accuracy relative to history could be applied - in many ways - to every single historical account. Indeed, within the space of thirty or forty years, many modern histories "don't seem to be very accurate." It is, to my mind, therefore, no argument to say that the Biblical histories' inaccuracy has any bearing on anything other than the fact that history is hard.

To put it another way: Denied!

This not the place for a detailed scientific exposition and I don't have the patience for it.  These notions are not original, they have been treated in great detail many times by many people.  "The reason" is not a scientific term.  Things don't happen because there is a reason, they just happen, without any reason.  It is people who want to find a reason for everything. 

Find something that exists outside the chain of causality beyond dispute or argument. It's pretty hard.

[head-case]

Wow. Am I supposed to be impressed with your "clever" answer?

Yes. 

[Al Moritz]

Yes. 

Ok, I'll try.

[head-case]

While I am exceedingly pleased to see that Eric can still stir the pot with his tendencies to throw an out-of-context quote or truism around, it strikes me as necessary to say that the flippant comment on the Bible's accuracy relative to history could be applied - in many ways - to every single historical account. Indeed, within the space of thirty or forty years, many modern histories "don't seem to be very accurate." It is, to my mind, therefore, no argument to say that the Biblical histories' inaccuracy has any bearing on anything other than the fact that history is hard.

To put it another way: Denied!

Find something that exists outside the chain of causality beyond dispute or argument. It's pretty hard.

Things have causes, that's not the same as "a reason."

And who's this Eric, by the way?

[Joe_Campbell]

I think that's 'M'

[PSmith08]

Things have causes, that's not the same as "a reason."

And who's this Eric, by the way?

I think one or the other of us is being imprecise in our word choice. If by 'reason' you mean 'some sort of consistent, coherent program that culminated in the event in question,' then you're right: causality is not a reason. Can one, however, have this 'reason' without a chain of events? No. Even simple things have a chain of discrete events, with a good portion of them existing only as thoughts (which do have physical attributes, and - thus - do both exist and occur in a real sense). This chain of events, driving toward a goal, has - as an integral part - causality. Each event causes another to happen until the goal is reached and the terminal event occurs. The consistent program, without a causal chain stemming from abstraction and headed toward a culminating moment, would be little more than disjointed madness.

Does this seem a little contrived? Forced? Muddled? Devilishly confused?

You bet it does. The simpler approach is to say that reason and logic are essentially the same thing. Causality - assuming you don't fall into a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument - is pretty simple (i.e., elegant) logic: X->Y. The beauty of that building block is that it can be used over and over to arrive at some proposition like X->G.

Every non-pathological event happens for a reason, which is to say that there is some underlying logic, even if it isn't conscious or goal-oriented.

I think that's 'M'

Nope. Not even close. I must, however, admit that the proposition that M and Eric are the same person, while raising more questions than it would answer, intrigues me. In any event, Eric is Operahaven, and was The Pink Harp.

Different accidents for the same substance.

[Bunny]

I don't see how one can honestly say science has nothing to say about religion. The very foundation of the OT in the Bible is put into question by certain scientific theories. I think science is saying a lot about a religion when it suggests that that religion may just be plain wrong.

That's the thing that you misunderstand about science.  When scientific truths are discovered and proven, it has not been done with any thought at all to religion.  Darwin did not set out to discover how species originated and evolved over time in order to disprove the Bible or any other religion.  He just looked at the world around him, observed it very carefully, and "discovered" evolution -- the biological mechanism by which living beings change into more and more diverse species. When he realized the ramifications of his discoveries, he took to his bed for years and withheld publication of his findings.  Only when he learned that someone else was going to publish similar findings was he stirred him to publish his work. Similarly, Galileo wasn't trying to prove Catholic dogma was incorrect when he observed that the planet Jupiter had moons.  He was observing something that was real, and understanding that the universe did not revolve around the earth.  Religion had much to say about both Galileo and Darwin, however. 

[Joe_Campbell]

...

I'll give you the benifit of the doubt that you didn't mean to misunderstand me, but nothing you say invalidates my point. While science is not in the business of 'commentary on religion,' many of its discoveries have indirectly had religious ramifications. Just because there are no scientific theories that contain refutations/commentaries on various religious doctrines, it does not mean that there isn't any religious implication.
What's odd is, you also state that religion has something to say about Darwin & Galileo; I challenge you to give me any unequivocal commentary that religion has directly made about either of these fellows (remember, this has to be exactly the kind of commentary you deny science has made on religion, as to be fair).

Neither religion or science is saying the other is wrong. They're just saying they're both right.

[Joe_Campbell]

Nope. Not even close. I must, however, admit that the proposition that M and Eric are the same person, while raising more questions than it would answer, intrigues me. In any event, Eric is Operahaven, and was The Pink Harp.

wha? I thought that name sounded familiar. How did you figure this tidbit out? It seems obvious for me, now, reading the original post.

