Religion and faith

[farmkid]

These types of disucions have been going on way before anyone in this forum was even born and yet never come to a conclusion but I wanted to add something to the discussion about science and religion and see where it takes us.

Science can never give what religion gives to people who believe in God, its called faith (Mr sherlock) science is about rational observation and logic to come up with a certain answer - God is intangible because it is all about faith and science can never really provide that for people, which is why I think religion will be here for forever, you can never get rid of it because there is nothing to substitute it with, that is the essential reason why people believe in God over science it provide them with a meaning of existence, I am here to serve God, I have a purpose, God made me who i am etc etc etc - what does science say your a product of random mutation

Just like to point out I am an Atheist but I KIND OF understand why people go to religion even though it is utter madness at times

Maybe Someday this argument will be void because people will use logic rather than quotes from an ancient book (no pointing fingers)

that is my view of science and religion

You're mostly right, but you're missing one point that atheists always miss. Atheists always seem to think that religious people believe what they do because it's written in a book, or because their parents or minister told them so. I'm sure that's true for some, but certainly not all. Many religious people believe because of things they've felt. That's not exactly the right word, but it's close enough. Think of it this way: imagine everyone lived their entire life in the dark and never saw anything at all. People aren't blind, they just never see anything, so they have no concept of light. Now imagine some people go somewhere that they do see light, so they know light exists and what it's like to see something. Those people go tell everyone else about it. Some believe them and begin to believe that light exists. Others question what the hell the others are talking about. They've never seen anything, and the very concept of seeing has no meaning to them. Some may have seen light at some time, but having no context in which to put the experience, ignored it or convinced themselves it was something else. Furthermore, because their other senses can't experience it at all, they say there is no evidence that light and sight exist so they refuse to believe it. Some, perhaps many, religious people are like those who have seen light in this little metaphor. They believe because of the experiences they've had, not because it's written in a book or someone else told them, or because they're just idiots.

You also write as if science and religion are mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are. I personally am a scientist and a deeply religious person. I know many others who are as well, and many of the world's current and past preeminent scientists are/were believers. (NYT story on the subject) Indeed, for some, their science led them to believe in God (Francis Collins, the guy who ran the Human Genome Project, for example).

 

[USS Triumphant]

farmkid:

I have had such experiences such as you describe, and a part of my mind wants to believe in the things that those experiences have told me are true.

The rest of me knows that when other people begin to talk about their religious experiences or experiences with ghosts or whatever, I want to roll my eyes. And that I suffered some very serious brain damage when I was 15, so my brain has even more reason than most to malfunction.

One of the things we know from our courts is how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. And simple optical illusions can fool our senses.

Trust impirical evidence and rational thought, not personal experiences that don't mesh with the rest of reality, and especially not those of anyone else, because you have even less ability to evaluate the validity of those experiences, and they are quite possibly fibbing attention whores anyway. (Not that I'm condemning them. A good story can be entertaining, and some people just don't get enough attention otherwise.)

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

God is a fabrication created by primitive, superstitious people that has somehow managed to survive in society through generations of indoctrination.

So yeah, I'm a pretty strong atheist.

 

[Showdown]

I'm number one.

There are many ways to view God. Some see him as an imaginary character. Some see him as a personification of the world/universe around them. Some, like me, see him as an individual.

I'm going to have a little fun. I think it is kind of like the Matrix, metaphorically. On the inside, people can see, hear, touch, taste, and measure things. To some of them, that is all there is. No matter where they go, while inside of the Matrix, they will not see the machines that made it. To others there is more to the world than they can perceive and calculate. What they sense is very real to them, while others would believe they are weird.

 

[Amaris]

These types of disucions have been going on way before anyone in this forum was even born and yet never come to a conclusion but I wanted to add something to the discussion about science and religion and see where it takes us.

Science can never give what religion gives to people who believe in God, its called faith (Mr sherlock) science is about rational observation and logic to come up with a certain answer - God is intangible because it is all about faith and science can never really provide that for people, which is why I think religion will be here for forever, you can never get rid of it because there is nothing to substitute it with, that is the essential reason why people believe in God over science it provide them with a meaning of existence, I am here to serve God, I have a purpose, God made me who i am etc etc etc - what does science say your a product of random mutation

Just like to point out I am an Atheist but I KIND OF understand why people go to religion even though it is utter madness at times

