A tired, old trope that undermines true faith and blocks the path to common ground.
Some Atheists ... assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion.... But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color.... In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary. If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion. —Rev. Bill McGinnis, The Religion of Atheism…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments126 - nugget
Prop 1 is a choice to believe something that runs contrary to the evidence.
no, it doesn't. Proposition 1 doesn't depend on evidence. It depends on feelings, emotions, instincts, and the inexplicable.
On the objective/subjective front: Do you believe that God actually exists?
yes.
If so, then he must objectively exist. You can have whatever subjective belief you want, but you're still making a claim.
This is simply not true. I never said that I had proof. That is what your accusation hinges upon. If I said that I did have evidence, then yes, I would be making a claim, but I'm not. I believe God exists in all realms, but I never said that I could prove this. You are confusing "belief" with scientific theory.
127 - nugget
you are also confusing this statement,
Belief and disbelief in God is subjective.,
with your own version of how I believe God exists. I never said anything about the subjectivity or objectivity of God. I was talking about the belief and man's approach to that belief.
128 - Pete Blackwell
You believe god actually exists, which means he objectively exists even if you base this belief on no objective criteria. Now, I would be in no position to examine your subjective reasons for believing in god. I can, however, form a belief based on objective criteria for or against the objective existence of god.
I'm not talking about proof. Nobody can currently prove or disprove the existence of god. Nor does anyone have any inherent right to challenge your subjective understanding of god.
I can, however, examine the belief that god objectively exists as a real being in the real universe and form a judgement on that claim based upon the observable, verifiable evidence available to me.
The difference between the two approaches to truth and reality is vast. Apples and oranges, as it were. And that was the point of my original post. Religion and atheism are not comparable. They're two (to simplify) vastly different ways of looking at the world.
129 - Leslie Bohn
The question of God's existence is a completely objective one: Either there is or there isn't.
Dawkins says it better than I:
The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients.
Treating these questions as though they are different from any other scientific questions is nonsense.
Either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn't. Either Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or he didn't.
Purely objective, purely scientific questions.
130 - Pete Blackwell
Agreed, but that misses the point. People who believe in god do so because of subjective factors. This is not usually true for athiests. Hence my point.
The actuality of god's existence is an unknown, objectively speaking.
131 - nugget
I can, however, form a belief based on objective criteria for or against the objective existence of god.
yes, but you have to base that on proof or the lack thereof. Furthermore, you're throwing in the "objective existence of God" as a red herring. We've been talking about the nature of belief, not the nature of or how I believe he exists.
People who believe in god do so because of subjective factors. This is not usually true for athiests.
You are wrong. You disbelieve in God for subjective reasons. If you disbelieve in aliens, you do so because someone put the idea of such into existence. It is impossible not to conclude something. Moreover, you must conclude based on a conglomeration of philosophical probabilities, NOT science because there IS no proof to back up if someone made an actual scientific claim. Luckily, no one is. It's mere conjecture. Objectivity plays no part!!!!
You make this point: If I subjectively believe in something that is objective, then I'm making an objective claim. This is not true. I never claimed to have evidence. I am not saying that God definitely exists.
As long as my belief is subjective, there is no objective dishonesty. The "belief" is where it stops. You can't weasel your way into saying that I'm making an objective claim when I am not.
It will, however, be interesting to watch you try.
132 - Leslie Bohn
Of course, having a subjective belief (aka an "opinion") about a question that is purely objective is completely useless.
One may feel that 2 plus 2 is 4, or that the cure for cancer is lots and lots of gin, but such an opinion has nothing to do with the real answers.
133 - Pete Blackwell
Many atheists disbelieve in god for objective reasons. That is, not only is there no objective proof for god's existence; there are verifiable scientific explanations for things explained differently in the various holy texts. That said, as much as you may not want to concede this point, the utter lack of evidence in favor of a proposition is legitimate grounds for doubt. Particularly when the claim touches on the supernatural. Now, I never said it's conclusive, but it's grounds for doubt nonetheless.
You make this point: If I subjectively believe in something that is objective, then I'm making an objective claim.
