Science Does Not Replace Religion

[joecooool]

Originally Posted by Plato

Joe, no matter how far science advances it can never answer some questions:

How should we behave?
What is good and bad?

I think you can already see that religion is more than just a way of explaining the unexplainable.

those things are subjective, therefore dont need science, or religion, to explain them. we just know them.

actually evolution explains those things better then religion. morals come from our conscience, which is a program in our brain that evolved, which helps us work in groups, which benefits our survival.

morals dont come from god, and are not explained by religion. the bible condones slavery.

moral are natural, and therefore can be explained best by science.

and simple intersubjective consensus.

[Michael Chui]

From "A History of God", pp288-90.

After the Reformation, people had become anxious about Christianity in a new way. Like "the witch" (or, indeed, "the anarchist" or "the communist"), "the atheist" was the projection of a buried anxiety. It reflected a hidden worry about the faith and could be used as a shock tactic to frighten the godly and encourage them in virtue.

...
The term "atheist" was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist. It was not yet a badge to be worn with pride. Yet during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, people in the West would cultivate an attitude that would make the denial of God's existence not only possible but desirable. They would find support for their views in science. Yet the God of the Reformers could be seen to favor the new science. Because they believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, Luther and Calvin had both rejected Aristotle's view of nature as having intrinsic powers of its own. They believed that nature was as passive as the Christian, who could only accept the gift of salvation from God and could do nothing for himself. Calvin had explicitly commended the scientific study of the natural world in which the invisible God had made himself known. There could be no conflict between science and scripture: God had adapted himself to our human limitations in the Bible, just as a skillful speaker adjusts his thought and speech to the capacity of his audience. The account of Creation, Calvin believed, was an example of balbutive (baby talk), which accommodated complex and mysterious processes to the mentality of simple poeple so that everybody could have faith in God. It was not to be taken literally.

The Roman Catholic Church had not always been as open-minded, however. In 1530 the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus had completed his treatise "De revolutionibus", which claimed that the sun was the center of the universe. It was published shortly before his death in 1543 and placed by the Church on the Index of Proscribed Books. In 1613 the Pisan mathematician Galileo Galilei claimed that the telescope he had invented proved that Copernicus's system was correct. His case became a cause celebre: summoned before the Inquisition, Galileo was commanded to retract his scientific creed and sentenced to indefinite imprisonment. Not all Catholics agreed with this decision, but the Roman Catholic Church was as instinctively opposed to change as any other institution at this period when the conservative spirit prevailed. What made the Church different was that it had the power to enforce its opposition and was a smoothly running machine that had become horribly efficient in imposing intellectual conformity. Inevitably the condemnation of Galileo inhibited scientific study in Catholic countries, even though many distinguished scientists of the early period such as Marin Mersenne, Rene Descartes and Blaise Pascal remained loyal to their Catholic faith. ....One fact emerges, however, that is important in our story: the Roman Catholic Church did not condemn the heliocentric theory because it endangered belief in God the Creator but because it contradicted the word of God in scripture.

This also disturbed many Protestants at the time of Galileo's trial. Neither Luther nor Calvin had condemned Copernicus, but Luther's associate Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560) rejected the idea of the earth's motion around the sun because it was in conflict with certain passages of the Bible. This was not just as Protestant concern. After the Council of Trent, Catholics had developed a new enthusiasm for their own Scripture: the Vulgate, St. Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible. ....In the past, as we have seen, some rationalists and mystics had gone out of their way to depart from a literal reading of the Bible and the Koran in favor of a deliberately symbolic interpretation. Now Protestants and Catholics had both begun to put their faith in an entirely literal understanding of scripture. The scientific discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus might not have disturbed Ismailis, Sufis, Kabbalists or hesychasts, but they did pose problems for those Catholics and Protestants who had embraced the new literalism.

...
At a time when Mulla Sadra was teaching Muslims that heaven and hell were located in the imaginary world within each individual, sophisticated churchmen such as Bellarmine were strenuously arguing that they had a literal geographic location. When Kabbalists were reinterpreting the biblical account of creation in a deliberately symbolic manner and warning their disciples not to take this mythology literally, Catholics and Protestants were insisting that the Bible was factually true in every detail. This would make the traditional religious mythology vulnerable to the new science and would eventually make it impossible for many people to believe in God at all.

Does this make things a little more clear?

Religion is vulnerable to science if it pretends to be science. The key example, above, is Bellarmine, who argued that Hell was located at the center of the earth "by natural reason" because that's the farthest place from the heavens.

