Well I think it’s about time, time for me to de-convert from de-conversion.  In other words, this will be my last post on this blog.  But before I post, let me just say that I have thoroughly enjoyed my time contributing to this community.  Back when I was more active with the site, I thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth discussions between various visitors.  For the most part they were very respectful and full of great passion, logic, and philosophy that I found to be quite entertaining.  Of course, sometimes they would turn sour, but that is bound to happen now and again when religion is the topic .  Unfortunately though, I am so busy with work and other pursuits that I cannot give the website the justice it deserves.

Seeing how this is my last post, I want to ask you to bear with me on this one.  Don’t worry, I’m not going to get all “preachy” and try to convert you… that’d be impossible anyway, I think we both know that.  In fact, of all the posts that I did, my goal was never to get any of you to come back to religion – more or less, my aim was to offer a voice for the “other” side.  This post will not be any different, and it will try to sum up the main point I tried to emphasize is all of my posts.

During my time with De-Conversion.com (at one time, AgnosticAtheism.com), I found one overarching aspect a bit disturbing.  Many brilliant people wrote (and still write) on this site offering many facts and theories on religion and God.  This is fine, and I never was upset with these posts or their topic.  No, instead what I found the most troubling was the over generalization of religion.  Friends, religion is very complex, and I have always been one to believe that theology can’t be reduced down to a bumper sticker (i.e. “Jesus Saves”… ugh, gag me).  I find it interesting that many of the de-converts on this website usually stem from a once fundamentalist version of *insert religion here*.  As a result, the fundamentalist viewpoint is what is usually attacked (and rightly so) in many of the posts and in the comments section.  But folks, this particular view on religion is far from the only one.

I think I’ve made it clear where I stand on this many of times:  Fundamentalists need to wake up – and on that I think we can definitely agree.  Reading the Bible literally is quite the disservice to Christianity.  Doing so only creates contradictions, and what does the fundamentalist do when he/she encounters a contradiction?  If you said, “blindfully believes it even when they know it can’t be true”, then you are following me.  Their religion is like a Jenga tower.  You pull out one of the blocks and the whole thing comes crumbling down.  The fundamentalist can’t risk one of the blocks being taken away, so they ignorantly defend that block to the bitter end… and in the process they look pretty damn foolish.  I think this is why I see so many atheists attacking fundamentalist religion – they are trying to destroy that one block so the rest of it inevitably comes crashing down.

Many of you likely came from a fundamentalist background.  You went to church and would hear things that didn’t quite make sense with how you saw the world working.  This conundrum inevitably let you to turn away from religion altogether.  Your Jenga tower could no longer stand without all of its blocks, and this of course is no fault of your own.  However, religion should not be viewed like a Jenga tower, but instead like a trampoline.  You see, with a trampoline, you may have one spring break, but you can still keep jumping.

Friends, I am still jumping – some days a little higher than others, but still enjoying the bounce.  Do I question things?  All the time.  Does religion always make sense?  No.  Does life always make sense?  Hell no.  But I will leave you with a bit of food for thought that I ask you to take to heart, something that I think can sum up my perspective on all of this God business…

The world’s religions may not very accurately answer the question “How?”, but they are definitely on to something in regards to the  question “Why?”

Take care everyone, thank you for attention over the last couple of years.  Paul, you can now move my name to the “Former Contributors” list

- Justin

Posted in Justin Tagged: christianity, religion ]]> http://de-conversion.com/2009/04/05/de-converting-from-de-conversion/feed/ 31 Justin Justin http://de-conversion.com/2008/11/29/spirituality-re-defined/ http://de-conversion.com/2008/11/29/spirituality-re-defined/#comments Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:25:02 +0000 Justin http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/?p=2282 Christian Commentary

I would like to take a quick moment to say hello to everyone. It has been a while since I have posted on the blog as I have been quite busy over the past few months. I hope that the regulars that come here are doing well...if you're a first timer, then welcome and enjoy the great posts written by some very intelligent people - that being said, let's continue with the post.

I got the urge to write on this after remember something I read on this blog many months ago. It wasn't necessarily a post, but a comment by a visitor stating that he (or she, I can't really remember), was not spiritual and that it was impossible to be so (spiritual that is). I am here to shed some light for the open-minded: Yes, even an atheist can be spiritual.