[Bunny]

I'll give you the benifit of the doubt that you didn't mean to misunderstand me, but nothing you say invalidates my point. While science is not in the business of 'commentary on religion,' many of its discoveries have indirectly had religious ramifications. Just because there are no scientific theories that contain refutations/commentaries on various religious doctrines, it does not mean that there isn't any religious implication.
What's odd is, you also state that religion has something to say about Darwin & Galileo; I challenge you to give me any unequivocal commentary that religion has directly made about either of these fellows (remember, this has to be exactly the kind of commentary you deny science has made on religion, as to be fair).

Neither religion or science is saying the other is wrong. They're just saying they're both right.

Are you really serious, or are you just trying to yank my chain?  Are you so ignorant of history and current events?

Galileo was tried for heresy and forced on his knees to recant his discoveries. Specifically, he had to say that he was wrong, and that his observations were errors.   In a gesture of mercy for his recantation, the Pope spared him from the stake, and instead condemned him to house arrest for the remainder of his life.  If that's not a statement on science, then I don't know what is.  As for Darwin, organized religion -- especially those that insist that the Bible is literal truth -- persist in proclaiming that Darwin's discoveries are "unproven."  Do you really think that the Christian fundamentalists that promote the spurious "theory" of intelligent design are not saying that Darwin's science is false?  Has not Pat Robertson frequently espoused the theory of intelligent design?  How about Oral Roberts: Is Evolution taught at his university except as intelligent design?  How about the Reverend Bob Jones and his school?  I'll bet Evolution is not a part of that curriculum either.   

The problem for you is that you want to reconcile the literal words of the Bible with the truth of science, which is backed by evidence.  Scientists don't worry about the Bible.  If I were you, I would worry less about science and more about Mother Teresa who worked so hard with the poor, and finally decided that there was no God.

[PSmith08]

wha? I thought that name sounded familiar. How did you figure this tidbit out? It seems obvious for me, now, reading the original post.

I don't remember offhand. It might have been in one of his get (re)acquainted posts. He's also expressed his Debussy-love in his signature, as I recall.

Are you really serious, or are you just trying to yank my chain?  Are you so ignorant of history and current events?

Galileo was tried for heresy and forced on his knees to recant his discoveries. Specifically, he had to say that he was wrong, and that his observations were errors.   In a gesture of mercy for his recantation, the Pope spared him from the stake, and instead condemned him to house arrest for the remainder of his life.  If that's not a statement on science, then I don't know what is.  As for Darwin, organized religion -- especially those that insist that the Bible is literal truth -- persist in proclaiming that Darwin's discoveries are "unproven."  Do you really think that the Christian fundamentalists that promote the spurious "theory" of intelligent design are not saying that Darwin's science is false?  Has not Pat Robertson frequently espoused the theory of intelligent design?  How about Oral Roberts: Is Evolution taught at his university except as intelligent design?  How about the Reverend Bob Jones and his school?  I'll bet Evolution is not a part of that curriculum either.   

The problem for you is that you want to reconcile the literal words of the Bible with the truth of science, which is backed by evidence.  Scientists don't worry about the Bible.  If I were you, I would worry less about science and more about Mother Teresa who worked so hard with the poor, and finally decided that there was no God.

What do pathological cases prove? If we want to engage in an exercise of sophistic debate, I can just as easily throw Humani Generis of Pius XII back at the litany of 'offenses' committed by religion against science,

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. (HG 36)

Rigid, unyielding theocratic extremism? Only from a certain perspective. So, for every Pat Robertson there's a Pius XII, which is why pathological cases are irrelevant and counterproductive. Better, I think, to discuss hard-and-fast doctrine (as it stands in 2008, not 1508).

[M forever]

Right. How is it 'clear' that religion helped early humans to survive when the general non-religious position is that we'd be better off without it.

Because it was a necessary and indispensable stage in our mental/cultural evolution. For a long time, people have tried to figure out the vast and complex world we live in and people who didn't have the faintest clue about the most basic mechanisms which move our world simply had to come to these conclusions about gods and supernatural powers, otherwise they would have gone crazy and given up. That is just like grasping the world with the help of fairy tales is an important step for children in their development. Fairy tales and mythology are a wonderful poetic expression for things that are beyond our horizon but that we feel are there, somehow.

However, at some point, it is also good if we grow up. At that point, we realize that those fairy tales aren't true, but we still value them as very powerful and colorful artistic expressions of our mind's quest to grasp what is beyond our limited powers of understanding. Once we realize how limited our understanding of the world around us really is and how little of it is really "explained" by these mythologies, we can either give up and fall back into a state of childish, uncritical acceptance, or we can continue our quest - which is the continuation of the fundamental curiosity and respect for the creation around us which led to the formulation of religions in the first place. In other words, a much more "religious" mindset than simply deciding to believe pre-fabricated fairy tales.

