Mathematician Explains His Faith Options

[lokum]

I was listening to the radio at 3 am the other day and this was on BBC overnight. It's an interview with John Lennox (Oxford math professor) and as to why he believes in God. It's a very thorough and logically consistent interview.

http://www.a-strange-beginning.com/yomna/rrt_20090114.mp3

[Hey Hey]

Thanks for this file. I will give it a listen.

[Rick]

If we define God as "the light by which we see everything else by" then we have trivialized this mythical being. We don't need to posit God to explain life, intelligence, and consciousness.

John Lennox rationalizes his belief, he believes because he believes. He invents reasons to support his faith. He's very typical of liberal theologians (recognizing he is a mathematician professionally).

I like your quote by Baba Ram Dass. I read his book Be Here Now many years ago. By the way, you misspelled his name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Dass

[lokum]

Thank you Rick for pointing out that error.

I like the argument he comes up with explaining that it's not so much science vs religion (I still think it is to some extent though...but I guess it's all different to everyone), but it's faith versus the lack of faith, and the generalizations people make about 'faith'. It made math and science look less empirical in my mind.

[maximus242]

The definition of faith is that which cannot be proven. Science exists only in the realm of that which can be proven -- or if it cannot, it is accepted only as theory not as fact.

Where as religion proposes something as fact rather than theory when they have no hard evidence.

Hence the clash between science and religion.

In psychology many studies have shown human beings have the incredible capacity to come up with complex logical explanations to prove their beliefs, however irrational they may be.

The ability of the subconscious mind to come up with complex logical fallacies that cover their own tracks is perhaps the most astonishing human trait ever realized.

Science is not exempt from this, but the foundations of science have lead us where religion has not. If we followed the church we would all still be wearing wool and living like peasants in the medieval ages. Few would live to see sixty.

[trojan_libido]

I'd love a transcript of the mp3, I listened to it last night before bed but trying to find what I found dead on is next to impossible!

I remember him saying that science is about the mechanisms, religions is about why those mechanisms work. We're into science precisely because the Universe is rational, and we worked out some approximations of Gods laws.

We don't need to posit God to explain life, intelligence, and consciousness.

I believe this to be entirely your point of view. Science can't define conciousness without a very elaborate struggle, never mind explain conciousness. You sure you're happy with that statement?

I liked his 'First Cause' argument, in fact I couldn't find a single thing to disagree with.

[Rick]

His profound observation is that the scientist (or philosopher) has "faith" that the world makes sense and that our minds can understand it. We have this default approach. He is correct in that this cannot be proven (enforced by Godel's incompleteness proof), yet we all intuit that understanding the world is worth the attempt.

But then he makes that irrational (and unwarranted) leap that therefore since faith is OK, then his Christian beliefs are also OK. It's nonsense.

[trojan_libido]

I think you've taken what he said out of context. I think he meant that the Christian viewpoint is as valid as any other, maybe more so because they believed in a rational Universe created by a rational God. Then came science, which was born from the idea that the Universe is rational, which was rooted in the Christian belief system.

[Rick]

I think you've taken what he said out of context. I think he meant that the Christian viewpoint is as valid as any other, maybe more so because they believed in a rational Universe created by a rational God. Then came science, which was born from the idea that the Universe is rational, which was rooted in the Christian belief system.

Yes, that's his false belief, that god delusions are as valid as rational beliefs. There is no evidence for believing in a creator outside of the universe itself. You could say god is the universe, and you would be right, but then you would have two words for the same thing and one of them always leads to arguments! Throw away the word god and we can then make progress.

[code buttons]

You could say god is the universe

The universe is tangible, though, making for a power stripped-down god.

[Rick]

Yeah, takes all the mystery out of it. Now how does consciousness work again?

Isn't it actually a bit of a relief knowing that we are the most powerful beings in existence? On the other hand it's kind of scary knowing that if we really blow it there's nobody to rescue us. Hence the importance of ethics: don't blow it!

Theists can't be moral beings because everything they do is to save their own skins from a vengeful god.

[code buttons]

Theists can't be moral beings because everything they do is to save their own skins from a vengeful god.

