# Science=religion and the meaning of life **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2000, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280 "2000-07-20T20:35:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/41 "2000-07-21T17:24:12Z")
Hey, Gaudere – OP! Anyway, God is Love (xtian god). Therefore, God has to love Lib. If God didn’t, God would not be love and therefore, God would not be God anymore (xtian god) and thus, the xtian God would not exist. No point loving something which did not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/42 "2000-07-21T17:33:04Z")
Yes, but if God is Perfect Love, does that mean Lib would cease loving if he did not believe in the existence of a conciousness that was Perfect Love? Remember, he considers me a Christian because I love, even though I do not believe in the existence of a consciousness that is Perfect Love. And _you_ started this OT stuff. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/43 "2000-07-21T17:39:30Z")
…and another thing, Lib sais “if I am presented with compelling arguments that God does not love _me_” not “…that God is not perfectly loving.” Admittedly, if God does not love him, God is not perfectly loving; but if God loves Lib but does not love person X, God is not perfectly loving either, and that’s not mentioned. But I think I will let Lib explain what he meant, rather than have us try to tell him what he meant. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/44 "2000-07-21T17:42:38Z")
**Gaudere** > [@](#): > > Lib–you would stop loving God if He did not love you? Why? Because contradictions do not exist. (Enjoyed all the speculation, by the way…) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/45 "2000-07-21T17:45:54Z")
**Satan** > [@](#): > > As such, the only loigical way you can call science a religion is if you are prepared to say that you worship a pastor or [rabbi] instead of God. Or a book, I might add. I don’t think science is a religion, but I do think its conclusions are necessarily faith-based for reasons I have enumerated, and I do think it is infested with politics, just like religion is. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/46 "2000-07-21T17:46:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Because contradictions do not exist. Yes they do. 😃 So _would_ you stop loving if you thought Love/God did not exist? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/47 "2000-07-21T17:47:49Z")
Yeah, I know I’ve been OT for a while. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > **Yes, but if God is Perfect Love, does that mean Lib would cease loving if he did not believe in the existence of a conciousness that was Perfect Love? Remember, he considers me a Christian because I love, even though I do not believe in the existence of a consciousness that is Perfect Love.** Well, as you know, I’d disagree that any of the three of us express the perfect love taught by Christ, or are even attempting to do so. But, that not withstanding, I don’t think we can comprehend the nature of God (per consciousness(?)) anymore than we can comprehend the nature of Perfect Love. Maybe you don’t love – you just really really like 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/48 "2000-07-21T18:05:23Z")
**Gaudere** > [@](#): > > Yes [contradictions] do [exist]. I’m afraid they don’t, because if they did they wouldn’t. If A is not A, then all language is meaningless, and whether anything exists at all is moot. And we could just go ahead and move all this over to MPSIMS. > [@](#): > > So _would_ you stop loving if you thought Love/God did not exist? I can’t give a sensible answer without removing “you thought”. May I? If so, the answer is yes. Otherwise, the answer is far more long-winded, but ends up being yes all the same. (Long version provided on request…) ---
**Author:** ![FreakFreely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/48db29/32.png) [@FreakFreely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FreakFreely)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/49 "2000-07-21T18:23:18Z")
**pldennison** sez: > [@](#): > > And when somebody doubts those assumptions for no other reason than to be oh-so-Foucault or some other deconstructionist claptrap, I call that silly. Did I say I doubt them? No. I just meant that you **can** doubt those assumptions without being ignorant. And that if you don’t have any doubt in those assumptions, that’s faith. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/50 "2000-07-21T18:32:10Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m afraid they don’t, because if they did they wouldn’t. Yes they do. See, I just contradicted you, therefore contradictions exist. QED. 😛 I was jus’ teasin’ ya, Lib. So when you were an atheist, Lib, you did not love? Or you just hadn’t thought it through fully enough to realize that (IYHO) any love at all requires a conscious Perfect Love? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/51 "2000-07-21T18:47:57Z")
Can you love without believing in Love? Hmm… I mean, with God all thing are possible – that doesn’t mean without God all things still aren’t possible, right? Oh well. Anyway, Gaudere, have you read Porete’s book [Mirror of Simple Souls](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809104644/qid=964204848/sr=1-2/102-5047897-0665736) yet? I think you would like it. It is mostly presented as a dialog between Love and Reason. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/52 "2000-07-21T19:05:43Z")
Can you hate without believing in Hate? Can you like without believing in Like? Can a thing be blue without the existence of the Perfect Blue? I certainly recognize the existence of Perfect Love, Like, Hate, and Blue as concepts, but that doesn’t mean I think they have to exist in fact. ::shrug:: No, I haven’t read the book. A dialogue between Love and Reason, eh? Nice to know they’re still on speaking terms; some people seem convinced that they’re mortal enemies, rather than helpmeets. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/53 "2000-07-21T19:08:05Z")
