To Atheists, Agnostics, Darwinians, etc (serious only)...?

Question

If you have any, please post the most important question(s) you have that fit these categories. Thank you for your time.

1. What question(s) do you think a religious person could not honestly answer?
2. What question(s) would you say most religious people haven't considered?
3. If your own belief is dependent on a faith in something (e.g. the scientific method), what questions have you thought through that lead you to accepting this as the preferable faith? In other words, have you questioned the assumptions that lead you to your beliefs, and if so, what questions did you ask?

I am a scientist (MS physics) by trade and a Christian by faith. I am trying to understand the supposed gap between science and religion. Again, thank you. The 10 points goes to the clearest, most thought-out response (IMO of course).

O.k. fair enough. A religious person in this context means a devout Christian or Jew that thinks the Bible is the inspired word of God. Not to exclude other religions, but lets just stick with well known western thought here. Don't get hung up on that part, you know what I mean. Thanks.

To Fred: Faith in the scientific method may or may not be different than faith in a religion. Either way, you must admit that the scientific method cannot PROVE itself to lead to the ultimate truth! Think Godel. As such, a person takes it on a type of faith that this method is the best way to describe the universe.

To Dave P. Thank you for your thoughts. About your question... The laws physics are formulated based on countless repeatable observations, right? They are not deduced from some cosmic first principles, thus a miracle falls outside their domain of applicability. In fact you could take that as a definition of a miracle. Take the law of conservation of energy for example. For a closed system, the energy out equals the energy in minus the energy stored. This is a law of physics, but does this law say anything about possible sources of energy? No. In the last 200 years we have discovered several new types of energy; nuclear, bond energy, heat etc. The difference between physicists that are Christian and those that aren't is that we allow for the possibility that the author of the laws of the universe can suspend or interject himself into their workings at any time. Non-believers I have met tend to believe God would be subject to his own creation. Thus we are back to faith.

Answer 1

It depends on what you mean by "religious person". The biggest science - religion controversies that I've seen are those involving biblical literalists, fundamentalists who feel that the whole of the bible is literal (except where the bible says it is meant as a parable).

1. I might ask a fundamentalist if he truly believes in the biblical cosmology - that the Earth is flat, is suspended in and surrounded by water, is covered over with a firmament, and that what most people think are independent bodies such as the sun, moon, planets, and stars are in reality lights embedded in that firmament?

2. What is the effect of a young earth on other sciences beyond biology?

3. My belief, Atheism, is based upon faith that the lack of evidence for god is evidence for a lack of god. I recognize that this is not a logical proposition - it is a matter of faith.

As far as science, I accept the preponderance of evidence as indicating that which is most likely to be closest to the truth. I don't believe anything. If it turned out tomorrow that evidence showed that E was equal to M C squared plus 1, I would not have any crisis of faith.

Just something for you to think about as a physicist - what happened to the momentum when god stopped the sun for a day and then started it up again?

Answer 2

1. There are hundreds of questions relating to the Bible but they are all answered, God wanted it that way, or We are not meant to understand. Ultimately, I would want to know; (speaking of Christianity and Judaism) "How could God be omnipotent, omniscient, loving, and so cruel and twisted all at the same time?" and "How can some of those really preposterous stories and claims be truth?"
2. I often wonder if most religious people (again talking about those of the Chrstian and Jewish faiths) have even considered how much of history has been spent arguing with scientists instead of finding ways to rectify faith and science and catapult their people into leadership roles by helping society learn and study. This happens over and over (mostly with Christianity), first there is a fight because the Earth is the center of the solar system, then there is a fight because there is more to the universe than the Bible says. What will you do next year? next decade? next century when we learn more?
3. I believe in what the Ancient Celts believed, we all meet the universe in our own way. We are part of the universe so our experiences dictate what information we have and what we need. By looking, learning and listening, more information is always available for the taking. I do believe that life is more than the sum of its parts but I believe that our definition of life can be very narrow. I believe that this is preferable because is allows us each to grow and explore as people individually AND together as a group. My faith is based on the assumption that my feelings and experiences are valuable to me and to humanity and are therefore worthy of acknowledgement. It is also based on the assumption that there is not limit to our growth and ability to learn and understand. I asked myself what it meant to me that these assumptions could be wrong, if we are not valuable to each other and the universe except in this minute moment in which we exist, then the fact that I believe that will not matter; if there is a limit to what we can understand, then I will be saddened, if I can understand that there is more that we cannot understand (sorry, it always sounds circular when I put it into words) and again, it won't matter.

