Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?



Stephen Hawking believes people must choose between God and science because God is only a god of the gaps in science so the more science the less God.

The God of the gaps is really based on the following kind of stupid thinking. "We cannot explain this. Let us make something up to explain it. Then we won't have to worry about it any more." Its the lazy way out. It leads to complacency. It is about people being interested in pleasing themselves and not in learning and promoting the truth. It makes them deceivers for if the explanation is wrong then it is not the right explanation. An incorrect explanation makes us feel better but is really useless.

Fundamentalists always claim to be rational and scientific when in fact they are just inventing explanations. They are parasitic on how their listeners want explanations given to them for it is hard work do to the thinking themselves.

The Fundamentalists suffer more than most from the power of the human mind to protect itself from seeing and believing truths that it fears. For example, the evil person will think he is a good and fair person if he fears seeing how evil he is. The protection inflicts delusion. The evil person for example knows on some level what the truth is and his mind plays tricks to pretend that it does not know it. The more a person wants and takes a crutch the more fake that person is.

The God of the gaps idea is totally wrong. Even if there is a gap needing a creator it does not follow that it is a personal being or alive or conscious. Thus it could be described as the Infinite but not as God. God means the supreme good being. The Intelligent Designer of the Gaps is preferable to the idea of the God of the Gaps.

God could be a life-force that behaves intelligently but which is not conscious. God doesn't need to be conscious to do what he does.

It is very strange to argue that God has to be conscious in order to make us as conscious beings. Christians say that reason shows that consciousness cannot come out of unconsciousness so consciousness must have been made by a conscious God. But they cannot understand all about consciousness - it is a mystery so they cannot argue as they do. Plus if only a conscious God can make conscious beings then what made unconscious beings - a God without consciousness perhaps?

If consciousness cannot come out of unconsciousness then how can something be caused to come out of nothing? It should be easier for consciousness to come out of unconsciousness than it should be for nothing to be transformed into something. If consciousness cannot come from unconsciousness then something cannot come from nothing.

The Christians might say they do not mean that nothing is transformed into something but that something merely appears or exists where there was nothing. But that is still transforming nothing into something. A change from nothing to something has taken place.

God did not make consciousness from himself according to the doctrine of creation. He only commanded it to exist. He doesn't need to be conscious to do that. It is like saying that a computer cannot look after a plant just because it is not alive.

A God who makes creation from himself is giving better evidence of his existence than a God who makes creation separate from himself. Why? Because we cannot understand how nothing can become something. It is a contradiction to our minds.

We cannot learn much about the potter from the pottery because the two are separate entities and different. If the potter makes things from his own body - say from his hair and nails we will know far more about him.

The difference between creation and God is absolute. If something can come from nothing, then maybe impersonal forces made things come to be. Maybe it was a God who is impersonal. Maybe it it was a good God. Maybe it was a good God who is too different from us to be relevant to us. There is an infinity of possibilities.

Some say that God needs to be conscious to be perfect. But believers in God do not think that a perfect God means that God has to be perfect in every way. He is perfect in all that makes him the kind of being he is. He is perfectly good but he does not need to be the perfect athlete. If he did, he would become man and win all the sports in the world. Thus the creator can be perfect without being personal or conscious. But this creator then would not be the God of Christianity with whom relationships are possible.

The perfect painting is perfect as a painting. It would be a mistake to think it should be perfectly edible as well. Thus a perfect creator need not even be conscious. It can be an impersonal intelligence. Or it can have the power to act perfectly. This power would not require intelligence at all. A perfect maker is not about making our lives perfect. Neither is the perfect artist!

Hawking may use God in the popular sense which means creator and only that. If so then he escapes the absurdities. For Hawking then it may be choosing between science and a creator and the more you learn about the universe the less room there is for a creator of any kind.