Take a moment and forget everything you think spirituality is... whatever connotations you have with the word, rise above them for the time being. The thing about spirituality is that it takes practice, but it isn't necessarily hard. Many atheists are just lacking practice, but don't worry, I have a few suggestions.

You see, spirituality isn't that complicated, and for many people, it doesn't involve a big white light or booming voice from above. No instead, it is an elevation of human thought; a supreme awareness that every human on this earth has the ability to tap. Like our physical bodies, our spiritual muscle can become stronger the more we work it out...

Christian Commentary

I would like to take a quick moment to say hello to everyone. It has been a while since I have posted on the blog as I have been quite busy over the past few months. I hope that the regulars that come here are doing well…if you’re a first timer, then welcome and enjoy the great posts written by some very intelligent people – that being said, let’s continue with the post.

I got the urge to write on this after remember something I read on this blog many months ago. It wasn’t necessarily a post, but a comment by a visitor stating that he (or she, I can’t really remember), was not spiritual and that it was impossible to be so (spiritual that is). I am here to shed some light for the open-minded: Yes, even an atheist can be spiritual.

Take a moment and forget everything you think spirituality is… whatever connotations you have with the word, rise above them for the time being. The thing about spirituality is that it takes practice, but it isn’t necessarily hard. Many atheists are just lacking practice, but don’t worry, I have a few suggestions.

You see, spirituality isn’t that complicated, and for many people, it doesn’t involve a big white light or booming voice from above. No instead, it is an elevation of human thought; a supreme awareness that every human on this earth has the ability to tap. Like our physical bodies, our spiritual muscle can become stronger the more we work it out.

But you think spirituality is too vague? It really isn’t. Spirituality is without material existence but existing in contemplation. It is powerful simplicity.

I have likely elicited a couple responses to what I have written thus far. Some of you may be thinking, “man this guy is delusional, what kind of hippie crap is he talking about?!” … well, in my opinion, those of you with this thought pattern are actually just intellectually weak. You have unfortunately came to the decision to not fully utilize the most powerful aspect of humanity.

Some of you may be intrigued and want to know more… or at the very least, I have said something that you neither agree nor disagree with (or just don’t care). If this is you, then I applaud your willingness to move beyond stereotypes and predispositions… quite a rarity today it seems. But you may be thinking, “how is it that I become spiritual… or at least try it?”

Well here is a good way to exercise your spiritual muscle. I enjoy this little exercise because it doesn’t take much effort… The next time you finish a run (and if you don’t run, it’s about time you start working your physical body too), sit down in the grass, close your eyes and become aware of your body at work. As you catch your breath, you will be able to feel the blood being pumped through your veins, your heart will echo within your ears, and you will become very aware of the sound of your breathing. Take deep breaths (eyes still closed) and let them out slowly. You will be surprised at what you “feel” as you sit quietly extending your mind.

By just doing this little exercise, you have elevated your awareness. Sure, it’s not by much (you’re still only focussed on yourself) but it is a great starting place to continue and build your spirituality. In no time, you will begin to experience an elevated conscienceness that is overwhelmingly powerful, and undoubtedly full of love – because it’s once you experience love that you have experienced God… no matter how you define it.

Until next time.

Justin

Posted in Justin Tagged: religion, spirituality ]]>

I can’t count the number of times I have heard this ‘argument’ on the internet from amateur atheists. Naturally, the more seasoned of us know that this is simply not true, but it seems to be a staple in atheistland that the newcomers love to recite.

I am not naive to the fact that religion is probably the reason most used to justify conflicts, but I strongly refute the idea that a warless world is only obtainable through the elimination of religion (human nature won’t allow it). I was looking around the internet for different wars that aren’t religiously driven to back my claim and I stumbled upon someones post in a forum. I don’t know who the author is, but it sums out my viewpoints on the matter pretty thoroughly. Enjoy

Much is said, today, on the issue of religious wars. Without question, religion has been (if only superficially) the banner of countless wars throughout history. Lists are often compiled, naming various instances of religious war (as, for example, this list).

One might reasonably ask, however, whether or not there is a corresponding list of non-religious wars. After all, if religion is really good for nothing but “starting wars,” then surely its elimination would do away with, or at least considerably diminish, the perpetuation of warfare across the globe.

