tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post3569443542236000438..comments2024-03-28T03:10:51.807-05:00Comments on Julia Sweeney: Julia Sweeneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02459682985438227986noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-46708074894944718472008-03-13T10:23:00.000-05:002008-03-13T10:23:00.000-05:00The world may see you as this intelligent and rema...The world may see you as this intelligent and remarkable woman who is bold enough to say, "The story of Jesus is a myth"; but who gives you the right, with all your "power and fame" to be judgmental of Christians? Doesnt it go both ways? You can write your books and story lines about how Christianity is a joke and that it's a way to make people feel better about death; but who are you to say that? Where is your authority? Where is your integrity? It's really sad when a person with a soul no longer has the will to respect another's belief. Just because some Christian's judge Non-Christians doesn't mean it's right; your not exempt. Maybe you should consider that...GOD IS LOVEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-38817436575441489322007-01-07T23:13:00.000-06:002007-01-07T23:13:00.000-06:00Dear Julia...thankyou so much for opening this iss...Dear Julia...thankyou so much for opening this issue. I love reading the dialog. I am 73 and feel very comfortable knowing that the son of god is only a myth to make one not afraid of death. I will blog as I feel the need to jump in. Thanks, Joanjoan B. Gonzaleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10528505746044040706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-69398367442944446702006-12-05T14:02:00.000-06:002006-12-05T14:02:00.000-06:00anonymous-
i haven't seen any correlation between...anonymous-<br /><br />i haven't seen any correlation between actual moral actions and belief in god. <br /><br />i have observed a correlation between judgementalism, highly opinionated ignorance and beleif in god. <br /><br />and i have seen <i>a lot</i> of religion being used to justify insane and immoral actions. When canvassing for Greenpeace the only people who said global warming was a-okay used religious arguments to justify their position. I've never heard an atheism-based incitement for genocide or hatred. I don't see anyone other than the devoutly religious calling for bans on gay rights or stem cell research. <br /><br />I'm not saying that ALL religious people support such INSANE policies, i'm saying i don't see ANY non religous people supporting them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-49391385166101842902006-12-04T19:10:00.000-06:002006-12-04T19:10:00.000-06:00Smartypants said:
"Those that believe there's a b...Smartypants said:<br /><br />"Those that believe there's a better world awaiting them in an afterlife have considerably less incentive to find the point to living in this one."<br /><br />This couldn't be further from the truth. It's HARDER to live with a belief in an afterlife, because your actions matter much more, and for a much longer time. If I didn't believe in an afterlife, I wouldn't have any hesitation about killing certain violent criminals and White House usurpers. How freeing that would be!<br /><br />And from a kinder, gentler angle, believing in an afterlife doesn't rob this life of its preciousness and importance in any way. If you think believers love their children less, or care less about global warming, you're high on crack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-90769802471536085032006-12-02T20:21:00.000-06:002006-12-02T20:21:00.000-06:00Dear Sheldon,
I am glad you put me straight there...Dear Sheldon,<br /><br />I am glad you put me straight there. I will be patiently looking forward to adding a new “scientific” instrument to my collection of electronic instruments - an instrument to measure metaphysical phenomena. I wonder. What would the units of measurement be? “Sheldons”<br /><br />It is interesting to know that science is branching out - going beyond the physical into the metaphysical.<br /><br />BTW I did sign my name, please inspect the bottom of my posts .<br /><br />ETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-71721829787248085622006-12-02T11:04:00.000-06:002006-12-02T11:04:00.000-06:00Dear Anonymous: I'd post as anonymous, too, if I ...Dear Anonymous: I'd post as anonymous, too, if I made a comment like yours. <br /><i>"...consciousness which is beyond the scope of science"</i><br /><br />You seem to have your mind made up that science will NEVER be able to explain human consciousness. I feel the need to caution you about making statements like that, if that's what you meant. Shall I make a list of things that were considered "beyond the scope of science" at one time or another? I won't bore you with such a thing, but I think you get my point.