People like you think they are much more "spiritual" than "non-religious" people, but in reality, you are just immature and weak-minded. You have failed to preserve the fundamental sense of wonder and curiosity that characterizes our species and got stuck half way in your mental and spiritual development. You don't "believe" in whatever you say you believe in because some "deeper" insights led you to that anyway, but simply because you have been indoctrinated by your environment and probably also because of social circumstances and pressures. You are still with one foot in the cave, crouching on the floor and licking the feet of some idol. Especially Christianity is really just a primitive idol worshipping cult which doesn't even have much to do with the person it claims to be based on, in any of the many existant forms.

I see you've adopted the M-forever 'fairy tale' nomenclature for religion. Considering the historocity of the bible, I'm not sure how you can claim it as a work of fiction.

You probably mean the historicity of the Bible. When it comes to the OT, the first parts of it well into the Books of Kings are complete and utter fiction without any historical substance at all. Most of the historical and archaeological evidence we have about the alleged timeframes in which these stories are supposed to have happened completely contradict even the remotest possibility that these stories could have happened in even roughly the way they are described in the OT. These stories were folk tales which were colected and very heavily edited at a relatively late stage, in the late 7th century BCE, for very earthy and real political agendas. Most of the material in Kings which has some connection with other historical evidence is shown by the evidence to be heavily distorted, and it is once again obvious for what reasons and from what perspective.

When it comes the the NT, all we know is that we simply don't know what was at the root of the so-called "Christian" movement. What makes it so intriguing is that we just barely miss the original form of Christianity, whatever that may have been, like a bus we just missed and that we can see disappearing around the corner. We get to it in a stage in which people have already started adopting, changing, and editing it, but at least, we can see these processes very clearly, they are reflected even in the so-called holy texts. I find it intriguing that we live in an age in which a lot of people, in all sorts of different and each other contradicting organizations, still try to preserve the cultic, absolute nature of worshipping that idol image based on a heavily edited form of a person which allegedly lived 2000 years ago, while at the same time, more and more people learn to see beyond the nature of these organized and primitive forms of cultic worship and try to move on towards deeper forms of insight for which our intelligence and soul definitely have the potential. It is just that a lot of people are still mentally handcuffed by these cults.

[Joe_Campbell]

Are you really serious, or are you just trying to yank my chain?  Are you so ignorant of history and current events?

Galileo was tried for heresy and forced on his knees to recant his discoveries. Specifically, he had to say that he was wrong, and that his observations were errors.   In a gesture of mercy for his recantation, the Pope spared him from the stake, and instead condemned him to house arrest for the remainder of his life.  If that's not a statement on science, then I don't know what is.  As for Darwin, organized religion -- especially those that insist that the Bible is literal truth -- persist in proclaiming that Darwin's discoveries are "unproven."  Do you really think that the Christian fundamentalists that promote the spurious "theory" of intelligent design are not saying that Darwin's science is false?  Has not Pat Robertson frequently espoused the theory of intelligent design?  How about Oral Roberts: Is Evolution taught at his university except as intelligent design?  How about the Reverend Bob Jones and his school?  I'll bet Evolution is not a part of that curriculum either.

These prove nothing. Do Muslims going kamikaze make good commentary about Islam? If this is religion's commentary on science, then this is science's commentary on religion:
http://net-burst.net/hot/science.htm

Of course, you would rightly claim that this isn't science commenting on religion, but rather one individual using science as a tool to 'disprove' God. You can't have it both ways: individuals acting in the name of their cause are not a reflection of the cause, but the individual. Scriptures do not teach to question science, but certain interpretations by individuals can lead to tensions.

The problem for you is that you want to reconcile the literal words of the Bible with the truth of science, which is backed by evidence.  Scientists don't worry about the Bible.  If I were you, I would worry less about science and more about Mother Teresa who worked so hard with the poor, and finally decided that there was no God.

I love knowing what other people think my problems are

[Joe_Campbell]

People like you think they are much more "spiritual" than "non-religious" people, but in reality, you are just immature and weak-minded. You have failed to preserve the fundamental sense of wonder and curiosity that characterizes our species and got stuck half way in your mental and spiritual development. You don't "believe" in whatever you say you believe in because some "deeper" insights led you to that anyway, but simply because you have been indoctrinated by your environment and probably also because of social circumstances and pressures. You are still with one foot in the cave, crouching on the floor and licking the feet of some idol. Especially Christianity is really just a primitive idol worshipping cult which doesn't even have much to do with the person it claims to be based on, in any of the many existant forms.

I really have nothing to say about the other bits in your post, because it's really just reworded M-talk--I've heard it all before. You talk a good talk when discussing religion; unfortunately that's about it.

