killimen, i just have to point out the irony of you describing science and knowledge advancing in spite of religion and providing answers to many human knowledge gaps and then stating that today we still have gaps but rather than accept what worked to fill prior gaps before, to turn towards what you pointed out was obvious mythology.

So, for people that have no idea why we are here, we go to a God to explain why.

Be nice if he talked back tho wouldn't it? Otherwise your just believing what another human has told you they claim god said.

I'd also like to point out that your feeling of "pick me up" in church in no way provides a proof that god exists. My pick me u...

killimen, i just have to point out the irony of you describing science and knowledge advancing in spite of religion and providing answers to many human knowledge gaps and then stating that today we still have gaps but rather than accept what worked to fill prior gaps before, to turn towards what you pointed out was obvious mythology.

So, for people that have no idea why we are here, we go to a God to explain why.

Be nice if he talked back tho wouldn't it? Otherwise your just believing what another human has told you they claim god said.

I'd also like to point out that your feeling of "pick me up" in church in no way provides a proof that god exists. My pick me ups usually result in experiences I have with my wife and/or children - and I know they exist.

"How can you be moral and ethical without religion to guide you?"

According to an article in Skeptic magazine, (vol6 #2 1998 if anyone cares) written by Michael Shermer, "numerous scientific studies have shown that religion does not make one moral". In fact, the evidence seem to point to the other direction.

Shermer made a good point there by saying that "It is beyond the human mind to solve... So let us move beyond that question to others that can be solved, such as how we can be moral and find meaning in our meaningles universe, regardles of which belief system we choose."

This is not to say that I am a non-believer. I am a believer. But it doesn't mean that ...

"How can you be moral and ethical without religion to guide you?"

According to an article in Skeptic magazine, (vol6 #2 1998 if anyone cares) written by Michael Shermer, "numerous scientific studies have shown that religion does not make one moral". In fact, the evidence seem to point to the other direction.

Shermer made a good point there by saying that "It is beyond the human mind to solve... So let us move beyond that question to others that can be solved, such as how we can be moral and find meaning in our meaningles universe, regardles of which belief system we choose."

This is not to say that I am a non-believer. I am a believer. But it doesn't mean that I am either afraid or brave. See, I think people can have fear of not knowing something so they choose to believe against it. (In this case, against the existence of God.) If not fear, then arrogance. If not arrogance, maybe ignorance. I don't know. But, it is definitely not intellectual (or whatever) superiority. God -- or "the concept of God", as others may prefer -- is beyond a single human comprehension.

Hnh... still, let the debates continue...

To close, let me quote Andy Fletcher (Colorado Springs) of in a reader's forum :"There is no proof, but there is evidence."

Aces, Mr. Kohn's book mentions the studies in a section titled "Religious people are more altruistic", on p. 129. His footnote reference for the cheating study is this: R.E. Smith, G. Wheeler & E Diener, "Faith Without Works", Journal of Applied Social Psychology (5:320-30, 1975). Kohn's book is ISBN 0-06-016040-3, LC Call # AZ999.K64 1990 (I don't do Dewey Decimal)

This book is an examination of a number of popular notions, like "Chocolate causes acne", "Reading in the dark ruins your eyes" or "More people commit suicide during the holidays". He documents his sources quite well. There are around 80 short articles - it's sort of a pre-internet version of Snopes.com.

Another study he me...

Aces, Mr. Kohn's book mentions the studies in a section titled "Religious people are more altruistic", on p. 129. His footnote reference for the cheating study is this: R.E. Smith, G. Wheeler & E Diener, "Faith Without Works", Journal of Applied Social Psychology (5:320-30, 1975). Kohn's book is ISBN 0-06-016040-3, LC Call # AZ999.K64 1990 (I don't do Dewey Decimal)

This book is an examination of a number of popular notions, like "Chocolate causes acne", "Reading in the dark ruins your eyes" or "More people commit suicide during the holidays". He documents his sources quite well. There are around 80 short articles - it's sort of a pre-internet version of Snopes.com.

