I've encountered people who call themselves believers who trivialize a great many things and not just beauty.
On the other hand, I've taken too many hikes up in the Sierras or Cascades with believers of different faiths to believe any of them trivialize beauty.
The writer Joseph Conrad saw much of the world in his life, including Europe, Africa and Asia. A common theme in his work is that certainty is elusive. One might call it doubt and that is a common theme shared by many of the philosophical and religious writings that have survived the ages.
Joseph Conrad had his own take on beauty; he once said: "The world of the living contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is; marvels and mysteries acting upon our emotions and intellligence in ways so inexplicable that it would almost justify the conception of life as an enchanted state."
Speaking only for myself, I prefer the mystery to the certainty, no matter what the belief is.
Posted by Craig at December 25, 2006 10:52 PM>om the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe.
Then its wrong.
Did the religious makers of Stonehenge not show an immense and magnificent interest in the workings of the universe? Same with the pagan Egyptians and Greeks?
Medeival muslims made extraordinary leaps in our understanding of the universe and astronomy. They had a profound thirst for knowledge. The same with the Renaissance. Where would modern understandings of the universe be without that greatest of Christian fundamentalists, Isaac Newton, who spent far more of his life calculating the precise day that Christ would return and how to discover the philosopher's stone through alchemy than he ever did working out his theories of gravity.
(Indeed, that whole C17th leap in English puritan science which kick-started modern science was driven by a desire to understand how God created the universe so that man could undo the world of Adam's Fall and rebuild Creation on the lines that God originally intended).
Religious people have a profound interest in what they believe was created by God. The more they find out about the universe the more they find out about its creator.
The fact that a few ignorant bigoted jewish and christian and muslim fundamentalists are too stupid and superstitious to raise their eyes from the mud is neither here nor there. There are stupid people everywhere. If you want bigotry and fundamenatlism and naked ape chest beating, you can't do better than starting with Richard Dawkins.
Posted by johnf at December 26, 2006 12:05 AMAnd Hindus for millennia have espoused an idea of a universe which is infinite, eternal, amazingly complex, and very close to the vision which present day science promotes.
It is full of "the real beauty and immensity of the universe."
People really should not follow the teachings of the Ayatollah Dawkins any more than they do any other fundamentalist nutcase. For a scientist he has done remarkably little original research, and is mainly interested in drawing an immense amount of attention to himself through his bad-tempered and ill-informed rants. He appeals essentially to the fundamentalist strain in aetheists.
Posted by johnf at December 26, 2006 12:17 AMThe problem is that religion conflates valid moral observations with ontological truths.
The physical universe is completely beyond the scope of religion, and it's intricacy is hidden when one seeks a religious explanation of creation.
On the other hand, the insights of religion into human frailty can be quite profound.
Unfortunately the human mind confuses these vastly different kinds of inquiry, and this is what leads to the hate.
"there is more to heaven and earth then is dreamt in our philosophy"..shakespear
that's what i believe
Posted by dennis at December 26, 2006 04:58 AMFundamentalist Atheists ?
Ayatollah Dawkins?
I don't recall any Jihad lately from atheists’?
Science has progressed despite religion and the continuing attempts to stifle discovery and knowledge which does not conform to their dogma.
The druids did make a sweet ring of stones but there exists no written account of their meaning or the science or religion behind them.
Galileo and Copernicus did their work in secret and under the threat of excommunication, torture and death. Isaac Newton likewise experimented with alchemy in secret. I wonder what he would have done with his time if he was not trying for so many years, to franticly determine Jesus’ birthday. All that effort, and what did he find? I don't know or care and I don't know of any Religion that does either.
Is the Earth 6000 years old? Science says no but some religious fanatics would like to teach that lie to your children or entertain them in theme parks where men and dinosaurs are portrayed as living together. How is that stem cell research going? Is religion a help or a hindrance?
Religion is based on Faith. Whenever it tries to extend those beliefs beyond faith and into reality it will fail every time and in the process betray its own dogma.
Trying to "prove" religion is blasphemous in itself.
Religion which attempts to disprove science because it does not agree with their particular teachings is another kind of blasphemy which impedes knowledge.
Galileo, after being forced to recant his discovery that the Earth orbits the Sun, was said to have muttered upon leaving his trial chamber, Eppur simouve!
"And yet it does move"
1. Comment #14708 by Richard Dawkins on December 24, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Bravo Sam!
Richard
The above post on Richard Dawkins.net regarding Sam's 10 points says it all.
The hypocrisy of the "ignorant", "stupid", "bigoted", "bad-tempered", and "ill-informed rants" of the twin posts above pretty much confirm Sam's points.
"your words, not mine"......(apology to Andrew Lloyd Weber) ...la la la....la la la....la la la la la la la la la.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 26, 2006 06:07 AM"Religious people have a profound interest in what they believe was created by God. The more they find out about the universe the more they find out about its creator." Posted by Johnf.
To believe, does not mean being against science, although that has become a typical sterotype of those who do believe in God. Most Christians believe that among God’s gifts is the human mind, capable of critical thought, and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.
Most Christians believe that science is not only legitimate, but it reveals the glory of God. In many cases, Science has confirmed what the Scriptures say is valid and true. I have never understood anyone who does not see Science as the door to understanding.
When Persian cats are bred by artificial selection, flat nosed critters are thrown into the mix until the show winners can no longer breathe thru their little pug schnozolas.
When children are taught one religion during their formative learning years by their parents and other people of authority over and over for thousands of years, can they be objective on the subject?
(no, I'm not implying that religious people are mouth breathers)
I do not try to convert anyone to my non-God status, but please don't invade any more countries for no reason, or try to tell me that Dr. Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 26, 2006 06:44 AMJohnf, I was agreeing with your statement.
