Do you believe in GOD? Do you agree with this posting?

Question

Here is a posting about the belief in higher powers. Do you agree?
http://learnsomethingnewtoday.us/?p=27

Answer 1

There's a difference between erudition and pretention. Knox has a few decent arguments but his logical flow and sentence construction are clumsy. "Smited"? And how can it be that there are religionists who believe in science but not scientists who believe in religion?

He says it's naturally human to invent supernatural explanations to reduce anxiety about overwhelming natural phenomena, but he dismisses this as a foundation for religion. He claims the only legitimate basis for religion is the human need to worship something, without explaining what this "purpose" arises from. This is semantic hooey. "Worship" is simply an appeal to a supernatural protector who is presumed to be great enough to understand and control the inexplicable natural forces that appear to threaten the worshipper. "Praise" must have a reason. It is gratitude for perceived protection, or at worst, flattery to a dangerous overlord.

Knox reasonable points out that belief in "God" doesn't keep a believer from trying to figure the world out scientifically, but this argument does not validate belief in God. Nor does science try "to disprove God". Science ignores God. Its sole topic is the natural, observable world. There are certainly scientists who dislike religion, as there are religionists who mistrust science, but these are personal positions, not arguments from method. Tossing out the casual accusation that scientists " babble idiotic clips of self-defeating logic" is irresponsible and unsupported in the article. Knox has clearly lost his temper and his reason.

This becomes further apparent when Knox asserts that science was most persecuted when "the Catholic church took over". I'm not excusing the sins of the Catholc Church, but he conveniently ignores the sequence of history. The "Catholic" Church WAS Christianity until the Protestant Reformation. There was no "taking over", only losing and feuding between Catholics and Protestants. Rome was mired in Aristotelianism, but had Protestant denominations equal resources and organization, they would have been persecuting modern scientists just as fervidly. Most of those new scientists were men of faith who made discoveries that contradicted the established "knowledge" and were consequently suppressed or condemned by religious leaders who perceived theats to their authority. Even today, fundamentalist and evangelical Christian leaders regularly condemn the science that unintentionally chips away at the former mysteries of the universe, and thereby robs God of ever more control and purpose, pushing him almost entirely into the metaphysical universe.

I don't deny there is animosity, but it is not universal. Science is a tool, only a weapon in the eyes of those who see it as a rival of faith. The recent rise of angry atheistic scientists has only come about because religionists have clearly used politics to suppress legitimate scientific inquiry. The anger is not personal. Scientists simply see religion illegitimately crossing the proper bounderies of its purposes. Science cannot explain why things are, only how. Religion can explain why, but cannot presume to know how without empirical validation. It has no business telling science what it may or may not do, any more than a scientist can tell people how to worship. They can coexist, but they cannot merge. Their purposes are too different. The scientists are telling religion to back off, stay in their sphere of competency, and leave science alone.

I'm not sure about Knox's last paragraph. He seems to be arguing that a great deal of religion is illegitimate, creations of creed mongers and mind-controllers. I agree with a lot of that, but then he reiterates his contention that the only legitimate purpose of religion is praise and worship. Maybe it's so. It would certainly keep believers off the streets, but it seems pretty useless to me. Any ordinary human could probably do with a dose of humility, but the implication is that God is extremely insecure, demanding an endless supply of ego props. That just doesn't make sense. (That's one big reason I do not believe in God as God is commonly described.)

There are two ways of being religious. Vertical spirituality, the outreach to an all powerful protector-God is a nice start, but mature belief should develop into a social response, a living out of one's beliefs, not proselytization, but an attitude, as if one's beliefs mattered in real life. As the Letter of James says, "Faith without works is dead." The best way to communicate God's justice and mercy is to show justice and compassion in one's own actions, rather than trying to force others to conform to one's own beliefs.

Answer 2

That premise is flawed . Scientists and Atheists do NOT attempt to prove that there is no god . There is NO evidence that there is a god .There is only religious/superstious reason . Scientist go about examining the universe and display their results . I do not know of one scientist who would refuse to believe in god if there was any evidence of a god . They look all over and report what they see . They see no god , no Easter bunny , ...

Answer 3

I agree with the posting 110%.

Answer 4

I believe in God and science...Yet, I agree man has caused much turmoil between the two.We all have a sinful nature and look to Jesus to save us from ourselves. But the time comes when you pray God, please save me...It's like a right of passage when you believe your time is short...Short may turn out to be long, but, no one knows for certain..By believing, you take no risk of going to eternal hellfire...Heaven sounds nice...doesn't it? May God Bless us -everyone!

Answer 5

I believe that this person's mind has been over exposed to humanism it has poluted his mind to the point that he thinks he can explain the existance of God.

Answer 6

very much so !people today need him more then they know ! in our world today theres to much war ,kids killing kids! drugs homeless poor !prayer is needed for the lost!!!

Answer 7

That's too long to read.

Answer 8

Nope, you cannot PROOVE to me there is a God and until then I will continue to doubt it.

Answer 9

I know that God exists (to the extent that we can meaningfully know anything about reality).

Cordially,
John
http://www.GodSci.org

Answer 10

No. There is no proof that God exists, any more than there is proof that Santa, Zeus and The Tooth Fairy exist.