Will there ever be no more need?

It's called cognitive dissonance.

Not true at all, and looking at these hardcore believers has value in regards to the overall exploration of people's "need to believe" in something.

The old ways die hard.

I lost three grandparents in 2009. One, my mom's dad, I was very close to. Three funerals, three times seeing that someone I had known my entire life, simply wasn't there anymore.

The idea that, in the end, we just are gone, no conscience carry over, just, that's it, well, it's terrifying.

Also, the older you get, the more loss and pain you endour, the comfort, even in the abstract, provided by religious beliefs starts to appeal.

I also think that a lot fewer people actually have faith, than those that want to. Meaning, the church provides a way for people with commonalities to socialize, even if they don't necessarily believe everthing the church says.

I don't know if any of this helps, but there it is.

I googled "belief in belief in god" since I remembered the phrase but not it's author (turns out it was Daniel Dennet). The first link I found was a pretty good blog entry that touches on your issues and questions somewhat:

http://positiveliberty.com/2006/04/b...ef-in-god.html

"And now," I said, "let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets."
"I see."
"And do you see," I said, "men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent."
"You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners."
"Like ourselves," I replied; "and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?"
"True," he said; "how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?"
"And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?"
"Yes."
"And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?"
"Very true."
"And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?"
"No question."
"To them," I said, "the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images."
"That is certain."
"And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?"
"Far truer."
"And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?"
"True, he now."
"And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities."
"Not all in a moment," he said.
"He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?"
"Certainly."
"Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is."
"Certainly."
"He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?"
"Clearly," he said, "he would first see the sun and then reason about him."
"And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the cave and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?"
"Certainly, he would."
"And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?"
"Yes, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner. "
"Imagine once more," I said, "such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?"
"To be sure."
"And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death."
"No question."
"This entire allegory," I said, "you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed."

Something about the cave parable being followed by your Celebrity Fingercuffing signature is so very right.

People are born and raised with certain beliefs, and people think that athesism leads to anarchy. Ultimately religion is a crutch for morals, which allows people to deny other people empathy. Why does religion still exist? Because it serves a political purpose for home team, and all sorts of other things that help keep people oppressed and repressed. Some people need to be repressed of course, but still.

really? What beliefs were you born with?

We went to church but not regularly. My brother trained in the Russian Orthodoxy to become a priest, I went the other way. I think that if you are raised with a certain belief system based on certain rules you tend to think that you have the most right, as Nitsztche suggests in Beyond Good and Evil. That which is closest to you is the most best. I think most people have problems thinking outside of their own belief system when it comes to religion, and probably outside of it to. But the main draw of a religion is the idea of greater authority. Father in the sky, literally in the biblical sense.

I think Jackson's issue is not the "..and raised" part, which is what you just described, but the "born" part. We aren't born with ANY beliefs, we're blank slates.

Thought experiment: Imagine a child born into a world where all of humanity and all of human knowledge and culture has vanished and is irretrievable. The world is a blank slate in a State of Nature. As he grows up, would he be able to derive, say, Christianity, solely from observing the natural world around him? Then what good is it as an explanation for or description of reality?

I'm flabbergasted* that allegedly intelligent and perceptive people are still flabbergasted that most folks believe in a deity and are frequently utter douches about worshipping that deity.

I'm flabbergasted because I expect superstitious and desperate** people to believe these things (since my 41 years on this planet have constantly reinforced humanity's general inclination to do so) but I also expect allegedly intelligent and perceptive people to recognize that if the majority of folks believed in God 100 years ago, and 10 years ago, and yesterday too, then the majority of folks will believe in God tomorrow, and 10 years from now, and probably 100 years from now too.

It's called being aware of your environment.

* I'm not really flabbergasted, more dismayed than anything, but I really like the word 'flabbergasted.'

** Desperate in that people who are scared and hurt are desperate for answers and security blankets. That may sound condescending but I really don't mean it that way.

Yeah, that was pretty much it, I understand the point that Dellamorte is making, so I was just being devils advocate.

And nekkerbee pretty much hit the nail on the head with his "desparate" explanantion. The world can be very painful, and the idea of mortality with no afterlife can just be way too much for most people I think.

They're blessing laptops in Britain.

It's comfort food for our inevitable ends, nothing more. I totally understand the way of thinking, but can't help but be an asshole about religion in general.

It's never going to go away.