I never made that point. What I said was this: if you believe in the actual existence of god as a real being in the universe (which you do, as you said) then I can look at that claim and apply a scientific test to it. That does not mean I should assail the tenets of your belief or disparage your subjective understanding of god. Which I didn't.
Your belief in a real god is either true or not. Whether or not you arrived at your conclusion using objective methods, your claim is testable using objective methods. This is not to say that they will be fruitful, but such methods are a legitimate approach to determining whether a certain claim about the world is true or false. That's it.
I never accused you of any kind of dishonesty or anything of the sort. I think I've been perfectly polite and level-headed. I certainly never claimed that you said you had evidence or said that god definitely exists. These are all words you have put into my mouth.
For the last time, the point that I'm making is that your approach to god is not based on evidence or proof; it's based on faith. For most atheists this is not true. That's the difference and that's why atheism is not a religion.
134 - nugget
Pete: I'll get to your post tomorrow.
Leslie said: One may feel that 2 plus 2 is 4, or that the cure for cancer is lots and lots of gin, but such an opinion has nothing to do with the real answers.
haha. what a cheap shot. This is hardly analogous.
I could say to you, "One may feel that they are in love, but such is an opinion and has nothing to do with real answers."
Nice.
135 - Leslie Bohn
On the contrary, my examples are exactly analagous, as they are objective questions of science, like "Is there a god who created everything or not?' or "Why do humans live on land rather than swim?" or "What does pi equal?"
Your question is purely subjective, and as such one's feelings about the answer are indeed valid. Seems like a pretty obvious difference between your example and mine.
136 - nugget
Leslie: Perhaps "analogous" isn't the word. Relevant?? I'm saying you swept in and wrongly assume that someone somewhere said that God wasn't a physical God. We are beyond this point. We're talking about the nature of our beliefs and how we reached them. We're not asking for a definition of objectivity. Your comments aren't particularly relevant. We understand this and you're not illuminating anything. That's all.
Pete: As far as I can gather, there is one principle difference between us that transcends everything else, and that is what method of experimentation we value.
We have come to different conclusions, but have used similar methods to get there. I'm trying to find common ground here, so bear with me. Can you agree that you came to a belief that God probably does not exist not only on a lack of objective evidence, but on a few subjective reasons as well?
I reached such a belief only on subjective reasoning. Are you basing your belief a bit more on physical evidence than I am? Yes. Are you using objective reasoning more than subjective reasoning? Yes.
I tend to value the subjective side of life. I believe this is the spice of life. I do great on standardized tests, I improvise and compose music, I read incessantly, and I have many other hobbies, most of which include intellectual pursuits.
But I value that which I do not understand. I do not wish to control it.
Let me revert to your Cairo metaphor. You and I both conclude that Cairo exists. Let's say that you and I have never been there. The possibility to visit Cairo is very real, BUT if you do not, then you are forced to believe second-hand that Cairo is a real place. Even television does not make it a realization.
The same goes for the nuts and bolts in your car. The possibility to check that they are all there at all times exists, but only if you check them will you have sufficient evidence. You believe that the possibility to test such things negates the fact that you are reaching that conclusion by means subjective. You are only assuming these things to be true because you could theoretically test them. My point is, yes, you could. But you don't. You're not testing them. There are so many things that you're not testing. You assume them to be true. Why? Gut instinct. One could say, "Well surely these things are true, because there is so much evidence that says that they are." This is mostly an objective response, but it is also based on what you feel to be true.
It is not in the nature of man to go around analyzing data like cyborgs. We think, rationalize, but we also feel and hope. You cannot escape this burden even if you tried. Just like you can't escape your own bias when it comes to journalism or politics, and you cannot escape your natural inclination to approach such a decision as to whether or not there is a God.
137 - Leslie Bohn
Mr. Nugget:
Sorry, but a definition of objectivity is exactly what you need if you think your analogy was equivalent to mine. Also if you believe your car-maintenance questions are "partly subjective."
Why do I "assume" that the nuts and bolts in my car exist? Because my car works.
Gut instinct has nothing to do with it. You just keep insisting that atheists are using subjective reasoning because you are. I'm not. Neither is Mr. Blackwell, from what I read.
I agree that you're not making an objective claim about the existence of gods. And since it's an objective question, I ask why should anyone pay attention to your subjective opinion on the matter?