Science is vulnerable to religion if it pretends to be religion. The key example, today, of course, is popular psychology, which attempts to blend statistics, chemistry, and anecdote into a cheap novelette for self-help.

[Plato]

Nice post Michael. I think the sentence to highlight from your quote is:

"the Roman Catholic Church did not condemn the heliocentric theory because it endangered belief in God the Creator but because it contradicted the word of God in scripture."

To Joe, I would add that if you want a better understanding of the origins of morality you would do well to read Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morality." In it he debunks the hypothesis that evolution is the source of our values. Through etymology, Nietzsche is able to demonstrate that in fact our values come from people naming characteristics of themselves the "Good." This began with the ancient Greek aristocracy who's jubilant noble values focussed on honour, power, truthfulness, joy. The bad were simply those who were unlike them. Meanwhile their slaves hated their tyrranical masters and because it was unbearable to suffer and not know reason for it they named the masters evil, themselves victims of evil and their own characteristics the good! Therefore their morality was based around HUMILITY, SELF SACRIFICE, PACIFISM, PIETY. That is the judaeo/christian (SLAVE) morality, which overthrew the master morality when the Jews nailed their own leader to the cross and in doing so created the most powerful symbol the world has ever seen under which the oppressed united. Jesus was the "saviour" because it was through him that the slave morality won power.

So it was that an inversion of values occurred. The oppressed became the oppressors in the form of the church and they damned characteristics such as pride, strength and honour. As Michael refers to in his post, during the reformation the church lost power and importantly it was around this time that we stopped defining people in terms of the society they live in. The INDIVIDUAL was created and the teleological way of viewing people that made the moral structure of the time congruent and objective was lost. However fragments of the judaeo/christian values remained and are still taught to children today.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Read what I said again. I said that numerology is the synthesis between mathematics and religion: not that it was pure mathematics.

The numbers are still mathematics. Numerology is about more than just numbers, just as gematria is about more than just letters and stories are more than just words.

Do you have a sense of what mathematics is in it's spirit?
The spirit of numerology is totally different.

Define success.

Building a frame that gives it's members advantages which result in evolutionary advantages of the whole group.

That's a really hard sell. Religion is about trusting people? Show me. And also explain the Spanish Inquisition, while you're at it.

Religion is about trusting people in your group. Because it is so effective at that task you see the contrast to how people from other groups get treated.


You say This. I say That.

My theory for the origin and evolution of religion is based on my readings of anthropology and comparative mythology.

What's your theory based on?[/quote]I think it is mainly build on the western dogma that the individual and it's needs are everything (which is expressed in a lot of western writing).

In general you haven't shown my why what you wrote is right, but I will lay my position out anyway:
One example for a source that influences my views is THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2008 — Page 9 .
To be a bit more historic, what did the Jew wanted in a Messias? A king that frees them from the Romans.
Nietsche talks about how Zarathustra inventid good and evil to prevent the gods of other tribes from getting power which they used to damage his Zarathustra people.

I also read a lot more modern stuff about how stories work. You completly ignore the function that science and religion plays for the society but only see the ideal of science to ask question.
In practice scientist give answer and people believe their answers. You don't have those pure idealistic individuals but groups that tell stories.

What do you think, are more people Christian because of social factors (there friends and/or their famaly being Christian) or are more Christian Christian because they were atheists and those atheists felt a need to know what happens after death and therefore converted to Christianity?
You completly ignore those social factors which are the basis of religion.

Show me that the main function of religion is "providing a group identity with basic rules of how to treat other members". Show me that religion is about trusting fellow members of the religion, when Shinto samurai had no problem cutting each other up,

Shinto smurais have also no problem cutting themselves up. Just because you don't like the rules, it doesn't mean that there aren't rules in the first place.

when the Islamic empire collapsed upon itself,

Don't forget that it was build be Mohammad who wanted to unit people under one law.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Building a frame that gives it's members advantages which result in evolutionary advantages of the whole group.

Children do this fine. So group identities forged from children can build successful communities.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Religion is about trusting people in your group. Because it is so effective at that task you see the contrast to how people from other groups get treated.

You don't seem to be familiar with the Spanish Inquisition. Its purpose was to maintain Catholic orthodoxy among Catholic believers.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think it is mainly build on the western dogma that the individual and it's needs are everything (which is expressed in a lot of western writing).

...you mean the dogma that came during the Reformation and the Enlightenment? While religion was in decline in the West? And of all things, you base it on Nietzsche? The man who said, "God is dead."?

