What do you think about the relationship between science and religion?

Religion tells us what happened and why.

Science tells us how things happen.

Science can prove that the earth was not created in 7 days, yet cannot prove there isn’t a higher being.

I personally don’t see why science and religion should be compared. They are separate.
When I’m in trouble, I don’t pray to Einstein.

@DrBill fossils tell us what happened? Archeologists tell us why. no?

@cage
The bible does not use the same timeline as science.

I had a biologist T.A. tell us that atleast for him, it would be difficult to imagine science in absence of religion. I interpreted it as, without religion, it would be difficult to capture the beauty in what was happening on a physical level. And I have to say I would agree. I think like many social issues, there is no one theory that is considered right or wrong, but that the truth lies in the debate between them.

I think that, with or without a relationship, things will never be explained. Science tells us a lot and religious people believe that god tells all. The origins though, whether from science or faith, will never be answered. Where did the Universe come from? How could it have simply been there? Where did god come from? How could he have simply been there? There are no answers and I know in my heart that there never will be. I’m okay with that and focused on living life, because that’s all there is to do.

I think they are at odds when they don’t need to be.

@DrBill, you’ll find a large number of worshipers who do in fact hold the belief that the seven days mentioned are equal to today’s timescale.

As for how I personally see the relationship: there isn’t one. The scientific process, and the pursuit of knowledge altogether, is a work of magnificent beauty that has and will continue to shed light on some of the most interesting questions and things we find on our planet. In all of my experiences, religion is focused on maintaining traditions and ways of thought established in times way before our own, easily dismissing new ways of thought and new ways of doing something in lieu of maintaining the well established dogma, chastising or outright eliminating things and people who do not agree with their views.

To me, it boils down to science being the pursuit of knowledge with an eye on the future, and religion being the pursuit of tradition with an eye on the past. I’m a person who lives to learn a new thing, and someone who loves trying my own methods, so I am compatible with science and not religion.

@squiribel
We are not at odds, just two opinions conversing.

@dynamicduo
I find that I am compatible with science and religion.

Well for me, science is applied math. I figure if you’re going to butt heads about it , you might as well know what you’re talking about. Math is at the root of everything and explains a lot of things. One of the big debates in mathematics is the question of whether math has been created to attempt to explain things or if math exists and we just uncover more of it.

I’m of the believe that math exists in the world. Everything is explainable by math in some form or another, whether that’s mathematics, chemistry, physics…etc even if we haven’t figure it out yet. I believe that math is the language of the universe.

However, I believe that God is the real mathemetician. Math would not exist, there would not be these sets of rules for everything if it was all random. in fact, there’s advanced theories that say “under purely random circumstances, mathematics would not exist”

I think trying to understand science (math) is just another way of trying to comprehend the magnitude and splendor of God, whether that’s a conscious goal or not. Most people who believe in a [Christian] God, will tell you that they believe in an all knowing, all present God, but that’s a hard concept to grasp. The idea that God exists in everything can only be compared to the idea that math exists in everything. I’m not saying that God IS Math. I’m saying that God created math.

Science and religion don’t have to be different things.

@DrBill I never said they did, did I. I was using fossils as an example because they are more closely related to science than say, if I said, research into the reproduction of Egyptian artifacts etc.
I still think your original statement is a bit strange.
I mean, the laws of physics were created to explain how and why. Religion usually goes:
“it happens because god made it so”
Not the best ‘why’ if you ask me.

@Cage
fossils tell us what died, Archaeologists tell us where they died.

@DrBill yes, fossils don’t tell us that a giant species of reptiles ruled the planet, they don’t tell us they died out at around a similar time. They don’t tell us about evolution either I bet.
And I guess you’re right, archaeologists only job is to go “it died here”. They definitely don’t help progress science in anyway, just letting us know where things died. It would be useful if they did stuff like explain why things died or, say interpret old civilizations… oh wait…

i think people shouldn’t think that they can only exclusively believe in one. it’s possible to be religious but also understand and accept scientifically proven facts. i think a sort of humble attitude/willingness to alter your perspective of things is required to do that.

you must be open to both religion and science to get a true understanding.

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, the difference between religion and science is that science works.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church used to be one of science’s greatest sponsors. Even today, they support scientific research.

For a long time, science did not investigate anything that would contravene the teachings of the church. When they did, what with Gallileo and Newton, things began to get dicy. The church tried to suppress some knowledge by calling it heresy.