Wrong there, I think. Some of the ones I know seem to care a lot about stem cell's skin too. I wonder why!

[Rick]

Because they've been told it's their duty because the bible says so and they better put political pressure on others because they'll go to hell if they don't!

I don't kill because killing human beings is wrong, not because I believe I'll be rewarded in heaven if I don't.

The religionist thinks he'll lose all control if he stops believing in god. I wouldn't trust those guys because they are only superficially good, not good in their core.

Now that's not to say there are no good-to-the-core religionists. They're just confused, and they don't know it, but they will continue to be good if they lose their false beliefs.

[trojan_libido]

Slightly overzealous on the generalisations Rick.

Theists can't be moral beings because everything they do is to save their own skins from a vengeful god.

Theists can have the same morality as you without it impacting their belief in a Deity.

[Rick]

Slightly overzealous on the generalisations Rick.

Yeah, maybe. But the 19 religious fanatics of 9/11 was a wake-up call.

[Joesus]

Wake up call or a reminder that such diverse fanaticism and generalization lives in a world or universe that is split into separateness. If the universe which contains all ideals and misrepresentations of God is God, Science and religion is the refinement of conscious focus or awareness on the Unity of things. Religions strains to create unity in belief, and sometimes science tries to create a unity of cause and effect in the nature of the universe. But if God is infinite and without any beginning and end the need to reason will go on infinitely.

The ego hates to be wrong and it would rather sacrifice all than to live without a reason or to find everything it believed in is wrong.

If the fanatic becomes the fanatic because he/she is taught by someone who has no knowledge or experience of the Unity of all things as the Universe, they will carry the torch of the religious or scientific belief until the belief is refined into Truth.
We accept this process in our public school systems but we have less of a tolerance when our school system produces other than what we think it should. Even when we unconsciously support its unconscious teachings regarding the universe.

The word God is not the problem, it is all the negative connotations injected through belief and any lack of understanding of the word.
Changing or eliminating the word won't change anything, someone would just come up with another word and that word would become the bad word as it represented the diversity of knowledge and belief represented in extremes.

[trojan_libido]

I believe that life has to have these spikes of aggression and reaction, that its because of all that conciousness bouncing around each other, and the natural variations within them. If it wasn't that particular threat on that day, there'd be a million other variations on it sooner or later. Its a sad proposition, but I think its the natural behaviour of order/chaos we're all a part of. Constant fluctuations seem to be the only constant!

[Joesus]

I believe that life has to have these spikes of aggression and reaction, that its because of all that conciousness bouncing around each other, and the natural variations within them. If it wasn't that particular threat on that day, there'd be a million other variations on it sooner or later. Its a sad proposition, but I think its the natural behaviour of order/chaos we're all a part of. Constant fluctuations seem to be the only constant!

There is another constant which is much more stable and still.
Just as the Ocean seems to constantly carry the variations of waves determined by the surface changes upon the Ocean, underneath those waves is a much greater presence.
Such is the experience of consciousness itself, when one dives under the waves of surface appearances.

[maximus242]

I dont think we can make sweeping generalizations that all religion is bad nor can we make sweeping illogical causalities.

Saying that scientists have faith and christians have faith and therefore all are equally valid is like saying; the sun is hot, the stove is hot, all are the same temperature.

Scientists live under the assumption that its very likely some or most of their ideas are wrong in one way or another. Thats not the point. The point is making these assumptions of correctness now allows us to advance human technology further until our understanding of the universe evolves.

Religion is based in dogma, science is based in principles. Religion claims universal truth, science claims universal doubt.

The scientist is always looking to understand, but does not assume he fully understands.

The claims of faith take a lot of big leaps in reasoning. Sciences faith is dynamic, religions is static. We have to believe in something, however science chooses to have faith that their faith is probably wrong in some way, and that in the future they will find a better and more accurate theory.

Not saying religion is bad either, there is much wisdom to be found in its texts and on one level part of it is probably correct. One can try to make understandings between religion and science and a co-operation between the two. However, I do not think that science and religion have the same types of or equivalent faith.