As for I'm saying you swept in and wrongly assume that someone somewhere said that God wasn't a physical God. I just don't have a clue what you're talking about here. I made no such assumption -- quite the opposite. I am talking specifically about a physical entity that created and cares about the universe.
I too value the mysteries and uncertainties of the wondrous universe. I'm not sure how I could "control" them, but I know that just assuming there's a god who does control them is no way to delve into them any further.
138 - nugget
Leslie: A car can work without you knowing everything about it. A car can run with a plethora of difficiencies of which you know nothing about. It's not so simple as "cause it works."
but I know that just assuming there's a god who does control them is no way to delve into them any further.
nice characterization of thousands of years of theological debate, discourse, theorems, and honest conjecture. It's no question what you believe, but try to be a little more fair and respectful. Dogma does not equate "just assuming there's a God."
139 - Nancy
Alls I can say is, thank God (or whatever) I don't have to know how a car works, or I'd be up a creek! Actually that goes for most technology in my life.... ;T
140 - Local mechanic
"A car can work without you knowing everything about it."
Yes, but a car can't work without anyone knowing everything about it.
Rather than waste time in this philosophical circle jerk of semantics where no one is going to change their mind, why not use your time more productively and actually accomplish something? You could have said, "Nuh-huh" and gotten the same results.
Honestly, no one cares what you believe, including God and its many definitions.
141 - frank
hey local mechanic,
philosophical circle jerk......, I like that.
I think it's just a bunch of kids out here trying their hand on an intellectual macho game of who is right, who's the smartest. haven't read anything on here that relates to real life. That's too bad, really, but hey they're kids.....I hope.
142 - Pete Blackwell
How clever and adult of you, frank.
143 - Zack
I make similar arguments here:
144 - media_lush
This is a pretty naive discourse and not really worthy of any considered comment....which in itself is a delightful contradiction.
145 - handyguy
Pete, I hope you don't mind that I just put this on Digg and Reddit. Surprised that it wasn't already there. The article is excellent, and it has drawn the most interesting set of comments I've ever seen here. Sorry I missed out until today.
146 - Les Slater
Nugget, I love ya. With believers like you we don't need atheists. At least not for long. And I believe your beliefs are primarily derived through objective reasoning. The belief in God that you claim is not even absolute, you do hold out that God may not actually exist. You have boxed yourself into a very small corner.
147 - Andreas
I think the problem here is the interpretation of the word "religion".
The term "religion" just means that a group of people are bound together by similar beliefs or a way of thinking. Some people are bound by their belief in one or more gods (e.g. Christianity and Islam), others by their way of life (e.g. Buddhism), and others again by their belief in the randomness of our existence (e.g. Atheism).
By saying atheism is no religion you are saying that atheism is not something that binds people together in a belief.
But believing in "nothing" is still a belief! Or perhaps you suggest that atheism is no belief because it is "proven to be right"? Are you saying that there is no God is a fact, not a belief? Even though I share your conviction, what gives us the right to claim our way of seeing things is the one and only correct way? Couldn't Christians also say that the existence of God is a fact, not a belief? Or Buddhists that the Four Noble Truths are fact, not belief?
If atheists take the right to deny that their beliefs are a religion then what should stop Christians, Muslim, Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists to do the same? All of us think of our beliefs as facts.
So, if we agree that Atheism is a belief in certain concepts (or the absence of such) then it is a religion just as all the other religions are: people are bound together by their beliefs.
148 - Les Slater
I am an atheist, a communist, a Marxist, a dialectical materialist and a Hegelian.
Atheism can be no more than transitory, it has a built-in contradiction which is the seed of its own destruction. It depends for its very existence on God, or at least a belief in God. If there never were a God or at least a belief in Him, there never would have been an atheism either.
As is evidenced in Nugget, there is a trend toward defending God, or a supreme being, on the very narrowest of grounds. Not only has he boxed himself into a very small corner, but he brings God with him.
As God withers, so will atheism.
149 - duane
#136: As far as I can gather, there is one principle difference between us that transcends everything else, and that is what method of experimentation we value. We have come to different conclusions, but have used similar methods to get there.
I hope you're not as confused as your writing.
