Up front, though it may appear otherwise, this is not a commentary against the small community churches that serve to strengthen our nation’s moral fiber and to teach the difference between right and wrong. Those who use God’s name to justify murder, hatred, and bigotry are another matter.
This article is designed to make you think, to ponder, and even to laugh out loud occasionally, despite its serious subject… after all nothing loses your readers faster than a dull harangue that goes on and on and on, without a few chuckles thrown in for punctuation… right? For those of you who actually reach the end of this piece with your sanity intact, I’ll remind you I did use the word “theory” in the title and that said title does after all end in a question mark, and I will explain why in the last paragraph.
And so…
I consider it an axiom that if you can’t trust the source of your information, then it follows that you can’t trust the opinions, conclusions or facts that the absorption of it produces — or so I’ve been told. After all, aren’t facts really nothing more than widely accepted opinions?
But what happens when your main information source becomes as outdated as an old forgotten computer running DOS that’s never even heard of Windows? Like our old computer, even if the ancient scribes of the Bible knew and understood how the universe actually works, they’d sadly lack the vocabulary to describe it, and their readers would probably dismiss their explanations as evil heresy. It is human nature to fear what you don’t understand, and many kill what they fear, so the authors of the Holy Bible tended to keep their teachings simple, regardless of the complex lessons they were trying to relay.
In recent times I’ve found my personal faith shaken. Like an argument that’s been built on unstable ground, I can’t repair it by nit picking the little things that are wrong, or wedging a brick beneath a sinking foundation to temporarily keep its floor level.
In our day and age, the battle to move forward in knowledge, while staying morally rooted in the past is like the sturdy flying buttresses on opposite sides of an ancient church. The holy sanctuary would most assuredly fall down if either of them stopped leaning against it, but like a stubborn old man, it refuses to acknowledge that it even needs them. Worse yet, as new churches are built around it, shock sets in when it realizes that the new ones don’t even need the buttresses that he relies on.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet in Columbus
Well, that went over like a lead balloon...
2 - Ruvy
Your first problem is that you are preaching to a choir (that I don't belong to, by the way).
Your second problem is that in considering religion versus science, you only considered the Greek view - that Mind and Matter are entirely separate, and you really looked at only one religion - one that tried to marry Greek pagan philosophical ideas to Jewish humanism, and which then tried to cut off its Hebrew roots.
Your final problem was your failure to consider that politics dominates science as much it does religion - evidence debunking slow evolution (found in the 1920's), as opposed to sudden evolutionary change, was left sitting in a drawer for decades because it would not have been politically correct to debunk Darwin's ideas.
Lead balloons generally have problems like these....
3 - Matthew T. Sussman
The fact that it reads like an eighth grade term paper artificially inflated to reach a teacher-mandated 3,000-word count didn't exactly help, either.
Jeez, Jet, couldn't wait more than a few hours to admit yourself that your article was not thought provoking?
4 - Christopher Rose
It's not actually possible to consider religion versus science.
Religion is a bunch of unsupported theories based on the persistent assumption that there is some weird superpower.
Science is hard won knowledge proven by developing theories and then testing them.
I don't have a problem with believing in the existence of omnipotent super beings but I'm not about to do so based on myth, legend and superstition.
I think the issue for the author may be that they used to believe, then they didn't and now they're not absolutely sure, a bit like Sussman's belief in the supremacy of American sports, lol!
5 - Ruvy
A proper article on the topic would include views such as yours, Chris. While you have already made up your mind, others haven't; hence the value of articles like these properly written, covering a wide range of view-points
6 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, although I understand why you seek to reduce the points I made to a "view", they are actually facts - apart from the last sentence of course.
It isn't possible to compare religion and science, religion is entirely unsubstantiated and science isn't.
It's actually you that has a mere view, and we all know why that is...
7 - Jet in Columbus
Ruvy, when I wrote this, it was four times as long. Lisa loved it, but said I had to edit it down somehow, so I dumped the entire political part for a later date. After all this thing is an eight pager after I trimmed a lot of material.
Here in the U.S. the problem is with the fundamentalist christians trying to force their dogma onto the laws, so that's what I set upon.
Thus the line, Is there anyone out there that still doesn't wonder why there are no Jewish or Muslim federal holidays?