[Rick]

I dont think we can make sweeping generalizations that all religion is bad nor can we make sweeping illogical causalities.

If there could exist some religion that is good and we are free to construct our own religion, what would the religion with no bad in it look like?

First, it would recognize that there is nobody to look out for us except us (responsibility).

Second, it would recognize that there is nobody waiting to punish or reward us except us (ethics).

Third, it would recognize that holding false beliefs, when the individual is perfectly capable of truly informing himself, is wrong.

My perfect religion is beginning to look a lot like atheism!

[Trip like I do]

'SCIENCE AND RELIGION' by Werner Heisenberg

One evening during the Solvay Conference, some of the younger members stayed behind in the lounge of the hotel. This group included Wolfgang Pauli and myself, and was soon afterward joined by Paul Dirac. One of us said: "Einstein keeps talking about God: what are we to make of that? It is extremely difficult to imagine that a scientist like Einstein should have such strong ties with a religious tradition."

"Not so much Einstein as Max Planck," someone objected. "From some of Planck's utterances it would seem that he sees no contradiction between religion and science, indeed that he believes the two are perfectly compatible."

I was asked what I knew of Planck's views on the subject, and what I thought myself. I had spoken to Planck on only a few occasions, mostly about physics and not about general questions, but I was acquainted with some of Planck's close friends, who had told me a great deal about his attitude.

"I assume," I must have replied, "that Planck considers religion and science compatible because, in his view, they refer to quite distinct facets of reality. Science deals with the objective, material world. It invites us to make accurate statements about objective reality and to grasp its interconnections. Religion, on the other hand, deals with the world of values. It considers what ought to be or what we ought to do, not what is. In science we are concerned to discover what is true or false; in religion with what is good or evil, noble or base. Science is the basis of technology, religion the basis of ethics. In short, the conflict between the two, which has been raging since the eighteenth century, seems founded on a misunderstanding, or, more precisely, on a confusion of the images and parables of religion with scientific statements. Needless to say, the result makes no sense at all. This view, which I know so well from my parents, associates the two realms with the objective and subjective aspects of the world respectively. Science is, so to speak, the manner in which we confront, in which we argue about, the objective side of reality. Religious faith, on the other hand, is the expression of the subjective decisions that help us choose the standards by which we propose to act and live. Admittedly, we generally make these decisions in accordance with the attitudes of the group to which we belong, be it our family, nation, or culture. Our decisions are strongly influenced by educational and environmental factors, but in the final analysis they are subjective and hence not governed by the 'true or false' criterion. Max Planck, if I understand him rightly, has used this freedom and come down squarely on the side of the Christian tradition. His thoughts and actions, particularly as they affect his personal relationships, fit perfectly into the framework of this tradition, and no one will respect him the less for it. As far as he is concerned, therefore, the two realms�the objective and the subjective facets of the world�are quite separate, but I must confess that I myself do not feel altogether happy about this separation. I doubt whether human societies can live with so sharp a distinction between knowledge and faith."

Wolfgang shared my concern. "It's all bound to end in tears," he said. "At the dawn of religion, all the knowledge of a particular community fitted into a spiritual framework, based largely on religious values and ideas. The spiritual framework itself had to be within the grasp of the simplest member of the community, even if its parables and images conveyed no more than the vaguest hint as to their underlying values and ideas. But if he himself is to live by these values, the average man has to be convinced that the spiritual framework embraces the entire wisdom of his society. For 'believing' does not to him mean 'taking for granted,' but rather 'trusting in the guidance' of accepted values. That is why society is in such danger whenever fresh knowledge threatens to explode the old spiritual forms. The complete separation of knowledge and faith can at best be an emergency measure, afford some temporary relief. In western culture, for instance, we may well reach the point in the not too distant future where the parables and images of the old religions will have lost their persuasive force even for the average person; when that happens, I am afraid that all the old ethics will collapse like a house of cards and that unimaginable horrors will be perpetrated. In brief, I cannot really endorse Planck's philosophy, even if it is logically valid and even though I respect the human attitudes to which it gives rise.

