Your Religious Views

[jazzgeek]

Addendum (Man, I wish I could edit my posts ><):

According to Wikipedia, the 'a' prefix:

"without" is equally valid, as I've asserted before.

<OBLIGATORY CORN REFERENCE> A-melanistic. </>

regards,
jazz

 

[Nova_C]

Okay, so, 'without theism', again how can being without something be a positive assertion.

Also, I REALLY wish I could edit my posts because my last one was way too off the hip and really isn't relevant. Also, you're showing that my attempts to interpret atheism into a single sentence are coming up short, because you're right, those were claims. I still assert that atheism makes no claim about god's existence.

 

[jazzgeek]

As a believer, I've never seen 'proof' that God exists.

Here are three "proofs" taught to any first-year seminarian.

Of course, their validity has been - and will continue to be - debated through the ages.

regards,
jazz

 

[tom e]

Which, in and of itself......is still an assertion. It's still a "claim".

regards,
jazz

I guess we could do this all day.. But I think it's logical to throw out anything based strictly on faith. And I won't argue the matter of faith with anyone because it is impossible.

You say I am making a claim.

I say I am simply not accepting one that was made without evidence (and Proudly without evidence at that..).

 

[Nova_C]

Here are three "proofs" taught to any first-year seminarian.

Of course, their validity has been - and will continue to be - debated through the ages.

regards,
jazz

The definition of proof is:
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

None of those strike me as very convincing. In fact, they all seem to be pure conjecture. How does something that relies completely on subjective interpretation qualify as an objective 'proof'?

 

[jazzgeek]

None of those strike me as very convincing.

Me neither. I was just showing that they do exist.

In fact, they all seem to be pure conjecture. How does something that relies completely on subjective interpretation qualify as an objective 'proof'?

Which reverts to my assertion....religion (which I define as belief in the existen - oh wait, I've seen this movie before.

regards,
jazz

 

[texastailfeathers]

*sigh* The last 10+ posts only prove my point that religious discussions are 90% semantics/vocabulary/rhetoric and only 10% substance.

Don't you ever feel like a dog chasing its tail? :shrugs:

 

[jazzgeek]

*sigh* The last 10+ posts only prove my point that religious discussions are 90% semantics/vocabulary/rhetoric and only 10% substance.

As I mentioned before, semantics frame the debate. Sometimes, the framework needs to be reinforced.

Don't you ever feel like a dog chasing its tail? :shrugs:

Nope. I love this stuff. These are the essential unanswerables of life, I'll grant you that - but as I posted a couple of years ago, it's also the source of much of the aesthetic of the human race.

(And sadly, the source of much of the sorrow of the world as well.)

regards,
jazz

 

[texastailfeathers]

As I mentioned before, semantics frame the debate. Sometimes, the framework needs to be reinforced.

I would call you a geek, but I assume you already embrace your identity as "geek" is a part of your nickname.

 

[jazzgeek]

I would call you a geek, but I assume you already embrace your identity as "geek" is a part of your nickname.

Likewise, I would call you crazy, but I assume yada yada yada avatar yada yada.

(Besides, "Crazy Redhead" is redundant. )

regards,
the guy who still lusts after Marilu Henner

 

[Roy Munson]

As I mentioned before, semantics frame the debate. Sometimes, the framework needs to be reinforced.

I completely agree. 10% substance may seem measly, but we'd get 0% if we don't understand how people are using the same words differently. If someone posts "atheists have faith in science", they're probably not using the same definition of "faith" as I am. There's no point in discussing or debating the claim if the poster and I don't understand each other's use of the same word. I like a good discussion, but tearing down and erecting strawmen is a waste of time.

 

[tom e]

I completely agree. 10% substance may seem measly, but we'd get 0% if we don't understand how people are using the same words differently. If someone posts "atheists have faith in science", they're probably not using the same definition of "faith" as I am. There's no point in discussing or debating the claim if the poster and I don't understand each other's use of the same word. I like a good discussion, but tearing down and erecting strawmen is a waste of time.