Maybe Someday this argument will be void because people will use logic rather than quotes from an ancient book (no pointing fingers)

that is my view of science and religion

You're mostly right, but you're missing one point that atheists always miss. Atheists always seem to think that religious people believe what they do because it's written in a book, or because their parents or minister told them so. I'm sure that's true for some, but certainly not all. Many religious people believe because of things they've felt. That's not exactly the right word, but it's close enough. Think of it this way: imagine everyone lived their entire life in the dark and never saw anything at all. People aren't blind, they just never see anything, so they have no concept of light. Now imagine some people go somewhere that they do see light, so they know light exists and what it's like to see something. Those people go tell everyone else about it. Some believe them and begin to believe that light exists. Others question what the hell the others are talking about. They've never seen anything, and the very concept of seeing has no meaning to them. Some may have seen light at some time, but having no context in which to put the experience, ignored it or convinced themselves it was something else. Furthermore, because their other senses can't experience it at all, they say there is no evidence that light and sight exist so they refuse to believe it. Some, perhaps many, religious people are like those who have seen light in this little metaphor. They believe because of the experiences they've had, not because it's written in a book or someone else told them, or because they're just idiots.

You also write as if science and religion are mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are. I personally am a scientist and a deeply religious person. I know many others who are as well, and many of the world's current and past preeminent scientists are/were believers. (NYT story on the subject) Indeed, for some, their science led them to believe in God (Francis Collins, the guy who ran the Human Genome Project, for example).

I won't question why you believe, because you have every right to believe, but I wanted to comment here about your light metaphor. The whole metaphor falls apart due to one major issue: You simply cannot prove the light is there. You think you're seeing light, and you insist the light is there, but no one else can see it until you manage to convince them that yes, the light is not only there, it must be there, and you must have faith to believe it, because faith is the evidence of things hoped for but not yet seen.

You, in your heart, know that light is there, and you believe you can see that light, but since it isn't visible to billions of others, then something is amiss. A man insists the light is real and exists. Observable data and rational analysis doesn't show anything there. Then we get into another problem: some say the light they see is yellow, others say it is blue, and still others believe it is red. Who is correct? Why can't any of them prove they're seeing that light? Why can't they all agree on the color of the light? Surely if the light is there, and billions see it, then there's a sample rate that can indicate the existence of that light, whether it be yellow, blue or red, and if someone knows, why can't they show it? Why all the handwaving in the dark to prove something that they believe exists?

Is it possible that the light is actually there? It's possible. Is it likely? Well, after thousands of generations saying they can see the light, yet with no light being produced other than testimonies that they can indeed see the light though they have no reasonable way to prove they can, then while there is a possibility that the light is there, it is highly improbable, and society can't behave as if the light is there and ignore the effects of that disregard of the lack of light present.

 

[Thestral]

8 pages and no arguments yet, I think we actually have a fight free religion thread.

To actually contribute to this thread instead of just reading through it, I'm a 1. And it pretty much animates what I do.

Well, mostly.

Also, iguana and { Emilia }'s "socialist Catholic school" bit doesn't surprise me either. I lean in that direction of "communo-Catholic" (or however he put it) myself... except for the being Catholic part.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

You're mostly right, but you're missing one point that atheists always miss. Atheists always seem to think that religious people believe what they do because it's written in a book, or because their parents or minister told them so. I'm sure that's true for some, but certainly not all. Many religious people believe because of things they've felt. That's not exactly the right word, but it's close enough. Think of it this way: imagine everyone lived their entire life in the dark and never saw anything at all. People aren't blind, they just never see anything, so they have no concept of light. Now imagine some people go somewhere that they do see light, so they know light exists and what it's like to see something. Those people go tell everyone else about it. Some believe them and begin to believe that light exists. Others question what the hell the others are talking about. They've never seen anything, and the very concept of seeing has no meaning to them. Some may have seen light at some time, but having no context in which to put the experience, ignored it or convinced themselves it was something else. Furthermore, because their other senses can't experience it at all, they say there is no evidence that light and sight exist so they refuse to believe it. Some, perhaps many, religious people are like those who have seen light in this little metaphor. They believe because of the experiences they've had, not because it's written in a book or someone else told them, or because they're just idiots.

You also write as if science and religion are mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are. I personally am a scientist and a deeply religious person. I know many others who are as well, and many of the world's current and past preeminent scientists are/were believers. (NYT story on the subject) Indeed, for some, their science led them to believe in God (Francis Collins, the guy who ran the Human Genome Project, for example).

You are not alone. I am a Christian--Methodist, though strongly influenced by Russian Orthodoxy as well.

I recognize that there is only so much that science can prove, and I am aware of that. It does not compel me to manipulate science for the purposes of my faith; I have no need to deny evolution, quantum physics, or any other things that we have discovered by scientific means. Truth is truth, and I have no need to fear it. There is, quite simply, no discovery of a scientific nature that I find at all threatening.