This was where the church and science started parting ways. Nowadays people who think the scientific method is the best way to gather knowledge, may also think that religion is not about gathering knowledge. Religion is about belief, which kind of has little to do with scientific knowledge, except to the extent that scientists have gotten other to believe incorrect conclusions based on their reputations.

Anyway, science will soon tell us where religion comes from and why it is so important to us. My theory is that it is a great coping mechanism. Humans who used science, I believe, had greater survival rates. Thus, evolution selected for humans who were curious, and who needed to know things about their environment.

The problem is that if you make a creature need to know things, then they feel acutely uncomfortable when they don’t know things. Religion, I believe, was developed in order to help us deal with that acute uncomfortability. There may also be a religion spot in our brains, or a religion gene in our bodies, just as there is probably a scientific spot in both genetic makeup and in ourbrains.

Anyway, both religion and science, I believe confer a survival advantage. And that is the relationship as I see it.

This is relating to a specific comment in the original thread, but I’m leaving it here too for topic’s sake.

@Introverted_Leo – you say, “Sure, but perhaps you don’t understand why some people feel they need God in the first place.”

It seems that science has also found some interesting things about that, too.

@laureth – I still say that link doesn’t really do anything but prove that a mechanism for having a religious experience exists in the brain. Since the brian is like the switchboard for the body, this would be a perfectly natural occurrence.

The scientists emphasized that their findings in no way suggest that religion is simply a matter of brain chemistry.

“These studies do not in any way negate the validity of religious experience or God,” the team said. “They merely provide an explanation in terms of brain regions that may be involved.”

In regards to the question asked, I think that science and religion are both needed for humanity to progress. Religion explains, through allegory and symbolism, what is still a mystery about the world around us and science codifies what we have discovered about the world around us.

@dynamicduo – I’m willing to bet that there is an even larger number of worshipers who do not believe in the literal word of the Bible. Also, not all religions are about focusing on the past and maintaining traditions at the cost of holding back progress towards the future.

@fireside: Why bet? One third of Americans believe the Bible is literally true.

I challenge your assertion that we need religion to attempt to explain mysteries through allegory and symbolism in order to progress. Indeed, I think religion’s attempt to use allegory and symbolism, rather than data and empirical studies, retards progress.

@nikipedia – ok, so if 31% of americans think the bible should be taken literally, then that means 69% don’t.

Maybe unchecked progress isn’t necessarily a good thing. The experiments done in Germany during the second world war sure brought our understanding of things to a new level. But maybe we could have done the same with slower progress. Who knows?

I just said that both were needed.

Weird, I thought those experiments done in Germany were the result of religious persecution.

I think there was more than just religion going on there.
Unless all Christians have blonde hair and blue eyes.
I always thought it was about power and some unresolved mommy issues, but i don’t really know.

I have difficulty seeing a true relationship between the two. In fact the only similarity I see between them is that each is used as a means to understand life and the world.

But from a strictly logical stand point, if all you wanted was a way to understand the world religion would never be the way to achieve it. And the reason is simply that religion starts out with the answer to every question and then attempts to defend those answers against what we can learn from actually observing the world.

Science on the other hand is a very good model for understanding the world. It isn’t based on a unquestionable doctrine, just a system of testing, observation and analysis. So they attempt to explain and account for natural phenomena and processes, rather than explain them away. It is of course true that science has been wrong in the past and will be in the future, but the their mistakes aren’t dogma. They are simply mistakes and when they are discovered they are re-evaluated or discarded.

Religion cannot ever discard the tenents delivered by God himself, for if they were to admit fault, that would undercut their God’s omniscience and omnipotence which would open up their entire doctrine to critical evaluation, and religion’s survival is dependent on blind faith, not critical thinking.

With this system religion can never truly be a good source of world understanding, because world understanding will all ways be second to religion’s need to justify the same beliefs that have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. That’s why the church couldn’t accept that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe, or billions of years old, or the theory of evolution. Each of those things are in direct conflict with Biblical text. Chances are most Christians today don’t have any issue with the first two, but the age and location of the Earth are no more or less in conflict with the Bible than the theory of evolution is.

The questions must come before the answers.

I can’t tell you how much more entertaining it is to ask the question rather than answer it. :P

Anyways, I just realized that my question would be more…congruent if I’d asked everyone for their thoughts on the relationship between “science and theology” rather than comparing apples to oranges. My bad. But the question still remains. I’m still interested to read other people’s thoughts on this, if there are more.