<br /><br />The ONLY way we ever come to understand ANYTHING is through science. You seem to be one of those folks who thinks that science is this religion-like thing full of old men who remind you of your father. Science is a process that separates BULLSHIT from FACT. All that bullshit comes from two sources: 1) people who tell us things that are wrong, and 2) our own brains, which often use faulty reasoning to tell us what's what.<br /><br />Science takes the illusion out of our experiences and shows us what's real. If it didn't you wouldn't have the aspirin you took this morning to get rid of your headache, you'd have put a leech on your shoulder instead, and hoped for the best.<br /><br />It never ceases to amaze me, these "science haters" who deride those horrible scientists even as they reach for the medicine cabinet, or eat their wonderfully microbe-free food, or drive their amazingly fast and efficient car to their warm, cozy office full of technologically advanced communication and data storage equipment. But science is so LIMITED, right!Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11861876430546129295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-52420969040721057422006-12-02T10:55:00.000-06:002006-12-02T10:55:00.000-06:00Jeff D: Thanks for your comments on Consciousness...Jeff D: Thanks for your comments on Consciousness. Very thought provoking and entertaining. I recently found an interview (SOMEBODY EMAIL ME AND TEACH ME TO ENTER HYPERLINKS IN MY COMMENTS!) on Google Video in which DNA guru James Watson said that, if he had 80 more years to live, he'd concentrate entirely on solving the problem of Consciousness.<br /><br />It's really too bad that, for the past 40 years or so, this field of study has been dominated by woo-woo practitioners who've taken advantage of the god-in-the-gaps argument to confuse people about our admittedly limited understanding of how our brains allow us to be aware of ourselves.<br /><br />In teaching Psychology, I've found that there's nothing more irritating to me than people who THINK they're engaging a question in a scientific way, but they're NOT. All the '60s Consciousness freaks really did a number on research in that area...to the point that, even bringing it up in my classes results in my students revealing all sorts of bizarre beliefs they've picked up along the way.<br /><br />I try to explain to them how to approach the question from a scientific viewpoint, but it's not something that comes naturally to them for the most part. Of course, by the time I get them they've had at least 18 years to be taught how to thin UNscientifically. Oy! : )Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11861876430546129295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-23172231060398197152006-12-02T08:51:00.000-06:002006-12-02T08:51:00.000-06:00"...knock the crap out of G. Schwartz’s experiemen..."...knock the crap out of G. Schwartz’s experiements. Show us where he went wrong in his scientific methodology!"<br /><br />http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.htmlfun2bfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02538776119340058120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-10684930395300787162006-12-02T07:58:00.000-06:002006-12-02T07:58:00.000-06:00Here is my comment on consciousness, triggered by ...Here is my comment on consciousness, triggered by two fragments from earlier posts: The idea (credited to Candice Pert) of "consciousness being located all over the body, and NOT primarily in the brain" and the observation that science can tell us only what consciousness is not.<br /><br />I think that both of these ideas have considerable validity, but not for the same reasons.<br /><br />Consciousness is extraordinarily difficult to define and describe. In my own reading I have found Marvin Minsky's "The Society of Mind" and some early writings and lectures by Gregory Bateson to be most illuminating (I haven't gotten around to reading Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"). I concluded long ago that consciousness is not a "thing" that can be specifically located in the brain or the big toe or the liver (which some of the ancient Greeks regarded as the seat of consciousness). Judged on the evidence available to us, consciousness is also not a thing or phenomenon that consists of "energy" or "spirit," which therefore would allow astral projection, transmigration, life after death, etc.<br /><br />I don't know the original source, but many years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote a wonderful essay titled "The Subtlest Difference," touching on the origins of beliefs in the "soul," "spirits," and ghosts. The essay appears in the book "Science and the Paranormal," edited by Abell and Singer. I don't think that Dr. Asimov would have disagreed with anything that I am rather clumsily suggesting below. <br /><br />In the past 50 years, information theory and general systems theory have done at least as much to explore/explain "consciousness" as biology. The "mind" isn't merely the brain, but neither is it an incorporeal thing that inhabits the brain or body. The "mind" is a label for the patterns of information processing within the brain, as those patterns evolve and persist during a person's lifetime. Similarly, I think that "consciousness" is a label for one emergent property of that information processing in the brain: partial awareness of some of those information processes within the brain, where each of us comes to link this partial awareness with his or her "self."