Atheist, Christian, and Baha'i Cosmologies

[ppp]

It comes across as being dismissive - *I dont have to consider your evidence based opinion because "its only an opinion"*

I just laugh it off because I believe it won't sway a critical thinker.

Sure. "They are all just opinions" is an escape mechanism. Like "I have the right to my opinion" or "Why are you so angry!?!?"

 

[Trailblazer]

I wanted you to stop, too. That was the point of my last post.

And I did stop, at post #37.
I wasn't going to stop until I wasn't having fun anymore.

 

[CG Didymus]

Did you see the part where there needs to be harmony between science and religion?

Is there harmony between science and religion?

This last year or two, on most of the threads started by Baha'is, the same questions come up from Atheists. What is the objective evidence/scientific evidence for God and Baha'u'llah being a manifestation of God? And the other question that comes up a lot is about the Baha'i law forbidding homosexuality. Is there scientific support for that belief or is it just "God said it's wrong, therefore, it is wrong." Or worse, that they need "therapy" to get over their affliction. If there is no science backing up these things, then what are we to believe? That these are nothing but superstitious beliefs?

And one more thing, Rainn Wilson is a celebrity. It's not just the opinion of some ordinary person. It's like having a movie star or athlete doing an advertisement for a product. They do influence people.

 

[Truthseeker]

Rainn Wilson is a celebrity. It's not just the opinion of some ordinary person. It's like having a movie star or athlete doing an advertisement for a product. They do influence people.

Yes, we wanted to minimize that effect here. He does quite a bit for the Baha'i Faith online. He is the most active actor for the Baha'i Faith in this era. He is sort of a replacement for Alex Rocco, who was the most public actor of his time. He played Las Vegas gangster "Moe Greene" on "Godfather" and was liquidated by Michael Corleone at the end. He won a TV emmy and thanked Baha'u'llah when he accepted the emmy.

 

[HonestJoe]

Did you see the part where there needs to be harmony between science and religion? He didn't say anything about any contradictions he saw I don't think.

It is arguing for more than harmony, it is explicitly stating that science needs religion (and implicitly, his religion of course) to be valid. He is trying to put his beliefs on an equal and equivalent footing as science when it is nothing of the sort. Religious has absolutely nothing to do with science beyond being an interesting topic of study within sociology and psychology.

Remember this is a simplified version of atheists.

Remember it isn't a "version of atheists" at all. The word atheist has absolutely zero place in this discussion, that is the fundamental problem here.

You can believe in science and religion.

Again, they're not equivalents. Nobody "believes in science", certainly not in anything like the same way people believe in religions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Again, they're not equivalents. Nobody "believes in science", certainly not in anything like the same way people believe in religions.

Well, I believe in science and religion in the same way, but then I am in effect a religious believer in that the universe is real, orderly and knowable.
So my religious beliefs are also my beliefs as to in effect methdological naturalism.

 

[HonestJoe]

Well, I believe in science and religion in the same way, but then I am in effect a religious believer in that the universe is real, orderly and knowable.
So my religious beliefs are also my beliefs as to in effect methdological naturalism.

That you integrate naturalism in to your personal belief system (however nominally or selectively) doesn't make religion and science conceptually equivalent.

Just because I have a satnav integrated in to my car, that doesn't mean cars and satnavs are equivalents, nor does it mean I'm treating the two in the same way. If I think the satnav is wrong, I'll ignore it and drive the car where I think it the right way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That you integrate naturalism in to your personal belief system (however nominally or selectively) doesn't make religion and science conceptually equivalent.

Just because I have a satnav integrated in to my car, that doesn't mean cars and satnavs are equivalents, nor does it mean I'm treating the two in the same way. If I think the satnav is wrong, I'll ignore it and drive the car where I think it the right way.

Well, yeah, I get what you are saying, yet the difference you point out as it matters to you, is for how it matters without eivdence as per sicence.
So if your evalution of what matters is not sicence, then what is it?

 

[Truthseeker]

t is arguing for more than harmony, it is explicitly stating that science needs religion (and implicitly, his religion of course) to be valid. He is trying to put his beliefs on an equal and equivalent footing as science when it is nothing of the sort. Religious has absolutely nothing to do with science beyond being an interesting topic of study within sociology and psychology.