I figured the Jews have enough problems without my adding to it, the whole conversation would turn into a slugfest of the Arabs and the Jews.
8 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks Matt. I can't have an article officially until you give your stamp of disapproval. Now I can relax.
9 - Jet in Columbus
Chris and Ruvy are like the picture of the horse & buggy, and the police car on the same road, it's the perfect portrait of them.
This is after all an opinion piece-mine to be precise. Bellttling it is really moot as, as long as I'm comfortable with it, que sera sera.
An opinion any opinion of the piece is fine with me, as I noted in the final paragraph.
10 - Jet in Columbus
By the way folks, the whole point of this article is that an opinion can never be wrong until someone tries to brand it as fact.
I had covered Political, Religious, and science opinions when this was written, and I was (and still am, considering publishing the entire thing on my personal blog.
However, once I began editing in order to make it paletable, I ended up watering down a lot of things, so I consentrated on the Religious/Scienct point of view and saved teh rest for later.
11 - Ruvy
although I understand why you seek to reduce the points I made to a "view", they are actually facts
It isn't possible to compare religion and science, religion is entirely unsubstantiated and science isn't.
Jet sought to cover science, religion, faith, opinion and facts. You allege that all that is relevant is science, and everything else is just trash. Having made up your mind on the matter, you proceed to dismiss any other possibility - just like the most closed minded theologian.
But for all of your rattling around and waving your views - and that is what they are - views, there are things in this universe that you cannot understand or explain at all, which religion attempts to. Jet understands this and attempted an article on the issue.
He would have done better to broaden his scope and look at more than just the Greek view that Mind is separate from Matter - there are other views that explain reality just as well - but he didn't. Mostly this is because his own theological training led him not to question the Greek view - Presbyterianism is just a branch of Christianity, a religion heavily influenced by Greek paganism.
Jet would have done better to cast his net more widely and look at other religions as well, as well as assertions that much of ancient Indian texts are indeed science, rather than theology.
There is more to the universe than you imagine, Chris, and your blinders are blocking your view terribly.
Just digging into the root of the word "whore" can broaden your view considerably.
A friend of mine writing a book on the Qur'an wrote recently:
"I have been thinking about the references to the 'Houris', the white maidens of paradise who await the faithful (in Islam).
The term 'Houri' brings to mind similar terms, such as Whore, Hurrian, Aryan, the root word being 'Or'? (or is light in Hebrew)." Note that light is a fundamental element of the universe.
He then cites the following from a web search (which I abbreviated considerably to just this entry).
Authentic Herstory of Prostitution
The word whore is an English corruption of the Old Semitic word hor, .... Today the Horites are variously referred to as "Hurrians," "Hittites," or "Hivites ...
www.coyotela.org/history.html - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF]
Those are just some thoughts, Chris, but at least he is thinking, instead of arrogantly dismissing the views of others.
Of course, some folks can't be bothered to think - it might interfere with watching that game Manchester United is playing.
12 - Jet in Columbus
The subject boiled down is how Science and Religion can't co-exist and the danger when religion attempt to force its views onto science... and vice versa, because when that happens, as I point out, people die, like they didn in Ireland, Salem, Germany and now Isreal and the entire middle east.
As I pointed out Ruvy, and I'm glad you slogged through the whole thing, it would've been a minimum of 14 pages, if I didn't save a few things for a sequel.
As for Mr. Sussmans's assessment, I believe he was chastising me for the "lead balloon" comment. however he misunderstood that I was remarking about the humor I tried to inject into the piece and not the article itself.
The point of the piece is not an examination of religious dogmas, as much as a op-ed on the dangers when the two clash.
13 - Ruvy
Jet, I appreciate your fforts, but do notice that
1) I did not introduce Judaism into the debate here - doing so would b e counter-productive, as you point out;
2) An article covering the entire issue could conceivably be written in eight or nine pages, or be divided into two parts;
3) In looking at this, I cast my net far wider than you do. I cold have cast it even wider, but I have limits on how many links I can introduce, not to mention the time I have to write.
14 - Ruvy
A final question for you, Jet.
Need religion and science clash at all? You set up a dichotomy and proceed to examine the dangers when the tomoi (someone who really knows his Greek should look at this) clash. Need there be a dichotomy at all?