"Einstein's conception is closer to mine. His God is somehow involved in the immutable laws of nature. Einstein has a feeling for the central order of things. He can detect it in the simplicity of natural laws. We may take it that he felt this simplicity very strongly and directly during his discovery of the theory of relativity. Admittedly, this is a far cry from the contents of religion. I don't believe Einstein is tied to any religious tradition, and I rather think the idea of a personal God is entirely foreign to him. But as far as [Einstein] he is concerned there is no split between science and religion: the central order is part of the subjective as well as the objective realm, and this strikes me as being a far better starting point.

"A starting point for what?" I asked. "If you consider man's attitude to the central order a purely personal matter, then you may agree with Einstein's view, but then you must also concede that nothing at all follows from this view."

"Perhaps it does," Wolfgang replied. "The development of science during the past two centuries has certainly changed man's thinking, even outside the Christian West. Hence it matters quite a bit what physicists think. And it was precisely the idea of an objective world running its course in time and space according to strict causal laws that produced a sharp clash between science and the spiritual formulations of the various religions. If science goes beyond this strict view�and it has done just that with relativity theory and is likely to go even further with quantum theory�then the relationship between science and the contents religions try to express must change once again. Perhaps science, by revealing the existence of new relationships during the past thirty years, may have lent our thought much greater depth. The concept of complementarity, for instance, which Niels Bohr considers so crucial to the interpretation of quantum theory, was by no means unknown to philosophers, even if they did not express it so succinctly. However, its very appearance in the exact sciences has constituted a decisive change: the idea of material objects that are completely independent of the manner in which we observe them proved to be nothing but an abstract extrapolation, something that has no counterpart in nature. In Asiatic philosophy and Eastern religions we find the complementary idea of a pure subject of knowledge, one that confronts no object. This idea, too, will prove an abstract extrapolation, corresponding to no spiritual or mental reality. If we think about the wider context, we may in the future be forced to keep a middle course between these extremes, perhaps the one charted by Bohr's complementarity concept. Any science that adapts itself to this form of thinking will not only be more tolerant of the different forms of religion, but, having a wider overall view, may also contribute to the world of values."

Paul Dirac had joined us in the meantime. He [Paul Dirac] had only just turned twenty-five, and had little time for tolerance. "I don't know why we are talking about religion," he objected. "If we are honest�and scientists have to be�we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards�in heaven if not on earth�all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins."

"You are simply judging religion by its political abuses," I objected, "and since most things in this world can be abused�even the Communist ideology which you recently propounded�all such judgments are inadmissible. After all, there will always be human societies, and these must find a common language in which they can speak about life and death, and about the wider context in which their lives are set. The spiritual forms that have developed historically out of this search for a common language must have had a great persuasive force�how else could so many people have lived by them for so many centuries? Religion can't be dismissed so simply as all that. But perhaps you are drawn to another religion, such as the old Chinese, in which the idea of a personal God does not occur?"

"I dislike religious myths on principle," Dirac replied, "if only because the myths of the different religions contradict one another. After all, it was purely by chance that I was born in Europe and not in Asia, and that is surely no criterion for judging what is true or what I ought to believe. And I can only believe what is true. As for right action, I can deduce it by reason alone from the situation in which I find myself: I live in society with others, to whom, in principle, I must grant the same rights I claim for myself. I must simply try to strike a fair balance; no more can be asked of me. All this talk about God's will, about sin and repentance, about a world beyond by which we must direct our lives, only serves to disguise the sober truth. Belief in God merely encourages us to think that God wills us to submit to a higher force, and it is this idea which helps to preserve social structures that may have been perfectly good in their day but no longer fit the modern world. All your talk of a wider context and the like strikes me as quite unacceptable. Life, when all is said and done, is just like science: we come up against difficulties and have to solve them. And we can never solve more than one difficulty at a time; your wider context is nothing but a mental superstructure added a posteriori."

And so the discussion continued, and we were all of us surprised to notice that Wolfgang was keeping so silent. He would pull a long face or smile rather maliciously from time to time, but he said nothing. In the end, we had to ask him to tell us what he thought. He seemed a little surprised and then said: "Well, our friend Dirac, too, has a religion, and its guiding principle is: 'There is no God and Dirac is His prophet.'" We all laughed, including Dirac, and this brought our evening in the hotel lounge to a close.