Einstein himself said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”. Einstein was not even a practicing Jew, nor did he believe in a personal God, but he recognized that science needed religion to balance things out, and religion needed science to counter superstition and beliefs counter to science. Science at least needs ethics to carry it out with out destroying mankind. Science deployed to produce weapons of war is not good at all. We need ethics and morality in the climate change struggle. For instance, there is an injustice in how the rich countries cause the problem, and the poor countries bear the worst consequences. As Baha'is we see religion as the principle source where morality comes from originally. I can understand though why some people see religion today as more of a problem in causing bad things to happen than causing solutions. Over time, the adherents of a religion too often lose their way. If you at the teachings themselves in their original form, and the early history of the religions, it looks different.

It's not like religion should influence how scientific inquiry should go. That's not being advocated by the Baha'i Faith. Baha'i understandings should not contradict science. The history of Christianity has been different. They caused the split between science and religion that prevails today in the Christian world.

 

[CG Didymus]

It is arguing for more than harmony, it is explicitly stating that science needs religion (and implicitly, his religion of course) to be valid.

Exactly, which religion does science need? Christianity? Islam? Probably not. But is science always going to be in harmony with the Baha'i Faith? No, there is already the problem that has been expressed by several atheists here on the forum... There is no objective evidence for any Gods. Making it very possible that all concepts of God are superstitious ideas created by people. Right now, today, I wonder, what is the scientific evidence for God that Baha'is can point to and say, "See, God is real."

 

[Truthseeker]

Right now, today, I wonder, what is the scientific evidence for God that Baha'is can point to and say, "See, God is real."

That's not what was at issue. Science cannot prove that God is real. It can influence your belief, but it can't prove it.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's not what was at issue. Science cannot prove that God is real. It can influence your belief, but it can't prove it.

And that's the point the atheists here on the forum have been making... The Baha'i claims about God and of Baha'u'llah being a manifestation of God can't be scientifically proven, so why believe them?

With religions in the past, it was a life-or-death situation. Religion said that gays, adulterers, and even people that broke laws against doing work on certain Holy days, were to be killed. What proof did they have that God really said that and wanted that? The "proof" was the Scriptures. And how reliable and accurate were they?

Even Baha'is warn against people taking their Scriptures too literally and believing the interpretations of those Scriptures too seriously. But, prior to the Baha'i Faith, what did people have to go on? Many were forced to believe as they were told. Because of the abuses done by religious leaders, eventually, there's a revolt and reform movements. But with the rise of science, it gave people a reason not to believe what their Scriptures and religious leaders said was true.

The ultimate question then became, "Is God even real?" And that is still the ultimate question. Sure, we need rules and moral laws, but religion hasn't been the greatest source for those rules and laws. And for religion to say, "Do this and don't do this, because God said so," isn't going to work anymore for some people.

And similarly, if a religion says, "Yes, the religions of the past have done many wrongs. And have believed many things that weren't true. But this time, we guarantee, this is the real and genuine and true word of God.' Gotta have some substantial proof and evidence to get some people to believe it.

 

[Trailblazer]

And that's the point the atheists here on the forum have been making... The Baha'i claims about God and of Baha'u'llah being a manifestation of God can't be scientifically proven, so why believe them?

It is within the realm of absurdity that anyone would ever expect science to be able to prove that God exists.
God does not exist in the material world.
Science can only study what exists in the material world.
That means science can never prove that God exists.

Since God can never be proven to exist, how could the claims of Baha'u'llah to be a Manifestation of God ever be proven?

 

[CG Didymus]

The Baha'i claims about God and of Baha'u'llah being a manifestation of God can't be scientifically proven, so why believe them?

When I believed, which was really more like, when I assumed that a God was real, that God did show and prove itself to me.

The Baha'i God sends some people visions of Abdul Baha'. One Baha'i lady was going to preach, I mean, teach at an Indian Reservation but the dirt road was washed out. She told the driver to back up and floor it. She claims that the car made the jump.

If God is real, it can do things to prove itself real. If it can't, then, as atheists point out, what's the difference between that God existing or not existing?

And, as with trinitarian Christians, Baha'is say that there God, the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit God, doesn't really exist. Yet, that God does exist in the hearts and minds of many Christians. That God does reveal itself to them through the Holy Spirit and answered prayers, and even, so some of them say, their God sent them a messenger, an angel, to reveal things to them or protect them. And with others, their God gave them a prophetic message that came true. All from a God that Baha'is claim doesn't exist.

