Your Religious Views

[tanner123]

i have absolutely no religious views at all i dont believe in any religion or any higher being then anyone and evolution is how man was created. although i do respect MOST religions and are interested in some but i dont believe in anything i dont see basically.

 

[Nova_C]

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.

Well, yes. But all science, all theories start with observation. We observe something happening (Or not happening) and then look closer and analyze deeper to try to understand it. But the five senses are all we have and sight, taste, touch, sound and smell all fit under the title 'observation'.

We're not really disagreeing with each other, but I think what's happening is that you think I'm implying all science is is seeing something and making up an explanation for it. I'm not. I'm saying science is based upon our observations of our physical world.

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?

Well, then why even acknowledge that religion exists? Well, I assume you do because of the far reaching effects it has on society. Besides, most religions call for the spreading of the 'word' so to speak, so you're going to have to deal with them at some point. And if you think that believing what is factual instead of fantastical is better for us, then in order to convince them you're going to have to approach them on a level that isn't immediately telling them they're stupid. So acknowledging their faith as something that is very real and very important to them is, well, important.

Besides, if you claimed that a unicorn walked into your room and said that Tampa Bay was gonna win the world series, I wouldn't believe you. I may say you're foolish or crazy. However, unless you want me to also believe in this unicorn there is no need for proof. You're convinced. Who cares what I think?

The only time someone who is religious has a burden of proof is when they're trying to proselytize. Or influence governmental policy. The fact that some attempt to do this without respecting that burden of proof is not representative of the fallacies of belief, but the fallacies of that person.

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.

And I again content that science cannot establish truth. Ever. Truth is an absolute and science specifically avoids absolutes because of the dangers of dogma. What happens when science begins to fall into the pitfalls of groupthink, dogmatic thinking and the dangers of expectation? Well, stuff like the Piltdown man. Science eventually proved the hoax, but not until after decades of theories had been affected by the hoax.

As far as religious ideas subjected to being disproved, they are, in a way. However, this is where I say that science and religion are unrelated. You can't go to a believer and say "There is no unequivocal evidence for the existence of God, therefore, God does not exist" and expect them to go "Wow, you're right, I never thought of that!" Belief is absolutely subjective and someone's reasons for belief could be purely emotional. This does not invalidate their beliefs, but rather, makes it so their reasons for belief can not be used as reasons for any one else to believe. (I'll continue this in the next section).

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.

Religion IS, by definition, illogical. There's no way around that. However, there's obviously something going on if religion is so common. Not to say that's evidence of God's existence, but rather, that religion is doing something, filling some role for the people who believe. If these people can engage in a rational discussion about their faith then they would acknowledge that their faith cannot be proven. However, if you can get over your prejudice about believers then you'll acknowledge that their faith is based on something that occurred in their lives. While their reasoning is objectively irrational and illogical, to them it makes sense, which is why you can't simply say "No proof = no God". They have enough proof of their own, which may not be able to be expressed, to justify their belief.

Occam's Razor doesn't really work for something that is primarily an emotional reaction. How many people here are married/in a long term relationship and have said "Why did s/he do that? It makes NO sense!" I would imagine all of you. Because people don't act with pure logic and reason. Even atheists can be irrational. It's a part of the human condition.

Which is probably a good thing. Being coldly logical results in many of the inhumanities we perpetrate on ourselves. Religion also serves as a unifier for many peoples, despite the sectarian conflicts that also come out of it. A lot of the humanitarian work that goes on in the world today is done by religious organizations. People who are alone, or in need of emotional support find acceptance and belonging in religion.

The immediate response to that, I expect, is reference to the atrocities committed in the name of God, the wars fought over religion throughout history. I believe that humans are humans and we don't change. My claim is that religion ultimately is an irrelevant factor in the larger scale of overall human interaction. I point to the atheist communist states who oppress and the wars fought over ideology, resources and greed as examples of this. I point to the tangles alliances that pulled the world into a conflict in WW1 and the imperialism of Nazi Germany as the cause of WW2 as evidence of this claim.

One last question, Snakespeare - would you support the outright banning of religion? If not, why not?

 

[Snakespeare]

I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on many of these points, though we clearly agree on others (e.g., a belief in god has no logical basis--that pretty much takes care of it for me). And I think you're going to need to read some Kant (not to mention most of the history of Western philosophy post Plato, and post Aquinas--Erich Fromm? Whitehead?) before we can have a constructive discussion of the various definitions of "truth."