Some time later, probably in Copenhagen, I told Niels about our conversation. He immediately jumped to the defense of the youngest member of our circle. "I consider it marvelous," he said, "that Paul should be so uncompromising in his defense of all that can be expressed in clear and logical language. He believes that what can be said at all can be said clearly�or, as Wittgenstein put it, that 'whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.' Whenever Dirac sends me a manuscript, the writing is so neat and free of corrections that merely looking at it is an aesthetic pleasure. If I suggest even minor changes, Paul becomes terribly unhappy and generally changes nothing at all. His work is, in any case, quite brilliant. Recently the two of us went to an exhibition which included a glorious gray-blue seascape by Manet. In the foreground was a boat, and beside it, in the water, a dark gray spot, whose meaning was not quite clear. Dirac said, 'This spot is not admissible.' A strange way of looking at art, but he was probably quite right. In a good work of art, just as in a good piece of scientific work, every detail must be laid down quite unequivocally; there can be no room for mere accident.

"Still, religion is rather a different matter. I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far.

"That is why I consider those developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as 'objective' and 'subjective' are, a great liberation of thought. The whole thing started with the theory of relativity. In the past, the statement that two events are simultaneous was considered an objective assertion, one that could be communicated quite simply and that was open to verification by any observer. Today we know that 'simultaneity' contains a subjective element, inasmuch as two events that appear simultaneous to an observer at rest are not necessarily simultaneous to an observer in motion. However, the relativistic description is also objective inasmuch as every observer can deduce by calculation what the other observer will perceive or has perceived. For all that, we have come a long way from the classical ideal of objective descriptions.

"In quantum mechanics the departure from this ideal has been even more radical. We can still use the objectifying language of classical physics to make statements about observable facts. For instance, we can say that a photographic plate has been blackened, or that cloud droplets have formed. But we can say nothing about the atoms themselves. And what predictions we base on such findings depend on the way we pose our experimental question, and here the observer has freedom of choice. Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation. To that extent, every physical process may be said to have objective and subjective features. The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, as we know today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality. Admittedly, even in our future encounters with reality we shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division between the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the way things are looked at; to a certain extent it can be chosen at will. Hence I can quite understand why we cannot speak about the content of religion in an objectifying language. The fact that different religions try to express this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Perhaps we ought to look upon these different forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man's relationship with the central order."

"If you distinguish so sharply between the languages of religion, science, and art," I asked, "what meaning do you attach to such apodictic statements as 'There is a living God' or 'There is an immortal soul'? What is the meaning of 'there is' in this type of language? Science, like Dirac, objects to such formulations. Let me illustrate the epistemological side of the problem by means of the following analogy:

"Mathematicians, as everyone knows, work with an imaginary unit, the square root of –1, called i. We know that i does not figure among the natural numbers. Nevertheless, important branches of mathematics, for instance the theory of analytical functions, are based on this imaginary unit, that is, on the fact that -1 exists after all. Would you agree that the statement 'There is a -1' means nothing else than 'There are important mathematical relations that are most simply represented by the introduction of the -1 concept'? And yet these relations would exist even without it. That is precisely why this type of mathematics is so useful even in science and technology. What is decisive, for instance, in the theory of functions, is the existence of important mathematical laws governing the behavior of pairs of continuous variables. These relations are rendered more comprehensible by the introduction of the abstract concept of -1, although that concept is not basically needed for our understanding, and although it has no counterpart among the natural numbers. An equally abstract concept is that of infinity, which also plays a very important role in modern mathematics. It, too, has no correlate, and moreover raises grave problems. In short, mathematics introduces ever higher stages of abstraction that help us attain a coherent grasp of ever wider realms. To get back to our original question, is it correct to look upon the religious 'there is' as just another, though different, attempt to reach ever higher levels of abstraction? An attempt to facilitate our understanding of universal connections? After all, the connections themselves are real enough, no matter into what spiritual forms we try to fit them."