Originally Posted by Brutha

In general you haven't shown my why what you wrote is right

No, I haven't. No one has asked. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, which is why I described my theory as "dinky amateur less-than-undergraduate psuedo-anthropology".

Originally Posted by Brutha

One example for a source that influences my views is THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2008 — Page 9 .

Okay, this makes things a little clearer.

Here's the problem I have with what you're saying:

You made an assertion, and you're not backing it up.

This is what you said:

"Religion is about groups of people who transcend their individuals and take the group identity. That step is called faith."

"Religion isn't about individuals it's about trusting other people dispite having no rational basis to do so.

Yes there are also other group identities, but providing a group identity which basic rules of how to treat other members is the main function of religion."

This is completely untrue. Is religion connected to the social fabric through history? Of course. What isn't? But taking this correlation and calling it religion is wrong.

You say it yourself:

"Humanism is in some parts of the world a replacement for religion because it exactly deal with the main problem of building a group that treats each other in a respectful way."

All I see is that you're basically saying I'm wrong because you don't like the way I express it.

I assert that religion comes from a synthesis of rules and stories. You're saying that religion has the main function of "providing a group identity which basic rules of how to treat other members".

So, how about a compromise?

Religion provides a group identity by setting rules for all people in a group and telling stories that everyone in the group knows. These rules may describe how one is supposed to treat other members, or they may describe what day you're supposed to start fishing for salmon. They might describe how to create a zombie, or they might explain that a wife needs firm guidance from her husband. They might prohibit stealing your neighbor's property, or they might prohibit eating anything but plants.

The rules of religion govern more than just how many wives you're allowed to have, but also what you're allowed to do, when you're allowed to do it, and the specific details all the way down to the exact cadence and diction of Latin during Mass.

Originally Posted by Brutha

In practice scientist give answer and people believe their answers. You don't have those pure idealistic individuals but groups that tell stories.

Everyone gives answers and people believe everyone.

I am talking about science, not scientists. That's why it's possible to say that a scientist is practicing bad science: they're not the same thing.

Scientists are not pure manifestations of science anymore than SS soldiers were pure manifestations of cruelty and murder or politicans pure manifestations of representative democracy.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

From "A History of God", pp288-90.



Does this make things a little more clear?

Religion is vulnerable to science if it pretends to be science. The key example, above, is Bellarmine, who argued that Hell was located at the center of the earth "by natural reason" because that's the farthest place from the heavens.

Science is vulnerable to religion if it pretends to be religion. The key example, today, of course, is popular psychology, which attempts to blend statistics, chemistry, and anecdote into a cheap novelette for self-help.

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

[Michael Chui]

Well said, Cantando. I didn't know you had it in you.

[jsam]

May I toss in my 2 cents? (might be all this is worth!)

A lot of good, inteligent thinking in this thread.

Science is now moving toward a less atheistic concept of our world. Quantum physics has shown that the particles that make up atoms, including those in our brains, of course, are not "real" in the sense of being discrete, identifiable
entities, but are forms of POTENTIAL energy that can be manifested as real atoms only in the presence of consciousness, or an intention. So our "concrete" reality exists because of the presence of consciousness. Lets not try to imagine the nature of the consciousness that manifests our "reality"- then we create idols, in our own image. The human intellect cannot conceive of the true nature of consciousness. It can only be experienced when the intellect shuts down, and the person is prepared. It is better to keep our minds open, and be content that there is some "divinity", if you want to call it that, which is connected somehow with the energy that is eternal and infinite, (according to E=MC squared) and there is no longer a basis for the old argument of atheistic scientists that matter, and life, is non-created out of emptiness, or has always existed.

As far as morality, I believe it is a guide that we humans create, and continually change. The less self centered we become, the more refined and universal our morality will be, until it is no longer needed as commandments.

As far as those who claim the title of atheist and agnostic, they have a morality too, as did ancient pagan peoples. Atheism is the belief that there is no individual, personal god, who mind-reads billions of people at the same time, and plays favorites according to how well his ego is flattered by praise and worship. It does not rule out an indescribable divine presence . See
"The god delusion" by Richard Dawkins, a very compassionate atheist.

And, Nietsche was proclaiming the death of the god created by human imagination. Which has not happened yet, and looks like a long time off.

Namaste....jsam

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Of course you do. You don't know any math stories. I think math is boring, too, except for the minor detail that I'm not very good at it, that I respect it, and thus it feels like a worthy challenge I'm not quite yet up to.

