I recently watched a video that brought up a few interesting points on the origin of Christianity and the Bible. The information was presented by David Fitzgerald who received a degree in history at the California State University and has been studying the historicity of Jesus for the last 10 years or more. Some of his points are as follows:
No historians or authors that lived during the time of Jesus wrote about him or any of the many amazing things that should have been recorded if people were taking notes. It wasn't until about 100 yrs after that people started writing about his life.
The people who are often stated to have been witness of Jesus all lived way after he had died.
Quotes by Flavius Josephus in his book Antiquities of the Jews (93-94AD) that support the historicity of Jesus are generally accepted by the scholarly community as forgery.
There were more than 40 gospels written but only 4 made it into the Bible because they beleived the earth was flat and held up by 4 pillars.
Interesting information that may require more investigation.
When the majority of people think of someone that is absolutely brilliant I would dare say that they think of Alert Einstein. I recently stumbled on a few quotes that give us some degree of what he thought about God and Religion. It is interesting to note that today depending on the field of science, the majority considers themselves either agnostic or atheist. What does good old Albert have to say?
The following excerpts are taken from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979.
From p. 39 On 17 July I953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein in Princeton a warmly appreciative evangelical letter. Quoting several passages from the scriptures, she asked him whether he had considered the relationship of his immortal soul to its Creator, and asked whether he felt assurance of ever lasting life with God after death. It is not known whether a reply was sent, but the letter is in the Einstein Archives, and on it, in Einstein's hand writing, is the following sentence, written in English:
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
From p. 40 In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said:
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
Part of a letter to Eric Gutkin in 1954 (1 year before Einstein's death).
... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and `rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes
Yours, A. Einstein.
I guess he falls into the same category as most scientists when it comes to concepts of god and religion.
I have heard many people say that they compartmentalize science and religion separately. I think that this is done because both are different ways that man uses to explain our surrounds and often times they conflict. Why should these two fields of thought be compartmentalized? Assuming that there is a God who controls this whole world like the majority of the world population thinks, the two should go hand in hand. Science should confirm the things of religion. When science and religion don't see eye to eye on certain things then it can only logically lead to one conclusion; at least one of them is wrong. Both of them could be wrong, but both cannot be right. So where do we put our trust? Many view God, the leader of their religion, as an all knowing, all powerful being that far surpasses our intellectual capability. This view, assuming their religion actually is led by god, has caused many to reject science concluding that man's finite mind cannot understand the things of God and therefore we should trust only our religion and be very skeptical of science when a conflict arises. Who is to say that God doesn't have his hand in science? Assuming that god is the source of all truth, he has his hand in anything that presents truth. So which can and should be more trusted? I believe science, and here are some reasons why.
First lets get some definitions as to what science and religion actually are:
Religion: An organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality. -Wikipedia
Science: A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. -Wikipedia
Reasons why science should be trusted over religion:
Science will admit that they are wrong Sitting a pharmacology class a few years ago the teacher emphasized that only about 50% of the things that he would be teaching us was true. He went on to point out that the problem was that he didn't know which 50% it was. Compare this to religion where people will stand up and say, "I know my message is true". Science is a process of hypothesis and tests. Hypothesis are basically logical guesses as to why something is the way it is. Hypothesis are always followed by tests that either confirm or reject them. Science isn't ever presented in a black and white view but rather as a probability to be further evaluated. Being unable to accept the fact that the way you see things is wrong creates a system that is extremely vulnerable to falsehoods.
Science welcomes critical examination. Before a researcher's work can even be published in a credible journal it must be reviewed by multiple experts in the field. They ensure that the information that is presented is built upon principles that are supported by previous research and that if a concept isn't supported it is clearly stated to be an unsupported assumption. They present the exact method of how they performed their test, a discussion on how they interpreted their results and their conclusion. Once published this information is invited to be tested by other researchers and built upon. If the test included bias' or errors they are discussed publicly. Religion on the other hand completely discourages and avoids doubtful questioning. They focus only on information that supports their case and promotes faith. Not allowing critical examination and refusing to admit that they are wrong opens up religion to conformation biases which produce false information.