Why you feel the need to get personal says lots about your complete incomprehension of the subject you're talking about.

[PSmith08]

Of course, you would rightly claim that this isn't science commenting on religion, but rather one individual using science as a tool to 'disprove' God. You can't have it both ways: individuals acting in the name of their cause are not a reflection of the cause, but the individual.

In order for the project to work, they have to have it both ways. That's the beauty. Individuals are ideals when it comes to religion, but the secular world allows for a bifurcation.

Steely Dan put out a record in 1974. I am reminded of it when I read some of these, "Look at the problems religion causes," posts.

Religion is what it is. It's the followers that cause the trouble. That doesn't affect religion in the abstract.

[Bunny]

The question wasn't about followers of religion but about the fact that basic scientific truths contradict the literal words of the Bible.  There's no doubt that if one takes the Bible literally, then many scientific truths cannot be true.  Unfortunately, that is a problem only for the most fundamentalist believers. 

These prove nothing. Do Muslims going kamikaze make good commentary about Islam? If this is religion's commentary on science, then this is science's commentary on religion:
http://net-burst.net/hot/science.htm

They say as much about religion as Bob Jones or Jerry Falwell.

Of course, you would rightly claim that this isn't science commenting on religion, but rather one individual using science as a tool to 'disprove' God. You can't have it both ways: individuals acting in the name of their cause are not a reflection of the cause, but the individual. Scriptures do not teach to question science, but certain interpretations by individuals can lead to tensions.

"Religion" is a noun.  No one thinks that nouns can say anything about anything.  Clearly you are posting nonsense here.  There are as many scientists who are religious as there are that are atheistic.  Your problem is that you can accept attacks on the atheists but cannot find justification for the attacks on the religious.  Unfortunately, many atheists are arrogant and many of the extremely religious are fanatical.  However, those who have deep understanding of scientific theories are usually from the most educated levels of society, while religious orthodoxy covers a spectrum of education -- from the completely ignorant to the highly educated.  Thus, more overly religious people will tend to be ignorant of science, and eager to denounce it as anti-religion. 

I love knowing what other people think my problems are

Your problems are made evident by the words you have written.  No one has to guess what you are thinking. It's all here in black and white.  If you don't care for the way it looks or sounds to others, then start editing.

Btw, I can think of no greater praise than to have my intellect compared favorably to M's.  Say what you will about him, that he's rude, arrogant, an SOB, an atheist bigot, or whatever.  It's very clear from the quality of his posts that he's very well educated, extremely knowledgeable about music, and the possessor of a brilliant mind.  I may not see eye to eye with him about everything, but I deeply respect his intellectual abilities.

[Joe_Campbell]

The question wasn't about followers of religion but about the fact that basic scientific truths contradict the literal words of the Bible.  There's no doubt that if one takes the Bible literally, then many scientific truths cannot be true.  Unfortunately, that is a problem only for the most fundamentalist believers.

So then science does have something to say about religion, namely that in some cases, it's just plain wrong. Thank you.

They say as much about religion as Bob Jones or Jerry Falwell.

"Religion" is a noun.  No one thinks that nouns can say anything about anything.  Clearly you are posting nonsense here.  There are as many scientists who are religious as there are that are atheistic.  Your problem is that you can accept attacks on the atheists but cannot find justification for the attacks on the religious.  Unfortunately, many atheists are arrogant and many of the extremely religious are fanatical.  However, those who have deep understanding of scientific theories are usually from the most educated levels of society, while religious orthodoxy covers a spectrum of education -- from the completely ignorant to the highly educated.  Thus, more overly religious people will tend to be ignorant of science, and eager to denounce it as anti-religion.

The semantic battle gets you nowhere, because I'm not claiming that science has nothing to say about religion; you are! The entire reason I responded to you in the first place was because you claimed that science has nothing to say about religion; now you are accusing me of this position! Remember? I said that there were many religious implications if certain science claims are true.

Your problems are made evident by the words you have written.  No one has to guess what you are thinking. It's all here in black and white.  If you don't care for the way it looks or sounds to others, then start editing.

You must be having a different discussion then the one I am, because I would like you to point out where I have tried to reconcile science with the Bible at all. Once again, my point of contention with you is that you ar claiming that science has nothing to say about religion, and if you read back through to when I first replied to your comment, you will see that.

Btw, I can think of no greater praise than to have my intellect compared favorably to M's.  Say what you will about him, that he's rude, arrogant, an SOB, an atheist bigot, or whatever.  It's very clear from the quality of his posts that he's very well educated, extremely knowledgeable about music, and the possessor of a brilliant mind.  I may not see eye to eye with him about everything, but I deeply respect his intellectual abilities.

Who compared your intellect to M's? That post must have been the same one where I said I was trying to reconcile the literal words of the Bible with the truths of science.