If educators would like to make math interesting again, they would teach it in the way that it was discovered and/or utilized. For example, my math education ended with trig. Here we have people flipping around numbers related to a triangle for no apparent reason. Years later, I read about how trigonometry was used by sailors to determine distance based on the stars. If someone had started with that basis, I would probably be a mathematician.

Math educators treat people like they are computers. Here is said data in textbook, manually enter data, test for integrity and feedback. People don't learn that way. The people who discovered the various branches of mathematics didn't discover it that way.

Mathematics fits well with religion; the Pythagorean cult, numerology, gematria, neo-Platonism, and other quasi-disciplines that fly false flags. I once read an excellent book about a numerologist con artist; it was the compilation of a long-running column in... the L.A. Times, I think. It was amazing. Unfortunately, I can remember nothing useful in finding it again.

You'd be impressed at how many mathematical hoops people jump through when they believe in it. Real astrology is essentially a gigantic trigonometric problem, with a dab of fantasy at the beginning and at the end. A real astrologist is a mathematician. (Not that this legitimizes astrology itself, but I'm just saying. )

Considering your first post begs the Socratic method, this is an interesting counter to your own assertion that religion will not replace science. If it were not for those "cults", we wouldn't have mathematics.

How about in economics? We have these specific numbers arbitrarily assigned to determine who gets a bmw and who starves to death. Is that any more fanciful than numerology? You're right: it is amazing what hoops we jump through when people believe in numbers.

Mathematics is applied in a variety of situations, but the overall usage has nothing to do with math itself. Therefore, math doesn't determine whether it is significant or not. You are essentially calling the forest for the trees.

In regards to the real topic of this thread, I was considering how all branches of knowledge are an extension of our basic human faculties. The hard sciences are an extension of our ability to reason. Soft science appeals to our investigative nature. Theology and philosophy are an extension of our intuition and methods to reveal the mystery to ourselves. In any one of these branches, we use all of these faculties. We are not insects.

I think religion or spirituality will not go away because we need to make assumptions and trust our feelings before we can come up with a reasonable understanding of something. We feel/experience first and then come up with a logical explanation afterward. What is called magic in one age is technology in the next. If we don't have any magic, there will be no new technology. This is where I disagree with the dogmatic scientists.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by jsam

May I toss in my 2 cents? (might be all this is worth!)

Always feel free to jump in.

Originally Posted by jsam

Science is now moving toward a less atheistic concept of our world.

I don't keep up on the latest science of our day, admittedly, but I find this statement less than credible. Perhaps commentators are cheerfully moving towards a less atheistic interpretation of scientific discoveries, but that makes science no less and no more atheistic.

To call it atheistic is fallacious to the extreme. Science is a method, a form by which a question is asked and answered. It does not believe; it is.

Originally Posted by jsam

It can only be experienced when the intellect shuts down, and the person is prepared. It is better to keep our minds open

How do you keep your mind open, when you aren't using it?

Originally Posted by jsam

the energy that is eternal and infinite, (according to E=MC squared)

e=mc^2 does not state that energy is infinite or eternal. If it does, I haven't seen it. The equation is a very specific comparison between matter and energy. With very specific units. Mass is counted in grams; energy is numbered off in joules; and the speed of light is meters per second.

While Einstein was being fanciful when he wrote the equation down at the end of his paper, he was not fanciful about coming up with it. It means something very specific, and the quantity of energy in the universe was not part of that.

Originally Posted by jsam

As far as morality, I believe it is a guide that we humans create, and continually change. The less self centered we become, the more refined and universal our morality will be, until it is no longer needed as commandments.

That's a reasonable enough claim. I can agree with it.

Originally Posted by jsam

Atheism is the belief that there is no individual, personal god, who mind-reads billions of people at the same time, and plays favorites according to how well his ego is flattered by praise and worship. It does not rule out an indescribable divine presence . See
"The god delusion" by Richard Dawkins, a very compassionate atheist.

Just because Dawkins said it was so, doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by jsam

And, Nietsche was proclaiming the death of the god created by human imagination. Which has not happened yet, and looks like a long time off.

This is probable. But not certain.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

If educators would like to make math interesting again, they would teach it in the way that it was discovered and/or utilized. For example, my math education ended with trig. Here we have people flipping around numbers related to a triangle for no apparent reason. Years later, I read about how trigonometry was used by sailors to determine distance based on the stars. If someone had started with that basis, I would probably be a mathematician.

