An Unlikely Universe?

[Tao_Equus]

No more comments like this, thanks. It's just plain childish in the extreme and won't be put up with any more.

You are right. I will cease trying to reach him in a language he might understand.

You suggest that atheism has helped shape science, then suggested that the issue of spiritual beliefs are not really relevant to their professionalism - which sounds like a potential contradiction.

You've also referenced philosophers, not scientists, when discussing this subject in the above post which also looks confusing.

You can make it a potential contradiction if you so wish but then I suggest that you too fail to read what I am saying. I mentioned notable thinkers because they are relevant to the progression of thinking from a theistic discipline into one of a rationalist mainstream to be found in our seats of learning. The places where science is done. When you go back prior to the modern enlightenment science, philosophy and theism were an almost inseparable whole. These thinkers mark the transition from having theism as a 'must be factored in' to a 'theism is irrelevant' way of teaching and learning in our universities. Each of them made detailed study and published works specifically related to divorcing science from religion. They mark the transition to a science based modus in philosophical endeavour. I hope that ends your confusion.

 

[c0de]

All the giants...

Yes actually all of the giants.
Which of them were atheists?

But even if we assume that some of them were atheists
it still isn't enough to save your argument that faith stifles creativity.

 

[earl]

Check out the "God Theory" by astrophysicist Bernard Haisch. earl

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yes actually all of the giants.
Which of them were atheists?

From some of the earliest extant bits of writing in our collective possession there are references of revolutionary thinkers espousing an atheist outlook on thought. First in Vedic commentaries that very probably had a profound influence on the birth of Buddhism and Jainism, as such - 'godless' religions.

In Greece Diagoras, Crtias, Prodicus, Democratis, Theodorus, Protagorus and more all produced atheistic work that would keep the zealot book burners eating toasted marsh mallows for centuries. And that is just pre-Socrates! Who of course was murdered not for proffessing atheism but agnostic impiety! But even such treatment did not stop Epicurus from picking up the torch.

Later, under the ever paranoid and dogmatic papal gaze, a few teachers emerged that we can easilly state were writing of atheistic ideas. "Scottus" for example, an Irishman employed to run the Palatine Academy by King Charles the bald. He was interested in and was a master of Greek and showed keen interest in the rejection of god ideas. The reputation of this school seems to have increased greatly under Eriugena's [Scottus] leadership, and the philosopher himself was treated with indulgence by the king. (John Scotus Erigena, The Age of Belief, Anne Freemantle). Which goes to show that where it was safe for atheism to raise its head without fear of the zealots sword it would. And it did. If one man could be called the brightest light of the Rennaisance it was Leonardo Da Vinci who was famously known to seek answers via experiment and opposed arguments from religious authority. He was certainly one of the finest minds of all time and undoubtably if not atheistic then certainly agnostic. And in his wake many were influenced.

Science back until pretty recently was metaphysics and taught in unison with theology as part of a 'priviliged' persons education. Therefore you can turn round and say all sorts of things to imply they were theists. But you have no proof of that until they write it expicitly. It was too dangerous to be outspokenly atheist, indeed the word atheist was seriously pejorative until very recently. So we could never gauge the true extent of atheism in the educated elites. Suffice to say that people have been thinking rationally for a long long time.

But even if we assume that some of them were atheists
it still isn't enough to save your argument that faith stifles creativity.

Faith perhaps of itself does not. Religion does.
There are census based studies that refute that and more targeted studies that consistently link low academic achievement in religious people. And I have my own opinions deduced from my own personal experience that show me people that fall back on a doctrine rather than think for themselves.

 

[iBrian]

Faith perhaps of itself does not. Religion does.

That sounds like the crux of the argument being made in the most concise manner?

 

[c0de]

@ Tao

In Greece Diagoras, Crtias, Prodicus, Democratis, Theodorus, Protagorus and more all produced atheistic work that would keep the zealot book burners eating toasted marsh mallows for centuries. And that is just pre-Socrates! Who of course was murdered not for proffessing atheism but agnostic impiety! But even such treatment did not stop Epicurus from picking up the torch.

>>>> Socrates was NOT an atheist. He was in a sense
actually a monotheist. Have you read his thoughts on the religion
of the Greeks? He rejected their concept of multiple gods and instead
very clearly chose the idea of one God. By the way, Socrates was not
a scientist, so again, he does not even count in any case.

