How can one not be smug and condescending (and angry and exasperated) at people such as this (and who wield power!)?
Interesting take, Carl. I side more so with Dave politically but I respect your input.
Paul Greblo

You don’t understand science OR religion. That makes you the dumb one not your senator or whatever.

Even Einstein said he had no need for the assumptions of religion. What he meant was that science doesn’t DISPROVE religion. It is that science operates on the assumption that God doesn’t exist and tries to understand the world without such a construct.

Religion simply is about faith. Many smart people can believe there is a god and that either science is true and simply how a god created the world to work at some point, maybe 5,000 years ago or whatever.

While this seems disproven by science it isn’t. It is possible that a god put everything as it was 5,000 years ago. In other words, by using science you cannot disprove the existence of god or that the world was made as it was by such a force. Believe me, many have tried.

My argument against god is that having this construct doesn’t explain anything. Whatever rules the universe has by saying that god created them only then pushes the problem up a level. What are the rules of God’s universe. He must similarly have some rules.

There are other circumstantial arguments against god. For instance, why would god want us to worship it, repeat prayers, care about our sex life or masturbation for instance? Why would any god if near infinite power need humans to act in such arbitrary ways? This either makes god less than worthy to be “loved” or unlikely because the rules seem stupid. It’s not a proof but I would call it circumstantial evidence.

Your condescension of religious people is extremely dumb. Science doesn’t understand very much. You are making an extreme leap which most scientists should not make which is that they really know the fundamental nature of the universe. Any good physicist will tell you our basic theories of science are flawed and contradict experiment when some scale is reached. This tells us that they are wrong fundamentally. We don’t yet have a theory of everything and thus ultimately we don’t know what really the universe is like. The more you know about physics the more you understand that our fundamental understanding of the universe is very wrong.

Consider Newton didn’t know about electromagnetism, the periodic table and electrons and protons, the strong force, etc. His concept of the universe was COMPLETELY WRONG. On the other hand his theory can still be used today to build buildings and bridges and do most engineering. In one sense it is useful but Newtonian physics was wrong. Our physics today we know has gross flaws. Such flaws mean that god could be there somehow. A physicist alone cannot disprove god. Thus you are speaking from an uneducated and naive understanding of science and religion.

I also think what you are saying is rude and disrespectful of potentially very good people. Just because someone disagrees about some science issues doesn’t mean they are wrong about everything else. You are wrong about lots of things. (So am I by the way. Everyone is.) Does that mean we should immediately discount everything you say? You are taking an arbitrary unrelated point of “disagreement” and trying to use that to argue against all his positions on everything. That’s mean and hateful. Why not agree to disagree and consider that some people may be wrong about some things and still right about other things? Because you hate them. It’s not rational. It is just hate.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated John the TIB’s story.