I recognize that it is experiential evidence that makes the difference, and that the nature of such evidence is that it is inherently unconveyable to another. There is no way to cause another to experience what it is to see, feel, and hear, to think my thoughts, and to feel my emotions (and it would be an abomination if there were)--only to measure the firings of the neurons that received the experience, were one to be lucky enough to measure one in real time. But I do not reject those experiences because of that fact. And I believe that it is because free choice as a necessary and integral element of love is even more sacred than physical life--that is the reason that we have to make a choice and we are not forced. And that all religion--as distinguished from faith--that claims coercion is right is severely misguided at best.

I am not ignorant to the damage done by religious people, in the past and now. I mourn it deeply and I do my best to try and heal the damage in whatever small ways I can. I believe this is my calling in life. And I also believe that the closest any person can come to actually sharing that experiential evidence is by living it.

That doesn't mean I get it right all the time. Some days, I suck. Which only reinforces my understanding that I am a flawed being. But flawed as I am, I still try.

I apologize if I may not be around in this thread as much as you would like, farmkid, but I wanted you to know that you are not alone.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

I'm a number 3. I can't help it. There has to be some higher form of consciousness. The universe is too wonderful and complex and magnificent. What created that first speck of microscopic cosmic whatever it was and sat back to watch the show as it all evolved independently? Is it God as reported in the Christian Bible? Probably not. But there's something that exists. I'm not positive, but I lean towards theism.

 

[Jono]

I went with 5, though I'm quite close to a 6. Of course to the ladies I'm at least a 8 or 9. Hello, ladies...

 

[Lt_Rowy]

I chose no.1 because I am a Muslim revert who was a Christian but sick of the bullcrap and converted to Islam..
My boyfriend is an atheist but he also respects my faith...
This is my favourite verse of the Qur'an, the Fatihah which i recited when i became a Muslim and said it in both English and Arabic

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
Show us the straight way,
The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

 

[Ha'kiv]

I'm a number 3. I can't help it. There has to be some higher form of consciousness. The universe is too wonderful and complex and magnificent. What created that first speck of microscopic cosmic whatever it was and sat back to watch the show as it all evolved independently? Is it God as reported in the Christian Bible? Probably not. But there's something that exists. I'm not positive, but I lean towards theism.

Are you certain you understand the universe enough to claim it is too complex to be without a creator? Saying "first speck of microscopic cosmic whatever it was" makes me doubt you do, for some reason.

You're mostly right, but you're missing one point that atheists always miss. Atheists always seem to think that religious people believe what they do because it's written in a book, or because their parents or minister told them so. I'm sure that's true for some, but certainly not all. Many religious people believe because of things they've felt. That's not exactly the right word, but it's close enough. Think of it this way: imagine everyone lived their entire life in the dark and never saw anything at all. People aren't blind, they just never see anything, so they have no concept of light. Now imagine some people go somewhere that they do see light, so they know light exists and what it's like to see something. Those people go tell everyone else about it. Some believe them and begin to believe that light exists. Others question what the hell the others are talking about. They've never seen anything, and the very concept of seeing has no meaning to them. Some may have seen light at some time, but having no context in which to put the experience, ignored it or convinced themselves it was something else. Furthermore, because their other senses can't experience it at all, they say there is no evidence that light and sight exist so they refuse to believe it. Some, perhaps many, religious people are like those who have seen light in this little metaphor. They believe because of the experiences they've had, not because it's written in a book or someone else told them, or because they're just idiots.

Ignoring the fact that we are quite an open-minded race who is as we speak searching for new particles and other dimensions - something we do not see nor feel. If the people from the cave were anything like us, they would see the idea of sight and light as a possibility.
How often has a child of a different faith who has never heard of Christianity seen, felt and experienced Yahweh? The human brain is capable of fooling even itself, that much is certain.

There's one thing I would change about your metaphor, with all due respect - I'd say the religious folks are the ones who stay in the cave.

 

[Amaris]

I'm a number 3. I can't help it. There has to be some higher form of consciousness. The universe is too wonderful and complex and magnificent. What created that first speck of microscopic cosmic whatever it was and sat back to watch the show as it all evolved independently? Is it God as reported in the Christian Bible? Probably not. But there's something that exists. I'm not positive, but I lean towards theism.

Are you certain you understand the universe enough to claim it is too complex to be without a creator? Saying "first speck of microscopic cosmic whatever it was" makes me doubt you do, for some reason.

To be fair, having faith doesn't require one to understand the universe. As long as that belief isn't created to harm another person or take away their rights (and as far as I know, Dorian would not be in favor of such a thing), I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Ha'kiv]

^Seeing as he/she used the complexity of the universe as an argument, I stand by what I said.

 

[Amaris]

^Seeing as he/she used the complexity of the universe as an argument, I stand by what I said.