I think the problem I have with arguments for the usefulness of religion is that at the end of the day what seems to be being claimed is that religion provides answers to that which cannot be understood by science.

Such statements sound fine until you take a moment to think about it. The scientific method consists of collecting data from observations and experiments while formulating and testing hypotheses.

So if religion can’t make any observations, can’t test any hypotheses, etc.. then on what possible basis do they claim to “know” something? For instance, in 2007 after a three year inquiry by a theological commission the pope announced that the state of limbo may not apply. In other words, children who are unbaptised may in fact be able to go to heaven instead of being stuck in a state of limbo, thus ending 800 years of what can only be assumed to be torment for catholic mother’s who had lost their children prior to performing this ceremony.

Now on what possible grounds did this theological commission base their conclusions, and frankly, what had changed to alter their opinion? Let’s project ourselves into this theological commission and ask ourselves what “evidence” was behind this papal pronouncement and what stacks of relevant information could possibly have been placed before such a commission to weight the argument so finely as to take three years to come to a decision.

And here’s the problem. There is no basis for making such pronouncements. And if those of you who are religious protest by saying but “hey, that’s the Catholic church…our religion is never that silly”. Really? So on what basis do you make your claims?

Stepen Roberts put this view as such, “When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

The variation in religious belief around the world is a testament to cultural diversity and the imaginative prowess of the human mind, all within foundations based on untestable assertions which calm universal human concerns while often being politically expedient.

Relgion has no inherent self-correcting mechanisms or any even possible safeguards against error, actively encourages acceptance of unfounded assertion, while comfortably and self righteously dismissing equally vacous unfounded assertions held by other faiths.

There are those of you who will argue “yes but….science cannot offer ethical or moral guidance.” Well I suggest that a scientist, as a fellow human being, has as much chance of being right with regards to morality and moral guidance as any priest, rabbi, imam, or for that matter, any plumber, lawyer, or soldier. And frankly the sooner we remove the chains of 3000 year old dogmas (women are not equal, sex before marriage is immoral, homosexuality is sinful, stem cells have souls, we’re god’s chosen people and your’re not…“Nah nah”), the sooner we can have a truly modern discussion regarding the basis of happiness and ethics.

Religion does not clarify the numinous, and it does not offer insights regarding ethics or morality any more helpful (and often far less) than any democratic panel of intelligent, empathetical and moral individuals could do. Lack of religion does not equate with lack of ethical consideration.

None of what I have written denies that people find comfort in religious ceremonies, the kind words of a caring priest, the majesty of thinking beyond one’s existence, the calming guidance that codes of conduct can provide, the sense of community, and the promise of a better world beyond this one. But do not confuse the usefulness of religion or the reasons why people find comfort in religion with believing that religions somehow have a monopoly on providing the answers to certain questions or certain ethical issues.

The usefulness of the scientific method is limited to what can be known, and so is religion. They just prefer to pretend otherwise.

There is only ONE valid religious argument I’ve heard on this debate:
“hey, don’t blame us for insisting the earth was flat! That’s what the scientists thought at the time, too. It’s not up to religion to explain the world, that’s the scientists’ job. We just follow them”

This is the only excuse for the “flat earth” theory, the “made out of clay” theory, and the “god is an old man with a beard living in a cloud” theory. All of which are ridiculous ideas, made by puny mortals with a brain the size of a speck of dust, on an insignificant tiny little planet somewhere in a vast universe. Scientists come up with a new theory, which, when proven, increases our knowledge of the universe from 0,00001% to 0,00002%. And priests follow, even though it takes them centuries to do so.

So by the time all religions accept evolution as FACT (and it is in fact FACT), scientists will have eventually figured out how it works. Which will still not explain how amoebas formed in the first place.

What religion does, other than slowing down science, is trying to take a shortcut to the truth: religions go out on a limb and take a wild guess at how the world was formed and what gods look like. And hope that they might be right, which statistically speaking they have the exact same chance of being as the educated scientists.

A good book that deals with this very subject is The Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel. Personally I think some things in science can be used to obtain better understanding of the universe and can also be used with religion to answer questions.

I’m late coming to this tread, and was one of the vocal people on the previous thread. So hopefully what I comment on will make enough sense, as many of them are responses directed at @Introverted_Leo.