Jack Perry has presented one such list of non-religious wars, as follows:

1.) The Seven Years’ War (Britain & France)
2.)The American Revolution
3.)The French Revolution
4.)The Napoleonic Wars (France & Europe)
5.)The Revolutions in the Americas
6.)The Wars to create and preserve the British Empire (Boer War, Irish Revolution, and the Great Game with Russia would all be examples)
7.)The American Civil War
8.)The Crimean War
9.)The Spanish-American War
10.)The Great War, The War to End All Wars, or World War I (whatever you want to call it)
11.)The Italian invasion of Ethiopia
12.)The Spanish Civil War
13.)Stalin’s invasions of Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland
14.)World War II
15.)The Chinese Revolution
16.)The Cold War, including but not limited to the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the American intervention in Grenada, and the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan
17.)The Cultural Revolution in China (If you don’t want to call this a war I’ll concede it)
18.)Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge Revolution
19.)The Falklands War
20.)The Persian Gulf War between Iran & Iraq
21.)The Persian Gulf War between the United Nations and Iraq
The Breakup of Yugoslavia (beginning with Slovenia).

Naturally, some of Perry’s points are debatable. For instance, there are some who hold that Nazism has certain occult roots (see, for example, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke’s book on the subject, “The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology.” So, in some sense, one might argue that World War II was, in fact, a religious war. The same cannot be said, however, of World War I.

Obviously, the above list could not count very significant the Reign of Terror (French), which followed the French Revolution, as it was not, technically, a war, per se. Still, I think it is a point worth serious consideration.

Of course, there are those who maintain Robespierre (who presided over the Reign of Terror) was actually religious, and an oppressor of atheists. Nevertheless, the fact remains that:

“The French Revolution eradicated the Church root and branch. The Jacobin state was officially atheist, although Robespierre attempted to cover this fact with the fig leaf of ‘the Supreme Being’, which convinced nobody except maybe Robespierre himself. Although the people of France were supposed to be fervent Catholics, religion practically disappeared in France after the Revolution (except in the most backward and reactionary districts like the Vendée).”
( http://www.marxist.com/marxism-religion-liberation-theology220701.htm)

I am NOT, of course, suggesting, as some do, that atheism leads, ever and always, to anarchy, bloodshed, etc. I am merely endeavoring to establish that the religious are no more a danger to humankind than the irreligious. Or, to put it in other words, the irreligious are no less prone to senseless violence than the religious.

Myth: BUSTED!

God Bless,

- Justin

Okay, so maybe it isn’t a direct health hazard to be atheist, but studies show that theism could be conducive to better mental and physical health. For instance, consider the following finding made by the Mayo Clinic in 2001:

Mayo Clinic researchers reviewed published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and subject reviews that examined the association between religious involvement and spirituality and physical health, mental health, health-related quality of life and other health outcomes. The authors report a majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes.

As far as mental health and atheism is concerned, the following statement was made by the University of Warwick in 2003:

Dr. Stephen Joseph, from the University of Warwick, said: “Religious people seem to have a greater purpose in life, which is why they are happier. Looking at the research evidence, it seems that those who celebrate the Christian meaning of Christmas are on the whole likely to be happier.

Also, there are psychological studies that suggest a link between atheism and suicide. This isn’t too surprising in my opinion. I could see how depression could possibly set in with some people who decide to be atheists given their beliefs. Also, if the atheist comes from a religious/spiritual family, then they could possibly receive negative backlash from their family including isolation. That is just my opinion though, here’s what the American Society of Psychiatry reported:

Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

I am by no means suggesting this as evidence that God exists (i.e. He ‘likes’ theists more), so don’t waste time writing a response of that nature – just hoping to spur a lively conversation!

God Bless,

- Justin

Hello again everyone. I’m happy to say that I finally have some time to make a post on this blog. Sparing you the details, let’s just say that finishing up grad school is pretty time consuming… but enough about that, on to the my topic!

Without question, the internet has increased the level of human interaction and discussion (this blog alone stands as a perfect example). Through the years, I have seen discussions of all sorts, but naturally, I am most interested in ones concerning religious manners. I have seen countless arguments on why Christianity is a fraud, so I thought that I would share one with you.