#147: But believing in "nothing" is still a belief!
I skipped dinner last night, but that was still a meal. Broiled nothing, mashed nothing on the side, a good bottle of nothing, and for dessert, oven-warmed nothing with a heap of nothing on top ... yummm.
#148: Atheism ... depends for its very existence on God, or at least a belief in God.
And silence depends on the existence of noise, or at least a belief in noise ... yeah ... that makes sense ....
150 - Les Slater
“And silence depends on the existence of noise, or at least a belief in noise ... yeah ... that makes sense ....”
This is nothing more than a reciprocal relationship. There is only one phenomenon, sound, not two distinct realities. Silence and noise are just quantitative differences of sound levels. It cannot be true that as one withers, so the other.
Atheism is not a quantitative difference in the belief in God. Atheism stands in opposition to God, because of God, and the two will wither together.
151 - troll
Les - you give too much away...keeping things concrete yields::
atheists stand in opposition to faithists because of their use of the concept of 'God'...when faithists back off so will the atheists
also - your idea of withering isn't clear to me...what is it if not behavior that is quantifiable - ?
152 - Les Slater
“Les - you give too much away...”
How so?
“atheists stand in opposition to faithists because of their use of the concept of 'God'...when faithists back off so will the atheists”
What do you mean when you say ‘their use of the concept of God’? It seems you only object to, and therefore, your only criticism of religion, is in their ‘use’ of their concept of God. The essence of what you’re saying is that atheism is only a response to the abuse of faith. But it is only the fact of faith that is necessary for atheism to arise. The implication of your proposition is that quiet faith and quiet atheism could exist side by side, forever.
This is a very complicated issue. First, you have to realize God is real, at least insofar as God is a creation of man, He has an objective reality. His direct and indirect agents have real power.
The ethereal God has no objective manifestation, He cannot be what motivates men’s behavior, since He does not exist. His real existence is only a reflection of real social relations in a class-divided society.
I like Nugget’s take on God because he is essentially making Him irrelevant. More and more people will question a legal finding when it concludes an ‘Act of God’. They are inclined to look behind the curtain to see where the real responsibility lies.
153 - troll
what you give away is a clear meaning what 'is' is...it might help me understand if you would give a few examples of things that are 'unreal' in the sense that you use the word 'real' to describe 'God'
*What do you mean when you say 'their use of the concept of God'? *
as in people using the concept to construct and justify those legal findings and ethical prescriptions for behavior
*your only criticism of religion, is in their 'use' of their concept of God.*
replace 'religion' with 'the religious' and that's correct
*The implication of your proposition is that quiet faith and quiet atheism could exist side by side, forever.*
what principle requires that atheists and faithist cannot do so - ?
the concepts are not actors independent of faithists and atheists...yield to your use of words and what isn't is
154 - Les Slater
“...what you give away is a clear meaning what 'is' is...it might help me understand if you would give a few examples of things that are 'unreal' in the sense that you use the word 'real' to describe 'God'”
I am a materialist in the strict philosophical sense of the word. I am not an idealist or a dualist. Hence, there is no meaning to ‘unreal’, except as a reflection of the real. What many may describe as unreal has an objective reality.
When I talk of a real God, I am referring to those reflections of social relations that are labeled God.
*What do you mean when you say 'their use of the concept of God'? *
“as in people using the concept to construct and justify those legal findings and ethical prescriptions for behavior”
Sure, but the point I am trying to make is that those actions, ultimately, are based on the social relations that give rise the ‘legal and ethical’ prescriptions, the same relations that give rise to God. The defenders of particular social relations may use the projected God as a justification for those very same social relations. Who’s behind the curtain?
*The implication of your proposition is that quiet faith and quiet atheism could exist side by side, forever.*
“what principle requires that atheists and faithist cannot do so - ?”
The point I am making by using nugget as an example of a trend to defend God from the narrowest of perspectives is that it is indeed a trend. The narrowness of these defenses is getting narrower. There is less belief in the literal. The God that we all grew up with is being relegated to a fairy tale. God is withering. When God is gone then what reason for atheists?
“the concepts are not actors independent of faithists and atheists...yield to your use of words and what isn't is”
The actors take part in the social relations and concepts are reflections of those social relations.
