Science and theology

[kowalskil]

Those who were interested in my earlier post about NOMA are invited to read the modified version of

atheist

The last sentence of this short essay is: “Unresolved conflicts in debates about God usually result from absence of agreements on what the word God stands for."

Ludwik

 

[Chuckt]

Please explain.

 

[turzovka]

Those who were interested in my earlier post about NOMA are invited to read the modified version of

atheist

The last sentence of this short essay is: “Unresolved conflicts in debates about God usually result from absence of agreements on what the word God stands for."

Ludwik

I went to your link on atheism and read only the introduction, partially reproduced below.


Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists by Ludwik Kowalski, Ph.D.

Introduction

Futile conflicts between theists and atheists, often amounting to "we are better than you" confrontations, are common, as one can verify by browsing the Internet. Those who promote such poisonous conflicts are usually neither scientists nor theologians. Is it desirable to end such confrontations? Is it possible to end them? If yes, then how? I have posed this question to many online discussion groups, and here are some of the comments I've received:

1. "I don't mind coexistence with religion, but religious people seriously need to practice religion in their bedrooms only. As soon as you theists cross over the line and try to interfere with my life through politics, law, and lifestyle, then you can go shove it up you know where and expect no mercy from me."<>

2. "Organized religions are often guilty of trying to convert atheists and non-believers; this is not good. Atheists, calling themselves intellectuals, are not better. They also often try to convert believers."

3. "The focus on belief or non-belief is counterproductive for both sides of the equation. The corrosive element to the rhetoric of some modern atheists is pure arrogance, matched only by that of some theists."

4. "I am opposed to peaceful coexistence [with theists]. One does not halt a boxing match for fear of losing".

My comments:

On point # 1. Who is this guy kidding? As though godless atheism when applied to politics, law and lifestyle does not interfere with the lives of believers? This statement of his is pretty much a joke. If I as a Christian want to vote for a law that I believe better represents the morals of a Christian God, then I will use that basis to cast my vote. And you have a problem with me exercising my vote based on my own beliefs or reasons? Now you have a right to tell me how to vote?

On point #2. Translation: these atheists are thin-skinned and do not mind being bombarded by a million marketing measures on TV, print, in the public square for how to live their lives, spend their money, who to date and what to think. But if any of these marketers mention the word God, then they be damned as they have hurt one's sensitivities?

On point #3. That&#8217;s funny, I don&#8217;t seem to mind an atheist telling me what a fool I am. I rather like it.

On point #4. I do not follow #4. but it&#8217;s not much different that the others. I would suspect you or Mr. Kowalski would just cast my comments aside and continue on. So no harm, no foul.

Finally, I do not know what Mr. Kowalski's definition of God stands for, but if he is suggesting that Christianity doesn't know how to define God, he is mistaken.