>>>>> Diagoras, Prodicus, Protagorus were all sophist philosophers....
NOT scientists... not even close to anything resembling scientists..
And Critias was actually part of the 30-tyrants... (not a scientist either)
Also, Theodorus was also a philosopher.. (and you keep accusing me of
using diversionary tactics!!!!).

>>>>> You know what the funniest thing is? The only name in your
entire list which can be classified as a scientist is Democritus.
And this guy accepted the existence of the soul !!!!!!!!

So lets recap shall we? You provided this long list of Greek
characters... and the two smartest people on that list: Socrates and
Democritus both recognized the spirituality as part of their models
of understanding nature of the universe! One was an avowed
monothiest and the other (the scientist) actually believed that we
have a soul!

Later, under the ever paranoid and dogmatic papal gaze, a few teachers emerged that we can easilly state were writing of atheistic ideas. "Scottus" for example, an Irishman employed to run the Palatine Academy by King Charles the bald. He was interested in and was a master of Greek and showed keen interest in the rejection of god ideas. The reputation of this school seems to have increased greatly under Eriugena's [Scottus] leadership, and the philosopher himself was treated with indulgence by the king. (John Scotus Erigena, The Age of Belief, Anne Freemantle). Which goes to show that where it was safe for atheism to raise its head without fear of the zealots sword it would.

First of all: John Scottus Erigena was not an athiest!!!!
He was actually forumulating a neoplatonic Christianity!
(he also by the way, NOT a scientist)

Second of all, he was analyzing the texts of Plato and Aristotle.
And they both as we know were anything but an athiests.

And it did. If one man could be called the brightest light of the Rennaisance it was Leonardo Da Vinci who was famously known to seek answers via experiment and opposed arguments from religious authority. He was certainly one of the finest minds of all time and undoubtably if not atheistic then certainly agnostic. And in his wake many were influenced.

Sorry: agnostic doesnt count.
I made this very clear in the first post on this thread.

Suffice to say that people have been thinking rationally for a long long time.

Oh yea I agree... the problem for you is that
most of those people were NOT-ATHEISTS!

From some of the earliest extant bits of writing in our collective possession there are references of revolutionary thinkers espousing an atheist outlook on thought. First in Vedic commentaries that very probably had a profound influence on the birth of Buddhism and Jainism, as such - 'godless' religions.

Irrelevant. Are we now considering commentators
on vedic texts as "scientists"? Are you suggesting
commentary on the vedas is a science?

There are census based studies that refute that and more targeted studies that consistently link low academic achievement in religious people. And I have my own opinions deduced from my own personal experience that show me people that fall back on a doctrine rather than think for themselves.

Look back through this entire post and realize that the smartest
of all the people you mentioned were NOT-Atheists.

That was my only point.

Faith perhaps of itself does not. Religion does.

Religion does what??? Stifles creativity?

Its the political AUTHORITIES like the papal church in the middle
ages that stifle creativity because they wanted to preserve their
power. It has nothing to do with anything other then politics.

Why do you think Socrates was put to death? Because of his monotheism
or because of his rejection of Greek political and government structure
and his fermentation of rebellion in the Greek youth?

So once again... the real culprit: Materialistic Politics.

 

[Tao_Equus]

What you call materialistic politics was nothing less than the religious establishment.

As for your gleeful refutation as to the status of the figures I mentioned I have two things to say. The first is that there were no scientists back then, thinkers were invariably multi-disciplined. The second is that you have no right what so ever to dictate what I choose to talk about. I will never ever permit you to dictate any discussion I am involved with. I am sorry that yet again in the ecstasy of your own ego you have completely failed to grasp what it is I said. I was demonstrating that there has been a long chain of thought building up to the kind of atheism we see today. The fact of whether or not those mentioned were or were not believers is irrelevant to my point, a point I set out to make and not dictated by you. Agnosticism is atheistic. Any suspension of belief in deity is atheistic. Also I dispute the validity of some of your content, but that is down to which books you read and what truth you want to find.

 

[c0de]

@ Tao

I was demonstrating that there has been a long chain of thought building up to the kind of atheism we see today.

I dont really care what you were demonstrating
if that demonstration was irrelevant to my objection
to your statement that faith stifles creativity.

The second is that you have no right what so ever to dictate what I choose to talk about. I will never ever permit you to dictate any discussion I am involved with.

Its not up to you to "permit" anything. When someone makes
an objection to your argument, you either answer it, or you dont.

