Science Cannot Replace Religion

Antti · April 10, 2005, 6:02pm

Dr. Satanical

I prefer comedy than tragedy, comedy could make our fellows happy.

Please do not afraid comedy. It is fun, if it is made using good taste and if the main purpose is not to wound your neighbor.

Antti

Antti · April 10, 2005, 6:12pm

Darksword

We have a tiny fraction of our creator inside our soul, this makes you to read this forum which header is Religion and type answers to the issues. If you feel free to find your inner guide, you will also KNOW.

Religion cannot replace the science because they study different issues.

Antti

Antti · May 15, 2005, 10:38am

Many thanks for the feedback. I again tried to make the original column more clear by adding some paragaphs. We do not need to agree with all the issues but I feel important to decrease the possibility of misunderstanding with each others.

Antti

Fabiano · May 15, 2005, 1:00pm

Antti:

Science Cannot Replace Religion

Science finds out how nature operates and then gives names to new issues and phenomena. Science specifies new natural laws through experimental work and using chains of evidence. Earlier proven issues and methods are always used as the primary evidence for new ones, because effects cannot exist without causes. If we have the courage to pursue this chain of evidence to the very end and meet the original cause then we will always end up with God, i.e. we will find the primary reason, which has no cause. Atheists try to wriggle out from this logical problem by inventing some name for this primary reason, such as the Big Bang.

All matter, energy, life and spirit was compressed into a space smaller than a pinhead 14 billion years ago, according to the current official scientific conception. Scientific facts may, however, change because we still know less than one percent of the existing natural laws and matters. Science changes and improves our understanding of the universe all the time, however, we will always find God at the final end of every scientific footpath, now and forever.

It’s always the same thing…I always wish I met a person (a SINGLE) person capable of writing SOMETHING ORIGINAL about god and religion itself, but I think that’s too much to ask. Guy, you say (?) that we know only one percent of the exiting natural laws, but affirm (?) that the one behind ALL (100%) natural laws is god? I think that’s not quite clear. Of course, everything that you could say about “your” Lord, your pious, very magnificent Lord, is that, OK? Well, Science has tried, but can’t even understand the wordl we live in, so there must be something “greater” that can explain everything…but of course (I am sorry to tell you that), god does not expalin anything. You use beautiful words, but looks almost like a fanatical. That “now and forever” sounds a bit fanatical, doesn’t it? Unhappily “forever” does’n seem to exist, even “now” doesn’t seem to exist. So, I think you’d better try to find another way (a better one) of explaining our existences by god’s existence.

Good.,.have you stolen that from some Internet clichÃ© guide ? Sounds dangerously familiar. So, my body is not what determines what I think and do…it is my “soul”, my “true being” taht determines everything that I do. A clear and good explanation for us to spend ALMOST ALL OUR TIME thinking only about…our physical problems, our well-being and…OUR BODY!! You have never read Sartre, have you? Maybe it is about time for you to know what conscience (which you call “soul”) is. That’s nothing to do what your conceptions, I am assured.

Good. So canibalistic indian fanaticals don’t please me. They’re UGLY (o Lord, what a nietzschean sentence) and they don’t please ME. I don’t know if they please god, cause I can’t really know god’s will. So, truth be told, it’s ME who don’t like them, so I say that their “spiritual” values (spiritual values that serve ONLY to satisfy dirty, uselles flesh) are false, and MINE are true. In honest words, that would be: “Their religion is false, mine is true, only because it is mine, and things are just like this”. Unhappily, things are not that simple. First, let us analyse religious “values” and see if they can really make human beings better…