And of course I wouldn't support a ban on religion. It's a matter of conscience, and such things should not ever be subject to government control. And in the United States we have a number of proto-athiests such as Jefferson, Paine, and Madison to thank for codifying this idea into law and the American political tradition in general.

 

[suecornish]

Besides, if you claimed that a unicorn walked into your room and said that Tampa Bay was gonna win the world series, I wouldn't believe you. I may say you're foolish or crazy. However, unless you want me to also believe in this unicorn there is no need for proof. You're convinced. Who cares what I think?

It's been a while. Lost the internet at home so doing it at work.

What would you not believe? That Tampa Bay could win the series? That a unicorn can talk? Or that there still is unicorns.

The existance of God has never been proven. People have created a system of beliefs to help them cope with what they don't understand. With a God, all knowing and all powerful, people can find it easier to blame "God" for what goes wrong with their life just as they blame "Satan" for what they do wrong. These systems of beliefs have been shaped into religion to control
the masses or as Karl Marx stated "it is opium for the masses". In a way that is good because it curbs man's natural prepensity to be destructive and cruel; and, in a way it is bad because a lot of people do not take responsibility for their own actions and are unable to think and extrapolate for themselves.

I am muslim and I feel as a current muslim theologian stated, "If God does not exist than it's the biggest con job in all of man's history. But, I would rather be on the safe side and try to follow what I believe are God's wishes than not to; after all, there just may be a God and I certainly don't want to be on his/her bad side".

If I have offended anyone, I am sorry. Each of us has to believe what makes us happy and contented, no matter what as long as it doesn't entail sacrificing babies or eating live goats. We should not judge others for what they believe, only accept them on how they act. Character and morals are what count, not what religious place one goes to.

 

[jazzgeek]

I am muslim and I feel as a current muslim theologian stated, "If God does not exist than it's the biggest con job in all of man's history. But, I would rather be on the safe side and try to follow what I believe are God's wishes than not to; after all, there just may be a God and I certainly don't want to be on his/her bad side".

A rephrasing of "Pascal's Wager".

If I have offended anyone, I am sorry. Each of us has to believe what makes us happy and contented, no matter what as long as it doesn't entail sacrificing babies or eating live goats.

Whew! That was close, because I sacrifice goats.

We should not judge others for what they believe, only accept them on how they act. Character and morals are what count, not what religious place one goes to.

I was raised Lutheran, and I never really took to the whole "justification by faith" tenet. If Ted Bundy or Charles Manson can "find God" at the last second and get a pass to the Pearly Gates, then I'll happily burn for eternity.

regards,
jazz

 

[dizzl]

Science is no different than religion. Instead of reading the Bible and coming up with a bunch of different views you look into a microscope and other scientific related ways of exploring the truth. You then come up with your view of what ever you looked at and assessed.

 

[snakewispera snr]

If Ted Bundy or Charles Manson can "find God" at the last second and get a pass to the Pearly Gates, then I'll happily burn for eternity.

regards,
jazz

But did they get in? You won't get that answer until you get to go over.
MIKE

 

[zwyatt]

Science is no different than religion.

Wrong. The failure to make the distinction only perpetuates the problems that exist between the two sides.

 

[zwyatt]

One more thing, before you ask, see this thread for clarification:
http://cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26756&highlight=Kansas

The fact that that thread was started related religion in a poor disguise (ID) rather than religion really doesn't matter. The story remains the same.

 

[jazzgeek]

But did they get in? You won't get that answer until you get to go over.

Agreed, and yet the doctrine of "justification by faith" (and faith alone, mind you) states that that is all that's necessary.

That, and the fact that my personal theology rejects that, are my points. If faith alone is all it takes for one's personal salvation, I'd have been embezzling, thieving, and murdering up the wazoo by now.

I'd be a complete arse, but hey, I'd be saved, because I "had faith".

regards,
jazz

 

[diamondlil]

Agreed, and yet the doctrine of "justification by faith" (and faith alone, mind you) states that that is all that's necessary.

That, and the fact that my personal theology rejects that, are my points. If faith alone is all it takes for one's personal salvation, I'd have been embezzling, thieving, and murdering up the wazoo by now.