155 - troll
agreed - one can examine concepts - speculate about the social relations that they reflect - and attempt trend prediction
156 - nugget
sorry I've been gone for this long.
Let me list some dictums that I believe ring true to the thinking person of Faith.
1. MOST atheists are purely reactionary against the regional "God."
2. Many atheists pretend to think they reached such a conclusion by a mere "lack of physical evidence."
3. All atheists reach their conclusion that God does not exist by means of subjective emotional and indistinguishable reasons. Perhaps they dislike Christians, had a bad home life, had a bad experience with religion, hates the nature of men and the fact that a God would allow murder, rape, etc.
4. Atheists are very dishonest about my last point. They like to pretend like they are being good objective scientists by simplifying the pretenses of their beliefs.
5. Atheists, by default, are then inclined to believe that they are particularly more objective than 95% of Earth's population. The rest of man reaches conclusions with irrational and hopeful predispositions.
157 - nugget
There is less belief in the literal. The God that we all grew up with is being relegated to a fairy tale. God is withering.
some sweeping unrelated comments.
You misunderstand. I still believe and hope that my car's parts are in working order every time I get in and turn the key. The possibility to check every corner of my engine is real, but that's not what my Faith depends on. My Faith depends on the fact that I don't and will not look at my engine. Yes the possibility to do such is in my hands. But I dont. It has thus turned from something real into something very unreal. That's how people operate. We don't care much for physical evidence. We care about love, saving face, keeping up a reputation, justice, sex, getting what we want, feeling loved, respected, and understood. We are preoccupied with self-defense and living, not knowledge. Knowledge is a means for survival and truth. (these two are inextricably linked)
158 - Leslie Bohn
All of your foolish, insulting dicta are wrong. Each has been discussed at length here. Won't waste pixels refuting them again. You're completely unable to approach any of these issues outside of your realm of understanding. You are "projecting."
Because you don't use reason with respect to these issues, you can't even imagine others doing so, and insist they're not.
It's also a pretty good bet that generalizing about a group of people is almost always wrong. You won't see me spouting off about "faithists" and what "they" believe.
Further, if you actually did any reading in philosophy or comparitive religion, you'd know how silly your "dicta" sound to people who have actually studied, pondered and done work in this area.
159 - Les Slater
nugget #157
You are not convincing at all. You have more faith in the existence of Cairo than you do of God.
Les
160 - Joel Pelletier
It is my view that what all religions share are unique versions of the answers to the questions "why are we here, and is there more than what we see?". This is a desire to know what is by definition unknowable (exstistential splitting of hairs aside - I know I DO EXIST, end of story). Each religion, faith, belief system (or WHATEVER) has concluded that they have THE answers to this (whatever that answer may be).
As an atheist (I actually prefer the term Humanist), I accept that I do not know the answers to these questions, that neither I nor ANY OTHER human can ever know the answers, and that IT'S OK. I believe this is an essential part of any religion - THEY HAVE TO KNOW, and celebrate the fact that they do. Atheists have concluded (either consciously or at a gut level) that there are some questions (especially these) for which there cannot be answers, but that this does NOT make life less valuable or less worth living. In fact, it makes it more so, since it's the only one we KNOW we'll ever have. That is NOT a religion - it's just reality.
So, as Saint Rodney has asked, "can't we all just get along?"
However, as a Humanist, I celebrate humanity's attempt to find these answers. We end of leaving quite a bit or science, art, achitecture, literature, philosophy, etc, behind in that search, which do help make life worth living.
As far as the negative stuff religions have introduced throughout the eons, people would find plenty of other reasons to hate and kill each other if religion did not exist. We seem to be pretty good at this as well, which is also very HUMAN of us.
161 - Pete Blackwell
Or, perhaps, there are no answers to these questions.
I often wonder, especially in flu season, whether human beings exist simply as nature's most advanced method of transporting and propagating viruses. It sure seems to be what children are for.
162 - sr
If the existence of God/Creator was proven a fact tomorrow wouldn't that put a cramp on life styles? No. An incovenance. Yes. Disrupt a multi-trillion dollar industry. Absolutely. We just cannot have God/Creator. Im not about to stop my rum consumption or anything else considered evil ways.