Based upon religion, I mustn’t help my fellow because he needs help, but because I need to fight for my salvation. I’m living in an artificial, false world. I need to fight to go to the “true” world…so I ought to obey to my parents, to the laws and to the social conventions ONLY because I want to go to heaven. And, of course, if I don’t make such things, I’ll burn in hell, or will live “eternally in the darkness” (:roll::roll::roll:). Are we speaking the same language? So, let’s summarise that up: I am good cause I want to go to heaven and I must avoid hell. I doesn’t care about anything more than going to heaven. It doesn’t matter poverty, war and hunger. All that matters is going to heaven. So, I can do ANYTHING and be a TRULLY inhuman being, as far as I follow the instructions of my “Lord” I’ll go to heaven, I am good and that’s all that matter. Go to hell with that fucking hypocrisy. All things can be done, all things can be JUSTIFIED that way. There’s no justice, no love, no
really care about humankind. You say that life isn’t reduced to the flesh, that it is “greater” but you summarise it up so simply? You’d better think well…

Of course, there COULD be really values and really morals if we really fight for that. But as far as all a man has to do is being a fool or a hypocrite and “wait for heaven and god’s justice”, there will never be any form of TRUE morality.

Well, of course you know which religion is true and which is false, don’t you? Things are really that simple. Pretende that Luteran reformation DIDN’T GUIDE to injustice, death and hatred towards the Catholic and the Jews. Pretend that Christianity (or Islamism or even Judaism and Buddhism) never would guide us towards hatred and intolerance. Live in your fairy tale world. As I have already stated, good explanatios are much to ask for you, aren’t they?

Our life and world has been designed exactly and accurately just like this, so that we can make a free choice between faith and atheism. We could not make this free choice if we could prove the existence of God or some higher force using some scientific procedure. Mercy, justice, love, the flowers in the meadow, the atom or the whole universe are all valid evidence of God for the Hindu or Catholic but the atheist may look at the world from a different perspective. The final proofs are â€œI amâ€ and â€œYou areâ€ for the religious human, but the atheist has the full right to believe in accidents, luck and fate.

Atheism and skepticism need much more blind faith than faith in Jesus does, because science cannot prove that God does not exist. A Lutheran, Orthodox, Moslem or Jew can be absolutely sure of God, because they do not base their faith on scientific evidence but instead on the Godâ€™s Adjuster which lives in our minds. This tiny fraction of God makes our survival possible and wakes up our religiousness.

We Need Courage

We need courage to find the scientific or religious truth. The truth is difficult to find if we do not have the courage to study and explore all the information sources, taboos and even sources which have been branded as suspect. The truth does not depend at all on the information source, author or ism; the truth is based purely on verified scientific and spiritual facts. We should also listen to the voice of our own sense and conscience, which is the main reason we have them.

We may find a lot of truth, for example, from the Koran, Bible and also from the Urantia Book, which gives a logical explanation of why we are here, where we come from and where we are going. Our world and language are changing all the time; we do not need to persist with thousand-year-old assumptions and interpretations in science and religion. We have enough old rituals, holy icons and empty phrases. Instead, we deserve dynamic and living science, faith and religion, which really affect on our decisions, selections and activities in our daily life.

Philosophy and Ethics

Philosophy and ethics solve similar issues as religion; however, many conclusions may be different due to the different basic assumptions. Materialistic philosophy assumes that we live only some 80 years but religious philosophy conclusions are based on the idea of eternal life. This gives a totally different perspective to our daily life. This religious perspective gives a much more logical explanation for our day-to-day hardship and struggle than a purely philosophical point of view, for example:

We could not understand courage if we could not meet fear and disappointments.

Without pain and suffering we could not strive for pleasure and joy.

We could not find altruism and humanism if we could not face social inequality and injustice.

We could not internalize the love of truth if error and falsehood did not exist.

We could not comprehend hope and trust if insecurity, accidents and diseases were not always present.

We can strive for these valuable qualities only in a world like this, where we can trust only in the mercy and love of our Creator. In a perfect and error-free universe we could not reach these targets. The few years that we spend on the earth is the first day of our eternal journey of exploration; therefore we should always do our best. We often imagine that all our achievements are based on our own skills, but this is not true. Nearly all our victories are based on the work done by our fellows and hundreds of earlier human generations; we live on the giantâ€™s shoulder. Therefore we should pay it forward and do our share to improve the world.