First of all, Science does also explain what happened, and why, as well as how. All I’ve ever seen religion do is attempt to find the “gaps” left by science and shoving a big god wedge in them. The typical “god of the gaps” argument. Just because we don’t know how something happened doesn’t mean god did it. As science has been filling the gaps. Not only has religion had to move god out of one gap and into another, they have had to change the definition of god. (ie. god no longer created every animal on earth, he now was the “brain” behind evolution. Evolution is no longer up to debate) If religion continues on this way, they will have no more gaps to wedge god in, and when they finally find that gap, the definition of god that has to fit in that gap will no longer be the god we claim to know now.

now for a few things from the thread

Religion can continue to make claims about things we know nothing about (this would be the inclusive we, meaning I, you and religion doesn’t know about). The problem is when religion starts to make claims that can be tested using the scientific method. As soon as that happens, religion must be willing to accept the results of the method. Science being non biased would have just as much of a chance to support a religious view as it does to counter.

To date, there has been no archaeological find that supports the exodus of Egypt by a tribe of Israelites. No camp sites, no mention of this tribe in texts from the surrounding cultures. This is not because we don’t have enough information, we have plenty of information about what was going on at the time but have yet to find mention of this mass exodus. If there were a tribe wondering the desert for 40 years, we would have found evidence by now.

Just because something can’t be seen by the naked eye, does no mean that it can not be tested using the scientific method. Prayer can be tested. And has been, and has shown not to work. We can also simply crunch numbers. If statistics were to show that atheist died in natural disasters at a higher rate than believers, that would be scientifically provable. It would be a scientific proof that religion had got something right. If there were fewer Christians in jail, than muslims, or jews, or atheists, it would prove that jesus may be our lord and savior.

My point is that religion and science are not exclusive. Science could prove religion just as well as it proves anything else. The problem has been that religion simply doesn’t hold up when tested. This is not a problem with science. This is a problem with religion.

@fireside (way up there)—you say, ” I still say that link doesn’t really do anything but prove that a mechanism for having a religious experience exists in the brain.”

Isn’t interesting that some people have a part of their brain that compels them to be religious? It wouldn’t matter if there is a True Religion or not, that doesn’t matter to this part of the brain. What matters is that some people are compelled to believe by their very anatomy.

You’re correct, too, that the author points out that it doesn’t disprove the existence of a True Religion. All this means is that, just like any other scientific inquiry, there might in fact be a True Religion. Similarly, it also doesn’t prove the existence of a True Religion. It’s a caveat, a red herring.

It makes me wonder, though, that if this structure in the brain didn’t exist or had another purpose, if religion would have sprung up at all. Of course, even if nobody believed in God, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, right? Similarly, if everyone believed in God, it doesn’t mean the belief is founded.

It’s sort of like finding that people are partial to salty, fatty food, and that explains why Big Macs sell so well. Some people are prone to a belief in God, which is why religion sells so well.

To me, religion is primarily about inner peace and community building.
If the God node provides that, great.

Who cares about a True Religion? I think there’s enough fighting in the world over that and It’s getting pretty old. People can play all the logic games they want if that is what brings them inner peace and community.

Who cares about a True Religion? All those people doing the fighting, and even some that are not.

Ok.
Too bad for them, i feel as though they are missing the point.
But that is just me.

I really doubt if telling that it is all in their head will reduce their passion.
Again, too bad for them.

@Noon: ”To date, there has been no archaeological find that supports the exodus of Egypt by a tribe of Israelites. No camp sites, no mention of this tribe in texts from the surrounding cultures.”

Um, that’s not quite true. There are numerous books written about this subject (the historian next door to me once lent me one, whose author and title I forget, as he is avid on the topic), and many historians and archeologists interpret the evidence to support the exodus. They claim there is evidence of a new people arriving in Palestine and areas south of there. There is some uncertainty as to whether the dates match up, but since there is patchy evidence, they are free to place their own (religiously-tinged) opinons in their interpretations.

They do have evidence of peoples taking over existing habitations (i.e., camp sites), and I think they also do have textual evidence that new tribes invaded the area within 200 years, give or take, from the time they were supposed to be in the area.

Interpretation of the evidence is arguable, and I had my own troubles with it, but you shouldn’t say there is no evidence to support the exodus.

I’m pretty sure I even heard of a plausible explanation for how they could have crossed out of Egypt, too.

Something about going to the right spot, near where they would have been, and crossing during the right tide, a land bridge of sorts appears.