The issue is that it's a faith matter. I can look at the complexity of the universe and say that while the universe is amazing and profound on so many levels, it does not require any deity as an progenitor to create it or an intercessor to guide it. Dorian looks at the same universe and says that it's so complex, amazing and profound, there's no way it happened naturally.

Now, I would have a problem with that belief if it was used to force the scientific method onto the backburner, ala the latest kerfluffle with the Kansas school system and evolution. However, if Dorian's philosophy is meant for him to study and wonder about the universe, or for him the existence of God, then there's no issue and it doesn't harm you.

Or, to put it another way, if the intent is to merely ask a question from curiosity is one thing; but to ask it in an attempt to devalue that statement is another entirely. The first is okay, but the second is probably not a good idea. The only reason I mention this is because Dorian's not arguing that because this is what he believes, then someone else's belief is invalid, he is simply stating his position in reference to his own understanding. There's no need to challenge what he believes because I don't think he is challenging anyone else in the matter.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Complexity is an abstract and relative concept. The goal of quantum physics is to uncover the underlying simplicity of the Universe. The Mandelbrot Set is an infinitely complex construct that results from a very simple equation. The infinity of pi results from an even simpler equation. Also, whether something is complex depends on who is looking at it. There are concepts and formulae that a few geniuses understand, but the average person never will; there are things that the average person understands that are beyond the comprehension of a chimp. The Universe merely exists and we deem it complex because of how we perceive it.

 

[Ha'kiv]

The issue is that it's a faith matter. I can look at the complexity of the universe and say that while the universe is amazing and profound on so many levels, it does not require any deity as an progenitor to create it or an intercessor to guide it. Dorian looks at the same universe and says that it's so complex, amazing and profound, there's no way it happened naturally.

Now, I would have a problem with that belief if it was used to force the scientific method onto the backburner, ala the latest kerfluffle with the Kansas school system and evolution. However, if Dorian's philosophy is meant for him to study and wonder about the universe, or for him the existence of God, then there's no issue and it doesn't harm you.

Or, to put it another way, if the intent is to merely ask a question from curiosity is one thing; but to ask it in an attempt to devalue that statement is another entirely. The first is okay, but the second is probably not a good idea. The only reason I mention this is because Dorian's not arguing that because this is what he believes, then someone else's belief is invalid, he is simply stating his position in reference to his own understanding. There's no need to challenge what he believes because I don't think he is challenging anyone else in the matter.

I haven't the slightest idea why you are explaining this to me. He is explicitly saying that "there has to be some higher form of consciousness" because the universe is so complex. He can believe whatever he wants, but he was using the supposed complexity of the universe as an argument and I pointed this out. If this were any other subject, my argument wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Amaris]

Complexity is an abstract and relative concept. The goal of quantum physics is to uncover the underlying simplicity of the Universe. The Mandelbrot Set is an infinitely complex construct that results from a very simple equation. The infinity of pi results from an even simpler equation. Also, whether something is complex depends on who is looking at it. There are concepts and formulae that a few geniuses understand, but the average person never will; there are things that the average person understands that are beyond the comprehension of a chimp. The Universe merely exists and we deem it complex because of how we perceive it.

I'm speaking directly from personal observation.

I haven't the slightest idea why you are explaining this to me. He is explicitly saying that "there has to be some higher form of consciousness" because the universe is so complex. He can believe whatever he wants, but he was using the supposed complexity of the universe as an argument and I pointed this out. If this were any other subject, my argument wouldn't be a problem.

The thing is, he's not arguing it as a universal truth in which you must believe. It's the equivalent of saying "I see yellow and I think of daffodils" and your answer would be "are you sure you're seeing daffodils?". It's entirely personal subjective.

 

[Ha'kiv]

The thing is, he's not arguing it as a universal truth in which you must believe. It's the equivalent of saying "I see yellow and I think of daffodils" and your answer would be "are you sure you're seeing daffodils?". It's entirely personal subjective.

To me it seemed like the often used argument that the universe is too complex not to have a creator. This is a scientific argument.

 

[boobatuba]

To me it seemed like the often used argument that the universe is too complex not to have a creator. This is a scientific argument.

No, it's a belief. Let the guy have his beliefs. It's not worth arguing about, really.

 

[Amaris]

The thing is, he's not arguing it as a universal truth in which you must believe. It's the equivalent of saying "I see yellow and I think of daffodils" and your answer would be "are you sure you're seeing daffodils?". It's entirely personal subjective.

To me it seemed like the often used argument that the universe is too complex not to have a creator. This is a scientific argument.

It's a statement of faith because it has no scientific basis. If he would have said "the universe is too complex to not have a Creator and here's why based on this formula", you'd have a point, but as it is, it's simply a statement of faith. It's like saying "I know God speaks to me". There's no science to back it up, so it's just faith.