Our universe, atoms, material and life have been created using such vast wisdom and skill that the creation of a perfect paradise would have been a much easier task. We should be aware that even a tiny virus or small seed contains more sophisticated engineering than any human created device.

We have a much more elevated goal than just obeying rules and observing laws, instead we should also listen to our sense and conscience to find out what is right and what is wrong. The exploitation of our poor and fragile brothers or sisters may be possible by law but not by true religious philosophy. Our world is changing all the time and therefore our God does not need robots but humans who can make their own wise decisions and have faith without material evidence. Religious groups should gradually realize that we are not enemies, we have the same God and destination and we may learn a lot from each other. We should notice that the main difference is the rituals and cults.

Philosophy without God is like a thermometer with an unlocked calibration point. Materialistic philosophy may offer a temporary relief and survival like a drifting buoy in the ocean but religious philosophy leads the way to eternal survival like a lighthouse on a granite base.

I think we could give it up the polite talk and be clearer…how many atheists do you think we could burn at a stake this time.

Talking about atheism and skepticism, you should really KNOW what atheism and skepticism are. Atheism is my only pride, and the only friends that I have ever had were also atheists (or at least agnostics or skeptics), so I think that I have a reason to defend such a position. That doesn’t matter for you, of course.

God Is the Source and Destination

God brings unity and a calibration point to philosophy and ethics. Philosophy cannot attain equality between all humans without the concept of one God or Creator. Only this concept and idea can make all of us brothers and sisters with equal human rights. This is the only way to reach the light and worldwide peace. This simple concept will also lead us to serve and worship our fellowmen instead of serving holy relics and empty rituals. God does not live in fetishes but in our minds as Godâ€™s Adjuster. Therefore, the businessperson may worship God by making fair deals, the engineer by creating green processes and the artist with cheerful and entertaining production.

To science God is a cause, to philosophy a hypothesis of unity and to religion a living person. For the human being God is the source like father and mother, but he is also the destination because our soul desires for fusion with this tiny fraction of God, which lives in our minds. The human being is a dualistic creature, composed of female and male parts with equal rights. These two poles are different but equally important and they make our life fascinating and exciting because they both give us a different perspective to our world. The dissimilarity and variations are not defects but the power, which increases the richness of our life and makes us stronger.

I want to change the world into a better place for Christian, Moslem and atheist. The only way towards this target is the idea of one God and Creator, which makes us equal. Otherwise, we tend to consider our own God, philosophy, race, religion, gender and country as superior to the others. This misapprehension will always justify the oppression of your neighbor. I would like to change the world to a place:

Where we donâ€™t need barbed wire fences between different religious groups.

Where the verdict of the court doesnâ€™t depend on the prosperity of the defendant.

Where religious rituals canâ€™t replace the esteem of our fellow man in daily life.

Where women have equal rights with men.

Where the illusion of sovereignty cannot be used as an excuse to start wars and conflicts.

Where we donâ€™t have to hide our personality behind walls and pseudonyms like rats in holes.

Where justice is more important issue than traditions, cults and bureaucracy.

Two thousand years ago, cowards shouted â€œFree Barabbasâ€ and â€œCrucify Jesusâ€. Many of us may imagine that this does not affect us, however, at the moment of â€œdepartureâ€, each of us will face this very same personal choice.

Antti Roine, May 15, 2005

PS.
I would be glad to get your feedback and comments how to improve this column.

I will finish it concisely cause I hadn’t much time: If we have arrived at this point (chating through a modern computer) to simply look behind and search for ancient teachings which really teach nothing, so I think we’re loosing our time here. We’d better ALL commit suicide. You could end that so fine…but end with…religious preaching??? :roll::roll: “Sooner or later Jesus will come back and you’ll have to ask forgiveness for your sins”. It’s (again) simply that way, isn’t it?

jamespetts · May 15, 2005, 8:18pm

The phenomena are not themselves new: merely newly discovered.