15 - Jet in Columbus
Ruvy states: There is more to the universe than you imagine, Chris, and your blinders are blocking your view terribly.
Dear Ruvy, I value and cherish your friendship, but of late, I think you need to turn that comment back in on yourself.
I tried to cover all points of view in a very limited forum, so I didn't have time to "cast my net" so to speak without producing something that'd take two hours to read.
In the U.S. unless a subject is boiled down to brief sound bites you'll lose your audience almost immediately-which I pointed out.
There are points in the article that say that God is and always will "be' through infinity going forward or back, and I tried to examine the paradox in that.
As you and we all are aware Ruvy, you are here for one specific purpose, to present the pointedly Jewish point of view in an educated and ponderous why... which you do quite well.
I felt I'd be stepping on your toes, if I attempted your point of view, just as I'd be perplexed if you tried to present a gay man's attitudes about life and politics (which everyone should note that I pointedly kept out of this article... for a change)
16 - Jet in Columbus
Very quickly Ruvy. Religion is based on things that a man can only see by faith. Science is based on things that mankind can hold in his hand and examine.
It comes down to those two simple, yet complicated axiums.
Religious faith, is believing in something that can only be felt from within. It's like a woman describing what her orgasm feels like to a man-you have to experience it for yourself, or your lost and no amount of prose or vocabulary will ever get a man to understand it.
Scientific faith has no need to experience anything second-hand. It produces conclusions based on what can be proven and reproven again without a leap of "faith" to see and understand.
The proof that God exists is something that can only be felt in the soul on an individual basis.
Science is someone telling me that ice cubes melt if left out of the freezer, I can take that statement on faith, or I can take one out, and watch it melt. That kind of proof of the existance of God is not possible, therefore unless he appears here on Earth and announces it to the world for all to see, his existance is impossible to prove.
The horse and buggy and the car.
17 - Jet in Columbus
Ruvy, I'd value your views on the issue I've raised on page three entitled-Intolerance and Judgment in the Name of God.
18 - Jet in Columbus
Here's part of the article that was left out regarding politics...
Opinion
… it’s what drives democracy, because it is what must be swayed and kneaded in order to fit a certain point of view into the "majority" point of view. It could be my opinion, your opinion, anyone's opinion; or most likely the opinion of the editor of your favorite print, video, website or radio news source.
An election is nothing more, really, than a massive opinion poll. When all is said and done, elected officials are put in office not by facts or statistics, but by the participating electorate's estimation of the candidates’ character as presented in 30-second sound bites and advertisements. The vast majority of the American people (myself included) aren’t even remotely qualified to quantify which candidate is better to hold office. The fact that our people don’t seem to grasp is that not a single U.S. President in the last century (possibly longer than that,) has ever been elected to office by the majority of the American people.
How do I know that?
Because I read it somewhere, or someone that I trusted told me; quite frankly I’m not sure which. Such is the typical American’s thought process. That’s how “opinions” become “facts” (or so I’ve been told.)
Fact vs. Opinion
I have accepted the “fact” that not a single United States national election was voted on by more than fifty percent of the eligible population; therefore if a presidential candidate took all one hundred percent of the tallied vote, he was still not elected by the majority of the people that he’s been “hired” to represent. I also know it, because my TV and newspaper told me so, even though I have to admit that I didn’t go out and count the votes myself. (The highest was in 1960 recorded at 62.8% and the lowest was in 1996 at 49%; however the results are skewed upwards, because North Dakota doesn't have voter registration, and Wisconsin allows voters to register on the day of the election.) Nor have I ever been a member of the Electoral College, and in “fact” I’m in the majority of Americans who have only a vague idea of what the Electoral College is… or what it does …or what it doesn’t do.
If I had my way, Election Day would be a national holiday. If someone wanted to work that day, they'd have to first present evidence that they voted... but that's only my opinion, so it's doubtful that the idea would ever come to pass. After all, as a sign I used to have over my desk once read: "IF IT MAKES SENSE -- IT'S AGAINST COMPANY POLICY."
Correspondingly, our political candidates are completely different people, but they are so identically and convincingly presented by professionals using the same thought methods, that inevitably none of us can perceive any difference between them… so in collective confusion, the half of us who even bother to vote go one way and half the other.