"With respect to the epistemological side of the problem, your comparison may pass," Bohr replied. "But in other respects it is quite inadequate. In mathematics we can take our inner distance from the content of our statements. In the final analysis mathematics is a mental game that we can play or not play as we choose. Religion, on the other hand, deals with ourselves, with our life and death; its promises are meant to govern our actions and thus, at least indirectly, our very existence. We cannot just look at them impassively from the outside. Moreover, our attitude to religious questions cannot be separated from our attitude to society. Even if religion arose as the spiritual structure of a particular human society, it is arguable whether it has remained the strongest social molding force through history, or whether society, once formed, develops new spiritual structures and adapts them to its particular level of knowledge. Nowadays, the individual seems to be able to choose the spiritual framework of his thoughts and actions quite freely, and this freedom reflects the fact that the boundaries between the various cultures and societies are beginning to become more fluid. But even when an individual tries to attain the greatest possible degree of independence, he will still be swayed by the existing spiritual structures�consciously or unconsciously. For he, too, must be able to speak of life and death and the human condition to other members of the society in which he's chosen to live; he must educate his children according to the norms of that society, fit into its life. Epistemological sophistries cannot possibly help him attain these ends. Here, too, the relationship between critical thought about the spiritual content of a given religion and action based on the deliberate acceptance of that content is complementary. And such acceptance, if consciously arrived at, fills the individual with strength of purpose, helps him to overcome doubts and, if he has to suffer, provides him with the kind of solace that only a sense of being sheltered under an all-embracing roof can grant. In that sense, religion helps to make social life more harmonious; its most important task is to remind us, in the language of pictures and parables, of the wider framework within which our life is set."

"You keep referring to the individual's free choice," I said, "and you compare it with the freedom with which the atomic physicist can arrange his experiments in this way or that. Now the classical physicist had no such freedom. Does that mean that the special features of modern physics have a more direct bearing on the problem of the freedom of the will? As you know, the fact that atomic processes cannot be fully determined is often used as an argument in favor of free will and divine intervention."

"I am convinced that this whole attitude is based on a simple misunderstanding, or rather on the confusion of questions, which, as far as I can see, impinge on distinct though complementary ways of looking at things. If we speak of free will, we refer to a situation in which we have to make decisions. This situation and the one in which we analyze the motives of our actions or even the one in which we study physiological processes, for instance the electrochemical processes in our brain, are mutually exclusive. In other words, they are complementary, so that the question whether natural laws determine events completely or only statistically has no direct bearing on the question of free will. Naturally, our different ways of looking at things must fit together in the long run, i.e., we must be able to recognize them as noncontradictory parts of the same reality, though we cannot yet tell precisely how. When we speak of divine intervention, we quite obviously do not refer to the scientific determination of an event, but to the meaningful connection between this event and others or human thought. Now this intellectual connection is as much a part of reality as scientific causality; it would be much too crude a simplification if we ascribed it exclusively to the subjective side of reality. Once again we can learn from the analogous situation in natural science. There are well-known biological relations that we do not describe causally, but rather finalistically, that is, with respect of their ends. We have only to think of the healing process in an injured organism. The finalistic interpretation has a characteristically complementary relationship to the one based on physico-chemical or atomic laws; that is, in the one case we ask whether the process leads to the desired end, the restoration of normal conditions in the organism; in the other case we ask about the causal chain determining the molecular processes. The two descriptions are mutually exclusive, but not necessarily contradictory. We have good reason to assume that quantum-mechanical laws can be proved valid in a living organism just as they can in dead matter. For all that, a finalistic description is just as valid. I believe that if the development of atomic physics has taught us anything, it is that we must learn to think more subtly than in the past."

"We always come back to the epistemological side of religion," I objected. "But Dirac's attack on religion was aimed chiefly at its ethical side. Dirac disapproves quite particularly of the dishonesty and self-deception that are far too often coupled to religious thought. But in his abhorrence he has become a fanatic defender of rationalism, and I have the feeling that rationalism is not enough."