Science does not “specify” natural laws: it documents and analyses them.

Why do you claim this?

Why do you think that the big bang is a kind of reason, instead of the earliest state of affairs? Indeed, what kind of a thing do you think that reason is such that it can exist without life?

I have never heard of any scientist who claimed that life existed fourteen billion years ago. And what scientific evidence do you think that there is in favour of the existence of “the spirit” (whatever you mean by that), let alone evidence that it existed at the time of the big bang?

The facts do not change: what people believe in relation to them might.

Upon what reasoning do you base that bizarre claim?

Neither can the fact of abstraction, the laws of mathematics nor whether or not there is such a thing as equivalence; that does not mean, however, that they are incapable of reasoned analysis, nor that any such thing as a deity is entailed by them.

What is the basis of your claim that there is such a thing as a “human spirit”, and what, precisely, do you contend that one is?

How is that a consequence of the previous proposition?

What, precisely, do you think that “the voice of the material is”? What is “the material”, do you contend, such as it is meaningful to conceive of it having a voice?

Why do you think that there is such a thing as the human spirit in the first place?

What do you think that right and wrong are such that their nature is incapable of empirical analysis?

Different religions purport to answer those questions (in different, conflicting, ways); but there is no reason to believe that any of those answers are correct.

That all assumes that there is such a thing as a soul that can have issues and be made happy. What evidence is there to support such a contention?

Why do you claim that? Many people believe false things despite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including precisely the belief that there is a deity.

In what sense are any of those things evidence for the existence of an entity with all the characteristics of a deity?

How does the proposition that any particular person exists by itself entail, as you claim, that there exists a deity?

Why do you think that? And, in any event, even if that was true, how does it follow from that that the mere fact of rigorous empirical analysis (science) entails blind faith in anything?

That is circular: it assumes that “God’s Adjuster” (whatever that is) is a conclusive reason to believe in the existence of a deity, yet merely assumes that there are valid reasons to believe in the “Adjuster” in the first place, which there are not.

What evidence is there for that?

The truth depends soeley on the correspondence between the proposition in question and that state of affairs with which it purports to correspond.

Why does that follow?

Why do you claim that the accounts are logical? Do you claim that they are true? If so, what is the basis for that contention?

Upon what basis do you contend that that is merely an assumption, rather than a conclusion validly drawn from evidence?

And what, in turn, evidence is there to support that proposition?

Why not? And what exactly do you mean by “meet fear and disappointments” anyway? In what sense are fear and disappointments the kinds of things that can be met?

What evidence is there for this? And, even if this was the case, how does this entail that people live for ever?

What do you mean by “face” here, exactly? And, again, how would this entail immortality even if it were true?

How so? And, as with all of these propositions, what is the connexion with the immortality that you postulate?

And the same applies to these, too.

Whyever do you claim that?

Would failure to reach those targets, though, not be an error that would render the universe imperfect?

Why do you claim that? And what of philosophy about whether or not there is a deity? And what exactly do you mean by “without” here?

Why do you claim that? In any event, philosophy does not aim to provide relief: it aims to provide true understanding.

jamespetts · May 15, 2005, 8:21pm

It is not fair to criticise without being specific and providing detailed reasons.

AVICENNA_A.D · May 18, 2005, 7:04am

Einstein said something like “Religion (moral values if you like) without science is blind, Science without religion (moral values if you like) is lame.”

I find a complimentary relationship between religion and science, minus the institutions that took role as scientists and God’s spokespeople on the state of the cosmos.

LostGuy · May 18, 2005, 2:08pm

Oh dear Antii, please don’t make an appeal to popularity or tradition.

An appeal to tradition support slavery just as easily as God.