I mostly agree with this: the gist, with a healthy helping of my own bias and experience, if not the specific details. I'd disagree with your last statement, though; you'd probably be a sailor.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Math educators treat people like they are computers. Here is said data in textbook, manually enter data, test for integrity and feedback. People don't learn that way. The people who discovered the various branches of mathematics didn't discover it that way.

There are plenty of problems with the educational system, and its inability to communicate in a human way is very close to its core.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Considering your first post begs the Socratic method, this is an interesting counter to your own assertion that religion will not replace science. If it were not for those "cults", we wouldn't have mathematics.

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence, but I agree with the second. All of human knowledge is derived ultimately from cultish practice. That doesn't validate cultish practice, but it's worth acknowledging it as a matter of historical fact.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

How about in economics? We have these specific numbers arbitrarily assigned to determine who gets a bmw and who starves to death. Is that any more fanciful than numerology? You're right: it is amazing what hoops we jump through when people believe in numbers.

Economics isn't arbitrary. It's one of the best predictors we have regarding human motivation, precisely because it uses numbers. It's essentially abstract psychology.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

In regards to the real topic of this thread, I was considering how all branches of knowledge are an extension of our basic human faculties.

Human knowledge, as joecooool was once fond of pointing out, is derived from our senses. We learn through our hands, and then from ourselves, but first through our hands, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The hard sciences are an extension of our ability to reason. Soft science appeals to our investigative nature.

The distinction you make between hard and soft sciences appears to me to be unnecessary. Chemistry, a hard science, comes from alchemy and the mad quest of medieval men with a nose for investigation and a vision of immortality. Most of physics was discovered by people who could not bear now to understand this detail or that.

Science, as a whole, is an extension of our ability to reason. It is a manifestation of it. It is reasonable to equate reality with objectivity and repeatability.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Theology and philosophy are an extension of our intuition and methods to reveal the mystery to ourselves. In any one of these branches, we use all of these faculties.

What is "the mystery"? All mysteries? How does that differ from an "appeal to our investigative nature"? It strikes me as a true loss how little people seem to know about either theology or philosophy. As a former theologian and present philosopher, I would put forward that both are "extension[s] to our ability to reason" as well.

Philosophy, I would submit, is the art of understanding. The art of it, not the act of it. The sublime expression of having grokked.

Theology is the rational inquiry of what God there might be. It is a philosophical exercise. Mysticism is the contemplation of God as a revelation.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

We are not insects.

I like your choice of reference, and agree wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I think religion or spirituality will not go away because we need to make assumptions and trust our feelings before we can come up with a reasonable understanding of something.

And yet, there is no need for religion or spirituality in order for us to make assumptions or trust our feelings. People jump to conclusions and act impulsively all the time without God's help.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

We feel/experience first and then come up with a logical explanation afterward.

That is the scientific method in its most essential form. Observe, hypothesize, experiment, analyze, conclude.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

What is called magic in one age is technology in the next.

Now your reference is mistaken in its application. Magic does not become technology; it begins as technology. Think about how your computer works.

[David21]

Science is probably just a phase we're going through as humans.

I don't believe science has the answers we seek. If we find any in this field it may simply be because we wanted to find something.

I don't believe, as humans, that science is the way forward. We think it is, though.

Science is just an approach at understanding. When one approach fails to suit and satisfy us, we find another. Religion and philosophy did once satisfy us, but not any more. If humankind lives long enough, we may find ourselves leaning in the direction of another path - it's just the way we are - never satisfied.

[jsam]

Michael,

I appreciate your critique of my messages.
You are right that someone saying something doesn't make it so. Truth itself cannot be contained in human words, or thinking. And statements are only relatively true, at best. Some people seem to have a limited idea of what people who call themselves atheists can believe. I gave Dawkins as an example of one who does not believe in a personal god that is involved in human affairs. The fact that he is a moral, compassionate person does not matter in the view of some people who judge him. Einstein has been regarded as an atheist; his own writings speak of a god , and he objected to the view of some quantum physicists, that the world "happened" to come into being by chance, from the probablistic nature of the "particles" of energy that make up matter. He said "God does not play with dice". His writings show that he did not believe in the personal god (evolved from Moses' terrorist god, Yaweh), but in a universal creating consciousness far beyond the imaginations of humans.

I By "open minded", I mean not judgemental, not ruling out ideas based on held beliefs and prejudices. And, BTW, we (ego's) never "use our minds"(brains + whatever); they use us!

E=MCsquared states that energy/matter is constant (the speed of light, C, being constant). In terms of our universe, it means that energy/matter cannot be destroyed; it is eternal.

Namaste....jsam