<br /><br />Gregory Bateson (a third-generation atheist who enjoyed reading the Bible and Wm. Blake) wrote about the "mind" from the perspective of cybernetics and systems theory. He offered two examples: a lumberjack with an axe chopping a tree, and a sightless person with a white cane, making his way along a busy sidewalk. Bateson rhetorically asked, "Where is the outer boundary of the person's mind?" When the entire range of actions is considered, the "mind" of the lumberjack could fairly be said to include the lumberjack's eyes, his arms, the tree, and the array of precise adjustments that he makes in the force and angle of his axe strokes as he strikes the tree. Similarly, the sightless person's "mind" could extend to the tip of his cane, as a sensory organ.<br /><br />If consciousness is an emergent property of the system that is the operating, information-processing brain, then consciousness could be said to be "immaterial," in the sense that a pattern is not material (the map is not the territory, etc.). If I splice several kinds of rope together (jute, nylon, polyester, hemp) and tie a simple, loose knot in the rope, I can slide the knot along the rope, through the parts that are jute, nylon, polyester, and hemp). The knot remains the knot, even though the pattern is "expressed" by each type of rope fiber in turn.<br /><br />The "immateriality" of consciousness, in this sense, doesn't mean that consciousness can exist without a human brain and body or after the death of a human brain and body (I am leaving aside the field of artificial intelligence, which someday may succeed in producing some technological substrate in which something like consciousness can exist). People who want to believe that consciousness can continue to exist after the body/brain cease to function are entitled to do so, but they are doing it in the absence of any credible, testable evidence.<br /><br />So, science can tell us what consciousness is not, and it is not an immaterial spirit that survives death.<br /><br />Jeff DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-61789452126532051902006-12-02T05:34:00.000-06:002006-12-02T05:34:00.000-06:00Robert Wright's work Nonzero, the logic of human d...Robert Wright's work Nonzero, the logic of human destiny is one of my pivotal works. This work published in 99 refered to the concept of the "super empowered angry man". Two years later a group of 19 such men tore down the twin towers. Wright's ability to describe a structure where such things are understandable is powerful.zorathrusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00864061398513281381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-65367701175093115442006-12-02T04:33:00.000-06:002006-12-02T04:33:00.000-06:00I think that what we are chatting about it conscio...I think that what we are chatting about it consciousness which is beyond the scope of science. Scientist reduce the human brain to synapses and neurotransmitters. These break down to basic chemicals carbon, hydrogen, etc. which break down to atoms which again reduce to whatever, ad infinitum... Never does reductionism address the origin or the quality of consciousness. Reductionism merely reduces the object, in this case the brain-presumed by most scientist to give RISE to consciousness to smaller and smaller entities that are then labeled as this or a that. Never does reductionism confirm or provide any evidence that the brain creates consciousness though this premise is widely accepted by most scientists.<br /><br />Consciousness defies reductionism, defies definition, defies objectification.<br /><br />Science only tells us what consciousness is not.<br /><br />ETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-70936168846600147502006-12-01T23:26:00.000-06:002006-12-01T23:26:00.000-06:00Kevin:
I used to think about death as "nothingnes...Kevin:<br /><br />I used to think about death as "nothingness" when I was a teenager and I think the problem here is this: that thinking of death as "nothingness" is thinking of it as an EXPERIENCE of nothingness. Death is a total cessation of all brain function, including awareness and consciousness. No awareness of nothingness is no nothingness at all. I would have thought this was kind of obvious, but I guess it's really hard to think of the world without oneself as part of it. <br /> <br />I really think this is the bottom line in Chrisianity and in other religions in which the individual self is supposed to survive death. It seems to be all about personal reward. What's the first question you hear from an evangelical? It's not "where do you think you fit into the fabric of the universe" or "is your life satisfying", or any number of other more interesting and meaningful questions. It's "where are you going to spend eternity?". It seems that if you can secure some kind of reward for yourself after you die, that's enough. What a selfish approach to spirituality.<br /><br />I don't believe in life after death. I don't know of any evidence that compels me to believe that there is, and I think that is the only position of any intellectual dignity for myself. I am completely open to the possibility, but unless it can be verified somehow, anything else is simply wishful thinking and living in a state of denial, which somehow strikes me as less than psychologically healthy and mature. But I could be wrong. <br /><br />There is nothing so special about my person or personality that it needs to endure forever and ever. As Whitman I think said, I have been here, that is enough.<br /> <br />I am really much more interested in life BEFORE death and if this is the only life I will ever have (there is that egotistical "I" again!) I don't intend to waste any of it thinking about what will happen to me after I die. The "I" who wants to worry about such things will be no more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-36663514605676876292006-12-01T21:36:00.000-06:002006-12-01T21:36:00.000-06:00Death! Yes, this is what it call comes down to, i ...Death! Yes, this is what it call comes down to, i think julia's monolouge confronts this issue so so so well. <br /><br />My perspective: <br /><br />The ONLY thing we can KNOW about death is that there is no coming back to this life, the life I am living now. Regardless of what you beleive, EVERYONE accepts this fact. Reincarnation, god, spirits, consiousness survival etc all promise a seperate, second life. So, it's something (maybe the only thing) we can call a universal truth. This alone is reason enough to live everyday in a total panic. I mean, <i>total panic.</i> <br /><br />The great thing about science is that it is the only approach to the world that refuses to allow that panic to make our decisions. i'm not saying that all scientists acheive such objectivity, but as a whole, the system corrects. <br /><br />To me, awareness of the panic is a prerequisite to struggling through existence. I can't trust my emotions or 'intuition' because they are totally caught up in this panic, inseperable from it. I don't use science like a hammer because it's the only tool i have, i use it because it's the only tool i have any <i>reason</i> to trust.Ben Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04838599516482103220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-36887514098020527582006-12-01T21:09:00.001-06:002006-12-01T21:09:00.001-06:00thank you, smartypants. that does help and in an o...thank you, smartypants. that does help and in an odd way so does bookboy (he may think more clearly with a glass of wine but I don't think it is helping his spelling!). He mentions death of loved ones and that (the death of both my parents) is what got me wondering about what it could all possibly mean. Their lives so full and rich and then just over in an instant. It seems to mean so much and then in an instant, it doesn't. God or no God, I wish I could understand that. Yes, smartypants, curiousity, socialbility, love, all these are part of the richness of life that I describe but WHY?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-80371547689821974472006-12-01T21:09:00.000-06:002006-12-01T21:09:00.000-06:00thank you, smartypants. that does help and in an o...thank you, smartypants. that does help and in an odd way so does bookboy (he may think more clearly with a glass of wine but I don't think it is helping his spelling!). He mentions death of loved ones and that (the death of both my parents) is what got me wondering about what it could all possibly mean. Their lives so full and rich and then just over in an instant. It seems to mean so much and then in an instant, it doesn't. God or no God, I wish I could understand that. Yes, smartypants, curiousity, socialbility, love, all these are part of the richness of life that I describe but WHY?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-91200325961244366182006-12-01T20:42:00.000-06:002006-12-01T20:42:00.000-06:00allison said: I don't believe in God. Let's just ...<b>allison said: <i>I don't believe in God. Let's just assume there is no God. Then what is the purpose of life? Why are we here? Our lives are so rich, so filled with love, happiness, sorrow and pain. But why? Is it pointless?</i></b><br /><br />I don't see how lacking belief in a God equates with life being pointless, nor do I understand how belief in God adds any meaning.