An appeal to popularity supports useing penacillin on viruses. (Which doesn’t work, btw.)

More importantly, neither confers and real justification to a claim.

jamespetts · May 18, 2005, 7:20pm

That somebody famous said something does not make it true. Do you have any arguments to support your claim?

AVICENNA_A.D · May 19, 2005, 1:52am

jamespetts wrote:

No I don’t. I agree with him however. An argument for this claim would drag in metaphysics and an adherence to something greater than us…and we wouldn’t want that now would we?

thirst4metal · May 19, 2005, 5:35am

Science will replace religion when it has lost its way…
Science will replace religion when it stops to follow its own principles…
Science will replace religion when it deems itself ruler over people…
Science will replace religion when hypocritical most priests (scientists) seek only glory for themselves over their own work…
Science will replace religion when it asks its disciples to accept its doctrine (theories) without proof…

How I will weep if that day ever arrives.

jamespetts · May 19, 2005, 6:44pm

Whyever not?

Antti · May 28, 2005, 2:24pm

jamespetts

You gave lot of interesting feedback, many thanks. I should like to discuss in more detail and from many perspectives of your comments but I have no time reseurces now. However, I try to give some short comments.

jamespetts:

Antti:

Science finds out how nature operates and then gives names to new issues and phenomena.

The phenomena are not themselves new: merely newly discovered.

Antti: Yes, you right most natural laws, material, etc. existed before humans started the exploration. However, for the mankind many issues and phenomena are new.

Science specifies new natural laws through experimental work and using chains of evidence.

Science does not “specify” natural laws: it documents and analyses them.

Antti: I agree, however, in standard language discovered issues are called “new”, which means new for the science.

Earlier proven issues and methods are always used as the primary evidence for new ones, because effects cannot exist without causes. If we have the courage to pursue this chain of evidence to the very end and meet the original cause then we will always end up with God, i.e. we will find the primary reason, which has no cause.

Why do you claim this?

Antti: Because science evaluates newly discovered phenomena using the earlier proven issues. Our world and universe is amazing because the science can zoom into infinite small wonders like molecules, atoms, neutrons, photons, etc. And on the other hand zoom out into infinite large issues like suns, galaxies, universe, Big Bang, etc. It seems that the primary reason is all the time moving forward when the science makes progress. When one secret has been solved we usually get two new ones to explore. However, we can count that the final primary reason will be the God.

Atheists try to wriggle out from this logical problem by inventing some name for this primary reason, such as the Big

Bang.

Why do you think that the big bang is a kind of reason, instead of the earliest state of affairs? Indeed, what kind of a thing do you think that reason is such that it can exist without life?

Antti: I do not believe on “Big Bang”, the original assumptions of Big Bang theory do not stand on the solid basis. In any case, the life in the universe must have a very long history.

All matter, energy, life and spirit was compressed into a space smaller than a pinhead 14 billion years ago, according to the current official scientific conception.

I have never heard of any scientist who claimed that life existed fourteen billion years ago. And what scientific evidence do you think that there is in favour of the existence of “the spirit” (whatever you mean by that), let alone evidence that it existed at the time of the big bang?

Antti: If the Big Bang believers think that all started 14 billion years ago then also the raw materials, recipies and formulas of life must have existed at that time already.

Scientific facts may, however, change because we still know less than one percent of the existing natural laws and matters.

The facts do not change: what people believe in relation to them might.

Antti: I have seen that proven scientific facts changes in medicine, chemistry, biology, etc. within the last 50 years. Ofcourse the existing natural laws do not change but our conseption changes.

Science changes and improves our understanding of the universe all the time, however, we will always find God at the final end of every scientific footpath, now and forever.

Upon what reasoning do you base that bizarre claim?

Antti: Just because the science has not been able to find any more convincing primary reason. Do you have any better idea ?

Beauty, wisdom, justice, love and faith cannot be measured with a gauge nor with any physical or chemical instrument.