That seems to be assuming that belief in religion and a supreme being necessarily entail a belief in the afterlife. Prior to the 1st century, most Jews didn't believe in an afterlife and some still don't. Some sects that self-identify as Christian don't believe in the survival of the self after death. Schools of Buddhism think that the afterlife is just an allegory for the grave.

I don't pretend to speak for anyone beyond myself, but what draws me to Christianity is the overarching message of the whole canon, as described by both Christ and Hillel the Great: "Love God with all your mind, all your heart, and all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself, this is the sum of the law and the prophets (Hillel goes on to say "all the rest is commentary"). I, like all people, am not always as kind, patient, and understanding as I would like to be and the image of the Suffering Servant both inspires me to try again when I fail to meet my standards and serves as a lesson in humility and the intrinsic worth of returning evil for good.

For what it's worth, Christ was no more a fan of the people who read the canon literally and fomented hate and intolerance than you guys are. Making that point is something he does repeatedly in the canon. "The Parable of the Good Samaritan" is the most potent form this message takes:

One guy goes by a man who has been savagely beaten and robbed but thinks the man dead and wants to attend services. Jewish law states that touching a dead body makes you unclean, so he walks past. A member of the clergy goes by for the same reason. However, a Samaritan stops and helps. Christ identifies the Samaritan as the guy who is praiseworthy.

Samaritans were both considered religious apostates and a persecuted racial minority. They were the ultimate outsiders. A modern retelling would fall along the lines of having Mike Huckabee, Rick Warren, and Dan Savage. Savage would be the guy Christ would praise.

Religion, like anything that sways the minds and emotions of human beings, can be extremely dangerous. However, it can also be extremely beautiful and a force for good. I submit to you that the people who believe that religion is always a bad thing are just as dogmatic as the faithful literalists they vilify.

For me Jesus is the way, because Jesus is who I wish was God.

For the record I believe that the dead sleep. At some point there is a Resurrection, but who really know when, and if you will be saved from sleep. I am personally undeserving of salvation, and that is why I need grace.

There is also who I wish to be, like Jesus, and who I really am.

Like Cuchulain, I like the whole Luke 10:27, but the whole agape think seem alien to the human condition. The whole' seeketh not her own' seem humanly impossible. The rest seem humanly implausible 'Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. '

I could also say I choice to trust in God , because I have no faith in humanity.

This is somewhat along the lines of Andre's post, but is much, much longer:

The Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar

If God created man then you have no faith in God, Hill.

1.1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

8.2 Thessalonians 2:3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.



You miss the point Dellamorte.

Will there ever be "no more need?" No. People are always going to be on different levels and playing fields when it comes to processing information. As such, people are going to have different "needs." Phil's right in that people need to believe in something, but it's the need itself that can't be put into a singular notion. Dre's right in that people need it as a moral crutch or a political platform, but to say that's ALL it is is short-sighted. While some people need religion as a way to oppress and repress, you have to look at why people allow themselves to be oppressed and repressed.

People need religion to make themselves FEEL better in a world that can be overwhelming. I'm reminded of an episode of SCRUBS where Dr. Cox was giving Laverne the business about believing in a superstition and she went into a story about how one year a flu epidemic hit and she had to watch how many ever children it was die. She needed religion as a coping mechanism. If she couldn't have faith that there was something bigger going on then she just wouldn't have been able to deal with it. That's understandable and a lot of people feel the same way. There's a lot of fucked up shit here and some people just can't shoulder the weight of it all so they turn to something higher. Does it make sense to ME? No. But I can see how people could use that to help themselves cope. The problem is that because they use it to cope they can allow themselves to be taken advantage of in the name of their coping mechanism.

People also need religion as a blanket answer for the basic things that they just aren't capable of processing. The universe and the galaxies and space and "Where did we come from?" etc and so forth - these are all huge, heavy questions and, let's face it, some people just aren't capable of thinking about them. Their minds aren't quite strong enough to parse it all, so they turn to religion and Creationism. It's kinda sad, yes, but it's understandable.

And yeah, there are some people who feel insignificant and hate it, so they use religion to prop themselves up. Gives them something with which to use to feel superior. In all honesty, a lot of your hard-core atheists do the exact same thing.

So yeah, people need something to believe in for a myriad of reasons. And because those reasons have EVERYTHING to do with that person's own ability (or inability) to think, feel and process information, then those reasons are going to continue to exist until humanity evolves to such a place where we're enlightened and those human errors and flaws no longer come into play. But until such time as that happens, the fact that religion is such a vague concept by nature, it will be used and twisted and turned and shaped to suit whatever needs a person has.