If you fail to nullify the objection, you lose.
Thats the way this works...

What you call materialistic politics was nothing less than the religious establishment.

yea... thats what I said.

Not Faith.

Agnosticism is atheistic. Any suspension of belief in deity is atheistic.

According to your definition even Abraham (PBUH) himself was
"atheistic" because he rejected the belief in hundreds of deities
besides just One. Therefore your definition is completely non-operational.

Besides, if what you were saying was true, then why do you think that
Charles Darwin was so adamant that he NOT be classified as an atheist?
Because he realized that agnosticism is NOT atheism.

IN THE END > Your argument that Faith is somehow
responsible for stifling creativity is completely refuted. To the
extent that even you are distancing yourself from your original
statement.

 

[Tao_Equus]

@ Tao



I dont really care what you were demonstrating
if that demonstration was irrelevant to my objection
to your statement that faith stifles creativity.

Its not up to you to "permit" anything. When someone makes
an objection to your argument, you either answer it, or you dont.

If you fail to nullify the objection, you lose.
Thats the way this works...

yea... thats what I said.

Not Faith.


According to your definition even Abraham (PBUH) himself was
"atheistic" because he rejected the belief in hundreds of deities
besides just One. Therefore your definition is completely non-operational.

Besides, if what you were saying was true, then why do you think that
Charles Darwin was so adamant that he NOT be classified as an atheist?
Because he realized that agnosticism is NOT atheism.

IN THE END > Your argument that Faith is somehow
responsible for stifling creativity is completely refuted. To the
extent that even you are distancing yourself from your original
statement.

Ballcocks. There are at least 37 studies that show a direct link between religious belief and low academic achievement. From studies of whole populations to smaller focused studies - as I already stated but you chose to ignore. You have never asked me any question that I have failed to address but as I have also stated I will not let you dictate your own narrow fallacies as being the only information acceptable. If you are incapable of reading what I write, which apparently you are, and of addressing a subject based on all the facts then you only set up what you do have to say for being ignored. Yeh you can play to your own audience of one with your teenage smugness but you are ignoring the truth. As a muslim apologist you have an agenda to promote. I am only interested in the reality.

 

[c0de]

Ballcocks. There are at least 37 studies that show a direct link between religious belief and low academic achievement.

You mean like this one: The impact of Religiosity and Locus of Control on Academic Achievement in College Students

Page 4: The study found that students who had higher religiosity
were more likely to have a higher GPA.

You have never asked me any question that I have failed to address

oh really? Lets take the first (and only) question I asked
you on this thread for example:

How many of the giants of science were atheists?

but as I have also stated I will not let you dictate your own narrow fallacies as being the only information acceptable.

Fallacies?

wait... Your accusing me of fallacy ?!! LMAO!!

Lets examine your list of fallacies thus far:

1. First you try to equate agnosticism with athiesm (FAIL)
2. Then you try to establish that faith is somehow related to the religious establishment (FAIL)
3. Now you tried to show that religion is related to low academic achievement (EPIC FAIL !!! LOL!)

Need more? How about the fact that you are trying to link
Faith with Religion? This is by far your biggest fallacy so far.
Faith is an abstract concept. Religion is a set of rules
and guidelines. Religion is also an identity mixed with
cultural background. Faith has nothing to do with any of this.

Also, how about the fact that you are ignoring the link between
poverty and a lack of academic achievement and at the
same time a link between poverty and the hold the religious
establishment has over poorer sections of society? And since
you have already admitted that the religious establishment is
itself a materialistic political institution, you have therefore,
ALREADY ADMITTED that materialism is responsible for these
problems.

(LOL!)

By the way... so once again:

You have FAILED to establish that Faith stifles creativity.

 

[Tao_Equus]

You mean like this one: The impact of Religiosity and Locus of Control on Academic Achievement in College Students

Page 4: The study found that students who had higher religiosity
were more likely to have a higher GPA.

You quote a survey based on 68 graduates, lol...yes graduates!! Yeh really compares to census studies that measure the millions.

oh really? Lets take the first (and only) question I asked
you on this thread for example:

How many of the giants of science were atheists?

And I answered you the truth. It is impossible to say. And irrelevant.

Fallacies?

wait... Your accusing me of fallacy ?!! LMAO!!