<br /><br />Just because evidence and rational thought should bring mankind to the conclusion that there is no God, no afterlife, etc., it in no way means we can't be interested in our origins, that we can't be curious about the universe around us, or work towards a brighter future for our children and the generations to come.<br /><br />Curiosity is a wonderful human trait, as are sociability, a desire for community, love of family and friends. (If only all our traits were so wonderful -- superstition comes to mind as an expendable one.)<br /><br />In my book, knowing this is the one life we have makes it all the more important to make the here and now a better place, and that includes finding stuff out! Those that believe there's a better world awaiting them in an afterlife have considerably less incentive to find the point to living in this one.Smartypantshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607553604645621527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-54628543558045525302006-12-01T20:21:00.000-06:002006-12-01T20:21:00.000-06:00My, my, Julia, what have you cratered? So many fac...My, my, Julia, what have you cratered? So many facts and statistics where does one begin. How about here. We are all going to die. And though I love reading all the blog entrees the questions still remains. That we will die and no one knows what awaits us. I have had a glass of wine but I fell it sharpens my mind. To all you blogres (is that a word) do you really know how trivia all this is. Sheldon you are bright (is the only name I remember) but your light only shines as far as your mind which is your brain. I love this discourse it makes me feel alive. For now. There are many on your site that have incredible insights and I acknowledge them.. But wait an till death knocks on your door like Julia’s and then all these words come to naught. I have seen a Mother in law and and Brother in law die. An what that has done to my wife. It reduced her to a shell of what she was. Which does not mean we do not go on living but only in a more humble way. We still love one another but at a distance. I think there is something we are missing in all of is hyperbole, and that is the ability to suffer our being ness. Don’t want to be a downer. Just want to say what is in my heart. Keep up the good work. Love you all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-27251222763627353272006-12-01T20:06:00.000-06:002006-12-01T20:06:00.000-06:00I don't believe in God. Let's just assume there is...I don't believe in God. Let's just assume there is no God. Then what is the purpose of life? Why are we here? Our lives are so rich, so filled with love, happiness, sorrow and pain. But why? Is it pointless?<br />The best I can really come up with is that it IS pointless and all our endeavors are either to give ourselves an illusion of order ( like academics, government, religion,etc) or to divert oursleves from the reality of the pointlessness (entertainment). I want to believe there is more to it than that but I cannot honestly see it. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-12925930817791244082006-12-01T18:03:00.000-06:002006-12-01T18:03:00.000-06:00"While being a mystic and therefore having no dog ..."While being a mystic and therefore having no dog in this debate of Atheism vs. Theism I still cannot help but wonder: are there any other lurkers out there with similar thoughts?"<br />I have just been turned on to this web site, and I have to say, it has really gotten under my skin, in a good way. I have been writing comments in my head, and I will now attempt to share some of my thoughts. Julia, thanks so much for your perspective and this site. <br />I don't have label for what I am- but I think that consciousness may well not be limited to the brain- Candace Pert wrote a book called Molecules of Emotions where she discusses (using the scientific method so revered on this site)consciousness being located all over the body, and NOT primarily in the brain. I don't remember if she discusses God at all, and I am not saying this has anything to do with belief in a "higher power", just that the brain may not be the end all be all. I have had psychic experiences myself, as at least one other person has mentioned, and my conclusion is - not all that important either, except that it may point to an idea that consciousness may exist outside of the body. I frequently have precognitive dreams-and no, not on command, and not unfortunately about winning lotto tickets or where you lost your keys. My point I guess is there is just so much we don't know, and while the ol' scientific method is a wonderful tool- perhaps not the only valuable tool. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.