I too, am a scientist, a biologist. I have never quite understood why there was a gap at all. Why can't they agree and work together?

Answer 3

1) A religious person can answer any question "honestly." There is nothing that says they can't be 100% convinced of the ridiculousness of their claims. The question I've found most religious people have a difficult time answering is how humans can "know" god without exposure to other humans and their religious beliefs (which, of course, they cannot.) Human beings are born atheists, and learn religion from other humans, but if they are never taught, they have no innate sense of what we call god. We know this from studies of feral children, and people who've been isolated from contact for extensive periods of time, especially in childhood. The same holds true for certain types of mentally retarded/autistic people. Theists claim these people are given a "pass" by god, so to speak, be we really have no way of knowing for certain if they actually have spiritual beliefs, feelings, divine knowledge, etc. All we have is conjecture and wishful thinking on the part of the observers.

2) Most religious people haven't considered two LOOMING questions... 1) What will happen when we discover a technological path to immortality, and 2) What will happen when we create life (either organic, or artificial intelligence)? While it is hard for many people to see this far ahead, computer research has one all-consuming goal... to create a seamless fusion of technology with the human condition. Electronic implants that augment hearing, heartbeats, and even muscle control are already a reality. Memory aids, visual and speech prosthetics are on the way. At some point we will have the ability to interact directly with electronics, and eventually will be able to upload and download information into our brains. The next logical step would be to download OURSELVES into machinery, thus achieving a sort of immortality. The implications for religion would be staggering to say the least. Where does god fit into a world where nobody ever ends? A.I. poses an equally disturbing problem for theists. If a computer becomes self-aware, are we its gods? What if the computer doesn't agree. What if the computer doesn't believe in god? Are we allowed to turn off an electronic life form? Dizzying problems for theists!

3) My own beliefs are not dependent on faith. Faith, to me, represents a persons denial of answers they find unpalatable, or it is an excuse for saying, "I don't' know, and I can't live without some kind of explanation." I believe in things because of evidence, measurable prior trends, and predictable future trends. When I drive to work in the morning, I do not have faith that oncoming drivers will stay on their side of the road, I BELIEVE they will because people are intelligent, law abiding citizens. There is always the risk that someone will have a stroke, unexpectedly cross lanes and hit me head-on, but that is a calculated risk I take when driving. I do not know the purpose for the existence of the universe, but my admission does not require a subsequent belief in some "thing" that comfortably answers this question for everyone else. I'm perfectly content to say there are questions I am not capable of working through, and I can live quite happily not knowing the answers, although I believe that there are people working hard to find them, and one day probably will. Woohoo!

I am a scientist by passion, a realist by necessity, and a humanist by nature. I describe the world as I see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, taste it and can study it. The same goes for my observations of people. I believe that there is a logical, rational, comprehensible answer for everything, but we may simply not yet be evolved enough to understand the answers. In the interim, I will not fall prey to a "god" delusion simply because it comfortably fills in the gaps.

Answer 4

1. too broad; I think _a_ religious person could theoretically honestly answer _any_ question. Even if I restrict the question to christians only there are still too many denominations with differing beliefs to make this a meaningful question.

2. again if we restrict to christians I often see a certain blindness or dismissal of other religions, in _some_ christians.

3. you say you are a scientist but how can you then talk of faith in the scientific method? Faith, by definition, has nothing to do with science. Also, what Om said earlier.

Answer 5

There are few, if any, questions that religious people could not answer by giving God as an explanation, but I simply disagree on the way the world would work as a created one.
Mainly, the lack of free will in a world controlled by an omnipotent being bothers me. Besides that, I dislike the fact that many people kill or harm for the sake of their religion.

