Comments about ‘An age-old battle between hope, despair’

Either there is an afterlife or there isn't. Neither hope nor despair will change what actually exists.

Sorry Jay, but despair is not the natural result of not believing in an after life. This is the intellectual mistake most conservatives make when discussing most life issues, politics included. Either something is one thing or it is another.

Life can be a very wonderful and rich experience even if one doesn't believe it will go on forever. To feel despair in this life for not seeing a loved one again you should also feel despair for not having known your great great grandmother, who by all accounts was a wonderful person. You can convince yourself that you will someday see both of these dead relatives again, but despair is not the emotion most atheists feel for not believing that.

I hope that people won't craft double negative sentences and dispair when they do.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

― Marcus Aurelius

'Nuff said.

Most people believe that there cannot be a watch without a watch maker. I even believe that a book with printed pages, all the same size, thickness, and all neatly stacked, and bound, with comprehensible sentences, paragraphs, chapters, footnotes, and a rational development of a subject, cannot have appeared by chance. And you, scientist and plebian alike, believe exactly the same. Don't you?

Still, we are told, "scientists" believe that mankind and the complex animal,vegetable and protozoan creation happened by accident and, by the way, they tell us it was the same with the universe. I am led to the firm opinion that ordinary people are more scientific in these fundaments than are self-styled, and even university accredited, men of science.

Gildas,

Please take some biology, geology, chemistry and physics classes. Try arguing your "watchmaker" point of view there and see what happens. You'll be surprised.

Above all, please learn to think critically based on objective evidence. You're not doing it now.

@ Blue.. I must have attended different biology, geology, chemistry and physics classes than you did. What I learned is that all science is fleeting, changing and evolving. Everything we think we know will eventually be proven to be either competely wrong of at least incomplete! Science offers mostly theories! I guess I was surprised but not too much really!

@Blue

You're becoming one of my favorite posters. I love the way you set up questions that are so fun to answer.

"Please take some biology, geology, chemistry and physics classes." You say.

Done! I have in fact taken classes in biology, chemistry and physics. Funny, though, none of the classes I have ever taken in the sciences or arts has ever knocked the common sense out of me.

As for Geology I know that it is skewed by a preference for the theories of "gradualism" and "uniformitarianism" and an irrational distaste for "catastrophism". With a little sense and intelligence most people would conclude that gradualism is what usually happens and catastrophe is what sometimes happens in geologic as well as in other scenarios.

I agree with Blue, Gildas..you have it exactly backwards.

@glidda

"Happened by accident?" Did you actually pass your classes? you Jay and mountainman can continue to misrepresent science but reality does not change based on your not so "common sense."

Religion is good. The hope that it provides helps people get through this sometimes very hard life with a little bit of happiness. It doesnt really matter in the here and now whether its true or not. Believing is what gives us the benefit.

When we die we will either have joy or not. If religion is true we will have joy, if religion is false, we wont know it.

The downside of religion in the here and now is that its leaders often use it to oppress, control and otherwise own the world. If you set aside the belief in God, what you see in religion is a wicked, evil, greedy, tyrannical dictatorship designed to oppress and control people. Probably there have been more people killed and enslaved by religion than any other reason.

I think that if religion were not so aggressive and unreasonable in their manner they would not create so much hate and opposition to their cause. Like in the ownership of words like marriage and Christmas, and the insistence of placing crosses along the highway.

Christmas is a holiday for people to enjoy, it is not owned by anyone.

Gildas: "Funny, though, none of the classes I have ever taken in the sciences or arts has ever knocked the common sense out of me."

So what you're saying is that you didn't learn anything.

Is Earth billions of years old, or not?

Do the combined processes of random mutation and natural selection cause speciation, or not?

Isn't understanding reality a worthy pursuit?

Look, I firmly believe in sharing healthy traditions that strengthen community and family bonds. I love Christmas because of its capacity to bring people together in a joyful celebration of the importance and power of interpersonal relationships and the happy anticipation of our world making another orbit of the Sun.

But I also know that Santa Claus is a construct, that reindeer don't actually fly, and that what we celebrate next week is a conglomeration of pre-Christian solstice celebrations that have only recently been appropriated by religion for religious purposes.

God has a sense of humour. That's what I've learned.

@ the Author: Jefferson, like many of our Founding Fathers saw religious belief as an intensely personal belief and as such, they recognized the need to safeguard it. This is why we have the Establishment Clause and why they would be appalled by so many attempts by government officials to both exploit religion and to help lord one over everyone. Whether the nativity scenes displayed on government property are "tradition" or not, they are unconstitutional if they are the official government display, the only display, or more prominently displayed than other displays; therefore, non-Christian organizations who have fought to have displays along with nativity scenes have not "co-opted" anything.

I must also echo others' objection to your inaccurate portrayal of non-believers as despairing and lacking hope. Not only do atheists believe life matters, but I would say we believe it matters more since the religious see it merely as a stepping stone to a better one. If you honestly believe there's another, better life awaiting you, how could you possibly appreciate this one as much as someone who believes it's the ONLY one?

@ those lacking understanding in Science: The fact that science can correct itself is not it's flaw but it's greatest asset. To never consider new facts, new discoveries, and stubbornly and unquestionably hold to ancient beliefs, especially when they can be proven to be flawed or outright incorrect is the height of foolishness.

The origins of life and the universe are not considered by science to be mere "accidents". To say that is the position of science is to reveal one's lack of understanding of science. To say your study of science never displaced your "common sense" and you describe that common sense as a failure to understand how science works or the difference between the colloquial use of the word theory and how that word is used in science may sadly be common, but it's far from sensible.

@Blue

What does the age of the Earth have to do with anything you and I have discussed on this thread?

I did indeed learn a great deal in science courses but it made sense to separate scientific fact from scientific theory. I questioned theory from the very beginning; after all these were science courses and required a scientific approach. What could not be demonstrated to the physical senses was scientifically questionable.

Of course most students simply learned the theory and facts indiscriminately and regurgitated them at the appropriate exam. As Donald Johanson wrote in "Lucy:The Beginnings of Human kind" page 146: Students tend to believe what you tell them.

@PhillyChief:

I must say I have never, so far, been impressed with much that is enlightening coming out of Beverley Hills. To be fair though I read your posts and, in my opinion, your misunderstanding of the Constitution at least equals your opinions of what "science" is.

...I heard Dr. Laura state once that she did not believe in hope. She's off the air now. When hope comes off the table then only despair is left. I hope that even the atheist can find a reason to hope... "but with God all things are possible." Jesus Christ.

Very timely and appropriate article. Thanks