One thing that has been obvious throughout these discussions, and others that have evoked heated debate, is that no matter how people view science, religion, and deities there is a fair amount of frustration, accusation, bitterness and stereotyping that is tossed around from all sides of the fence. Why? Not all people embody all of theses things all at once, of course, but they are all part of human nature; and we are all humans (I hope :P).

Why has science been helpful in understanding this? Because it can be directly observed and tested thoroughly. We all know studies have been done on human behavior, psychology, et cetera, et cetera…

That’s wonderful; and I don’t mean this sarcastically. Yet the fact remains that we have continued to exhibit these types of behaviors throughout our existence on earth, in spite of all the changes in technology and the evolutions and whatnot that have taken place. I suspect that’s a fair enough statement, yeah? I mean, can we say using science that there has ever been a notable length of time where man hasn’t acted so disagreeable?

So here’s something different to consider.

Is it okay, or beneficent, for people to continue to exhibit the behaviors I mentioned before, or even other similar or more elevated forms of these behaviors (the abuse of things that are typically thought to be “good,” murder, rape, etc.)? Why, or why not? How does a person credibly go about answering this question either way? What standard would one use to answer it: one’s own, someone else’s (divine or human), or some compilation made by man? If it is okay for humans to continue on like this, then would you view this as a hindrance to progress, or even evolution? And if it’s not okay, then how would one go about fixing this problem in themselves?

I actually think that except in exceptional circumstances, most humans are generally good to the point of us having specific words highlighting when in fact we encounter those individuals who lack empathy towards others (psychopath, sociopath). I also think for most of us our own moral compass based on empathy and reducing suffering is pretty effective. I don’t rape or murder or steal or beat people, Im not a biggot, racist, sexist, etc.. So I don’t think i have to fix my morality. My transgressions are minor and I consider them as such. When I have behaved badly in my youth I have learned and changed and moved on.

Anyways, The basis for morality appears to be with being a social primate. As other social primate appear to exhibit, to a greater or lesser extent, combinations of the following. Kin selection (favouring positive behaviour towards other individuals which are more closely related), reciprocal altruism (capacity to remember the actions of others and expect that favours will be returned, and in turn return favours), some acknowledgement and dependence on social standing (the knowledge that our playing by the rules and exhibiting certain behaviours promotes our standing in our society amongst others), and empathy (the necessity of any social species to understand how others perceive ourselves and others, and thus the capacity to place ourselves in anothers shoes, this appears to be linked to the development of empathy, or the capacity to feel pain because others are in pain). Other more distantly related species show some of these traits (eg. some bats exhibit complex reciprocal altruism).

Ultimately this appears to be the basis for much of our core ethics. By core ethics or morality I mean avoidance of that which causes suffering in other members of our group based to some extent on some of the above drivers. With recent civilization came the need to extend that which binds small groups together (150 people) to larger and larger numbers of people (1000s), many of whom would be anonymous. Language and unifying ideas and ideals, tribalism/nationalism, religious and state law, cohesive religion, access to resources, common enemies, etc….plus local culture, history, etc.., and you create within group common views for what is right and wrong that vary and meld over centuries to create the complex picture we see today between different societies. What is or is not moral is not universal.

So today there is a relativist aspect exhibited by the differences we see between different cultures regarding what is right or wrong , and yet there is a core aspect which appears to be for the most part universal, eg. intolerance of rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, etc..

So my view is that humans are general entirely capable of being good. the problem is where do we draw the line at who to be good to, in other words, how extensive is our circle of empathy. How do we convince the remaining nations and individuals that havent learned this lesson that killing other people is unlikely to increase their own security in the long run. Or that whatever resource gains may be achieved, there is a bigger loss. Now, there’s a small question….And frankly game theory studies suggest that within group altruism may increase when groups are threatened by external groups…hence the unity of societies under threat. This knowledge really makes answers difficult, because perhaps improving between group altruism can lower within group altruism…eg. we love our neighbours more when we are fighting or being fought by those who are not neighbours.

All I can suggest is that for modern western democracies there is no evidence to suggest that decline in religious observance has any correlation with a decline in core ethics. I think modern western democracies, such as the Scandinavian nations, are a prime example of the capacity of secular nations to be deeply moral societies which ensure (better than others to my knowledge on most counts) that members of their own society have standards of living, education, security, peace, freedom, and happiness which appear to be unrivalled in history. Furthermore, they demonstrate impressive generosity to other nations.