As well as the above reasons, there is no definite proof behind most religions, so I choose not to follow any.

Answer 6

I think you need to define what you mean by a 'religious person'. Many christian fundamentalists have responded to certain questions with 'answers' that emphasize dogma, leaving the questions unanswered. Other christians have answered the same questions without dogma (some christians even treat the life-after-death stuff as metaphorical). Realized zen buddhists tend to devalue the virtual reality offered by belief and instead throw the questions back onto the questioner, especially because to answer certain questions with belief IS the problem. So, we can provide tons of questions that would ALL be answered unsatisfactorily precisely because they come from belief and not direct experience. Therefore, in keeping with your allegiance to the scientific method, it would be best to instead focus on getting direct experience.

Answer 7

A - I cannot ask an appropriate question that has not already been asked here.

B - Have any religious people ever stopped to wonder if the bible they have read all their life is not just the work of writers adding to a popular book over the millennia, like authors do with popular book series these days?

C - I'm not sure I understood what you were saying there, but at least I could reply to your second, sorry.

Answer 8

As a Buddhist with a heavy background in religious studies:

1. Proof of an omnipotent creator being (outside of faith and/or "feelings").
2. Linear time, Buddhist philosophy, etc.
3. As a Buddhist, we aren't supposed to take ANYTHING on "faith" but to test even the Buddha's words "like gold", so I question the answers ALL THE TIME... and I always, to date, wind up coming to the same conclusions the Buddha's talked about.

You might get a kick out of "The Quantum and the Lotus" by Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan and anything written by one of my favorite Buddhist teachers B. Alan Wallace... you can find him online and many of his books at SnowLionpubs.com

With a heavy background in Western psychology, theistic and non-theistic religions, history and philosophy I've enjoyed all of the logic in Buddhism and am furthering my studies in Buddhist psychology and so on.

_()_

Answer 9

1.)A religious person could not answer the question "What is your incontrovertable, provable to others, proof of your belief?"

2.) Most religious people haven't asked themselves "What is the source of this information?" and looked for the source and updated their source as new information arises.

3.) My questions were: 1) upon learning of Buddha at age 7-8, I questioned why only Jesus could be a Savior, when Buddha seemed just like one, too.
2) Are there other Saviors besides Jesus and Buddha. Are there "modern" Saviors? At the time Mother Theresa and Ghandi seemed like good candidates.
3)What are we made of? Science explained that-star stuff and electro-magnetic energy.
4) What is this feeling of wanting to return "home"? I had an experience that "took me home" and knew "home" wasn't here.
5) How does our electro-magnetic "body" interfere and interrelate to others' electro-magnetic field "bodies". We are pinging energy off of eachother all the time. What are the effects? A mixture of science and New Age/Buddhist thought aided me there.
6) Is there "intelligent" energy? Science proved that with research into viruses (thanks to HIV).
7) Does that mean there is intelligent energy that is capable of "love"? Science is proving that prayer really does "cure" illness and "dis-ease".
8) Is re-incarnation real? Well, if time doesn't exist, then re-incarnation is impossble, right? Not so, if our "soul" is so huge and can manifest it's energy on many differing "levels", why can't it be living "all" of your lives at once? This would explain why people have "past life memories", especially children. Of course you would have to account for parallel Universes, wormholes and string theory...but it works in my brain for me-too complicated to get into on this forum.

So, my theory is that "god" is the intelligent energy that decided to know itself, exploded into the Universe and became "us". And eventually we will all collapse again into unity and "come home". All of it, the other galaxies, the space dust, the Hitlers, all get to come home. That's it (in a nutshell).

Answer 10

1. Am I right?
2. Could I be wrong?
3. I believe in the scientific method. Before I accept something as fact, I ask the following:
Is it observable (either directly or through effect)?
Is it objective (would Joe Bloggs next door be forced to come to the same conclusion as me given the evidence)?
Is it repeatable (this wasn't just a fluke)?
Am I independent from the phenomenum (its not my mind tricking me, such as in an optical illusion)?

Given these conditions, i am willing to believe in anything. But remember, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.