I kinda like it like this, honestly. The moment someone can IRREFUTABLY prove that the Mass-Marketed God doesn't exist, humanity is going to fucking implode. And it ain't gonna be pretty. If you wanna spin it a bit, kinda makes that whole "Anti-Christ/Judgement Day" thing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you have no faith in humanity and God made humanity, I'm talking simple math. Of course it's easy to say that the creator, who we do not know and have no real understanding of, is better than us.

It's not always used as a means of oppression and repression; in fact, religion has often inspired reform, protest, and revolution.

Well, that's the condescending way to approach it (but Scrubs probably isn't the best place for insight into philosophy - until someone comes out with one of those handy Scrubs and Philosophy books, at least!). Religion has also manifested as a framework for understanding the universe on an ethical level that ultimately comes to some of the same conclusions as rational ethical frameworks (while watching A Serious Man, it struck me that Larry's observance of Judaism, consistent with its stress on orthopraxy, has a lot in common with duty-based ethical systems like Kant's); just in a more colorful way.

Only certain religions (and certain practices of them) attempt to provide literal answers in this sense. To go back to A Serious Man - Larry's an observant Jew, yes? Yet the Coens don't give the impression that his religious beliefs conflict seriously with his apparently advanced understanding of physics. While he may have unanswered religious questions as to the fairness of life, moral duty, etc., his understanding of the physical properties of the universe are fully consistent with the way he practices his religion.

And this isn't all that unusual. When you get beyond the teabaggers and Islamic extremists, I don't think most people really expect religious texts to answer their questions about the specific physical nature of the universe.

True, although there's something to be said for culture's shaping religion in ways that make them particularly accommodating to people's needs. It can be an individual shaping or a cultural shaping.

The thing is you can't irrefutably prove or disprove something like God, so there's no such eventuality we have to worry about. Plus, religion isn't God. Hypothetically, a lot of religions would keep on trucking even with proof that there is no literal God - some don't rely on God being literal in the first place.

Absolutely on all counts. And the fact that you can refute everything I said kinda serves my poorly-worded point.

Though I do still need to see A SERIOUS MAN.

I think this is the part that sustains religions more so than fear of death with nothing after. I have no deep philosophical evidence to back this up beyond children as soon as they don't get their way moan "that's not faaaiiiiirrr". It happens a lot sooner than they start worrying about death etc. There's some weird tick in the human psyche that demands fairness, or to be more honest; getting what you feel you deserve. But life offers that up to virtually no-one. So the answer has to be that sure I'm not getting what I deserve now, but this is just my mortal existence once I'm a spirit I'm going to be content for for all eternity and this life will seem like a mere blink in time, and all those people who were in the way of me having my perfect life before well there all going to suffer for all eternity so the joke will be on them, the fools.

I always felt religion was derived as a control mechanism for masses of people by elite groups who want people to be kept in fear of having to eventually answer to a higher power for things they've done in their life.

I grew up in the church, dad is a minister, but I always felt out of place with religion and hated going on Sunday. I always knew it was horeshit deep down, it just seemed so obvious, that it didn't even need explaining.

I completely understand people's need to feel comforted in the wake of understanding their mortality. But I also think these people are weak and there's a certain amount of the population that is preyed upon to feed the economy, with religion being used as a sort of cattle prod (along with law)...I know why people go to church, and I know they're likely to be the same people who go get a cheeseburger after seeing a Carl's Jr. commercial.

Personally there's no way to be sure, but if we're talking truth, religion is horeshit, it always has been. But what then? What to do with your life? I'm still not sure, I simply think we're all some sort of consciousness having an experience, and that when we die, we just stop looking through the lens of the frequency we're on. I tend to find more validity in people's reports after near death (or death) experiences, reporting very similar things regardless of background or belief system...and those things are comforting.

There will always be a need for religion. Not by me, mind you but for the masses, most likely. It provides comfort, structure, answers to the (for some) scary unknown... It seems to me that people always needs a reason for everything. I meet people all the time that don't necessarily believe in organized religion but have strong beliefs in things they seem to have made up. Energies, a higher being that's NOT god or Jesus, karma, ghosts or whatever. They always go back to the old argument: "There has to be..."

Humans just can't stand the unknown. I find it all very odd personally.

I have purposely avoided the more cynical reasons others will throw out there regarding religions staying power.

Well it's impossible not to have a belief system, because existence itself is systematic...the difference is taking what you've been spoon fed most of your childhood and seeing it for what it is: obvious manipulation and doing away with it.

Now people who believe in energy, or whatever, it's a tricky thing because it seems just as silly. But anything that doesn't reinforce our 3 dimensional reality is going to have to be taken on faith, even with some kind of "evidence". Scientists can't explain quantum mechanics, because the laws of science break down when confronted with it, but it's still there, and it exists...is there a spiritual connotation involved then? Maybe. I think spirituality has nothing to do with religion.

I wasn't necessarily saying there is a direct connection between spirituality and religion. The connection was more in the faith fueled thought process behind choosing to believe in energies, karma and choosing to believe in a certain religion. In many cases these are simply people that are looking for or finding comfort in "answers". It's very common characteristic in people that leads many to be predisposed to accepting such things even when they haven't been spoon fed or grown up with the beliefs.

Of course there are many other reasons people are involved with religions. I'm just not as comfortable addressing them. I don't want to insult anyone on this particular issue or anything which is why I kept my opinion kind of limited to the thought process rather than the other numerous reasons religion still exists.

I know, I wasn't addressing that at all.

Like I said, it's impossible not to have a belief system...it's perfectly natural for people to adhere to beliefs that allow them to more easily make sense of their reality...equilibrium is a natural part of the process of existing...that includes realizing what's actually happening in existence, which is not entirely 3-dimensional and hasn't much to do with paying taxes or worrying about how you look. People on that quest get suckered into religion, which is simply a manipulation tool that fools them into a false sense of security, and keeps them a cog in the machine.

I find the "energy people" simply use more of a scientific method to explain their reality, and realize, as with quantum mechanics, some of it must be taken on "faith". I give them a pass because they're not tithing 10% of their income or damning homosexuals. They take what they can see, and what they can't see, put it under a microscope and use intuition. Intuition, ultimately, is the greatest tool in our box. It's what helps you survive, and make sense of your reality. It's what, at a young age, helped me realize religion was a scam, even though I couldn't understand or verbalize why at the time.

1) As someone who doesn't believe in organized religion, I still have to contend that "believing in God/religion/After life is somehow easier than being agnosticism/athiesm" rings false for me.

We base our beliefs, and intuition on what we can compare and contrast. For example, I can understand light and dark, because of their relationship, if you were to take darkness out of the universe, I would probably have no reason to see or define "light". Unless scientists detected it, I think the default notion would be that it just didn't exist.

Now when you approach difficult questions like a higher power, life after death, and so forth, I find it easier to just assume they don't exist - because they're concepts that are just beyond the realm of our current form of being.

Now that doesn't mean I disagree with the original poster, nor is this a defense of religion.

2) Another point I'd like to make is that, the confusion as to why people disbelieve in the tooth fairy, yet believe in God is simply because "fables" like the "Tooth Fairy" were presented as fables. There are all sorts of paranormal concepts that aren't presented as fables that people wholeheartedly believe in (ghosts, U.F.O abductions, etc.).

As for religious stories themselves, it's actually ironic because I think it's only in this day and age, that religious folk have become obsessed with literal interpretations of religious scripture. I think it was Karen Armstrong who observed that, had you gone to an ancient religious group, and asked them to prove the story of Noah, they'd be utterly confused, since the point of these stories was never their validity, but the ethical, and moral principles these stories teach.

However, with that said, I think it is possible that these religious stories are exaggerations, and mythologized accounts of real stories passed down through generations. For example, something like Noah's Ark, could easily have been an exaggerated account of a lone shepherd who saved his livestock on a ship, during a village flood. There were no proper historical records at the time, so exaggerating the story, and adding emotional beats and story structures could have been a way to preserve them.

You shouldn't find more validity in these. The overlap in these "experiences" is just as easily explained with our scientific knowledge of the brain and what happens to the brain during death/near death.

There's no reason to believe science and spirituality don't share commonalities. Just because science explains the brain doesn't mean you don't "go somewhere" after death.

Well, to address the first post, I'd argue that religion has been with us all along.

Communism and various other "secular" belief systems permeated the 20th century. Lenin and Stalin's bodies were put on display so the faithful could pay their respects.

The Nazi staged an annual event to commemorate the ghosts of 13 brownshirts who got shot at the BeerHall Putsch. (and the ghost were supposed to actually appear!)

Certainly the people who subscribe to these belief systems are every bit as strident as the Holy Rollers wobbling about the US these days.

Also when I read authors like Carl Sagan I'm struck by his spiritual beliefs in scientific method. I'm sure he'd argue that point with me, but he makes a leap of faith every bit as profound as a believing Roman Catholic Muslim etc.