19 - Jet in Columbus
It then went into the insane notion that to some a political candidate can't be taken seriously unless he/she is wearing a flag pin on his/her lapel.
20 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, every time we try to discuss these issues I become discouraged because you go off on so many tangents and make ludicrous responses that have no bearing on what has actually been said. A finer demonstration of the woolly nature of faithist "thinking" there could not be.
I didn't "allege that all that is relevant is science", I simply made the indisputable statement that it is not possible to compare religion and science. It isn't. That isn't a view, it just is, just as you could not compare philosophy and pumpkins, to pick two arbitrary words at random.
I wasn't rattling around at all, you just want to reduce my perspective to that because your ego is wrapped up so strongly in your faith. I just made a quiet statement of fact.
I'm well aware that there are things in this universe that I, or science, can't explain - yet. I'm comfortable with the fact that we humans haven't got everything figured out, that it is all still a work in progress. We're doing pretty well given the age of the universe and that we've only emerged out of the dark ages so very recently.
Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious ideas aren't an attempt to explain the universe, just a dogma based on the unproven and largely unsupported idea that everything was created by a superbeing. Given the dubious starting point there seems little point in following those ideas, just as I wouldn't spend much time in a house built on sand.
Your repeated remark that "There is more to the universe than you imagine, Chris, and your blinders are blocking your view terribly" is as patronising as it is self serving.
You have no idea what I imagine about the universe and the only blinder I have on is the fairly sensible one that there is no omnipotent superbeing.
The truth, of course, is that you are the blinded one, blinded by the irrational faith you have that this absentee superbeing exists.
I've absolutely no idea why you suddenly veered off into some rambling discourse about the etymology of the word "whore". Do you?
You keep trying to make the case that I'm not thinking, which I find very amusing. As I have indicated to you many times and you conveniently ignore, I can accept the possibility that there might be a god, but you can't consider for one minute that there isn't.
Oh, the English football season ended last month, so your tragically inept attempt at a put-down was as inaccurate as the rest of your little tirade. You simply are incapable of addressing the core issue here, which is your determinedly dogmatic assertion that this god exists and your inability to let go of that. I think it makes you feel special and I might even agree - but I'd be thinking of the special Olympics...
Jet, science and religion can co-exist so your point is moot. Science and Christmas co-exist for example. I fully agree though that religion ought to be kept as far as possible from the law of any land. That's as crazy as say, allowing decisions to be made in the White House based on astrology. Oh wait, that did happen! lol
I was disappointed with your comment that "The proof that God exists is something that can only be felt in the soul on an individual basis." That's the kind of unsubstantiatable doublespeak I'd expect from Ruvy. Actually, direct "religious experience" can be easily induced by applying a couple of electrodes to the brain as has been proven by scientific research.
21 - Jordan Richardson
Actually, direct "religious experience" can be easily induced by applying a couple of electrodes to the brain as has been proven by scientific research.
Christopher, can you be more specific here? What "religious experience" are you referring to? Can I see the research or at least an example of the tests performed?
22 - Ruvy
Jet,
You've done a very good job of describing faith and belief in G-d for Jews and Moslems. I agree with comment #16 100%. But there need not be a dichotomy between faith and science. Both are paths of wisdom and knowledge, which use different tools available to us mere mortals. And not all religions believe in G-d.
Hinduism, properly called Dharma, has several theories on this issue, which revolve around a universe with a G-dhead, or a universe without a G-dhead, where all is illusion and dissolves into nothingness (shunyata) in the final analysis. The Hindu "gods" are not really gods at all, but reflections of different characters of the G-dhead.
(My apologies to Hindus and Buddhists reading this - one does one's best with the limited understanding at hand.)
Buddhism, similarly, doesn't deal with issues of redemption or salvation common to Christians - it is simply a way to remove pain and suffering from your life. Buddha lived and died - a mere man. Buddhism doesn't ever talk about G-d.
So "faith" for a Buddhist or a Hindu is something very different from "faith" for a Christian, Jew or Moslem. Which is why it is worth examining these points at all (not to mention the fact that there are nearly a billion Hindus and millions upon millions of Buddhists).
Finally, there are those scholars who argue that originally, the Bhagavad Gita was more than anything else, a book of science. Similarly, there are those scholars who argue that the Holy Zohar is really a book of very deep logic, not a book of mysticism at all. These points are also worth looking at.