Neither can the fact of abstraction, the laws of mathematics nor whether or not there is such a thing as equivalence; that does not mean, however, that they are incapable of reasoned analysis, nor that any such thing as a deity is entailed by them.

Antti: Science do not give the answer to the guestion: what is right and what is wrong, this is very important issue for me. Human soul, spirit and religion are able to discuss and evaluate these kind of issues.

They do not react with matter or energy but they still are as real as granite, because the human spirit makes them visible.

What is the basis of your claim that there is such a thing as a “human spirit”, and what, precisely, do you contend that one is?

Antti: I have observed that I have the “human spirit”; when I discuss with the other people I have observed that they have also such a spirit which still exist when all the physical items, body and clothes has been removed. The “human spirit” is all what remains when the material has been removed from the human.

Consequently, we are pure spiritual beings, who have temporarily been locked into our bodies.

How is that a consequence of the previous proposition?

Antti: You may see the connection one day if you stop fighting back with your God’s Adjuster in your soul.

We may notice this spirit when we meet our friendâ€™s eyes and listen to his opinions; it is not the voice of the material.

What, precisely, do you think that “the voice of the material is”? What is “the material”, do you contend, such as it is meaningful to conceive of it having a voice?

Antti: The “voice of the human soul” means opinions, justice, love, caring, concern, etc. The material do not react with this kind of issues.

Science does not speak out about the questions that are of fundamental importance for the human spirit

Why do you think that there is such a thing as the human spirit in the first place?

Antti: Because I have the “human spirit”, I can feel it. You can also feel your spirit if you try hard.

namely, right and wrong.

What do you think that right and wrong are such that their nature is incapable of empirical analysis?

Antti: You may carry out empirical analysis on the “right and wrong” but independed research groups in different countries will reach to very different conclusions. The only way to reach the same conclusions is the idea of one God which makes us brothers and sisters with equal human rights.

Religion finds the answers to these questions.

Different religions purport to answer those questions (in different, conflicting, ways); but there is no reason to believe that any of those answers are correct.

Antti: The main problem is that many religious groups believe that their God is the only one and the best. However, gradually they will understand that only the name of the God is different but the God is the same. Some religious answers must have been correct because we still live on this wonderful planet.

Real science bravely finds out which material issues are true and which are false. Using science, we may improve the welfare of our bodies. Real religion finds out the spiritual issues which are true and which make our soul happy. These positive effects may be used to identify true science and true religion from the false and the fake.

That all assumes that there is such a thing as a soul that can have issues and be made happy. What evidence is there to support such a contention?

Antti: I have observed lot of love, justice, forgiveness and mercy in this world. Many human beings forgot his or her own physical, economical or emotional preferences and take into account also the needs of the other ones. This is the evidence of the soul.

Our life and world has been designed exactly and accurately just like this, so that we can make a free choice between faith and atheism. We could not make this free choice if we could prove the existence of God or some higher force using some scientific procedure.

Why do you claim that? Many people believe false things despite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including precisely the belief that there is a deity.

Antti: According to the empirical scientific observations this world where we live is simply amazing with full of splendid, gorgeous and overwhelming architecture, engineering and design. We may ask “why some people have to suffer” or “why the primary creator do not give clear instructions how to live”. I feel that the most logical reason is that our creator needs souls and spirits who can make their own wise decisions in the dynamic and changing world. We have much more difficult task than being blind robots which obey orders.

Mercy, justice, love, the flowers in the meadow, the atom or the whole universe are all valid evidence of God for the Hindu or

Catholic but the atheist may look at the world from a different perspective.

In what sense are any of those things evidence for the existence of an entity with all the characteristics of a deity?

Antti: I or you have not created these marvellous evidences. We simply live here, we do not know where we come and where we go. We may ask who has created this all? I feel that the most logical answer is the God who is the primary reason for all the natural laws and evolution.

