Though I call myself a Christian freethinker, I would say all peoples are capable of real love, regardless of their belief or nonbelief.

The Superior Christian

Hi CoyoteSon,

[quote author=“CoyoteSon”]What I have done is look to alternative sources and piece together what is true for me, it’s the best anyone can hope to accomplish. I have found The Urantia Book to be a great help in these matters of faith and inspiration. Please don’t be alarmed I’m not pushing the book only commenting on what is true for me.

My article highlights exactly what you are stating. I understand that every human being has a right to choose his or her comfort zone and his or her understanding of life which is in every respect constructed by your genetic makeup and your environmental impact. So I have no doubt that if you feel this “Urantia Book” is true for you then all I can say is “Good for you”.

The danger however is to extend the idea that what is “true for you” is true for the world at large, and this is what Christians and the other monotheistic faiths have done to presume that their “truth” belongs to the world and if you disagree with this truth then you are either an immoral person and should be punished or the modern (PC correct) version is that you are good as everyone else but that you will be punished in HELL for not accepting the “truth” of the Christian.

This “truth” is now coated with the word “love” i.e Jesus loves you and died for your sins so accept Jesus and you will not be DAMNED.

However your comment becomes contradictory when you stated:

[quote author=“CoyoteSon”]In my opinion it’s only when science combined with a sound theology that the world around us has true meaning and all the answers are revealed.

This indicates that whereas previously you were expressing an emotional feeling of truth you are now attempting to extend that emotion into some sort of truth for the world at large.

I think that those who understand the “truth” of science will dismiss this attempt by you to extend your ‘personal’ meaning of truth. The strange fact is that the Christian has done exactly what you attempted to do and that is to declare their idea of science combined with Christian theology is the only truth revealed.

Take this dogma and combine it with “power” and you will understand why we have to be wary of these claims. History proves this.

What is a “sound” theology?

An objective study of religion. 

Why not be inspired by things that we know are real - like nature, the planet, the universe, kind acts, happiness, the complexity and beauty of life, etc

Perfectly consistant with an enlightened approach of combined science and theology

I think one might be better served by searching among the material plane for guidance;

I agree, just ask any scientist. The more one applies their scientific knowledge and craft the more they see the workings of divinity.

I don’t see the sense in approaching life scientifically, and then adding little supernatural decorations, like science + heaven and hell + the world is 6000 years old.

And let’s also include; Santa Clause, Easter bunny, and all the other assorted Shalloween characters. Which incidently happens to be childish mummbo-jummbo and has no place in an intelligent discussion.

What may or may not be true for one is a reflection of individual thought and or feeling. Only untill such reflections are accepted and agreed upon collectively by the whole community and or society then it becomes a general belief, which then is recognized universally. A single reflection may also be representative of collective accepted unspoken unwrittened thoughts.

I see what your argument might be however; what is your question?

Peace.

I suppose where I am in disagreement is with your assertion that science and natural exploration lead one to signs of divinity and spirituality.  This is a claim that we work hard to rebut here at CFI - and we would strongly assert the opposite, that a scientific, empirical worldview leads away, not toward, conceptions of faith and the supernatural.  Science and religion are irreconcilable to many of us, myself included, so I cannot understand or accept your method of integration.

After all, the general theme of scientific inquiry is finding good answers to questions we previously were either confused about, wrong about, or those that we supposed had supernatural explanations.  “Oh, it wasn’t God after all, it was [insert naturalistic explanation here].”  Logically, this stream of experience leads to skepticism of religious claims.

Science or Religion

Hi HolyAvenger

[quote author=“HolyAvenger”] a scientific, empirical worldview leads away, not toward, conceptions of faith and the supernatural.  Science and religion are irreconcilable to many of us, myself included, so I cannot understand or accept your method of integration.

I cannot agree more. Science only recognises a material world and all its methods are based on studying this material world and providing explanations based on materialism. In fact its methods discount the possibility of a supernatural world and if a supernatural world did exist than we would not have science as we know it but another discipline.

The only reason why people who believe in the supernatural state that science leads them to believe in a supernatural world is because these people know that the only viable and reasonable explanation of the world is provided by science. It therefore makes sense to these people to “coat” their supernatural beliefs with scientific explanation.

In nearly every discussion of religion and supernaturalism you will find a believer using science to give credence to the supernatural, knowing that there is no scientific method to test his claims. He does this to give the impression that he or she is some sort of authority. I’ve even seen some outlandish supernatural claims made by scientist using his authority in one field of science to potray an authority on the supernatural world also. This is especially true in the field of neuro science.

As for trying to convince religious and the supernatural believers that their method is wrong in using science to give credence to their claims, I think you (HolyAvenger) are fighting a losing battle. Besides the claimant gaining some material benefit from his supernatural claims coated with science like selling a book with his / her ideas, it is like trying to convince a theist that there is no God or a supernatural realm. A person will only get “deconverted” from this belief through there own introspection

Reason and good argument simply does nothing to stir their logical feelings. But I agree with you and like you we have to keep on nudging this sensible view we have.

[quote author=“CoyoteSon”]I agree, just ask any scientist. The more one applies their scientific knowledge and craft the more they see the workings of divinity.

Where is this coming from? I recall Tom Flynn talked about this very subject on a recent POI podcast.

Statistics of scientists’ religious beliefs show that they are less religious than the population at large. More eminent scientists (academy laureates and the like) are much less religious—as I recall, something like 90% are non-religious.

The least religious of all the scientific disciplines are biologists, interestingly enough. I suppose they are most familiar with the evidence that supernatural causes are not necessary to explain life and biological complexity.

So the data support the opposite of your assertion.

Holy Avenger wrote;

Science and religion are irreconcilable to many of us, myself included, so I cannot understand or accept your method of integration.

This is the same arugument a religious fanactic would utilize.

Doug Smith wrote;

Statistics of scientists’ religious beliefs show that they are less religious than the population at large

I agree… and so am I.

The both of you have somehow confused theology; the study of religion with discipleship; the act of spreading religion.

The last time I looked the letters CFI stood for Center For Inquiry…...when did it become Center For Ignorance?

Peace.

!!!!!