<br />And , what about the search for transcendence, the numinous, the unknowable? Where does that fit into a conversation about God, or a larger reality than we currently have scientific knowledge of? <br /> Finally,as areader, I will say that sarcastic, condescending, "I am right and you therefore are an idiot" type comments seem to lessen the richness of the debate, whatever the so called rules of internet blogging are- Karen Finan BowersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-11477189459808224372006-12-01T17:28:00.000-06:002006-12-01T17:28:00.000-06:00Julia, Julia why don’t you reply to me? I have a ...Julia, Julia why don’t you reply to me? I have a simple, streight forward question. You reply to many others, so is there some kind of initiciation rite to pass through before I can get recognized as a participant, a questioner? Did you indirectly reply to me with the statement “…the chance of the brain having some special otherworldly-function is so highly unlikely that it is not worth pursuing.” To repeat my question: “how important is "nothingness" after death?” Please answer from a personal perspective. Do it in only a few words if you must. For example, it’s either: not important – somewhat important – or very important. If it is the second or third, then… just do it - knock the crap out of G. Schwartz’s experiements. Show us where he went wrong in his scientific methodology!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-33972833956460404562006-12-01T15:36:00.000-06:002006-12-01T15:36:00.000-06:00The atheistic majority commenting on this blog app...The atheistic majority commenting on this blog appear to me to be rather hubristic in their implication that since no human has yet to prove by the scientific method the existence of a god (creator/intelligent underlying force or energy) and/or the existence of a metaphysical consciousness (awareness/attention/soul/atman) therefore none could possibly exist and no other human could possibly experience and therefore know such.<br /><br />While being a mystic and therefore having no dog in this debate of Atheism vs. Theism I still cannot help but wonder: are there any other lurkers out there with similar thoughts?<br /><br />ETAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-5633988275369817002006-12-01T15:27:00.000-06:002006-12-01T15:27:00.000-06:00Julia said:
"It's weird to enjoy the Jesus birth ...Julia said:<br /><br />"It's weird to enjoy the Jesus birth story amongst a group of people who actually believe that story is true. It feels condescending and wrong, but still, I'm going to do it. I want my daughter to feel what it's like in church on Christmas and the songs and the candles and all the rest."<br /><br />I think it's admirable that you would still expose your daughter to a church at Christmas even though you experience those uncomfortable feelings. It's a good idea for children to learn about various worldviews even if we personally disagree with them.LorMariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07182120408651424886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-70158777127149725232006-12-01T14:45:00.000-06:002006-12-01T14:45:00.000-06:00I went to Marcel Cairo's website and was impressed...I went to Marcel Cairo's website and was impressed to see that he says he "Will NOT fish for clues with clever conversation". I and many of you have probably seen "mediums" on TV who are clearly fooling people by tricking them into giving them information which they then think they got from the medium. <br /><br />But the fact that there are a lot of fake mediums, doesn't mean that there couldn't be real ones. I honestly don't know. I don't think science knows if there is an afterlife or not. I also dare ask: Why do people want to contact the dead? This opens a whole other can of worms. <br /><br />I do not believe in a personal God, but I am open to the possibility of a nonpersonal God. Even the sharp Richard Dawkins says that that he doesn't believe in a supernatural God, but does not rule out a natural God. I don't know of anywhere he elaborates on this. I also think that some paranormal experiences may be true, (though I think they are really subtle forms of the natural and not supernatural). Sam Harris thinks there is proof for the paranormal. <br /><br />James Randi and Michael Shermer have very strong biases against anything that doesn't fit into their worldview, so I don't think they are always relible in these areas. <br /><br />I think that we all believe what we do because of feeling or intuition, not just hard reasoning as much as we would like to believe that. I have heard Sam Harris, who is a neuroscientist confirm this, too:<br /> <br />I am trying to define more precisely why I believe what I do:<br /><br />To me religions and the paranormal are offensive when they:<br /><br />1. are dogmatic<br />2. are self-centered<br />3. are exploitative or manipulative<br />4. interfere with science in a major way, like the creationists try to do<br />5. are projections of ancient stories or other conditioning and desires and fears<br />6. second-hand<br /><br />Science does have its limits and there are mysteries in this world. <br />I would love to see a really intelligent discussion about what these limits are. <br /><br />I have had paranormal experiences and I don't think that I made them up or that they can explained away by probabilities or coincidences, etc. I can't prove they were real, which doesn't prove they weren't. But I also don't think they have much importance.<br /><br />Note: I have seen some wonderful ideas and information presented in these comments which I really appreciate. Fellow commenters, please do not ruin it by being mean or condescending. Please remain polite and respectful, no matter how sure you are that you are right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-44317858489071924972006-12-01T14:10:00.000-06:002006-12-01T14:10:00.000-06:00Compared to the late 20th century and today, churc...<i>Compared to the late 20th century and today, church attendance and regular public participation in religious services, etc. occurred less among the U.S. population in the 19th century.</i><br /><br />Church attendance in colonial America (around 17% is the number that sticks out in my mind) was low for a number of reasons, not least of which was how spread out the population was and how difficult it could be to get to church (leading to religious indifference and less desire to attend church at all, naturally).<br /><br />I don't think that this persisted into the <i>late</i> 19th century, though (I'm thinking 1870 and after, and I say "think" because I really don't know the numbers - I'm making educated guesses based on other cultural changes which I am familiar with). It was certainly still true in the early 19th century, but I think the major shift occurred by the Civil War when all sorts of religious movements started springing up to combat slavery, polygamy, alcohol, immigration, etc. Both sides in the Civil War used religion heavily to support their causes and this wouldn't have worked if church attendance was still very low.<br /><br />In this context, I think I might include the early socialist, communist, and union movements of the early 20th century as part of "freethought movement." I don't dispute that these groups themselves could be very repressive against dissent, but taken in the larger social context they still represented a means of dissent and resistance against dominant political, corporate, cultural, and religious institutions.Austin Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15277940533571121800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16654170.post-73122325528399082472006-12-01T12:05:00.000-06:002006-12-01T12:05:00.000-06:00The historical evidence supports Austin Cline's ex...The historical evidence supports Austin Cline's explanation of why organized religion and religious feeling is strong in America, compared with Europe. The separation of church and state under the 1st Amendment and the lack of an official state church are the primary causes. Another closely related cause is that because we haven't (since the 1780s or earlier) had an established church entangled with government, we haven't had religious wars and similar persecutions. Europe's longer history -- and its unfortunately rich history of violent religious wars, inquisitions, etc., has done wonders to produce populations who are weary or wary of organized religion.<br /><br />The only point in Austin's post with which I disagree (in part) is this: "Is it a coincidence that America's "Golden Age" of freethought occurred in the late 19th and early 20th century, a time when there was a strong de facto Protestant establishment in America? Perhaps freethought appealed to more people in large part because of political discontent that transferred to religion."<br /><br />Strong emphasis on "de facto." Compared to the late 20th century and today, church attendance and regular public participation in religious services, etc. occurred less among the U.S. population in the 19th century. It's true that by 1850 and later, the "Protestant establishment" had advocated and implemented a number of public policies (involving public education, immigration, etc.) that were intended to prevent dominance by Roman Catholics (as in "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion"). My suspicion or personal prejudice is that the Freethought "movement" (maybe too strong a word) in the 19th-century U.S. was more a result of the lasting effects of concepts from the Enlightenment in 18th century America and the rather fuzzy, non-denominational Christianity that was embraced by most Americans. In the mid-1970s, Herman Kahn could have been writing about 19th-century Americans when he wrote (I am paraphrasing) "In America the dominant religion is basically Unitarianism: There is at most one god, and we worship him if he exists." I think most Americans who don't regularly attend church would not be offended by that statement.<br /><br />Jeff DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com