One way to argue the falsehood of Christianity is to point out the human element of the Bible, that is, to demonstrate that the Bible contains political and social biases of the variety of authors. Doing so provides evidence that the book is more or less human invention and therefore discredits any divinity claims.

There you go! That is one way to de-bunk big bad Christianity!! The end!

…

…

Wait!!!…. you’re still reading? Shoot, okay… well I guess you figured there would be more given that I am the “Christian Contributor”. I mean, you’re probably wondering why I would give an argument for discrediting Christianity in the first place! Well, I must admit that I have another motive to this post.

You see, I come across this argument quite a bit. But here’s the thing, I totally agree that such political and social influences exist (the result of being a religious studies minor). This method of argument against Christianity is the result of the relative positivism movement in the late 1800s. During this time, there was in increase on the importance of physical evidence in human reason. For example, my computer exists because I can see it with my eyes and physically feel it with my hands. This type of reasoning naturally made its way into the religious arena.

But what physical evidence does the Christian have? Ah yes, the Bible! During this time, people of the Christian faith (utilizing the relative positivism method of reason) claimed God existed because we have his physical word. Therefore a natural way to claim God doesn’t exist is to discredit the Bible! Done deal right? Well, for someone who believes in the literal translation of every word in the Bible while ignoring context and situational circumstances during the time of authorship, this can pose quite a problem.

However, there are people of theological thought and interpretation that will remain a theist despite such arguments (myself included). I suspect that many of the de-cons that come here may have lost their faith because of the argument I laid out in the beginning of this post. That’s okay, I am not here to create “Re-Cons” (hmm, perhaps a RE-conversion.com) … my point is to again reiterate that it is possible for people to be theists and reasonable simultaneously. De-conversion doesn’t always result because someone has learned more about the origins and history of their religion.

For those that it does, it is likely that their faith was like a brick wall. You remove a brick or two and it all comes tumbling down. I encourage a trampoline religious perspective – even if one spring breaks, you can keep happily jumping for joy.

Thanks for reading everyone!

God Bless,

- Justin

Can you smell that? Smells good doesn’t it? Yes, it’s the political season in the States, and there could be nothing sweeter! I understand that some of you here may not be as much as a “political junkie” as me, but don’t worry, I’m not going to get into the nitty-gritty of everything. Although if I may…Obama ’08!! Okay, it’s out of my system, let us continue.

Now as sweet as the political season smells, at times it can be a bit too bitter; a little hard to swallow; downright sickening. Why? Well, the natural reasons of course (mud-slinging ads, shady practices, and my favorite: never answering a question directly!) Personally though, I am disgusted at the way contemporary politics bundles groups of people together as if they are a prize to be won. Case-in-point: the “evangelical” vote.

Pundits talk about “winning the votes” of evangelicals all the time. Sadly, when they say this they are making gross assumptions about Christianity – in particular, that all Christians think and believe the same way. They then “target” these individuals like they are some kind of wild game. What a shame (not to mention insulting). Frankly, politicians categorize voters in a million different ways. Heck, they’re even starting to talk about the “atheist” vote a little (don’t feel too happy though, you kind of lose your identity through the process).

Let’s be honest, all Christians aren’t the same. Good example: me. I’m pro-choice (I can almost see the vains popping in the strict fundamentalists already). But get this, I’m not democrat either! I’m blowing all kinds of conventions now! Chances are, some of you (not YOU of course…but the other ones reading this post) are getting their “boxes” blown apart too. Just proving a point: assumptions about people are convenient, but these assumptions are hardly ever accurate.

So what does all this have to do with anything? Everything! What assumptions are you making this election? What assumptions are your favorite political candidates making? Call me new-old-fashion (I made that term up), but the political process is a gift (from God?) that many people pass up because they would rather make “assumptions” about candidates…it’s easy and it doesn’t require a lot of thinking. Hey, while we’re on the topic, what assumptions are you making about people? About faith? Be real with yourselves now, let’s not make assumptions about your assumptions!

::::end of lecture::::

God Bless,

Justin

P.S. I know I’ve been absent for a while, I apologize. I am finishing up my last semester of Business School and preparing for the release of my book… Until next time!