Well put.

I think sometimes it's a matter of being just plain wrong in your definition, and at other times there are other definitions in use for the same word...
I guess it would help if they'd just stop changing but what fun would that be? :crazy02:

 

[texastailfeathers]

If someone posts "atheists have faith in science", they're probably not using the same definition of "faith" as I am.

I guess deductive reasoning and context clues have no place in religious debate.

faith /feɪθ/ - [feyth]
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

"Faith in science" works in a religious context too. Science is a religion* for many people, even many atheists.

*religion re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]
-noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

 

[tom e]

I guess deductive reasoning and context clues have no place in religious debate.

faith /feɪθ/ - [feyth]
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

"Faith in science" works in a religious context too. Science is a religion* for many people, even many atheists.

*religion re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]
-noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

I found these ones for religion.

re·li·gion [ ri líjjən ] (plural re·li·gions)


noun

Definition:

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life


2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine


3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by


4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
The danger is that you start to make fitness a religion.


5. christianity monk's or nun's life: life as a monk or a nun, especially in the Roman Catholic Church

and this one for faith


faith [ fayth ] (plural faiths)


noun

Definition:

1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
I wouldn't put my faith in him to straighten things out.


2. religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it


3. trust in God: belief in and devotion to God
Her faith is unwavering.


4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
people of different political faiths


5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something


[13th century. Via Old French feid< Latin fides "trust, belief"]


keep faith with somebody or something to be loyal or true to a person or promise


keep the faith do not despair regardless of what may happen
Keep the faith; we'll get through this.


on faith without demanding proof


and most importantly this for Science

sci·ence [ s ənss ] (plural sci·ences)


noun

Definition:

1. study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment ( often used before a noun )


2. branch of science: a particular area of study or knowledge of the physical world
the life sciences


3. systematic body of knowledge: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject
the behavioral sciences


4. something studied or performed methodically: an activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method
the science of dressing for success


5. knowledge gained from science: the knowledge gained by the study of the physical world



Admittedly, there are a few overlaps.. But picking conveniently the least common used definitions is kinda tricky IMO..
When talking about Science Faith and Religion I think we know what differentiates them at the core..

 

[jazzgeek]

faith /feɪθ/ - [feyth]
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

"Faith in science" works in a religious context too. Science is a religion* for many people, even many atheists.

*religion re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]
-noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

science sci·ence /sahy-uh

ns
-noun
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3.any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4.systematized knowledge in general.
When we can perform repeatable, consistent and predictable experiments on God, we'll then be able to use "science", "faith", and "religion" interchangably.

Science seeks to explain the universe through observation and experimentation. Religion does not.

I guess deductive reasoning and context clues have no place in religious debate.

Sure, it has a place.

However, snark doesn't. Tom and I have just been through a couple of PMs complimenting each other as to how these recent posts have been civil and hasn't gotten personal.

With two sarcastic "eyerolls" in your past two posts, you're approaching a slippery slope. I don't think you want to meet what would come your way if it continues.

My two cents.

regards,
jazz

 

[Roy Munson]

I guess deductive reasoning and context clues have no place in religious debate.

faith /feɪθ/ - [feyth]
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

"Faith in science" works in a religious context too. Science is a religion* for many people, even many atheists.

*religion re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]
-noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

There was no need for the "rolleyes" emoticon. Your post only proves my point. And Tom's reply makes some great points too. Words mean different things in different contexts, and not all definitions of words are applicable to all contexts. It is dishonest to pick someone's definitions for them and then argue against the words. Your second definition for "faith" isn't even applicable to science at all as science doesn't deal with proving things; it can only disprove them. Sometimes definitions are either poor or they need semantic clarification themselves. That second definition of "faith" plays fast and loose with the word "proof". It uses it in a non-scientific way, so it would be dishonest to try to apply it, as it is written, to science. The first definition is applicable in myriad non-religious contexts, and shouldn't be misused to imply something that isn't there. That's the whole strawman thing that can be avoided by honest discussion of terms.

Your definition of "religion" means nothing in a scientific context either. If you can find me an example of some scientists who are collecting evidence to support some theory of the PURPOSE of the universe, I'll concede the point.

 

[tom e]

I didn't even catch the animosity if it exists.. I try to think we're just debating this as friends (for whatever internet friendship is worth.. lol) But I'm not trying to make hard feelings here.

For the record I know just what you mean Jen about science being religion to some people.. If I read on venomdoc that corns do have some venom and I read about his studies- I'm very unlikely to understand them. I may even be excercising a little faith in believing they have even been done. But that doesn't comment too much on science, as much as it does my understanding.

If on the other hand, you tell me that my corns require a temperature varient to digest properly, I can very easily find out if that's true or not with the scientific method.. That speaks volumes for Science in general. Or I can take it from you on faith, and I'll still be right. But not because of the faith.

Somewhere therein lies the difference to me.

But I'm actually having fun chasing my tail here. Please don't feel any animosity from me just because I persist.. :cheers:

 

[Nova_C]

Someone's choice to take something on faith, though, has nothing to do with science, per se. Science itself has nothing that needs or even should be taken on faith. Science is the observation of our universe as we perceive it. The word 'truth' doesn't really belong in science in any fashion. Truth is the realm of religion. Fact is the realm of science.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say we were all living in 'The Matrix'. The belief that it was giant computer simulation meant to placate us is about truth and is something that would take a lot of faith. However, the scientific observations of that 'simulation' would not be invalidated. They are still the facts of that universe as we perceive them, regardless of the truth.

The theories that come out of science don't require faith, either, because we're not supposed to 'believe' them. Theories are an analysis of data which are then tested with the goal of disproving them. As Roy said, you cannot prove a theory. Theories are made in order to help us understand the data, but they do not require belief and as such, there is no need for any faith.

 

[Eremita]

(...)
The theories that come out of science don't require faith, either, because we're not supposed to 'believe' them. Theories are an analysis of data which are then tested with the goal of disproving them. As Roy said, you cannot prove a theory. Theories are made in order to help us understand the data, but they do not require belief and as such, there is no need for any faith.

Although some theories get the distinction of becoming Laws. We don't have too many of them though.

Anyway, science as a method is founded upon certain assumptions about the nature of what things are (what it means to be a thing; your ontology) and the belief that the universe functions via cause and effect. Kant addressed these issues hundreds of years ago. The practice of science is based wholly on this, and this context is what makes the topic of mind so troublesome. Interpretation of all facts in this light may or may not actually be an incredible distortion of the nature of the world unmediated.

Quantum physics is most entertaining in this context, because there is no idea behind it. The equations were designed to fit the data, but the interpretation of the equations leads to conclusions still generally considered absurd by more traditional scientific thinking. And now with "constants" perhaps actually varying (see here), it looks like the clockwork structure that people claim to have surpassed yet still seem to cling to is further disintegrating.

Given my existentialist leanings, this is all wonderful. Find the crutches, and yank them out from under people and see how they deal with it. This is where the real resistance is, and why people are so determinedly religious or atheist. And folks who get by without assertions are Kierkegaard's "mob": they shy away from their place in the world and skim along. (I will demur from a claim as to whether that was from me or Mr. K. for my own sake, but I hope those that are unconcerned will not be engaging in this thread.)

:cheers:
-Sean

 

[Jynx]

I believe in what can be proven. Granted, I know that it is widely known that "technically" there is nothing about creationism that can be disproven. However, I'm a scientific being by nature, and a realist... so I stick to atheism. However religion does fascinate me, especially learning the ins & outs of those on the other side of the rock.