Posted by Judith at December 26, 2006 06:44 AMI do not think there is trivialization of beauty, but I agree with immensity.
Most religions view their Gods as infinity itself, and atheists interested in the heavens believe it's higher, wider, longer with less facial hair.
OT: Hope you had a nice Christmas, Mary.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at December 26, 2006 06:50 AMI do not try to convert anyone to my non-God status, but please don't invade any more countries for no reason.
Each of us finds our own paths. Christians should not try to convert anyone to a God status either.
Posted by Judith at December 26, 2006 06:53 AMAbove in response to TIKI AL.
Posted by Judith at December 26, 2006 06:55 AMespecially during the Superbowl!
Posted by TIKI AL at December 26, 2006 07:04 AMSam Harris does for Atheism what the Fundamentalists do for Christians of all theologies.
He's a bad, bad example of a "good" atheist. He's an adam's apple away from Ann Coulter.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 26, 2006 07:23 AMIf you want to bolster your POV, quote more from Carl Sagan. He may be dead, but he was much more respectful and made better arguments.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 26, 2006 07:25 AM"the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe."
I do not agree with that statement in any way. It is through the beauty of the world and the beauty and immensity of the universe that many find God.
"Religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?"
We are not saved or punished by works.
"Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination."
I would be interested in where the Bible condones slavery. My Concordance shows nothing under the words "slavery." I don't remember, when reading the Bible, anything about slavery being condoned.
I don't believe that Sam Harris really understands what Christians believe today. He draws from old sterotypes of the past. It is my observation that Atheist and Believers are closer together in their beliefs than they realize.
"If you want to bolster your POV, quote more from Carl Sagan. He may be dead, but he was much more respectful and made better arguments."
Idio, agree.
Posted by at December 26, 2006 07:29 AMBooMan did an interesting take on Harris' piece yesterday, the last paragraph of which I find agreement in.
"Wisdom lies in knowing that no one knows what the Hell is going on in the universe. The Pope doesn't know, Ayotollah Sustani doesn't know. Einstein didn't know. You don't know. Once you learn that, you won't feel like killing anyone anymore over what they believe. That is, you won't feel like killing them if only they would stop killing someone else."
Yesterday was a good day for all to reflect on that goal. I am not a fan of religious certainty but I am a fan of curiosity.
Posted by mainsailset at December 26, 2006 07:56 AMFor Harris to say that Christians do not see life as "precious" is ridiculously and absurb. That statement tells me more about who he is than what a Christian is.
To the Christian, life is not only "precious", but ALL life is cherished.
If anyone is interested, the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis is a excellent read.
Posted by Judith at December 26, 2006 08:25 AM"Wisdom lies in knowing that no one knows what the Hell is going on in the universe."
Mainsailset, nothing could be truer than that statement. It is the arrogance of man that assumes he knows.
Posted by at December 26, 2006 08:29 AMBeauty is in the eye of the beholder, no one can define beauty for another person. I think fractals are sublime, and Paris Hilton's a dog, (both in looks and behavior), but math haters and bimbo lovers might disagree.
No one can define belief or non-belief for me either. I may not believe in gods, but these guys trying to define (and label) what atheists stand for are no better than Pat Robertson trying to define the world in his terms.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 26, 2006 08:44 AM"No one can define belief or non-belief for me either. I may not believe in gods, but these guys trying to define (and label) what atheists stand for are no better than Pat Robertson trying to define the world in his terms."
Iamcoyote, I can assure you that Pat Robertson's definition of "the world in his terms" would be quite interesting in terms of stupidity.
Just as an atheist may question (or not) the existence of God, there are just as many Christians who ask many of the same questions as the atheist. It is only through asking the hard questions that we find the answers, as simple as that may sound.
If one is solid in their belief, then nothing can shake that foundation and thus nothing should hold fear.
Posted by Judith at December 26, 2006 09:00 AMOT, Bill Clinton is on NBC right now.
Posted by Judith at December 26, 2006 09:01 AMOn Ellen's show.
Posted by at December 26, 2006 09:02 AM"From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation."
How in the world can one believe that statement? If the Believer holds the universe as God's creation, then nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by Judith at December 26, 2006 09:09 AMIt's my understanding that Newt Gingrich is Gawd, and according to his views, the universe consists of Virginia and parts of Texas.
Posted by tempus at December 26, 2006 09:25 AMExcuse any intemperance in my two posts above. It was Boxing Day morning, I was free of Christmas, and I felt like letting off steam.
I have no regrets for having got the boot into that aging fraud Richard Dawkins. But, speaking as an Englishman, he does seem to have a line of fooling certain Americans. Just like Pat Robertson.
Posted by johnf at December 26, 2006 09:47 AMYour non-apology is even more ridiculous.
How about an example of a Dawkins lie or fraud?
Anyone who can't see that Ann Colter has an adam's apple should not be trusted with the insight of the universe.
How will a religious person ever know that there is no afterlife?
Posted by TIKI AL at December 26, 2006 01:01 PMHow will a religious person ever know that there is no afterlife?
Or how will an atheist ever know that there is an afterlife?
Neither knows.
Posted by Judith at December 26, 2006 01:39 PMOr how will an atheist ever know that there is an afterlife?
I will have a front row seat in hell. Think my chocolate will melt?
Posted by TIKI AL at December 26, 2006 01:48 PMOh TIKI AL, hell won't want you. Your too decent.
Posted by Judith at December 26, 2006 02:31 PMLet's not forget that the question of whether "God" exists is not well-posed at all.
There is no definition at all of the subject of the question. The whole line of inquiry into the existence of a divine being is a stupendous categorical error.