Perhaps we need to look at these and other successful peaceful societies and ask whether the answers they have found are to some extent applicable universally, and regardless of culture could result in a greater number of people’s happiness, if they freely chose it.

For those of you who are very interested about societies ability to “be right about right and wrong”, the following talk by Sam Harris on the role science can play in this discussion should be of challenging interest.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/sam-harris-1

@Critter38—Sounds a bit like The Monkeysphere

Neat link!!
…I found it a bit simplifying though…:)

“What is hard to understand is that it’s also impossible for them to care about you.”
I don’t think this is true, but perhaps it’s semantics in how the author is defining “care”. I think people do care when people are suffering, even strangers, but the magnitude and number of disasters and their frequent distance from our own lives overcomes the relative level of concern, as does our familiarity with their situation. I think it was far easier for many westerns to relate to Indian businessmen and hotel staff being blown up in Mumbai, than it is for us to relate to terrorist blasts in Afghanistan that may take the same number of people. I guess that’s a product of empathy, if we can’t relate to lifestyle (mudhuts versus hotel lobbys, code of dress (business suits versus simple cloth wraps), appearance, type of work, religious views, etc…it makes it harder to empathize. The only thing I think that sometimes overcomes this is if we ourselves know the country and people (through travel) or we spend enough time trying to relate…at which point the similarities can cut through the superficial differences (love of family, need for necessities of life, food, water, shelter,e tc…). It’s like I care more when something happens in Bolivia than when something happens in Jamaica…I’ve never lived in Jamaica. And frankly we just care more about ensuring our kids are well fed, rather than ensuring 100 kids in Africa are fed at all. It’s like Sam Harris says, would the world actually be a better place if we cared just as much for a strangers kids as our own..? I doubt it.

Also neat to see what happens to complete strangers when a common threat is identified…eg. New York, 9/11…suddenly the circle of empathy grew within the city (complete strangers were united…) and shrank to the borders of the U.S.

Lack of action doesn’t equate with lack of empathy.

The 150 figure has been around since the late 80s early 90s I believe (wrangham or Dunbar did the work I think). I once heard it explained as the number of people we could accidently run into at a restaurant and feel comfortable joining them for dinner. I can’t say I’ve counted…The Ancestor’s Tale by Dawkins has a great diagram showing the correlation of brain size and group size.

Simple yeah, but it gets the job done when I’m trying to explain that phenomenon to people. And you raise a number of very true points, too.

Funny, I care more about Jamaica than Bolivia because while I’ve never been to Bolivia, I did vacation for two weeks in Jamaica and met a number of local folks.

I know that there’s a “moral support” aspect to empathy that might do good things for the person feeling the empathy, but to the “starving children” who don’t know there’s an outpouring of moral support for them, might as well not exist. You can’t eat empathy, and there are times when what you need isn’t moral support, it’s belly-filler. Similarly, no matter how empathetic I felt toward New Yorkers after 9/11, I never did invite one into my home or provide medical assistance or identify a loved one’s remains. From a New Yorker’s point of view, my empathy did not a whit of good, and in a way, they might have found it “impossible” that I was caring for them. Results matter.

Agreed. But I guess the point was not whether it helped, but whether people are generally “good”. To me even a wealthy person who looks after their kids, helps out at the school functions, recycles their garbage…whatever, the average middle class joe in say Canada or Germany (who is wealthy by global standards), is still a good person whether or not they ever give to charity. They may not be as generous as their neighbour who does give, but they are still fundamentally good, they just have a smaller circle of empathy….

Would it be better if we could expand it. Yes, absolutely…and I do agree…feelings are nice but without action they don’t change much.

@daloon
Just to cite my sources for the Exodus comment.

This is taken from Victor J. Stenger’s book “God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”

’’According to the biblical account, six hundred thousand Jews participated in the escape from Egypt. Even if this is wildly exaggerated, Finkelstein and Silberman argue that some archaeological traces of their wandering should have been found by now, Despite extensive searching, ‘not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has even been identified in Sinai.’(1)
Finkelstein and Silberman note that modern archaeological techniques are capable of tracing even the very meager remains of small bands of far more ancient hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. They say, ‘The conclusion—that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible—seems irrefutable.’(2)”

(1) Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: Free Press, 2001). p. 62
(2) Ibid., p.63