brahma

[I never heard one religion teach that following their ways will lead to immortality.]

I guess what the Foxhole Atheist is trying to say is that all religions promise something after death. You can call it a higher plane of existence or Heaven or whatever, but the basic premise remains the same. Coming to the definition of mortality, I think the dictionary definition would indicate it to be the death of the body. However, if you look to science, since everything associated with the body ends with the death of the body, IMO the definition of mortality has come to include the end of conciousness. Of course that concept is too much for almost any human to be able to deal with, hence the promise of an after-consciousness or afterlife.

brahma

hinduwoman - I agree that most devout do not argue critically, that would in fact be against their nature.

[If you look back in Indian history you will see that the most educated have not believed]

I do not agree with this statement. There are many instances in Indian history where scholars and poets have dedicated their whole lives and work to god. Take the example of Srinivasa Ramanujan. He was one of the most brilliant and intuitive mathematicians the world has known, his papers and theorems on number theory are some of the most elegant in modern mathematics. Yet he was an almost fanatical believer and even went so far as to publicly claim that the goddess Namagiri taught him the answers to complex theorems in his dreams! How can one explain something like this? No one can argue that Ramanujan was not educated, to claim that he was not intelligent would be sacrilege. So how could he have missed what you and I can see? Was he a victim of such forceful conditioning that he simply could not break free of his beliefs till the end?

Tercel

I think it’s time for another repetition of then list of famous, intelligent and educated people who were Christians along with some of their contributions to the world: (Quotes from Encarta)
<strong>Isaac Newton</strong>: “Mathematician and physicist, one of the foremost scientific intellects of all time.” I understand that he wrote about as much theology as he did science.
<strong>René Descartes</strong>: Of ‘I think therefore I am’ fame. “Philosopher, scientist, and mathematician, often called the founder of modern philosophy.” Proposed arguments for the existence of God.
<strong>Copernicus</strong>: “Astronomer. Best known for his theory that the earth revolves around the sun.”
<strong>Kepler</strong>: “Astronomer and natural philosopher, noted for formulating and verifying the three laws of planetary motion.”
<strong>Faraday</strong>: “Physicist and chemist, best known for his discoveries of electromagnetic induction and of the laws of electrolysis.”
<strong>Blaise Pascal</strong>: “Philosopher, mathematician, and physicist, considered one of the great minds in Western intellectual history.” Among other things he invented an adding machine (a primative computer), and apparently, the wheelbarrow. Also wrote in defense of Christianity.
<strong>LeMaitre</strong>: Astronomer. Proposer of the Big Bang theory
<strong>James Clerk Maxwell</strong>: “Physicist, whose theory of the electromagnetic field and electromagnetic theory of light, and introduction of a statistical function in the theory of gases, revolutionized physics.”
<strong>Galileo</strong>: “Astronomer, who pioneered the scientific revolution that flowered in the work of the English physicist Isaac Newton.” Athough famous for his conflicts with the Catholic Church, Galileo was himself a Christian.
<strong>Darwin</strong>: “laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory with his concept of the development of all forms of life through the slow-working process of natural selection.” It seems clear that near the end of his life Darwin became a Christian.

These are just the tip of the iceburg. You suggest that no intelligent, educated person should find religion acceptable. Yet one glance at history shows that many of the most intelligent and educated people ever were not only religious, but were passionate about it. This should suggest perhaps, that it might be you who is wrong about it.

Certainly, it is comforting to know that greater minds than me have found Christianity satisfactory. At least if I’m wrong, I’ll be wrong in very good company.
Tercel

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:

Isaac Newton: “Mathematician and physicist, one of the foremost scientific intellects of all time.” I understand that he wrote about as much theology as he did science.

Newton more about religion than science, much more -- what a waste! Newton was not a Christian but an Arian and a heretic. Like Kepler, he was interested in alchemy.

Darwin: “laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory with his concept of the development of all forms of life through the slow-working process of natural selection.” It seems clear that near the end of his life Darwin became a Christian.