"I think Dirac did well," Niels said, "to warn you so forcefully against the dangers of self-deception and inner contradictions; but Wolfgang was equally right when he jokingly drew Dirac's attention to the extraordinary difficulty of escaping this danger entirely." Niels closed the conversation with one of those stories he liked to tell on such occasions: "One of our neighbors in Tisvilde once fixed a horseshoe over the door to his house. When a mutual acquaintance asked him, 'But are you really superstitious? Do you honestly believe that this horseshoe will bring you luck?' he replied, 'Of course not; but they say it helps even if you don't believe it.'"

From Physics and Beyond, By Werner Heisenberg, (Harper & Row, 1971). Republished in Physics And Philosophy: The Evolution Of Modern Science by Werner Heisenberg, (Harper Perrennial, 2007).

[Rick]

" ... religion the basis of ethics" That's just plain wrong. Read Dawkins' The God Delusion.

[trojan_libido]

I dont think its plain wrong, although I know where your coming from since I've read the God Delusion. Just because Dawkins has a good argument, does not mean he's right. How can he possibly know that religion isn't the basics of ethics? We all know religion is as old as humanity. Religion might not be needed for ethics right now, but his statement isn't technically wrong.

[code buttons]

How can he possibly know that religion isn't the basics of ethics?

Human sacrifice, the crusades, the nazi extermination camps, "holy" wars, ect, ect. Need I say more? Just Wiping the blood off your sword doesn't make it clean.

[Rick]

How can he possibly know that religion isn't the basics of ethics?

Because, as he explains in the book, humanism is the basis of ethics (so god is not).

If god forbids immoral acts because they are wrong, then humans can decide not to do them because they are wrong without god telling them.

If immoral acts are wrong because god forbids them, then it's an arbitrary whim by a deity who could also forbid good acts. We have to decide what's good and what's the best religion. That's humanism. It's simplest to just drop the religious nonsense and decide what's good and evil, as Adam did after he ate the fruit. The bible itself is its own argument against religion!

[Joesus]

The bible itself is its own argument against religion!

Not the bible, interpretations of it. Religions are interpreted from scripture, they are not like air, where if there is none you stop breathing or vital to mans survival, but more like clothing you put on according to the knowledge of style and personal preference. They are beliefs which the superstitious mind relies on to give comfort in thoughts of emptiness and lack of understanding.

Truth is Truth when it applies to all. When truth becomes relative to personality and belief it can become a religion when it keeps one tied to an idea that keeps man separate from man, and man separate from God.

Human greed, superstition, or fear, sets man apart from the messages of Truth that are distorted into dogma and the manipulation of free will.

There is nothing in the origins of the bible that says God can or would forbid anyone to do anything. There are useful boundaries in choice that followed the knowledge of choice, that were twisted into rules leading to some idea of a God of wrath who creates punishment for certain thoughts and actions, but they are twists only in the original meanings of scripture.

The ideas are self realized in the facts/experience of cause and effect. Choice has effect. Some choices expand and others contract both the awareness and the experience of life. These topics of discussion were taken completely out of context by those who wanted to build a church to control the people rather than to set them free as they were originally intended in the education and due process of self realization.

Churchianity is a maligned educational system derived from false ideas of God or Self, built on principles of control and greed. God, described in such delusional contexts as interpreted by separation of man and God, is not responsible for making the choices that created the church. God is, all concepts and choices. Man, part and parcel to the reflection of God in experience, is the result of choice and the example of God or the power of free will and creativity. The refinement of awareness and technique of choice will eventually change the definitions of God and religion.
Religion is not responsible for mans beliefs.
Mans ignorance and evolution is responsible for keeping religion as it is, or was, or will be, alive and well.

Veritas Vos Liberabit

[Trip like I do]

Moses.... portrayed by American actor Charlton Heston

Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:2-20:17:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;

Do not have any other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work�you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

You shall not kill

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

[Hey Hey]

Heston's gun collection:

[Trip like I do]

eichee marrone.... that's a hell of a lot of guns

.... there goes the "though shalt not kill" commandment, lol

[Joesus]

GODzilla.....(Gojira) played by Japanese actor Haruo Nakajima

Thou shall not get in the way of a man in a rubber suit breathing flames of fire...