This post is somewhat atypical in that it is not meant to present arguments “for” or “against” religion. Instead, it is more of an inquiry from a curious Christian. As many De-Conversion readers know, Christian theology is full of text regarding the afterlife, Kingdom of God, and so on. Many Christians find it comforting in knowing that death has been conquered, relieving humanity from guilt and fear. But what does the Atheist think?

No, I am not wondering about what the Atheist thinks about the Christian view of death. I am curious to know the thoughts and feelings Atheists have regarding it. This can be hard to do (for Christians and Atheists alike) in that we often talk about death philisophically. In other words, we often forget that we will die. Reflecting on that very notion and making it a reality can be troublesome.

I am asking the Atheists who come to this website (which I presume to be the majority) to make death a reality, reflect on how it makes you feel, and to discuss it in the comments section of this website. There is no “hidden agenda” (i.e. I’m not going to start harping on why you should be a Christian). I merely wish to discover the views, and in the process, let other people (new Atheists, Agnostics, Theists) gain insight into different perspectives of the ultimate finality.

Are you scared? Does it bother you? Are you hoping for a God but don’t believe? Are you okay with death?

There is no right answer. For as much as we talk about death and dying, we often separate ourselves from our feelings during such conversations. Let’s reunite them. Let’s start the discussion.

Justin

Well I have a bit of a confession to make to this website…I have been struggling as of late as to what to contribute (especially since traffic has exploded the past couple weeks). During my time on the sidelines, I have enjoyed reading the various posts and people’s reactions to them. I admit that I have not jumped in as frequently as I once did due to an upcoming move I am preparing for.

It was during my time on the outskirts of this forum that I began to ponder the (for lack of a more sensitive term) “point” of agnostic/atheist websites such as de-conversion. Now this is not meant to be an insult, but maybe more of a sociological question and hypothesis. To do a comprehensive study on the posts of this blog would take a substantial amount of time. However, in my informal examination, I came to a few conclusions.

Agnostic and Atheist contributors/commentors usually come from one of two backgrounds (I apologize for the dichotomy, but the simpler the better). In one camp, there are the individuals who lost their faith because of resentment towards Church establishments. These individuals could not deal with the hypocrisy of their particular religious institution and began to turn away from their faith – and who could blame them? The unfortunate corruption of scripture (through the travesty of strict literalism) has put a big black spot on “religion”. Not too long ago, a post was done on this blog that criticized people for saying they were “spiritual”, not “religious”. I think that this distinction has to made given the nature of “religion” today (particularly by the 20th century Christian fundamentalist movement.) In the effort to avoid digressing too far, I will just say that separating spirituality from religion coincides with Jesus’ irreligion purpose:

“…How terrible it will be for you experts of religious law! For you crush people beneath impossible religious demands and you never lift a finger to ease the burden.” (Luke 11:46)

“How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest part of your income, but you ignore the important things of the law – justice, mercy and faith…” (Matthew 23:23)

It is clear that many Agnostic/Atheists walked away from Christianity (or whatever religion) because they were tainted by the hypocrites, and were burdened with “impossible religious demands” (perhaps The de-Convert falls into this category as I recall him once saying how free and clear his conscience felt once he renounced his faith). Sadly, religious fundamentalists tend to avoid the “important things of the law- justice, mercy, and faith”. Agnostic/Atheists in this group are often angry, and their writing/comments reflect their displeasure with corruption.

The second camp of agnostic/atheists are usually individuals who feel that it does not make sense logically, scientifically, etc. for the events that are recorded in say, the Bible, to have occurred. Posts by these contributors tend to create interesting “online debates” in the comments section. Naturally though, there is a distinct flaw within having such “debates” because, in most cases, definitions are improperly defined and there are too many assumptions made on both sides. In other words, the paradigms of the individuals are holding back any real progress in regards to Atheists and Theists. The Agnostic/Atheist is attempting to explain religion through empirical methods while Theists attempt the same by using theology. The mixing of these concepts into the other field is a clear injustice to both disciplines.