Well I think science does require a bit of faith...atoms aren't solid, yet we and everything around us appear to be. And you could take the volume of a single hydrogen atom, which is incredibly small, and multiply it by the average mass density of the cosmos...and within the amount of vacuum contained in that hydrogen atom there is almost a trillion times as much energy as in all of the stars and all of the planets out to a radius of 20 billion light years. That to me boggles the mind, and I think at a certain point, both religion and science fail us, and spirituality takes up a bit of the slack...I emphasize again that spirituality and religion don't have much in common.

Let me argue on science's behalf in the faith debate here. Science, in no way, requires faith. All scientific claims are provisional and usually take this form: given our current understanding of x, we expect y to happen. If something other than y happens, they go back and revise the accepted understanding of the phenomenon in question.

Also, all scientific claims have to both provable and falsifiable. This is why prediction is the bedrock of empiricism. If x doesn't happen, it doesn't necessarily disprove an idea, however, if something opposed to x happens, it proves the null. Faith--the willingness to engage in belief in something despite lack of evidence--is literally the opposite approach to scientific inquiry.

I'm talking about the original impetus of a scientific theory requiring some form of faith and intuition that you're correct in your suspicions. Faith and intuition are not scientific. Every scientific breakthrough was the result of someone having a suspicion about the way something works and going with his gut when originally inspired to work on a theory...of course rigorous testing is required after that, but you get my drift.

I don't think a numinous experience--like Crick seeing the double helix in the smoke rings in his fire--is in the same category as faith. There seems to be an important distinction to be drawn between the numinous and faith.

A person who has a numinous experience and treats it as a matter of faith goes straight from a numinous experience to belief. A person who treats it as a matter of science processes it rationally with rigorous intellectual standards.

Oh sure, all I'm saying is there are some scientific concepts that when broken down are not very scientific anymore.

This post displays an epic lack of understanding of the Scientific method.

Well I'm not a scientist and didn't do too well with it in school, so I'll concede to that...just offering nuggets and bouncing ideas off people...this is what discussion is about. Instead of calling me wrong on an epic level and dipping out, you wanna offer something?

To even understand and use the Scientific Method one has to have an underlying belief that the Universe can be understood by rational means, and that the human mind can grasp the "rules" that govern the Universe.

Catholic Theology in particular posits that God gave humans a rational mind precisely so they could discern (and of course) admire Laws of Nature. In other words, Science originally was means to understand the majesty of God handiwork and thus a way to get to know God.

Oh yeah, that Nun that Pope John Paul II cured? Whoops!

I didn't know where else to put that, but it never ceases to amaze me the need to make 'Saints' out of mortals.

Loooong delay in my response to this. I kind of forgot about this thread.

I basically agree with THIS response you made. You said you find a certain type of information MORE valid than another type. I was merely stating that the experiences you were citing in no way should be considered more valid (in defense of some concept of after-life).

To me it would be similar to someone finding a foot print and saying, this could be a bigfoot footprint! Then a scientist points out that it looks like a large primate footprint from a species we know exists. The person then gets defensive and says, "well, even if it is, that doesn't disprove the existence of bigfoot!"

No... no it doesn't disprove that. It still involves someone hanging firmly onto a belief with no real evidence for it.

I think the main difference with people like Sagan who put their faith in the scientific method is that, regardless of the stridency of their belief in a concept or a leap of faith that they made, when faced with good evidence that would contradict what they believe, they are more than willing to accept the possibility that they're wrong. Pending thorough investigation, of course. Belief, or faith in science or a scientific concept is the starting point, not the resolution.

Faith in a religious concept rarely works the same way. It's true *because* you believe it.

I disagree with this completely.

1) I think you could completely understand and make use of the scientific method without that underlying belief. (But maybe you meant something like "trust" and not "understand and use" to which I would then agree.)

2) I don't know exactly what you mean by the "belief" that the Universe can be understood etc. The scientific method allows to make and test predictions basically. Nothing is ever proven, we just gather evidence and see if it fits.

On the one hand, the fact that we've built things like cell phones and wi-fi networks tells us that our theories at least provide useful and testable predictions about how (what we perceive as) reality works.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that we can't be certain of anything (including the existence of each other... maybe you are just a figment of my imagination), then I completely agree. But then there is no ground for science or religion to stand on.

I don't believe in a god/s, but I also understand that that doesn't constitute proof that s/he/it/they/ewoks doesn't exist. It seems that some here do.