Lets examine your list of fallacies thus far:

1. First you try to equate agnosticism with athiesm (FAIL)
2. Then you try to establish that faith is somehow related to the religious establishment (FAIL)
3. Now you tried to show that religion is related to low academic achievement (EPIC FAIL !!! LOL!)

1. That is a fact.
a⋅the⋅ism

   /ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uh

m] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe(os)





Someone who does not believe in god, such as an agnostic who neither believes nor disbelieves, comes clearly in the 2nd definition.

2. Lmao, you suggest it is not? It is probably singularly their most important device.
3. Again a fact.
A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population. (Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" Mensa Magazine, UK Edition, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind.").

Now why is that I wonder?

Trying to shout loudly they are not all 3 truth will not change that truth.

Need more? How about the fact that you are trying to link
Faith with Religion? This is by far your biggest fallacy so far.
Faith is an abstract concept. Religion is a set of rules
and guidelines. Religion is also an identity mixed with
cultural background. Faith has nothing to do with any of this.

I only use the word Faith to highlight a given viewpoint. My argument, as always and you would know if you ever actually bothered to read me, is laid firmly at the door of religion.

Also, how about the fact that you are ignoring the link between
poverty and a lack of academic achievement and at the
same time a link between poverty and the hold the religious
establishment has over poorer sections of society? And since
you have already admitted that the religious establishment is
itself a materialistic political institution, you have therefore,
ALREADY ADMITTED that materialism is responsible for these
problems.

(LOL!)

I do not ignore, it has just never up to this point been mentioned. You are right though, as much as the religions would impoverish our minds they do equally to the bellies of the poor. And after all the hungry find it hard to learn. Yet we are closer on some things than you may suspect. A bit of a shame you like to create holes in my logic only to eventually come round yourself to posit my position. Atheism is the subtraction the requirement to be right that the injected religious disease puts on the psyche.

By the way... so once again:

You have FAILED to establish that Faith stifles creativity.

Your shouting in Islamic green does no truth make. It was you, not I that was talking faith and scientists when it suited your argument and religion and philosophy when that suited you. c0de al pick'n'mix. Now go on, have the last word, I know it would be so hard for you to live without that.

 

[c0de]

1. That is a fact.
a⋅the⋅ism

   /ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uh

m] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe(os)


Someone who does not believe in god, such as an agnostic who neither believes nor disbelieves, comes clearly in the 2nd definition.

Agnostic: a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge
about the existence of God but does not deny that God might exist
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So how does atheism equal agnosticism again???
Atheism rejects the possibility of God/gods existing.
Therefore: atheism is a purely materialistic mindset.
While agnosticism.... isnt. Agnostics can be very
spiritually inclined, and many of the people you
yourself have mentioned were. In fact, all of the
giants of science were all spiritually inclined.
Therefore, they were not even regular agnostics
but actual believers. They might not have been
followers of the religious establishments, but then
that does NOT make them atheists.

I myself in fact, hate the much of the organized
religious establishment. Does that make me an atheist now?

You quote a survey based on 68 graduates, lol...yes graduates!! Yeh really compares to census studies that measure the millions.

...........

3. Again a fact.
A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population. (Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" Mensa Magazine, UK Edition, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind.").

Now why is that I wonder?

Taking into consideration the point made above about
how agnosticism can not be used in support of your
argument in favor of atheism, the conclusion of these
studies only show a correlation between a lack of religious
beliefs... NOT atheism. Just because people with phds
might not believe in organized religion, does not mean
they are atheists either.

Faith has always been separate from religious identity.
This is stated very clearly even in the Quran and I am
sure somewhere in other scriptures as well. Anyone can
say "I believe"... but only few of those have "faith".

Moreover, you are using these studies carried out since 1927.
To make the case that the smartest people are atheists????
You do realize that during the time frame of these studies,
Einstein, was still alive!! Until 1955 actually, and considered
the smartest most intelligent person during most of this time...
And he was NOT an atheist. Neither was Bohr.... or Tesla.

I only use the word Faith to highlight a given viewpoint. My argument, as always and you would know if you ever actually bothered to read me, is laid firmly at the door of religion.

But you have already nullified your own
argument when you admitted that the religious
establishment is a materialistic and political institution.

Post # 47... opening line:

"What you call materialistic politics was nothing less than the religious establishment."

Now go on, have the last word, I know it would be so hard for you to live without that.

... how generous..

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

Personally for Tao Equus.

