To someone who responded to me in private,
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Let me come back at you, but I
hope you don't mind if I share it with others.
>1) No one seems able to define what they're asking us to believe.
That's because religious people tend to talk in metaphor and poetic image.
The more immature of them are unaware that what they say is not literally
true, but many immature scientists are unaware their models are not
reality. The more mature of them have a healthy appreciation of what they
are doing.
I am after a dialogue among scientists of what to make of this God
phenomenon that is so pervasive in our culture. There's so much s--- there
has to be a pony in there somewhere.
> The very concept is fraught with
> irrationalities that proponents simply ignore...
Only your encoding of the concept is fraught with irrationality. I would
like to evolve a concept that is not fraught with irrationality.
>2) The reasons they produce to persuade us are silly, such as:
> "The Bible says." "He told me He exists." "What else could explain
> everything?" "Look at the beauty of a tree!" "The universe is
> obviously designed." "How could so many people be wrong?"
Those are not my reasons.
>3) The reasons they produce to persuade us also apply to other "gods" as
> well as the one they want me to accept. Invisible Pink Unicorns? Okay.
> Evil deities who deliberately try to fool me? Just as likely!
There are always observationally equivalent theories to any theory I might
articulate. Yet science has chosen to accept certain theories as
approximately true. Suppose we could evolve a theological framework or
frameworks that reasonable scientists felt comfortable accepting.
>4) There's no evidence. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. We
> can only believe to the degree we can agree on evidence.
Evidence is one of the things I aim to discuss.
>5) The concepts of
> God, prayer and revelation are inconsistent with reason.
Oh, no! Many of the greatest scientists have been mystics. Einstein got
his theories by mystical revelation. Most sophisticated religious people
view Einstein's theories as religious insights into the mind of God and the
workings of God's universe.
> Faith
> is an anti-intellectual approach and must be rejected.
There is a kind of faith that celebrates the intellect. That's what I'm after.
>6) The practical result of these beliefs are divisive and harmful.
> Perhaps most importantly, Pascal's wager was about the afterlife. In
> this life, religion is a divisive and destructive force.
I could say that the practical result of science is Hitler, Hiroshima, and
Stalin. Before 20th century science we did not have the technology to pull
off these horrors. Should we then reject science? There are those who
argue just that.
I could say that the practical result of religion was Martin Luther King's
and Ghandhi's liberation of their people. Would they have done what they
did without the inspiration they derived from their religious beliefs?
Both the Soviet Union and the United States were founded by people with
noble ideals and dreams of a better society. The Soviet Union was founded
by atheists. Most of the Founding Fathers of the United States were deeply
spiritual people whose political philosophy was inspired by their religious
beliefs. Which system would you rather live under?
It's all in how you look at it. Anything can be used for good or ill.
Powerful things can be used for great good or great ill. The choice is
ours.
>> - That God really talked to me and redirected my life at a critical
>> moment?
>
>0. Why give away your bravery? I'm proud of _you_.
I don't understand why people think I'm giving away my bravery.
Look, suppose your kid had to do something really hard for him, like
confronting a teacher who had given him an unfair grade. Suppose he was
terrified. Suppose you gave him a pep talk. Suppose he went in there and
did it. Is the fact you gave him a pep talk taking away his bravery? By
that argument no one should ever help anyone else because then the
accomplishment wouldn't be "really theirs." Thank you, but I'll opt out of
such a world.
>> - That writing this email is one of the things God is calling me to do?
>
>0. You are making a difference. You deserve the credit.
See above.
I have not joined the Borg. I do not mindlessly take orders from The
Collective. I make my own decisions. That is what I think God expects of
me.
Kathy
