what are we talking about?

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Aug 8, 2008 at 00:09

Claire writes: "...We don't know other life doesn't exist elsewhere, but the stew that was the early earth was a rich environment that made life possible on this particular planet."

This is true - we certainly do not know life does not exist in other parts of this galaxy, let alone the universe. Also, it is true that we do not know what forms life and consciousness may take. It is possible, even likely that , given the length of 'time' that has passed since the what we assume is to have been a big bang - that other planets did not start 'evolving' 4.5 billion years ago - but may have started evolving 12 billion years ago . How advanced would those civilisations be now?

The electric light was invented in 1879. Now we have massively parallel computers doing teraflop calculations and doing a whole lot more than retrieving data on a daily basis from Mars. A good article to look at :http://www.mkaku.org/articles/physics_of_et.php "......The idea of a "God" is simply a metaphor that people could understand--the idea of a benevolent father. The anthropomorphised idea of a deity with human qualities was quite a leap from the earlier belief systems it replaced."

To me jumping to the conclusion that there is no 'God' is verges on stupidity. It's like saying electricity didn't exist before we discovered it after multimeters were invented. At least being agnostic implies a sense of unbiased humility - 'I don't really know' Greater philosophers than you or I (Kant, Liebnitz, Newton, Descartes have wrestled with this question and not arrived at facile but ultimately meaningless conclusions.

Your statement doesn't answer the question of what 'God' is or what God is not. It's just your take on what you think people understand by the word 'God' and offers no insight into our existence. It's just an opinion you have arrived at while trying to rationalise your existence in this infinite and ultimately totally strange universe we find ourselves in. (Read any in-depth article on quantum physics and phenomena such as photonic twinning etc.)

One day you'll be on your deathbed and realise everything you've ever thought or done is like straw in the wind - and that , maybe, just maybe, you're about to enter another existence in an unknown dimension. The other alternative is that you die and that's it. It then comes back to that realisation by some philosopher that goes some along the lines of - "if I believe in God and God does not exist - then , no harm done. If I don't believe in God and God does exist then...." You are faced with the same predicament as anyone else but ultimately your opinions won't help anybody else .

"I think that only when people mostly question religion itself and start to look at religion itself with science will we finally be able to truly have an opportunity to live with less strife." Yes - but again, this takes us back to the multimeter analogy above - science is only as good as the best instruments it has at the time. This question will be answered differently in 4,000 years time than it will be today. The vital point of the matter is to define what is meant by 'God'. Define your terms.

I think most non-Muslim readers have dispensed with the Old Man in the Sky fantasy of 'God'. Let's make it more personal - and something that is not outside any individual nor outside the experience of any individual and call it the 'ground of being'. Or existence itself. Humanities' great spiritual teachers and philosphers , Plato, Christ, Buddha etc have all said the kingdom of heaven (a.k.a. enlightenment) is within.

That's eminently sensible - where else would it be - where else would you look to solve problems that arise within one's consciousness .? If each individual is finding and experiencing inner harmony - by removing mental impediments to feeling whole and self-connected then they will reflect that in dealing with their immediate environment and other people. That is what will bring less strife in the world - when each person is actually experiencing inner peace. Being more centred and conscious , each person experiences the effects of good or bad action. He/she realises that if you act morally you're just helping yourself as well as those around you) and acting immorally you're just harming yourself(and maybe those around you).

No need here for an angry Allah or an avenging Mohammad or any need to wipe Israel off the face of the earth etc. etc. as some proponents of the Arabic belief system would insist on. It's very simple. Peace is an internal experience - not a political/scientific/religious mandate. And not when, as you put it - '.... look at religion itself with science will we finally be able to truly have an opportunity to live with less strife."' This is just one set of beliefs looking at another set of beliefs.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".