# Randi tackles religion vs. science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857 "2003-07-25T13:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/141 "2003-07-27T15:59:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Very well. So is God part of the material universe or not? Humans are part of the material universe, and if God affects humans (and presumably other things), then subjective perception is also sensory perception. \*\* I don’t think God fiddles around in the material universe, though I hold out the possibility that he might have done so or will do so on the rarest of occasions. God’s principal place of business is in the spiritual world. He deals with hearts and minds, not physical objects. I do think God kicked off this whole grand party we call existence, though I’m not married to any particular method He might have used to do so. And I do believe he’s behind much of the design of the world. But I’m disinclined to believe that he actively micromanages the physical plane. \*\* > [@](#): > > Which way do you want it? Does faith go beyond the “material” world or not?\*\* Obviously, it does. Belief in something tangibly observable is not faith. \*\* > [@](#): > > The religious empires (including the Byzantine and Holy Roman) were just _so_ helpful, weren’t they?\*\* I’m not sure why you have this hard-on for hating religion. You are apt to cite every bad act perpetrated by the church, but disinclined to accept anything the church has ever done as positive. Methinks you need a more balanced view of history. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/142 "2003-07-27T16:04:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **Did you _read_ the review? Did you not notice the implications about the book’s claims?** Yes, and I responded to one aspect of the review in my first reply to **Col**. The review’s other basic complaint is that the book paints too happy a face on the Inquisition. Well, fine. No one in this thread has suggested the Inquisition was a shining moment in church history. And the crux of the matter is that nothing in the review challenges the basic facts laid out in this thread. If **Col** has a specific objection, he should make it. Otherwise his contribution to this thread is useless. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/143 "2003-07-27T16:28:57Z")
BTW, for those of you who are interested, **TVAA** has started a [separate thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=200529) on the whole Galileo thing. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/144 "2003-07-27T17:40:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I don’t think God fiddles around in the material universe, though I hold out the possibility that he might have done so or will do so on the rarest of occasions. God’s principal place of business is in the spiritual world. He deals with hearts and minds, not physical objects. \*\* So hearts and minds aren’t physical objects? Are they part of the material world or not? If they are, then God does indeed “fiddle around” in the material universe. If they’re not, then how do our hearts and minds interact with our bodies, allowing us to speak of and discuss these concepts? > [@](#): > > **Obviously, it does. Belief in something tangibly observable is not faith.** So faith involves belief without observation? And you want to know why science is incompatible with faith? > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m not sure why you have this hard-on for hating religion. You are apt to cite every bad act perpetrated by the church, but disinclined to accept anything the church has ever done as positive. Methinks you need a more balanced view of history. \*\* I don’t hate religion – I hate stupidity. Stupidity can sometimes bring about good things, but that doesn’t make it any less stupid. The question at hand is whether faith and religion can be used as a guide for drawing meaningful conclusions about the nature of the world. What difference does it make whether faith and religion have done “good” things? How does that make them correct? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/145 "2003-07-27T19:00:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **Oh, bullshit. I understand that there are plenty of physical phenomena that can’t be observed directly. But the fact remains that there are physical means of indirectly observing them. That secondary observation counts as sensory perception.** Exactly. We can’t _see_ Neutrinos, but we _can_ detect them indirectly when they impact with a water molecule and release a photon. We can’t directly _see_ planets around other distant stars, but we _can_ detect the orbital wobble in that star, that indicates an unseen planetary mass is pulling on it. For that matter, we can’t directly _see_ air, or humidity or odors, but we _can_ feel them, sense them, smell them. So you’re saying that we have no scientific means to detect God, but we can “feel Him” anyway? He cannot be seen by radiotelescope, gamma-ray observatory, neutrino detector, geiger counter, RADAR or laser spectrography. There’s no trace of Him in the visible spectrum, or the UV, or the long-wave Infrared. He cannot be inferred by orbital wobble, wave motion, magnetic resonance, seismography, or DNA analysis. Yet the human mind, which can directly detect very few of these things, can feel Him anyway. > [@](#): > > **I disagree, but as I’ve noted I can’t prove it empirically. God can’t be proven but can be felt. Either you feel religious stirrings or you don’t. Simple as that.** -And what, exactly, _is_ a “religious stirring”? It’s an _emotion_, a feeling. We know that ‘feelings’ have to do with chemical interactions within the brain and body (and can likewise be altered with applied chemicals.) IE, “Love” is something like euphoria, endorphins that create a pleasant sensation, which the mind associates with a person, or place- not, for example, a tiny cherub with heart-tipped magic arrows. The same can be said for ‘hate’ and ‘anger’, ‘happiness’ and so on. What differentiates this “religious stirring”, and identifies it as an externally-created emotion, as opposed to an internally-created emotion like love or anger? > [@](#): > > **If you believe empiricism is the only road to truth, then there is little point in discussing spiritual matters with you.** -So the belief in the supernatural, in magic and miracles, is the Truth? _That’s exactly the point Randi is trying to illustrate_. You believe in God, or at least a Divine Presence? Then why _don’t_ you believe in ESP, or psychokenesis, or dowsing? Spirit mediums? Palmistry, astrology, remote viewing or fortune telling? How about the tinfoil-hat crowd, who can _feel_ the CIA’s secret mind-controlling beam telling them to assassinate Che Guevara? That’s not a joke- there’s a bunch of people literally wearing tinfoil hats to “block out” what they _feel_ are mind-control rays, or mind-reading computers, or the demons in their TV set. Why is what they _feel_ or sense any more ludicrous than what a theist _feels_ or senses based upon what he’s read in a storybook? (And equally unsupported by fact.) There’s no difference between “spiritual” and “psychological”- both deal with the thoughts and patterns within the mind. You’re just making the assumption that there’s some external, invisible, all-powerful force out there affecting and influencing those patterns. And you know what? I agree: It’s called a _story_. A great many readers of the Bible, or the Talmud, or the Koran, take it as the truth. Some feel it’s the inerrant, unvarnished Truth, others take it as heavily editorialized, largely metaphorical, but still the Truth at it’s base. (IE, God created the World, life and Salvation after death, etc.) Those stories, those metaphors, have an _enormous_ influence on your “spiritual” (more correctly, psychological) patterns. _That_ is your God, and yes, can be said to be as real as a good movie (which can affect millions of people) or a good book (read and talked about by millions, influencing each in some degree.) ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/146 "2003-07-27T20:20:01Z")
Now for something completely different: The irony is that those who most fervently believe they’re worshipping the Truth are really only worshipping themselves. Instead of looking beyond themselves to see the Truth that’s right in front of them, they turn away from it and look inward, at what _they_ feel, what _they_ know. ‘Abomination’ is not a sufficiently strong term to describe this. The world is the mind of God, and the systematic honesty we use to learn about God is called ‘science’. No human beliefs or ideas or ideologies make one jot of difference to the universe. Our understanding of the truth is dynamic and shifting, but the truths we study are timeless. Every tautology, every necessary principles takes us one step closer to comprehension, but the journey can never be complete. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/147 "2003-07-27T20:20:05Z")
Doc Nickel, please tell me how your epistemological argument differs from “Because everything real that I know of can be empirically detected/explained, everything that is real is empirically detectable/explainable.” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/148 "2003-07-27T20:22:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*So hearts and minds aren’t physical objects? Are they part of the material world or not? > > If they are, then God does indeed “fiddle around” in the material universe. If they’re not, then how do our hearts and minds interact with our bodies, allowing us to speak of and discuss these concepts?\*\* :rolleyes: When the Bush administration speaks of winning “hearts and minds” in Iraq, do you think they literally mean the grey matter in Iraqi skulls and the muscle responsible for pumping blood in Iraqi chests? It’s a friggin’ metaphor. \*\* > [@](#): > > So faith involves belief without observation?\*\* Faith is belief based on sensation and intuition rather than observation. John Wesley described it as having his heart “strangely warmed.” \*\* > [@](#): > > And you want to know why science is incompatible with faith?\*\* Define “incompatible.” Certainly even today many men of science are also religious. They reconcile their belief in the value of the scientific method with the notion that there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy. Embracing the religious need not entail a rejection of the scientific. \*\* > [@](#): > > I don’t hate religion – I hate stupidity. Stupidity can sometimes bring about good things, but that doesn’t make it any less stupid.\*\* But you think people of faith are stupid for being people of faith. That sounds pretty close to hatred of religion to me. It’s also fairly ridiculous. It means the Thomas Mores and Thomas Aquinases and Martin Luthers of this world are stupid. It means Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi are stupid. It means Albert “God does not play dice with the universe” Einstein was stupid. It means our own **Polycarp** is stupid. That’s a lot of formidible intellects to be calling stupid.\*\* > [@](#): > > The question at hand is whether faith and religion can be used as a guide for drawing meaningful conclusions about the nature of the world. What difference does it make whether faith and religion have done “good” things? How does that make them correct? \*\* It makes the same difference as whether faith and religion have done “bad” things. Randi brought it up. I’m just completing the picture. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/149 "2003-07-27T20:38:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*When the Bush administration speaks of winning “hearts and minds” in Iraq, do you think they literally mean the grey matter in Iraqi skulls and the muscle responsible for pumping blood in Iraqi chests? It’s a friggin’ metaphor. \*\* Yes, but the things they’re metaphors for: the _hearts_ and _minds_ (not that there should be a distinction between them), are they physical or not? > [@](#): > > \*\*Define “incompatible.” Certainly even today many men of science are also religious. They reconcile their belief in the value of the scientific method with the notion that there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy. Embracing the religious need not entail a rejection of the scientific. \*\* People are very good at compartmentalizing their beliefs and practices. People are very good at being inconsistent. Incompatible: [definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incompatible) > [@](#): > > \*\*But you think people of faith are stupid for being people of faith. That sounds pretty close to hatred of religion to me. \*\* Belief without reason is an abomination. If religion could justify itself, I’d have no problems with it. > [@](#): > > **It’s also fairly ridiculous. It means the Thomas Mores and Thomas Aquinases and Martin Luthers of this world are stupid. It means Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi are stupid. It means Albert “God does not play dice with the universe” Einstein was stupid.** Einstein’s beliefs about the Divine were beyond your comprehension. Don’t even bring him into this. Isaac Newton was a fervent believer in alchemy and Christian mysticism. That was dumb, although he was a genius. MLK Jr. plagarized some of his thesis work. That was dumb, although he was a great man. Thoman Aquinas was a brilliant mind almost totally corrupted by his need to force his intelligence to conform to his faith. > [@](#): > > **It means our own Polycarp is stupid. That’s a lot of formidible intellects to be calling stupid.** I like Polycarp. I can respect his beliefs (despite knowing perfectly well that they’re not logically justifiable) because he also knows perfectly well that they’re not logically justifiable. He also has a better understanding of the nature of faith than you. He is an admirable opponent. > [@](#): > > \*\*It makes the same difference as whether faith and religion have done “bad” things. Randi brought it up. I’m just completing the picture. \*\* Randi’s point is that faith cannot be used to justify actions; if so, then we have to accept that those “wrong” actions must have been “right”. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/150 "2003-07-27T20:40:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > **Yet the human mind, which can directly detect very few of these things, can feel Him anyway.** I would characterize it as a stirring in the soul rather than the mind, but then you’ll just turn around and say there’s no such thing as a soul and it’s all in our heads anyway. So let me just cut to the chase: yup. \*\* > [@](#): > > -And what, exactly, _is_ a “religious stirring”? > > It’s an _emotion_, a feeling. We know that ‘feelings’ have to do with chemical interactions within the brain and body (and can likewise be altered with applied chemicals.) IE, “Love” is something like euphoria, endorphins that create a pleasant sensation, which the mind associates with a person, or place- not, for example, a tiny cherub with heart-tipped magic arrows.\*\* Again, I say: my, what a cold, sterile world it is you live in.\*\* > [@](#): > > -So the belief in the supernatural, in magic and miracles, is the Truth? > > _That’s exactly the point Randi is trying to illustrate_. You believe in God, or at least a Divine Presence? Then why _don’t_ you believe in ESP, or psychokenesis, or dowsing? Spirit mediums? Palmistry, astrology, remote viewing or fortune telling?\*\* All of the latter things operate on the physical plane. They can be tested empirically. God does not (at least not normally), and thus cannot. FTR, I’m not terribly fond of claims of prophecy, spiritual healing, or other “God given” spiritual gifts that affect the material world. Like I said, I think God takes a pretty hands-off approach to man’s physical interactions with the world. \*\* > [@](#): > > There’s no difference between “spiritual” and “psychological”- both deal with the thoughts and patterns within the mind. You’re just making the assumption that there’s some external, invisible, all-powerful force out there affecting and influencing those patterns.\*\* That’s your assumption, based on the premise that only that which is detectable by physical means must be real. I disagree, but I can’t prove otherwise. I am not troubled by that fact. Let me put it to you this way: I have never seen anyone talked into the existence of God. Every time I’ve seen an adult turn from non-faith to faith, including former skeptics, it’s been from a deep-seated spiritual experience that moved them in a very fundamental way. You can call that a function of a few synapses firing and various hormonal interactions if you wish, but that would be wholly inadequate for the person involved. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/151 "2003-07-27T20:49:12Z")
This thread is still going??? DCU:There is another important point you keep missing and I will try an illuminate it by stating my own case against religion below. If there were NO religion in the world, it is safe to say that charitable, artistic, generous adn kind people would all still be so.There are no discernable benefits that religion provides which cannot be had without religion, unless you are opertaing under the unwarranted assumption that there is an afterlife(and a “soul”) during which one’s eternal spiritual existence is benefitted by religious affiliations held during one’s physical life. Both atheists and theists contribute to charity and create works of art.Relions are also notorious for taking atheist donations adn tax dollars and such and funding construction of hospitals and the like for which they take sole credit adn promptly name after their favorite saint. Now here is the meat of my argument:Many, many, many, many atrocities are and have been commited that were heavily if not exclusively motivated by religion/religious affiliation. There have been many atrocities commited by non-religious also…HOWEVER, those atrocities were not motivated by “non-belief”.Stalin did not kill millions of people because they believed in God or because he did not. Therefore, the net contribution of religion is a NEGATIVE one! No benefits which cannot be had by non-religious + strong nmotivation and justification for atrocity = negative contribution. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/152 "2003-07-27T20:49:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*All of the latter things operate on the physical plane. They can be tested empirically. God does not (at least not normally), and thus cannot. \*\* Does God interact with the rest of the things we generally consider to be the “physical world” or not? If not, then by definition God doesn’t exist, and if so, God can be empirically confirmed or rejected. We place something on the “physical plane” based on its interactions, **Dewey**. You seem to have trouble grasping this simple fact. Is light physical? Theologians and “physicists” would once have said no. We know better now. > [@](#): > > \*\*That’s your assumption, based on the premise that only that which is detectable by physical means must be real. I disagree, but I can’t prove otherwise. I am not troubled by that fact. \*\* No, you nitwit! That’s what the concept of ‘real’ means. Something that has no effects on the material world is by definition unreal: there are no consequences of assuming that it exists that are not also the result of assuming it does not exist. The two possibilities are equivalent. > [@](#): > > \*\*Let me put it to you this way: I have never seen anyone talked into the existence of God. Every time I’ve seen an adult turn from non-faith to faith, including former skeptics, it’s been from a deep-seated spiritual experience that moved them in a very fundamental way. You can call that a function of a few synapses firing and various hormonal interactions if you wish, but that would be wholly inadequate for the person involved. \*\* What do you mean, ‘inadequate’? I’m sure the person involved wouldn’t “feel” that explanation was enough – but that’s the whole point, isn’t it? They’re _former_ skeptics – they’ve left the world of rational evaluation and logic behind. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/153 "2003-07-27T21:10:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*\*\* Yes, but the things they’re metaphors for: the hearts and minds (not that there should be a distinction between them), are they physical or not?_\* I believe man is greater than the sum of his body parts. “Hearts and minds” encompasses more than the firing of brain synapses. \*\* > [@](#): > > Belief without reason is an abomination. If religion could justify itself, I’d have no problems with it.\*\* Then you will be left thinking it an abomination. As I’ve stated repeatedly, God cannot be proven. \*\* > [@](#): > > Einstein’s beliefs about the Divine were beyond your comprehension. Don’t even bring him into this.\*\* You miss the forest for the trees; I hadn’t intended to delve into the specific theology of every great thinker in the world (and indeed, I won’t for the others). I was making a larger point about calling religious faith “stupid.” But since you elected to call my comprehension skills into question: Einstein did not believe in a personal God; he believed in a Spinoza-inspired deity that did not meddle in human affairs; he saw the hand of the divine in the ordered quality of the universe. One sentence won’t do him justice, but I think that’s a fair summary.\*\* > [@](#): > > I like Polycarp. I can respect his beliefs (despite knowing perfectly well that they’re not logically justifiable) because he also knows perfectly well that they’re not logically justifiable. He also has a better understanding of the nature of faith than you. He is an admirable opponent. \*\* I’m not sure how you can distinguish me from **Poly** in this area. I’ve stated repeatedly that God cannot be proven. I recognize that belief in the deity cannot be logically justified. On that particular ground, my position mimics his. Why is he so “admirable” but I’m not? \*\* > [@](#): > > Randi’s point is that faith cannot be used to justify actions; if so, then we have to accept that those “wrong” actions must have been “right”. \*\* This is simply not so. To say this is to discard centuries of philosophical discourse on God and ethics. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/154 "2003-07-27T21:21:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Does God interact with the rest of the things we generally consider to be the “physical world” or not? If not, then by definition God doesn’t exist, and if so, God can be empirically confirmed or rejected. \*\* Therein lies the problem. You believe that existence is limited to the physical, and that if something isn’t physical, it doesn’t exist. I take a differing view. \*\* > [@](#): > > We place something on the “physical plane” based on its interactions, Dewey. You seem to have trouble grasping this simple fact. \*\* Straw man. I grasp that fact perfectly well. I haven’t placed God on the physical plane, and indeed, have _specifically noted_ that God does not generally muck around with the physical world. \*\* > [@](#): > > No, you nitwit!\*\* This is not the Pit. \*\* > [@](#): > > That’s what the concept of ‘real’ means. Something that has no effects on the material world is by definition unreal: there are no consequences of assuming that it exists that are not also the result of assuming it does not exist. The two possibilities are equivalent.\*\* I disagree that just because something is not found in the material world that it is necessarily “unreal.” And of course there are consequences depending on whether or not the spiritual exists or does not exist: the latter would mean the absence of spiritual experiences (yes, yes, I know, that’s just brain synapses firing; believe that if you must). ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/155 "2003-07-27T21:33:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic \* > **Relions are also notorious for taking atheist donations adn tax dollars and such and funding construction of hospitals and the like for which they take sole credit adn promptly name after their favorite saint.** I’m going to need a cite for this. Religous hospitals and universities are for the most part private, built out of church coffers. Unless you’re going to count things like Pell grants and Medicare – which of course did not exist when most of the schools and hospitals were founded – I have a hard time seeing the case for them being anything other than fully private institutions. And the bottom line is this: many of those hospitals and universities would not exist but for the efforts of the church. As for the rest, I’ve addressed it in my previous posts. If the church cannot fully claim the good works done in its name because of the existence of other motivations, then neither can its bad acts be full ascribed to them because other motivations (notably geopolitics and political power) were at play as well. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/156 "2003-07-27T21:47:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I believe man is greater than the sum of his body parts. “Hearts and minds” encompasses more than the firing of brain synapses. \*\* Fine – whatever it does encompass, is it a physical phenomenon or not? > [@](#): > > \*\*Then you will be left thinking it an abomination. As I’ve stated repeatedly, God cannot be proven. \*\* Then why in the world should we care about your belief in Him or your claims about His nature? > [@](#): > > \*\*You miss the forest for the trees; I hadn’t intended to delve into the specific theology of every great thinker in the world (and indeed, I won’t for the others). I was making a larger point about calling religious faith “stupid.” \*\* It is stupid, regardless of who holds it. Appeals to authority are futile. > [@](#): > > \*\*But since you elected to call my comprehension skills into question: Einstein did not believe in a personal God; he believed in a Spinoza-inspired deity that did not meddle in human affairs; he saw the hand of the divine in the ordered quality of the universe. One sentence won’t do him justice, but I think that’s a fair summary. \*\* The ordered universe wasn’t a result of the hand of God. It _was_ God. And he devoted most of his life to understanding that transcendent order – _through science_. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m not sure how you can distinguish me from **Poly** in this area. I’ve stated repeatedly that God cannot be proven. I recognize that belief in the deity cannot be logically justified. On that particular ground, my position mimics his. Why is he so “admirable” but I’m not? \*\* In short, he neither demands nor expects that his beliefs be respected. He has that essential humility that you lack in spades. > [@](#): > > \*\*This is simply not so. To say this is to discard centuries of philosophical discourse on God and ethics. \*\* It doesn’t matter who’s said or, or how it’s been said for; the position is incorrect, so it must be abandoned. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/157 "2003-07-27T21:53:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Therein lies the problem. You believe that existence is limited to the physical, and that if something isn’t physical, it doesn’t exist. I take a differing view. \*\* You just can’t seem to get this into your head: if this phenomenon cannot affect any of the things we consider to be “physical”, then we can’t think about it, discuss it, become aware of it, or interact with it in any way. If it does interact with something we recognize as physical, then it is necessarily physical by extension: that’s how we define physicality. Discussion of these concepts requires that the “physical” world be affected by our minds. If this phenomenon can affect our minds, then it can affect the material world by extension. And since we define the physical, material world by interactions, this phenomenon is therefore physical. > [@](#): > > \*\*Straw man. I grasp that fact perfectly well. I haven’t placed God on the physical plane, and indeed, have _specifically noted_ that God does not generally muck around with the physical world. \*\* “Generally?” Does God interact with the physical world or not? The only straw here is packed between your ears. > [@](#): > > \*\*I disagree that just because something is not found in the material world that it is necessarily “unreal.” And of course there are consequences depending on whether or not the spiritual exists or does not exist: the latter would mean the absence of spiritual experiences (yes, yes, I know, that’s just brain synapses firing; believe that if you must). \*\* We’re not going to get anywhere with this. You have the type of mentality that would demand proof that an immovable object could never meet an irresistable force. This problem is similar: the physical world cannot interact with another, non-physical world, because if it could, it wouldn’t be non-physical. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/158 "2003-07-27T21:57:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*I would characterize it as a stirring in the soul rather than the mind, but then you’ll just turn around and say there’s no such thing as a soul and it’s all in our heads anyway. So let me just cut to the chase: yup. \*\* -So you admit that what people interpret as the “soul” or their “spirit” is the same as the “mind”, a psychological definition of the electrochemical processes we call cognition? > [@](#): > > **Again, I say: my, what a cold, sterile world it is you live in.** -My, what a tiny, little obfuscated mind you have. “Only God can show you the Mystery and Majesty of the Universe.” “Only those that submit to Christ can Truly See the Infinite Beauty of Creation”. What irrepressible, unmitigated horseshit. Tell me, what does God have to do with [this?](http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0307/moonmars_dantowitz_full.jpg) Or [this?](http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030624.html) God did not paint [this](http://www.metalandmagic.com/Pages/Galleries/Oddities/lionsmane.jpg), he did not sketch [this](http://kyoht.com/portfolio/image.cgi?name=BoneCrusher.jpg), he did not hand-machine this [telescope](http://vts.bc.ca/astrophoto/fscope1.jpg). No God made [this](http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/bdarin/6a8e5b8f.jpg) grinder, or wrought [this](http://www.badgervillage.com/foresttable.htm) table or built [this](http://www.nwc.navy.mil/pao/images/sunset.jpg) bridge. He didn’t sketch [this](http://www.liv.ac.uk/foresight/images/historic_venue/sketch.gif) or [this](http://www.mugu.com/galton/photos/carter-sketch.gif) or [this](http://www.rom.on.ca/kane/graphics/water-sketch.jpg). He did not take [this](http://www.debevec.org/FiatLux/media/images/S/a4868.sketch.jpg) photograph, not did he compose [this](http://mcnamee.graham.com/AnnQuickTime/sketch.gif) sonata. Did God make [these](http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030205.html)? Or [these](http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030115.html)? Or [this](http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021218.html)? How sad and tiny your life must be to assume only some invisible magic entity can provide beauty or majesty. > [@](#): > > **All of the latter things operate on the physical plane. They can be tested empirically. God does not (at least not normally), and thus cannot.** -Then how can we know- or even guess- that he exists? Let me cut to the chase: “We just _feel_ he does in our hearts”, right? > [@](#): > > **That’s your assumption, based on the premise that only that which is detectable by physical means must be real. I disagree, but I can’t prove otherwise. I am not troubled by that fact.** -Then you, like many others against whom Randi rails, are being _willfully_ ignorant. You cannot answer that question, therefore you will not contemplate it. It’s not so much “religion” that irks Randi so, it’s the _willful and intentional ignorance_, the _deliberate_ avoidance of certain facets of reality, when that reality contradicts deeply-held beliefs. How can something that cannot be detected or inferred by any means, be said to exist at all? Without your book-god, would you, on your own, have assumed some all-powerful genie wished the Universe into existence? > [@](#): > > \*\*Every time I’ve seen an adult turn from non-faith to faith, including former skeptics, it’s been from a deep-seated spiritual experience that moved them in a very fundamental way. \*\* -A car crash can be a “spiritual” experience. As can a doctor telling you you have liver cancer. That same doctor telling you you’re going to be a father. Winning a lottery. Seeing a close friend killed by a mugger. Having your house burn down but escaping safely. Watching a really nice sunset, maybe seeing a shooting star at the same time. These things are spiritual because the person viewing them _wants_ them to be spiritual. I see them as psychological, and we understand the two words to be synonyms. Like the supporting character in Eddie Murphy’s _Boomerang_- everything from the coloration of pool balls to the placement of olives in the store is seen as evidence of racism to him. If you _want_ to see God, you can find any number of things your mind will somehow manage to adequately explain as evidence for His existence. But that doesn’t mean he exists, or even _did_ exist. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/159 "2003-07-27T22:55:18Z")
**Doc Nickel** , to repeat, how does your position differ from: “I have never encountered anything that cannot be empirically measured or explained, therefore no such thing exists.” ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/160 "2003-07-27T22:59:39Z")
-Does it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=9)