The final proofs are â€œI amâ€ and â€œYou areâ€ for the religious human, but the atheist has the full right to believe in accidents, luck and fate.

How does the proposition that any particular person exists by itself entail, as you claim, that there exists a deity?

Antti: As I sed, I cannot scientifically prove that God exist but you cannot prove that God do not exist. I see evidences of the God all over the nature, because I know in my soul that God is my primary father and mother. However, if you do not have such a feeling then you cannot see the evidences.

Atheism and skepticism need much more blind faith than faith in Jesus does, because science cannot prove that God does not

exist.

Why do you think that? And, in any event, even if that was true, how does it follow from that that the mere fact of rigorous empirical analysis (science) entails blind faith in anything?

Antti: I cannot understand how some people can be so sure that God do not exist because there is so much things and issues in this world which we cannot see and feel. Empirical scientific work finds every year new physical and chemical phenomena which have not observed earlier.

A Lutheran, Orthodox, Moslem or Jew can be absolutely sure of God, because they do not base their faith on scientific evidence but instead on the Godâ€™s Adjuster which lives in our minds.

That is circular: it assumes that “God’s Adjuster” (whatever that is) is a conclusive reason to believe in the existence of a deity, yet merely assumes that there are valid reasons to believe in the “Adjuster” in the first place, which there are not.

Antti: Are you looking for a God who tells clearly that I am the Boss and you are the slave ? I feel that our God is more sophisticated, on the basis what I have seen in my life on the earth. The world must be just like this what we have now, if the God is looking for the humans who voluntary and using free will select his way.

This tiny fraction of God makes our survival possible and wakes up our religiousness.

What evidence is there for that?

Antti: There must be something in our soul and spirit because religion is an universal phenomena all over the world and many basic ideas are the same. However, if you really require scientific evidences before you can believe on anything then you cannot survive.

The truth does not depend at all on the information source, author or ism; the truth is based purely on verified scientific and spiritual facts.

The truth depends soeley on the correspondence between the proposition in question and that state of affairs with which it purports to correspond.

Antti: I do not believe on this.

We should also listen to the voice of our own sense and conscience, which is the main reason we have them.

Why does that follow?

Antti: This world would be a terrible and horrible place without our conscience, mercy and justice. I cannot see any other practical purpose of use for our own sense and conscience.

We may find a lot of truth, for example, from the Koran, Bible and also from the Urantia Book, which gives a logical explanation of why we are here, where we come from and where we are going.

Why do you claim that the accounts are logical? Do you claim that they are true? If so, what is the basis for that contention?

Antti: The logical explanations are in agreement with the experimental observations. The logical sources do not change the principles case by case.

Philosophy and ethics solve similar issues as religion; however, many conclusions may be different due to the different basic assumptions. Materialistic philosophy assumes that we live only some 80 years

Upon what basis do you contend that that is merely an assumption, rather than a conclusion validly drawn from evidence?

Antti: Purely scientific philosophy is also based on assumptions, it may, for example, assume that we live only some 80 years and that’s it. In science it is important to be able to test also some other assumptions than the traditional ones.

but religious philosophy conclusions are based on the idea of eternal life.

And what, in turn, evidence is there to support that proposition?

Antti: You desire for the evidences, but you will not find them. The only way to the eternal survival is the faith.

This gives a totally different perspective to our daily life. This religious perspective gives a much more logical explanation for our day-to-day hardship and struggle than a purely philosophical point of view, for example:

We could not understand courage if we could not meet fear and disappointments.

Why not? And what exactly do you mean by “meet fear and disappointments” anyway? In what sense are fear and disappointments the kinds of things that can be met?

Antti: Can you really imagine the taste of electric shock if you are not able to test ? Can you imagine the feeling of fear if you have not the possibility to test it ? In this world we have possibility to test the feeling of real fear and disappointments.

Without pain and suffering we could not strive for pleasure and joy.

What evidence is there for this? And, even if this was the case, how does this entail that people live for ever?