163 - Les Slater
Joel #160
"why are we here, and is there more than what we see?"
“As an atheist ..., I accept that I do not know the answers to these questions, that neither I nor ANY OTHER human can ever know the answers...”
Pete #161
“Or, perhaps, there are no answers to these questions.”
I’m an atheist and an optimist. I see no reason why these questions cannot be answered.
164 - Les Slater
sr #162
“If the existence of God/Creator was proven a fact tomorrow...”
So, you do not claim, or deny, the existence in God? If proven a fact, you wouldn’t have to change your behavior, just find a denomination that fit your lifestyle.
165 - sr
Les. What does a denomination have to do with anything concerning my comment. That you must agree would be a mute supisition.
166 - Les Slater
"We just cannot have God/Creator. Im not about to stop my rum consumption or anything else considered evil ways."
I am assuming that there is a denomination that does not strictly disapprove of a shot of rum to soothe the soul. What other evils? I am sure you could find a denomination to tolerate those too. If not, start one.
167 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Let's talk about awe and wonder for a second, kids. Two years ago, it took an event 10 hours to snuff out 300,000 lives. That is how fast the tsunami on Boxing Day moved.
Afterwards, I searched the papers for any mention that there might be a force more powerful than the United States on the planet. Only one newspaper - one out of India - excoriated Man on his arrogance fo thinking that he was the master of the planet, when obbiously he was not.
Plenty of others bitched "where was G-d?" etc., including more than a few clergymen.
Fools, seeing thirty myriads of lives crushed out like ants under a roaring wave of destruction, did not know how to react to the occasional reminder of just how puny and unimportant we are.
I return you to your regularly scheduled programming...
168 - duane
Let's start a sea worshiping cult.
169 - Rev. Michael S. Margolin
HS,
Atheism is not a religion but it is a belief, no more or less valid than any other belief and or religion.
ISN
Baphomet Rex 666
The mad Poet Acbhb
Rev. Michael S. Margolin
170 - Joel Pelletier
Les #163:
Just because there is no REASON for life, and for us to exist, does not prevent us from each individually searching for happiness, goals, validation and direction in THIS life (and learning to get along with one another, which is ETHICS). But the idea that there is some sort of universal instruction manual that answers these questions for everyone is trivial at best, arrogant at worst.
171 - sr
I only curious. All I wanted to know was if the existence of God/Creator was proven to be a fact would that put a cramp on your life style. And if so, why?
172 - duane
sr (#171), the answer is 'yes,' although "cramp" is not quite the right word for the effect it would have.
Why? A complete upheaval of my perception of reality oughta be enough for a start. Are you asking if I would stop being a 'sinner'? That all depends on the nature of the creator. I doubt that a creator worth his metasalt would hand down a bunch of silly rules. But that's just me.
173 - sr
Duane. At least your perceptive and honest. No sir, Im not asking you to stop being a sinner. I sin enough just being me. Yes I do rant and rave, however Im not nor ever will be in a position of judgment. Of course without a God/Creator sin becomes erelivent. Then again what god do we speak of. The God of the bible or gods of one choosing? I will not comment concerning a creator with a bunch of silly rules because your focus is biblical in nature. I stand with my original comment. Thanks Duane for being truthful.
174 - nugget
anyone who thinks that they live by proof and proof alone is delusional.
Someone prove to me that love exists.
Someone prove to me that emotions physically exist. Give me the mathematical proofs. I'm not talking about colors and brain activity. I want to see the algorithms.
This thread astonishes me.
I will say that I couldn't wait for my previous post to galvanize the lurking dissent. Just reelin' em in baby. You can't keep your eyes off of me.
175 - nugget
Joel P.:
That's an excellent comment. (160)
However, you say this: I believe this is an essential part of any religion - THEY HAVE TO KNOW
you believe wrong. anyone who understands the very basic precepts and axioms of Judaism, Christianity, or so many other religious doctrines is that it is not rooted in "knowledge" as we understand it. Does the tree of knowledge ring a bell?
also this, So, as Saint Rodney has asked, "can't we all just get along?"
lol. Forgive me for seeming smug, but that's an easy one. NO.