It is incorrect to believe in a Creator. The epochs of blind belief in supernatural Creatures were gone long time ago. Christianity every day loses its adepts. Everyone can look around and see it's true. Yes, people are still singing on the streets at Xmas. So what of that?!

In every ancient system that has any little right to be called a philosophy, or a science of spirit, - in every such system Creator was always understood collectively. For ex, the word "forest" is singular, but in fact it is plural: it includes millions of trees! As in English grammar it's always said: words as 'family', 'government' are sometimes taken as plural. You know it better than I. For ex, I can say "Family have supper altogether every evening", or "Government are deciding wether declare high taxes or not".

So, Creator is collective. It is a collective of powers of nature. When in theosophical books or in Buddhist or anywhere else it's said "Creator, our God, has given life to all men" - it's correctly understood as "Powers of phisical nature through its laws (biological, phisical etc.) during many ages was trying to create a man through evolutionary processes". Although many uneducated persons (almost all the 'usual' men, a lot of priests, many scientists) don't know that simple truth.

Marry Christmas! I hope we understand one another.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Personally for Tao Equus.

It is incorrect to believe in a Creator. The epochs of blind belief in supernatural Creatures were gone long time ago. Christianity every day loses its adepts. Everyone can look around and see it's true. Yes, people are still singing on the streets at Xmas. So what of that?!

In every ancient system that has any little right to be called a philosophy, or a science of spirit, - in every such system Creator was always understood collectively. For ex, the word "forest" is singular, but in fact it is plural: it includes millions of trees! As in English grammar it's always said: words as 'family', 'government' are sometimes taken as plural. You know it better than I. For ex, I can say "Family have supper altogether every evening", or "Government are deciding wether declare high taxes or not".

So, Creator is collective. It is a collective of powers of nature. When in theosophical books or in Buddhist or anywhere else it's said "Creator, our God, has given life to all men" - it's correctly understood as "Powers of phisical nature through its laws (biological, phisical etc.) during many ages was trying to create a man through evolutionary processes". Although many uneducated persons (almost all the 'usual' men, a lot of priests, many scientists) don't know that simple truth.

Marry Christmas! I hope we understand one another.

I do not know what the truth is. I am sympathetic to Gaia theory which is more or less, if I understand you correctly, encompassing the idea that man is no accident of evolution but the pinnacle of lifes endeavour to have more control over its environment, and perhaps take the seed to new worlds. What I do know with as close to absolute certainty as I am capable is that the abrahamic god is pure human fabrication. What i do know is that no religion should be held as fact. Each and every one is an unprovable philosophy and should be regarded as such. There should be no churches, temples, mosques or shrines to people or imaginings for it is them that concretise what is nothing more than spurious haverings and deliberate manipulations. No brainwashing our infants to infect them with the geographical s**t of choice. But most of all belief in the monotheistic god concept is the ultimate in emotional and intellectual cowardice. A sad clinging to the illiterate king worship of our first city states, to the womb and to a sometime benevolent, sometimes wicked drunkard of a father. Yes, religious belief of the abrahamic variety is no more than cowardice and fawning for favour. No wonder it is so corrupt.

Merry Christmas.

 

[c0de]

But most of all belief in the monotheistic god concept is the ultimate in emotional and intellectual cowardice.

.....Yes, religious belief of the abrahamic variety is no more than cowardice and fawning for favour.

This is from an article in the Science Daily. (Oct 3, 2008)

• Empirical data within anthropology suggests there is more cooperation among religious societies than the non-religious, especially when group survival is under threat
• Economic experiments indicate that religiosity increases levels of trust among participants
• Psychology experiments show that thoughts of an omniscient, morally concerned God reduce levels of cheating and selfish behaviour

Religion Makes People Helpful And Generous -- Under Certain Conditions



>< Near the end it is stated that in the modern word, secular societies and
secular people have found ways to be moral without involving God in their
lives.

<> However earlier in the article, the researcher posits that the reason
why human civillization progressed to this point, (the grand scale which
makes cooperation between its members necessary) was itself made
possible because of religion:

Shariff adds, "One reason we now have large, cooperative societies may be that some aspects of religion – such as outsourcing costly social policing duties to all-powerful Gods – made societies work more cooperatively in the past."

So basically from the point of view of religion, God gave man all the
tools to develop this modern world of his... and as soon as man achieved
the dream of "civilization"... the first thing man did was to abandon the
very faith and belief which made it all possible.