Antti: You cannot find evidences, but you can be sure that if we would have the rock solid scientific evidences of the eternal life and God then the free selection between the faith and atheism would not be possible anymore.

We could not find altruism and humanism if we could not face social inequality and injustice.

What do you mean by “face” here, exactly? And, again, how would this entail immortality even if it were true?

Antti: When we live our life on the earth we face social inequality and injustice in the society, business, streets, etc. We have the free selection to accept it or try to remove it.

We could not internalize the love of truth if error and falsehood did not exist.

How so? And, as with all of these propositions, what is the connexion with the immortality that you postulate?

Antti: The connection is to the world where we live and why is made just like this. The imortality is an different issue.

We could not comprehend hope and trust if insecurity, accidents and diseases were not always present.

We could not understand the justice if the greed and unequality did not exist.

And the same applies to these, too.

Antti: The same comments as earlier, too.

We can strive for these valuable qualities only in a world like this, where we can trust only in the mercy and love of our Creator.

Whyever do you claim that?

Antti: I believe that there must be a logical explanation why our world is just like this. I feel that these issues are the most important primary reasons.

In a perfect and error-free universe we could not reach these targets.

Would failure to reach those targets, though, not be an error that would render the universe imperfect?

Antti: The failure is one of the most common ways to reach the target in the nature. It gradually removes the unsuitable material, we are the childrens of million years of evolution. The God is responsible of the frameworks.

Philosophy without God is like a thermometer with an unlocked calibration point.

Why do you claim that? And what of philosophy about whether or not there is a deity? And what exactly do you mean by “without” here?

Antti: I mean that the philosophical considerations and reasoning will lead to the very different conclusions if we assume that we live only some 80 years or if we assume that we will live forever.

Materialistic philosophy may offer a temporary relief and survival like a drifting buoy in the ocean but religious philosophy leads the way to eternal survival like a lighthouse on a granite base.

Why do you claim that? In any event, philosophy does not aim to provide relief: it aims to provide true understanding.

Antti: You are right, philosophy is aiming to true understanding. People are also looking for releif and survival from the philosophy and ethics, however, without the God they cannot offer this salvation.

Antti · May 28, 2005, 3:57pm

Antti: I feel important to take also the religion into account in the science because religion and faith are aspects which affect on the development on the science and conclusions. Too many research fellows try to forgot this aspect totally.

Antti · May 28, 2005, 4:10pm

Antti: My purpose is not to appeal popularity or tradition. I do not know the reason, but I want to DO something when I meet ideas, actions or opinions which are not OK in my mind. Writing is one way to affect on these evils. I feel that too many people are silent and do not open their mouth when their meet the social oppression.

Antti · May 28, 2005, 4:17pm

thirst4metal

Well, one of the few things what we can count on in this world is that our God loves us.

Antti

Fabiano · May 28, 2005, 4:24pm

If god really loves us, why was he so cruel, so fucking cruel to make us so empty, so sad, so terribly useless?

Antti · May 28, 2005, 4:28pm

jamespetts

Your were looking for evidences of God and eternal life in your long list of comments. This make me reconsider my thoughs. The situation is really absurd:

The atheist cannot see the evidences of the God and eternal life before he/she has the faith but he cannot have the faith because he cannot see the evidences.
The believer sees the evidences but he do not need them anymore because he/she has the faith.

In any case in this decision situation the king and the slave are equal. Atleast this is the great thing.

Antti

Antti · May 28, 2005, 4:38pm

Fabiano

I have pondered this very same question and the most logical reason what I have found is that in the cotton wool we could not strive for love, justice, mercy and forgiveness. We could not understand what is the pain and suffering in the paradise.

Antti

Antti · July 19, 2005, 11:53am

Many thanks for your comments.

I made again some revision to the original text using the comments and feedback what I have got. I hope that the latest version is slightly better than the earlier one.

Antti