The key thing about ‘God’ is its vague definition: by one estimate, ‘God’ means not a single model but a landscape encompassing around 10^500 different models. Which means it’s just not a falsifiable scientific concept. Such a large landscape of possibilities makes ‘God’ theology sufficiently vague that one of them is likely to be a close ad hoc representation to some features of the universe, by chance, and we can learn nothing that way. Similarly, the earth-centred-universe of Ptolemy had a landscape of epicycles large enough that one model was quite a good ad hoc fit to what we now know is really a solar system.

People don’t believe in ‘God’ from scientific evidence because there are no incontrovertible observations of divine intervention in human affairs. They believe either because they like to believe supernatural tales, or they believe because they join a groupthink syndicate of organized religion where they go to weekly celebrations with bread and wine, or because they think that mysteries should be worshipped rather than scientifically resolved. Some religious people are genuine, and join a religion to do social work like teaching, but overall I believe that the majority of string theorists are just in it for the mutual appreciation society, the bread and wine, power and glory.

An arsonist has set fire to a building. At great sacrifice the fire department has got a ladder up to the window of the room where you are trapped. Do you

a) scream abuse at the firefighters, accusing them of starting the fire?

b) deny the existence of the fire?

c) say, “Oh good, a ladder! I’m safe!” and stay where you are?

d) decide to go down the ladder at some time more convenient to you?

e) quickly and gratefully go down the ladder?

Let’s assume that an all-loving God puts out this fire and every other fire that could cause death or pain. What kind of a world would that be? Would anyone like to live in it?

I imagine that would be rather like living in a town with a really good fire department. What a nightmare!

Are you saying that you would prefer to live in a town where a few people burn to death each year, just so that you can feel a bit of a thrill? What kind of a sicko are you?

I’ve always thought Andrew Sullivan a pretty nice guy, and one who I do not find a threat to civilization. His writing on this subject is full of the kind of sentiments that strengthen this feeling. However, I must say that his comments on religion strike me either as an appeal not to force the ignorant to choose between reason and fantasy (which I agree may be a reasonable political stance, but doesn’t make imaginary people or things any more real), or as an irrational argument that reason and belief in Jesus Christ are reconcilable. I see no reason to take this step. This doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s a lovely guy - he reminds me of many many close friends - but I do think he is wrong and takes an intellectually indefensible position.

On the topic of respect, I would say that I respect the way he conducts himself as a human being (and this is by far the most important thing), but don’t respect his views on religion, although, of course, I tolerate them and support his right to hold them and speak out about them.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/peace_now.html

Well worth reading for those who believe that religious points of view are not worthy of any respect.

Of course not! Threats are not protected speech.

But let’s not get all bent out of shape over “free speech” issues that aren’t really free speech issues. This is an often misunderstood area of the law - just trying to clarify things a bit.

Science does not concern itself with things that cannot be observed. People who are heavily invested in religion think this means science is out to disprove god. In reality, the scientific community (the part doing science, rather than politics) is out to see how the world works, and does not concern itself with god.

I grew up in a non-religious household. Sure, I wondered if there was a god, but I never was in a position where people telling me there was no divine force in the world would have caused me life-ending despair: so I cannot fathom the claim that someone ‘needs’ god to get beyond certain emotional tribulations. It leads me to wonder if people who are raised in a religious environment simply assume that the irrational belief in god is something they need in order not to be rejected. And if that’s the case - well, is there a worse reason to believe in something than the fear of rejection? Let’s try that out; “I believe I am in love with this man, despite the fact he beats me and/or cheats on me, because otherwise he will reject me.” No, that seems to be a bad choice. How about this, “I go thousands of dollars into debt otherwise I won’t be able to afford the car that will let me fit into my community and will become a social outcast.” Nope, I’m afraid that’s a bad choice, too.

If you have a faith in God other than fear social rejection, more power to you. I suspect, though, that such faith and the need to justify it are mutually exclusive. I also think the vast majority of religious followers are simply trying to fit in; humans are hugely social creatures.