Mind you, Jet, I'm not Hindu or Buddhist. And I'm certainly not a Christian or a Moslem, thank G-d! But in considering these issues, I must be willing to cast my net wider than my own particular world-view. Otherwise, I would have to fall back upon what many rabbis say - that the whole universe was created for the sake of the Children of Israel. That is awful flattering to the ego, but the skeptic in me just does not buy such assertions.
The simple and short answer to your request in comment #17 is that deluded people cannot make intelligent judgments, particularly about issues of life and death.
In my eyes, Christianity is deluded and wrong from the gitgo. So, judgments to kill people in its name are similarly deluded. The whole concept of trying to force belief down someone else's throat is wrong. Period. And Christianity, like Islam, is all about shoving its ideas down others' throats.
Now as for me, I do believe that in time you will "bend the knee and acknowledge G-d's Sovereignty....and recognize that He Is One and His Name Is One."
But you will do it not because I bully you or scold you, or preach to you, or try to convince you, or hold a knife to your throat and say "believe or die". You will do it because at long last you actually do believe it, or you will believe it out of fear of dying AND losing any place in the Afterlife, however that works. Then and only then, will you seek out Jews to teach you the Seven Laws of Noah. Note, Jet, you do the seeking. You knock on my door, not the other way round.
We Jews made that mistake once, by forcing Judaism on the Idumaians. And we have paid and paid and paid.
23 - Jordan Richardson
So Ruvy, the concept of forcing one's beliefs down another person's throat is wrong. This I agree with. But isn't the concept of believing out of fear of "losing one's place in the afterlife" equally wrong when it comes to reasons to believe.
Some might argue that there are no good reasons to believe and, on some level, I'm inclined to agree with that. But I think we all can have common ground on the notion that there are several wrong reasons to believe. Fear is one such wrong reason.
As a Christian, albeit a rather progressive and heretical one, I can't really relate to the need to force my beliefs on anyone. To tell the truth, I'm more interested in living by the modicum associated with doctors: do no harm. Because there is so much uncertainty in regards to matters of religious beliefs, I find myself in the unenviable position of practicing compassion and love primarily. Kind of a "love 'em all, let God sort 'em out" philosophy, if you will.
In effect, my Christianity doesn't include evangelism and there are many like me that believe the same way. We live in a pluralistic society, so intoning that we have the right path as you do is certainly, at least from where I sit, akin to inferring that there is ONE belief that is right for "you." Isn't that philosophy eerily similar to shoving one's belief down one's throat? You likely disagree because you differ in the overall approach, ie. Jet comes to you when he's afraid of the fire beneath, but overall it runs on the same gamut as Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam.
The reality is that there are many religious individuals within Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Judaism that simply aren't certain enough about their religious beliefs to arrogantly infer that theirs is the right path for all. My faith, for instance, is simply the right path for me. And guess what? It's subject to change. If I wake up as an atheist one day and I can no longer grapple with my belief in a rational way as a Christian, I will do that. Part of serving God in truth means following the rabbit hold.....wherever it leads.
24 - Christopher Rose
Jordan, there have been many reports on this over the last few years. If you google the following terms, you will get tens of thousands of links to diverse sources of information: 1. electrodes induce religious experience 2. electrical impulses to the brain induce religious experience - happy reading!
25 - Jordan Richardson
Christopher, thanks. I had hit up the Google and gathered similar results while I was waiting.
Most of the articles from what I can tell so far are concerned with some of the more...shall we say, charismatic religious experiences (like "seeing" God and so forth). Quite interesting reading indeed, but by no means indicative of an individual experience in regards to God or in regards to a spiritual realm. More indicative of the sort of "top-end phenomena" that many charismatics and mystics are prone to "experiencing."
I for one remain skeptical about such experiences and don't really think it relates or counters Jet's overall notion that individuals experience religion or spirituality in different ways. Hell, even Sam Harris claims a sort of rational spirituality.
As an aside, I also noted an interesting correlation between epileptic episodes and a sort of "religious instinct" portion of the brain. One could argue that the presence of such an instinct portion of the brain is evidence for the satisfaction of such impulses, although that's rather shaky at this point and I wouldn't stand by it all that firmly.
Will do some more reading and see if there's anything new in the field, though.
Cheers.