If you can recall, the purpose of this post was to try to figure out the point of such forums like this one… it is quite apparent that the main goal is to provide a haven for like-minded (and sometimes “unlike”-minded) individuals to have a community to fall back on…hm, kind of sounds like a Church . In other words, everyone wants to know others who believe the same. Yet what is it that Atheists and Agnostics believe? If the “De-Conversion Wager” on the side menu bar is an indicator of anything, then it appears that perhaps Atheists and Theists are not that different. Beyond the corruption, close-mindedness, and ignorance of both the religious and a-religious camps lies a similar desire. Boiled down, it looks as if the only difference that remains is determining where that “desire” comes from…and frankly, it doesn’t matter, because Atheists and Theists alike still have not fully embraced the concepts of love, mercy, compassion, and tolerance.

- Justin

In a few replies on this website (for which I am a theist contributor), I find myself telling participants that we must use the scientific method correctly. In other words, the scientific method is a great tool to understanding the world around us, but it is horrible in regards to learning about God. Unfortunately, we live in a society where perception has an uncharacteristic “trump card” over philosophy and proclamation of religious faith. Many believe that the only way to perceive the world around them is with the five senses. Yet, I tell you that no one has ever seen a thought. No one has ever seen a feeling and we still believe them to exist (no, seeing neuron activity doesn’t count). Scientific method can’t explain existential meanings. Individuals try to use scientific method to learn more about faith and God. I will tell you right now that if you are waiting to physically see, touch, smell, taste, or hear God, He will never be revealed to you.

The skeptic will say, “Why not use the scientific method? The scientific method teaches us about everything we know. It is the ultimate tool for knowledge.” Well, there are a variety of reasons. Consider that God exists outside of the physical world that we know; He is outside of time. This is a hard concept to grasp for many, but you actually deal with this concept all the time. For instance, you can physically take three apples away from a pile of five. However, it is not possible or comprehensible for one to take five apples away from a pile of three.

How do we solve this dilemma? We make the problem part of the answer [3-5, 2-4, 1-3, 0-2], and therefore our answer becomes negative two (-2). Negative numbers don’t exist, they are imaginary – but they help people such as engineers solve very real problems every single day. This analogy explains the reason why God was never created (I really hate when people ask this cliché question). First, this statement assumes that God was created. However, if we perceive of God as outside of the three-dimensional world that we know, then such a question cannot apply. If God is a being that is unlimited and infinite in time (outside time), and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question. The question is like asking someone to draw a four-sided triangle – the terminology is self-contradictory. God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created.

“Infinite” Can be a difficult concept for people to understand. Consider what world renowned religious scholar Huston Smith has to say on the subject:

“Think of infinite not just in space, but in worth. When we think about infinite now, it has been pretty much co-opted by science. We think about infinite space or infinite numbers. Well, those are scientific terms. But what about infinite value? Frankly, I believe that reality holds as much in the way of worth beyond what we are able to see with our ordinary experience, as it holds in quantity and size beyond what our naked senses can fathom.”

That being said, back to my analysis of the scientific method.

What the scientific method can do is give immense support for God. If you are familiar at all with astronomical constants, you will see that the slightest change in any of the very delicate variables would mean life as we know it would not exist. These constants exist all over the universe. For instance, if the tilt of the earth were just a few degrees one way or the other, climates would be too extreme. If Jupiter were further from the Earth, and not as big, then it wouldn’t suck in the great number of asteroids and comets that would otherwise crash into the Earth. If the ratio of protons to electrons formation was less, electromagnetism would dominate gravity which would prevent galaxy, star, and planet formation.

If you want to use some of the tenets from the scientific method in regards to God and religion, you sort of can. One driving force behind the scientific method is multiple tests of a particular phenomenon. Scientists will test over and over in order to develop explanations. This facet of the method can be applied to God (religion). Since the beginning of time, man has always had the notion that there is something greater than himself. If one looks at the prominence of religion and how it has re-occurred time and time again, the most intelligent of individuals familiar with the scientific method will admit that it is very possible we are on to something. Similar and re-occurring results increase likelihood and probability. Again, before anyone begins to waste countless minutes in trying to rebuttal this correlation of religion to the scientific method, know that this is a loose utilization. I should also note that this very concept is explained in great detail (and more effectively) by Huston Smith.

In the end, we need to stop trying to apply God to our limited view of how the creation operates – doing so is really a dis-service to both religion and science.

- Justin
http://politicsandreligion.wordpress.com