Also, I don’t think God works going backwards in time. That would mean he wants us to devolve into nothingness - which would mean, since he created Man in His Image, that he created a creature seeking an end, suggesting he’s trying to commit suicide - something he’s definitely been recorded as being against.

But what really fulfills people? What fulfills (or, theoretically, would fulfill) you? I am fulfilled by certain feelings that I have.

I’ve been thinking lately about my atheism - as in: Where did it come from? What was the germ of it, and why am I now so rabidly opposed to religion in all its forms?

I am not sure yet of the answer, or what I think is the answer, but I’ll maybe get around to writing a blog posting about it at some point. Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that I did go to church regularly until I was about 13, but I don’t know if I ever actually believed all the stuff I was being told. Thinking about it now, I find it hard to put myself back into the mindset of that child I was and to try to remember what I thought about it all. Really, of course, what I am most likely doing is thinking about how I would think about it if the mind I have now was transplanted back into the child I was then.

My feeling, though, is that I kind of just went along with it all because that was easier. And no one ever asked me if I believed any of it, or not. So, maybe it didn’t do me any harm. I am quite surprised these days when I come across the odd person here and there who hasn’t ever come across the stories of the Old and New Testaments. They’re interesting stories to know about, if only because - as Jonathan Miller and Richard Dawkins have pointed out - they are interspersed through much of Western literature.

But, they’re only stories after all. And people can make fun of them and criticise them and do whatever they want to them if they like. It doesn’t bother me (of course), but it *shouldn’t* bother me. We atheists who like to make fun of religion often do it to try to get some kind of reaction from theists. I want to know *why* people think it is so important that their stories and opinions are given buckets of respect. I want to see how far I can push someone’s claims of basing their views on *reason* before they fall back on “well, that’s why they call it faith” (as they most often do). I want to get people angry so that they lose their composure and come clean about what they actually believe. And, when I’m speaking to adults, I think that is entirely reasonable.

However, when speaking to children, well that’s slightly different. Would I tell my niece (who goes to church, though I am not sure why - I think she just got told she was going) who is very young, that there is no god? Hmm, not sure. I haven’t done yet, even when looking at the Bible story colouring book that she brought back from Sunday school. I’ve fallen back on the “well, some people think that…” attitude. They’re only opinions, after all, but I don’t want her to feel that her Uncle’s opinion on a non-verifiable idea is better than anyone else’s.

However, if she starts saying something about Adam and Eve, or Noah and his Flood or other things that can be pretty much definitely discarded these days. That would be a different matter, and would require a, can I say it?, more *dogmatic* approach.

Maybe I am inconsistent. I fear that I may be. I loathe religion utterly, but it could, just maybe, turn out to be correct. So when speaking to my young niece I have to play it safe, basically like a good scientist.

So why do I get so angry and assertive with adults about this? Basically because they are less likely to simply take my word for it. I want people to come to their senses, but not *just* because I say so.

God — the Hebraic idea of God, that is — is a moral idea, not a scientific one. It has had enormous historical influence in the birth of the Western liberal idea — human equality, “liberty and justice for all” etc — and has inspired millions of ordinary people over the centuries to do the things, and accept the things (like servitude and exploitation) which made the modern world possible, by erecting its material foundations. (We have freedom today instead of servitude because we have machines to do the work for us. If you trace back the history of those machines, they were originally dug up out of the earth by our ancestors, starting with their bare hands; and ditto for the surplus food that fed the scientists, so they could sit and think up and invent the technologies embodied in machines, etc..) And even today, for millions of plain, ordinary people, their religious faith in a moral God gives them the emotional support they need to get through life. This is what real scientists, grown-ups with a good liberal education and some knowledge of history, should think about when they hear the word “God.” Not those crazy tv preachers and misguided ID’ers etc.

Now that we’ve all got it easy (or most of us anyway) we don’t need God anymore. But it wasn’t always like this — thanks to God (ironically).

As for those who have had religion rammed down their throats, I sympathize. But how would you feel if you had atheism rammed down your throat? About the same I suspect.

To a physicist, “APS” means “American Physical Society”.

I think I probably still agree with the quote, though.