**Gaudere** > [@](#): > > Yes they do. See, I just contradicted you, therefore contradictions exist. QED. I was jus’ teasin’ ya, Lib. Okay, sorry. You forgot that I am a Melancholy. > [@](#): > > So when you were an atheist, Lib, you did not love? I was one of those hard-ass hand-stabbing atheists. > [@](#): > > Or you just hadn’t thought it through fully enough to realize that (IYHO) any love at all requires a conscious Perfect Love? It was in a moment of utter dispair that I begged God for mercy (having already moved from atheism to buddhism to Satanism) … [long epic story] … which mercy I accepted finally when I read, “Before Abraham was, I am.” It wasn’t until God spoke to me recently, admonishing me for saying you’re in hell, that I fully comprehended what is meant by God is Love. There are some new people now. Perhaps I ought to share for their sake that recent moment (which I’m sure you will recall.) God said, “I am the Love Everlasting. Whatever men say about me with their minds is vapor. I cannot be known by the mind, but only by the heart. Stop dividing the world between theists and atheists, and start dividing it rightly as I do. There are those who love, and those who don’t. Those who love, they are my disciples.” It was humbling, to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/54 "2000-07-21T19:28:00Z")
One busy day and look what happens. Teaches me to do experiments when good debates are ongoing. So what follows may make no sense whatsoever, because I have almost no background in philosophy (even though I am getting a doctorate in it.) One word in here : proof. We have established that faith is belief without proof, and that science seeks to establish proof. IMHO the definition of proof used above again falls back onto the original assumptions we make in a system. The definition of proof we use is the definition arrived at by using scientific assumptions : proof by deduction, proof by induction, etc. Religion never has to use these assumptions – it is a different system. For religion, we can define a new “proof” based on religious assumptions. Lets call it proof\_r. To play devil’s advocate again, proof\_r of the existence of God and the truth of the Bible is the fact that the universe and man exists. You see, it is all inherent in the system. Science and logic, as has been said before, is a house of cards. Granted, it has lots of cross-supports and internal stabilizing reinforcements. It is probably the sturdiest house of cards that man could build. Proof is only based on observation, at least for science. Proof\_r depends on none of this, and therefore, if you accept the religious assumptions, is much more powerful. Since we assume God exists, we can build a far, far sturdier structure than science ever can, because we can extend our predictions into non-observable phenomena. This, I believe, is much easier to accept. Our brains are built to accept stability and constancy, and man strives for a higher meaning in the universe. This is something only religion can give us. Therefore, I envy those who are truly religious, for they have a sense of inner peace which I know I can never fully accept. Ed ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/55 "2000-07-21T19:37:10Z")
Yeah, but can you have perfect blue without believing in perfect blue? Lib, your conversion story is very touching. And I think you are right – there are those who love and those who do not. But, oh, those misguided souls who think they love but do not! Now, edwino makes an interesting argument. Now, I would wonder whether you can prove something is moral or not. Probably not without using the Golden Rule as an axiom. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/56 "2000-07-21T19:42:59Z")
You might need Jesus’ other moral imperative, the categorical one: Be Perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/57 "2000-07-21T19:48:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Yeah, but can you have perfect blue without believing in perfect blue? Well, presumably “real” things exist whether you believe in them or not. Therefore perfect blue could exist even if you did not believe in it. And I would say a person could possibly be perfectly loving without believing in perfect love, just as an entity could be perfectly blue without believing that it _was_ perfectly blue (or that perfect blue could exist). ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/58 "2000-07-21T19:52:53Z")
You must be perfect, as even your heavenly father is perfect. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/59 "2000-07-21T20:02:15Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* \*\* > [@](#): > > Well, presumably “real” things exist whether you believe in them or not.\*\* “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away” as Phillip K. Dick said. When you stop believing in Love, does Love go away? > [@](#): > > I would say a person could possibly be perfectly loving without believing in perfect love I think you are possibly right. But this would be like a blind man who can tell you what playing card you are holding up all the time. Really lucky. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2000, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280/60 "2000-07-21T20:29:51Z")
> [@](#): > > When you stop believing in Love, does Love go away? If it really exists, I would say no. The fact that I accept the existence of Perfect Love as _only_ a concept does not mean that Perfect Love _cannot_ exist as an objective fact. > [@](#): > > I think you are possibly right. But this would be like a blind man who can tell you what playing card you are holding up all the time. Really lucky. But we were not arguing whether it is _easy_ to be Perfectly Loving without believing in it, just whether it was necessary to personally believe in Perfect Love for Perfect Love to exist, or whether one can love at all without the existence/belief in Perfect Love. I say if Perfect Love objectively exists, it exists whether or not anyone believes in it, and that one can both love and Love without believing in the existence of Perfect Love. Nor do I see the difference bewteen believing in Perfect Love as a fact and Perfect Love as a concept when it comes to a person’s capability of Perfect Love. Let’s say X is the perfectly loving act. Person A thinks Perfect Love is only a concept, but based on that concept knows X is right and does X. Person B thinks Perfect Love truly exists, and based on his concept of Perfect Love knows X is right and does X. Presumably if Person A ever managed to achieve Perfect Love completely, he would then believe that Perfect Love has manifested. You can strive to achieve Perfect Love without having to think it currently exists as more than a concept. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-religion-and-the-meaning-of-life/26280.md?page=4)