Hogwash. Darwin died an agnostic atheist. This is a Christian lie.

See here for a review of that chestnut:
<a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html" target="_blank">http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html</a>

Yet one glance at history shows that many of the most intelligent and educated people ever were not only religious, but were passionate about it. This should suggest perhaps, that it might be you who is wrong about it.

Today? How many great scientists are believers in the Canaanite sky god Ya? Look how far back you have to look to find the bunch you listed. All but Maxwell did their thing long before the rise of Modern science. Perhaps there is a clue there, eh?

Certainly, it is comforting to know that greater minds than me have found Christianity satisfactory.

What faith you show in us, feeding us straight lines like this.....

Michael

Tercel

Arian are still "Christian" in my book, just not orthodox ones. Newton was certainly very religious at any rate.

~shrugs~ Fine. No big loss. Lets add a few names to compensate:
Occam: Occam's Razor
Bayes: Bayes's Theorem
Laplace: Mathematician, astronomer, and physicist
Boole: Boolean algebra

Some. I imagine the correlation is heavily influenced by the secondary factor that atheists are disportionately likely to become scientists because they feel that science will provide the answers that they lack because of their lack of religion.

Really? Isn't that surprising given that I was listing famous historical figures? Suprisingly enough, comparively little of the history of modern civilisation occured recently.

Yup: That they're historical figures.

Tercel

Foxhole Atheist

From Blu:

“I am wondering what your definition of immortality is.”

“Religions teach that when our bodies die our souls go to Heaven or some other spiritual plane.”

Blu, you have basically answered your own question, if I may call it that? From direct observation, and to anyone who has witnessed the death of another living being, we can readily conclude that the physical body dies, decays and returns to the elements; it no longer exists as an animated organism. It is the soul, as depicted by most religions, that lives on. This is what I understand as the definition of immortality.

It is my belief that the brain is the center, or the essence if you will, of each and every sentient being, as well as those non-sentient beings. Whether we humans are the only sentient beings on this planet is a totally different discussion. When the physical body dies, and the brain is no longer nourished by the blood flow, it too, decays and returns to the elements. When there is no longer any brain activity, when the chemical bath in which the live brain functions is no longer able to support such activity, that particular living being no longer exists.

To say that a living being continues to exist after death as a soul, without the living body, is something I find too implausible to accept as fact. There has never been any direct, verifiable evidence for such a continued existence. To believe in this concept of immortality is simply wishful thinking. And, this is where most religions appease this desire that most humans have.

Amos

Agree and therefore eternal life begins on earth and ends when our body dies. Immortality is equal to be resident or identify with the eternal soul instead of the illusory ego. It is when the ego dies that eternal life begins in the thousand year reign begins. This eternal life ends when we physically die.

Jeremy Pallant

Interesting. So being a Christian does not require you to believe in the divinity of Christ?

joedad

Christian "heresies" are still "christian" I suppose.

Using "biblicist" instead of "christian" is more accurate. Giordanno Bruno was a "christian" by Tercel's standards.

Have any of the people Tercel mentions ever given their "christianity" anything more than cultural notice? Any martyrs?

Galileo a christian? As one who studied the philosophy of Aristotle I suppose, but that's about as close as that relationship gets.

joe

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

A friend of mine who studied math and philosophy imparted an interesting tidbit of knowledge to me last night. Apparently (and there are quotes to back this up), Pascal's Wager isn't everything one might think it.

Pascal was a convert, yes, and did believe in a diety. But (and this is the interesting part), he himself admitted that his wager was silly, and a terrible proof for the existance of God.

Basically, he felt that any god worth worshipping would see right through anybody falling for that wager, so it never was meant to convert people.

What it was meant to do was get ignorant people into the churches. Then, while you have a relatively captive audience, you start the brainwa...ur ... conversion of the non-believers.

Interesting, isn't it? How all these theists use Pascal's Wager to "prove" God, when he himself never intended it as such.

Jeff