Another study he mentions in that item found that people who identified themselves as strongly religious were no more likely to help someone who, posing as a worker, appeared to have fallen off a ladder.

You guys are just great,I feel like I have for the first time found a classy inteligent group of cyber kids to play with.I have never been attracted to chat rooms etc,couldn't type fast enough or at all, a few yrs ago and so many I ran accross seemed to mearly be good comon folk standin around kickin a lamp post spittin chaw and talkin over each other to hear their own voice,as we humans will do.I got attracted to clipmarks because of the techno aspect and entered many things private just to have a clean collection for my reference.I put my toe in the water and got a bit of courage to face a possible onslaught of Cyber opposition which can get nastier than a Thanksgiving dinner with peanut...

You guys are just great,I feel like I have for the first time found a classy inteligent group of cyber kids to play with.I have never been attracted to chat rooms etc,couldn't type fast enough or at all, a few yrs ago and so many I ran accross seemed to mearly be good comon folk standin around kickin a lamp post spittin chaw and talkin over each other to hear their own voice,as we humans will do.I got attracted to clipmarks because of the techno aspect and entered many things private just to have a clean collection for my reference.I put my toe in the water and got a bit of courage to face a possible onslaught of Cyber opposition which can get nastier than a Thanksgiving dinner with peanutbutter oister ordevers and Budweiser to start.So all this to say you have contributed to my life and base of knowledge.I don't feel so alone out here.We are making a difference at the grass root level and being one who got to yell,protest,and wear flowers in my hair as we ran from the Police with their tear gas and sticks during the Democratic Convention in Chicago in was it 69 or 70?.I miss we the peple and the guts we/I had to say NO MORE,STOP THIS WAR! HAND CUFF ME,MAKE MY DAY!
Now I want to know how do we wake from the fog gather in mass and stop what we/I allowed to happen to this amazing Country.Who do we get to be in the face of insanity, confusion,horror,mistrust,rage.exhaustion,shame,blam and heartbreak.Tell Me.....most sincerely, Wendy
wendy6552@yahoo.com.

In Douglas Hofstadter's book "Gödel, Escher, Bach:, An Eternal Golden Braid", There is an excellent illustration, Figure 18 on page 71, that shows the structure of a theoretical system (a restricted one he invented for the book, but it could represent the whole of science as well). He shows that there is an infinitely variable boundary between provable truths and provable falsehoods, and how the body of theory grows, like a tree, to reach towards the truths that have not yet been reached.

However, like a tree, the body of theory cannot completely fill the entire space within its reach. Thus there will always be unreachable truths. Science acknowledges this, and tries to predict what will ...

In Douglas Hofstadter's book "Gödel, Escher, Bach:, An Eternal Golden Braid", There is an excellent illustration, Figure 18 on page 71, that shows the structure of a theoretical system (a restricted one he invented for the book, but it could represent the whole of science as well). He shows that there is an infinitely variable boundary between provable truths and provable falsehoods, and how the body of theory grows, like a tree, to reach towards the truths that have not yet been reached.

However, like a tree, the body of theory cannot completely fill the entire space within its reach. Thus there will always be unreachable truths. Science acknowledges this, and tries to predict what will be found in those unreached truths. Religion says “the gods did it” and lets it go at that. Science reaches out, even when it doesn’t now what it will touch; religion accepts and does not encourage questions.

For the record, I am not an atheist. There is a time in my life that I might have called myself that, but I found the lack of spirituality troublesome. Later in life, I accepted following a path within Paganism, which satisfied my desire for spirituality and fondness for ritual without chaining myself to a deadweight body of dogmas trying to drown me in a sea of catechisms. I am free to think of the deities as actual beings or as Jungian archetypes of humanity in its many aspects and manifestations. There are dogmatic Pagans, it’s true, but their proportions are much lower than in other belief systems.