So please Baha'is, don't claim God can't find a way to show itself real. Any Baha'i that says things like, "Put on your logic cap" has nothing. Her God is nothing. She to me is nothing. There's no understanding there. There is no trying to find ways to unite and make peace with others. Those types of comments only push people away. Which is the opposite of what Baha'is could be doing, and in my opinion, should be doing. The post was not to her, and I don't want her comments. And I don't need her comments.

 

[Trailblazer]

So please Baha'is, don't claim God can't find a way to show itself real.

God has shown that He is real by sending Messengers but obviously that does not constitute proof for everyone.

God has shown that He is real to those of us who believe in the Messengers He sent. That applies not only to Baha'is but also to Christians and those of other religions. To the Christians who are in the grief group I attend at the church God is as real as if He was standing in the room.

 

[HonestJoe]

Einstein himself said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”.

He did, but his brilliance and fame as a physicist doesn't automatically mean he was right about that opinion.

Science at least needs ethics to carry it out with out destroying mankind.

No. Science is an abstract concept and doesn't need anything. It is merely a tool to reach conclusions and whether that is done ethically or not doesn't make the slightest difference to science.

Society needs ethics to survive (in very simplistic terms), regardless of whether what that society is doing is based on science or not (or a bit of both, as is typically the situation). We don't need religion to provide those ethics though, nor does the presence of religion necessarily lead to positive ethical structures.

Ironically, I'm not convinced the OP video was making this point that science needs religion, only that science and religion should be in harmony and, if only by implication, Baha'i is the best way to achieve that. The creator of that video is obviously biased of course and I'm not convinced there is any good reason to treat religion as anything special or exclusive.

It is human society in general that we really need to be concerned about. Religion is one part of that (or lots of widely different parts really) and not technically a required part. In all sorts of ways, I'd suggest that religion takes up a disproportionate amount of attention which can actually distract from other elements of human society, including the fundamental ethics we need.

 

[danieldemol]

As much as I respect Einstein I would have used the word ethics where Einstein used "religion".

The word religion has baggage associated with it that Einstein doesn’t seem to have meant since he seems to have regarded what he knew of the Abrahamic religions as childish in my view.

 

[F1fan]

It is within the realm of absurdity that anyone would ever expect science to be able to prove that God exists.

This seems to acknowledge that no God exists.

God does not exist in the material world.

1. whay not? 2. Is there any other type of world known to exist where a God can exist? 3. Then when mere mortals refer to their God existing how can they have any means to know IF the God exists in a realm not accessable to humans?

Science can only study what exists in the material world.

You got something right.

That means science can never prove that God exists.

You're stating a fact. So you know that a God won't be detected in the future? Are you clarvoyant?

Since God can never be proven to exist, how could the claims of Baha'u'llah to be a Manifestation of God ever be proven?

More clarvoyance. Honestly all we can do is make assessments and conclusions in the moment. We don't know what could be discovered a century from now. What's funny is that you are a believer and you are dismissing any possibility for your God and guru to be verified.

 

[F1fan]

As much as I respect Einstein I would have used the word ethics where Einstein used "religion".

The word religion has baggage associated with it that Einstein doesn’t seem to have meant since he seems to have regarded what he knew of the Abrahamic religions as childish in my view.

The 30's was a time that still had a lot of religious belief among scientists. That was almost 100 years ago, and what we have come to understand about the universe has come a long way.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is arguing for more than harmony, it is explicitly stating that science needs religion (and implicitly, his religion of course) to be valid. He is trying to put his beliefs on an equal and equivalent footing as science when it is nothing of the sort. Religious has absolutely nothing to do with science beyond being an interesting topic of study within sociology and psychology.

That science needs religion to be valid seemed wrong to me so I just watched the video again to see if he said that. What he said at the end of the video is that Baha'u'llah addressed the need for science and religion to be in harmony, that science and religion are like two wings of a bird and humanity needs both wings to fly. So what he was saying is that humanity needs both science and religion, not that science needs religion or that religion needs science. Science does not need religion and religion does not need science since they each fall within a different purview.

When he said that science and religion should be in harmony he meant that religion should not contradict science. In other words, religion should not teach what is scientifically impossible, such as dead people coming back to life and rising from their graves or bodies lifting up off of earth to meet Jesus in the air. To say that humans have a soul and an afterlife is not contradicted by science since it does not fall under the purview of science.

The reason Baha'is believe we need both science and religion is expressed in the following quote.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.​

​

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........​

​

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...” Paris Talks, pp. 141-143​

​

From: FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE​