Your Religious Views

[jaxom1957]

Some people believe I evolved from a jackass!

Are you sure they used the past tense, as in an act already accomplished? :grin01:

 

[jaxom1957]

Read and prey is what god said

"Prey" is what most churches do.

 

[Rich in KY]

Are you sure they used the past tense, as in an act already accomplished? :grin01:

LOL! Nope, I'm sure many people will tell you that I am very much a jackass! :eek1:

 

[Nova_C]

Yes, this is the key point, isn't it? At what point is science so successful that one needs to side with it rather than superstition? Again, not for reasons of faith, but because it can be tested and analyzed, and because its proofs can be reproduced and scrutinized. Just as astrology has given way to astronomy, perhaps it's time for theology to give way to philosophy and reason and science.

Does it really need to, though? I consider religion and science to be two completely separate things. Existence of a deity is something that cannot be dis proven and so it is not in the realm of science.

Here's the way I look at it.

Science is about facts. It is data. Science is the observation of the universe around us. Religion is about truth. It is a belief in an ultimate authority. For example - lets say we all lived in the Matrix. You know, Neo's running around trying to find some dude named Morpheus and everything we see, touch and taste is a simulation. The science, the accumulation of facts that we have about our universe is still valid. That's the thing about science - it makes no claim as to the truth of our universe - only how it works. Whereas the belief that we exist in a simulation and there is another world beyond, that is the realm of spirituality and religion because it is about truth.

Despite Neo's emergence from the Matrix and the existence of Zion in the movies, truth is something we can never really, truly know. But we can know facts and by living our lives based on the facts that we know we can steadily improve the lives of everyone. Knowing how things work allows us to do things better, more efficiently and more cheaply giving even the poorest of people a chance at something better.

It's when people try to take the things they believe (faith) and use that to overrule facts that problems occur. That's when we end up with oppression, violence and hatred. That's when we end up with people trying to take the facts out of science (Intelligent Design, lol) and replace them with truth, the things we cannot know. If people who believe in God learn that their faith can exist beside the facts that we have learned about our world and that neither one has anything to do with the other I think we'll be much better off.

 

[jazzgeek]

Religion is for people who are afraid of hell; spiritualism is for people who have been there.

Well said.

(So, you've been to Tulsa too, eh? )

regards,
jazz

 

[Nova_C]

Dammit, I just realized I posted an early version of my 'beliefs' about science vs religion a few pages ago. Sorry for the repost - I've had this discussion a bunch of times in a bunch of places and I'm losing track of what I've posted where.

 

[dizzl]

Ridiculous...thrity-some pages of peaceful, respectful, and delightful debate, insight, and exchange of ideas.

And then this nonsense. If you can't state your opinion without implying that all others are "laughable"...you should probably avoid religous discussions...

...especially when the religion you are practicing is the youngest religion known to modern man, and has no historical background beyond North America...??should I add my "roflmao" emoticon here, or simply let it sink in??

Wow, Some ones a little too up tight! :sobstory:

 

[Nova_C]

Wow, Some ones a little too up tight! :sobstory:

Out of curiousity, Dizzl, do you feel that insinuation, arrogance and mockery are appropriate ways to build goodwill and foster productive debate? Because the post you made before reads like flamebait.

 

[v_various]

...especially when the religion you are practicing is the youngest religion known to modern man?

you are forgetting scientology!
*cough*

 

[Cflaguy]

Tulsa?

Well said.

(So, you've been to Tulsa too, eh? )

regards,
jazz

A friend of mine actually said that to me some number of years ago. But I'll take full credit. :grin01:

 

[dizzl]

Tom Criuse

 

[zwyatt]

Well, I guess I got to this party a bit late. Anyways...

Here's the way I look at it.

Science is about facts. It is data. Science is the observation of the universe around us. Religion is about truth. It is a belief in an ultimate authority. For example - lets say we all lived in the Matrix. You know, Neo's running around trying to find some dude named Morpheus and everything we see, touch and taste is a simulation. The science, the accumulation of facts that we have about our universe is still valid. That's the thing about science - it makes no claim as to the truth of our universe - only how it works. Whereas the belief that we exist in a simulation and there is another world beyond, that is the realm of spirituality and religion because it is about truth.

I think you got it about half right. The science part is mostly okay...however, I would say that science is about truth. Each new discovery science makes about the world around us, how it works, and how it came to be this way is like getting a little bit more "truth" about nature.
Religion, in my view, is not about truth so to speak. Religion is about what people believe to be true or, in many cases, what people want the truth to be. Science, on the other hand, is about what can be demonstrated to be true. I believe it's a bit premature to call relate religion to truth when religion is based almost solely on belief of/in the unknown.

 

[Checkerbelly]

I'm so not religious, I'm not even athiest. Does that make sense?

I can't vote

 

[tom e]

Hmm.. I was looking at the poll results here, either snake people tend to lean more atheist/agnostic than the rest of the country, or our friends from other countries are less religious than Americans.
I know that's clear to everyone looking at this thread, but I just found it interesting... Too bad we can't view the poll results on this one.

 

[Roy Munson]

I'm so not religious, I'm not even athiest. Does that make sense?

I don't know if it makes sense, but I know what you mean.

Hmm.. I was looking at the poll results here, either snake people tend to lean more atheist/agnostic than the rest of the country, or our friends from other countries are less religious than Americans.

I'd say that both statements are true. Most of the non-Americans on this site are European, and Europe is definitely more secular than the U.S. in general.

 

[tyflier]

Wow, Some ones a little too up tight! :sobstory:

I'm not uptight. I simply don't like to see a GREAT and respectful debate go downhill after 34 pages because ONE individual decides that his opinion is more important than someone else's...and somehow less ridiculous.

Stick around for awhile, and you will see that most of us here are extremely accepting of everyone's opinion, without being degrading, insinuating, or derogatory. The post that you made, which I quoted, was completely inflammatory and unneccessary.

So no...I'm not uptight. In fact, I am usually the first one to jump in with both feet and enjoy a good debate. If I was uptight, I wouldn't be able to do that, and still enjoy my time here.

But I am also one of the first to point out when someone is out of line. And you...were out of line with your last statement...The first part of the post was fine. It was the implication that evolution was a laughable theory with no scientific evidence...which is patently untrue...that drew my attention.

 

[Snakespeare]

Does it really need to, though? I consider religion and science to be two completely separate things. Existence of a deity is something that cannot be dis proven and so it is not in the realm of science.

This is essentially the argument Stephen Jay Gould makes in one of his books, and as much as I admire the late Prof. Gould on matters of evolution and baseball, I think he was totally wrong about this.

I really don't see how religion has any claims to "truth," as it depends on faith rather than "facts," reason, analysis, and experimentation. I just don't agree with how you're using these terms. I'm going to bypass the Matrix example (which is problematic in a variety of ways, I think) and offer a counter-example of Copernicus that I think sufficiently refutes that example (though I'd be happy to follow up if folks aren't satisfied). If you go outside before dawn with a notebook with the assignment of determining whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun, and record your observations in a notebook, you're likely to determine (incorrectly) the former. The genius of Copernicus (and science) is that he tapped into an accumulation of additional (and less obvious) data that offered a better, though more complicated explanation of the state of the universe. My point is that if you reduce everything to a question of what one can see vs. what one cannot see you're missing a really big, and profound gray area in between in which really smart people can find truths that subvert prevailing conventional views.

As to the question of a deity not being disproven: You also cannot disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a teapot orbiting Jupiter, or the great JuJu at the bottom of the sea has not created the universe. Science is not about disproving things--it's about probabilities. The probability that a supernatural entity created the universe is tremendously low, though even Richard Dawkins, good scientist (and atheist) that is is, would say that we need to deal with probabilities here rather than absolutes.

Let me try to get at this in another way. In what other aspect of your life, exclusive of questions about the origins of the universe, is it acceptable to abdicate reason and declare that you simply have "faith" in something as a demonstration of proof? If my car doesn't start in the morning, do I blame it on my neighbor, who is obviously a witch who has put a spell on my Honda? Hopefully not. If you get sick, do you pray for God to cure you, or do you find a smart person with antibiotics? One could get away with this sort of nonsense in the fourteenth century, when we knew much less than we know now. It amazes me that people persist in thinking that religion is somehow special and different and exalted in some way. It also amazes me that horoscopes still appear in most major newspapers.

 

[tom e]

Penn Gillette (Oops Jillette) said it better than I could have- check this out... Click on the link to listen if you want, or you can read it and skip the commercials..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

 

[Nova_C]

I really don't see how religion has any claims to "truth," as it depends on faith rather than "facts," reason, analysis, and experimentation. I just don't agree with how you're using these terms. I'm going to bypass the Matrix example (which is problematic in a variety of ways, I think) and offer a counter-example of Copernicus that I think sufficiently refutes that example (though I'd be happy to follow up if folks aren't satisfied). If you go outside before dawn with a notebook with the assignment of determining whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun, and record your observations in a notebook, you're likely to determine (incorrectly) the former. The genius of Copernicus (and science) is that he tapped into an accumulation of additional (and less obvious) data that offered a better, though more complicated explanation of the state of the universe. My point is that if you reduce everything to a question of what one can see vs. what one cannot see you're missing a really big, and profound gray area in between in which really smart people can find truths that subvert prevailing conventional views.

I didn't say 'see' I said 'observe', or rather, 'observations'. Copernicus observed a different explanation for the rising and falling of the sun. We can only observe things. How else to we analyze?

As to the question of a deity not being disproven: You also cannot disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a teapot orbiting Jupiter, or the great JuJu at the bottom of the sea has not created the universe.

Agreed. Not sure how it relates.

Science is not about disproving things--it's about probabilities. The probability that a supernatural entity created the universe is tremendously low, though even Richard Dawkins, good scientist (and atheist) that is is, would say that we need to deal with probabilities here rather than absolutes.

Yes, but science cannot determine the existence of a deity or lack thereof. That's my point. When dealing with the scientific method probability is fine. However, when dealing with faith and the beliefs of the religious probability is irrelevant. In order to really converse with someone of faith a common ground needs to be reached. Outright denying the entire basis of their belief system will only make them defensive.

Let me try to get at this in another way. In what other aspect of your life, exclusive of questions about the origins of the universe, is it acceptable to abdicate reason and declare that you simply have "faith" in something as a demonstration of proof? If my car doesn't start in the morning, do I blame it on my neighbor, who is obviously a witch who has put a spell on my Honda? Hopefully not. If you get sick, do you pray for God to cure you, or do you find a smart person with antibiotics? One could get away with this sort of nonsense in the fourteenth century, when we knew much less than we know now. It amazes me that people persist in thinking that religion is somehow special and different and exalted in some way. It also amazes me that horoscopes still appear in most major newspapers.

Okay, now you're just putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said faith is proof. Show me where I said I would blame a car not starting on a witch. Show me where I said I would rely on God to heal me instead of a doctor. Show me where I said religion is special and exalted. For someone who talked about gray areas, you sure see this as "Anyone who holds any kind of belief in any kind of unprovable existence is obviously a witch burning, faith healing religious crazy fundie!"

And tell me, how does science attain 'truth'? Every single accepted scientific theory, law and discovery is available for discrediting. That's the beauty of it: Nothing is absolute. Mistakes, misunderstandings and pure human error can be corrected by continual analysis. At no point does science ever lay claim to truth.

And no one has shown me why religion is not about truth. It aims to explain the very nature of existence in spiritual terms. Mistakes, misunderstandings and pure human error are not corrected by continual analysis because the texts that religion bases itself on are supposed to be absolute truth. Divine inspiration. At every point does religion lay claim to truth.

 

[Snakespeare]

Observation depends upon seeing things, by definition. Analysis is a way of interpreting what one observes or sees--it is not a process that is synonymous with the mode of sensory apprehension alone. If we both go to an art museum and look at a painting, we may or may not agree on how to analyze it, not only because of how we observe it, but because a complex set of other associations and rational processes that are unique to our own experiences and ideas. Copernicus didn't observe things differently--he applied mathematics in a new way to what everyone observed and provided a new context for understanding those observations.

I'll skip point two since we seem to agree, though its relevance tends to hinge upon point three, about which you are correct: I'm calling into question the idea of basing or establishing truths (or however close one can ever come to the truth) on anything other than reason. And this is perhaps where we may need to part ways. No, science cannot with 100% certainty prove that a god doesn't exist. But it also cannot prove that Santa Clause doesn't exist, and therein lies the problem. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If I were to declare here and now that a unicorn just walked into my room and told me that Tampa Bay was going to win the World Series, I would have to produce some pretty powerful evidence to prove this (on both counts--maybe more on the latter). To say that reason and the logical precision demanded by rational debate do not apply to religion is to depart from the logical basis of rational debate. If one is secure in one's faith, why bother debating the infidels at all, since rational debate has no legitimacy or relevance in establishing the validity of what constitutes truth in the realm of faith and spiritual matters?

My final comments were not directed at you, but at the consequences of this way of thinking. Why should scientific ideas be subject to being disproved (and correctly so), but religious ideas not? Simply because they are based on religious texts that have been deemed by church bureaucracies to be "true"? The fact that you say these texts "are supposed to be absolute truth" is an equivocation, as is your statement: "At every point does religion lay claim to truth." That's precisely the point. People suppose them to be true, and they claim them to be true. But this is an immensely weaker way of establishing truth than in science, where claims to truth (or somewhere near the ballpark of truth) depend on facts and rigorous experimentation.

Again, if you want to say that the conventions of logic and rational debate don't apply to religion, that's fine. But in doing so you're saying that religion is irrational and illogical. And if the "truths" you're talking about are purely spiritual truths (which are subjective, and unable to be verified by reason and logic), they have little to do with the truths of the temporal world that most of us have in mind.