Science is a worldwide effort not lead by one person or group. There isn't one person or organization that dictates what science should look into or accepts and rejects things. Science is a worldwide effort. Ideas are presented, evaluated, confirmed, repeated and build upon by completely separate organizations. Religion on the other hand is most often lead by one group or person. This person claiming to be closer to god that all others because they were chosen to be some sort of mouthpiece for god or enlightened. Allowing someone to be a leader and not critically questioning what is being said makes one extremely vulnerable to false information and abuse.
Science is testable. Science is a process that quantifies information. The process of science is used to investigate everything, including aspects of religion. My belief is that this world is controlled today by the same laws and powers that have existed since the beginning. Claims from long ago can, and should be, tested today. Religion is based on things that are not testable, not verifiable and stated as truth. Testing things of god is discouraged in many instances. Religion is based on happenings that were recorded long ago in limited detail from unknown sources at unknown times. Not being able to, or allowed to, test aspects of religion makes one vulnerable to accepting false information.
One can reject religion while not rejecting the concept of God. However, when it comes to learning about our universe (which in doing so should help us better learn about God) I believe that placing our trust in only religion puts people at great risk for rejecting or avoiding information provided by science that helps us better understand our surroundings. For those who continue to include religion in their life the balance can be difficult and I wish you the best.
I have always seen the world in a very real sense. Miracles aren't just miracles but had to occur due to some sort of physical interaction. I have felt that the "spiritual side" of the world had a deeper more physical explanation that the current understanding of physics and chemistry couldn't explain, but that with a perfect understanding could be explained scientifically.
I stumbled onto some awesome presentations that support this previous feeling. They cover the concept of all matter being ultimately created from only a few basic really small particles.
The simple explanation......
A more in depth explanation.....
A beautiful theory.....
I don't really claim to understand the details of the concept but the information is mind boggling.
Since moving from the bubble of Utah to the San Francisco Bay Area I have met many people who are homosexuals. None of these people have fit the picture which I painted in my head, or had been painted for me, previously as to what these type of people were like. The entire idea of being attracted to the same sex was previously always seen as a sin or a weakness that would prevent the person from gaining all that life had to offer. I saw it as something similar to an addiction or weakness to a substance like alcohol or drugs. This view was largely, if not totally, based on religious influences in my life that stemmed from biblical teachings that condemned these types of actions. My experience has been that these people were simply that, people. They just had a bit of different wiring as to what they were drawn to. They are happy, smart, good hearted people that I actually enjoy being around most of the time.
As is the case lately, I been looking at my previous assumptions and seeing what truth there was to them. A few things.
Research has shown that people are not just gay or straight and that there is a gradient of sexual orientation among our population. Back in the 1940's Alfred Kiney interviewed many thousands or people obtaining what he called sexual histories. His work was foundational to the field of sexology. He created what has been known as the Kinsey Scale, shown above, which divides human sexuality into 6 different categories depending on sexual attraction. It is an interesting topic and his work as been the spring board for further scientific investigation.
Homosexuality Isn't a Conscious Choice
An interesting video that I recently found showed the prevalence of homosexual activity in nature. This refutes many of the statements that say that it isn't natural and is just a choice. Animals are driven largely by instinct and this video shows that homosexual instincts do indeed exist in nature, and are more prevalent than I ever thought.
Homosexuals Doesn't Have a Negative Effect on Society
Homosexuality is often put in the category of a disorder that is damaging to society. This is a huge false assumption. It isn't a nuclear family but homosexual parents can raise children offering love and every advantage to that child it needs to be a contribution to society. Mr. Granderson gives some great thoughts on the matter.
I personally see no reason why a person that was born to have same sex attractions should be treated any different in society. They should be respected and treated just the same as those that are heterosexual. The idea from the Bible that this is an evil or impure way to live is absurd and should be discarded or reinterpreted. Why would a God create homosexuals of all species and then tell them that they can't have the type of love that they were programmed to have.