I'd be a complete arse, but hey, I'd be saved, because I "had faith".

regards,
jazz

Or even worse, you'd be doing a George Michael tribute act :sidestep:

 

[jazzgeek]

Or even worse, you'd be doing a George Michael tribute act :sidestep:

GAHHHHH!!!!

Hey, speaking of.....while you may not follow politics here in the States, you may appreciate this....it's from my favorite political blog, because the snark is top-notch.

regards,
jazz

 

[jazzgeek]

Sorry. Bad link.

Ah, that's better.



regards,
jazz

 

[diamondlil]

Now I've got an image of you with stubble and a guitar............... :grin01:
Great linkage, as per usual, you are the king of links!

 

[suecornish]

See, why should man be good all his life to be saved when all you have to do is on your death bed state you repent of your sins. Like, why bother being good. I also was raise Luthern but by a Catholic grandmother and a Methodist grandfather in a Jewish neighborhood. Maybe it would be better to say that I am a Muslim Seeker. I do believe in only one God but that God is know by many names. There are things is Islam I do not believe in because they are just the continuation of pagan practices under a new banner of Islam. Me, my (heart) faith, believes that this is a God, Supreme Being (ala Fifth Element), and it lets me believe that one day I will stand before him/her. BUT, also, my (brain) faith tells me that there might not be a God. Its like the SUN. My heart faith tells me that the Sun will always be there shining even though the clouds might hide it and I can't see it but my brain faith tells me that the Sun is running out of fuel and will eventually collapse in on itself or explode taking our planetary system out with it; BUT, hopefully, not in my life time.

And cooked goat is better than raw goat especially with a little sweet and sour sauce or cucumber dressing. :crazy02:

Life is not simply black and white. Your right, I'm wrong - I'm right, your wrong. It doesn't work that way.

Think of faith (and religion) as an almost ripe apple. Set the apple in the middle of a table and have one person sit at each of it's four sides. One person will say the apple is totally red, the second will say it's red and yellow, the third will say it's all yellow, the fourth will say it's yellow and red. One apple, four descriptions; that's religion. Everyone is right because thats what they see. (You can use the elephant and four blind people, all the same.)

 

[Roy Munson]

Think of faith (and religion) as an almost ripe apple. Set the apple in the middle of a table and have one person sit at each of it's four sides. One person will say the apple is totally red, the second will say it's red and yellow, the third will say it's all yellow, the fourth will say it's yellow and red. One apple, four descriptions; that's religion. Everyone is right because thats what they see. (You can use the elephant and four blind people, all the same.)

I don't really agree with this. Even if I were a theist of some sort, I don't think I'd agree. How can everyone be right? I know plenty of spiritual people who believe in God and heaven, but who do not believe in a devil or hell. I know others who claim that refusing to accept Jesus Christ as your savior will result in an eternity of torment in a very real hell. How can both groups be right? And who has actually seen the "apple"? It seems that most theistic people I know are relying on ancient accounts of the "apple", and they either accept these accounts at face value or they mix and modify accounts to suit their tastes.

It's more like there's an opaque, overturned bowl that can't be lifted in the middle of the table. The people around the table don't even know if there's really an apple under the bowl at all. Some think there is an apple under the bowl, some think there's something very much like an apple under there, some think there's a banana under the bowl, and some think there isn't anything there at all. :shrugs:

 

[zwyatt]

I don't really agree with this. Even if I were a theist of some sort, I don't think I'd agree. How can everyone be right? I know plenty of spiritual people who believe in God and heaven, but who do not believe in a devil or hell. I know others who claim that refusing to accept Jesus Christ as your savior will result in an eternity of torment in a very real hell. How can both groups be right?

Everyone can't be right. If two people have contradictory stories either they are both wrong or only one is right, right? right. The only case that everyone can be right is when religion is a completely individual thing and only consists of what each individual makes it out to be. The whole I'm okay, you're okay, we're all okay sort of thing. But when religion becomes just something that each person makes up for themselves, it's not the same thing anymore...that's not even religion in my book. That's just each individual making up something that suits their needs at the time.

If I believed that some thing created the universe at some point in time and did it in just such a way, then I can not accept any other explanation given by any other religion if it contradicts my belief in any way. If I admit that someone else's story might be right as well, then I'm admitting that my story and my beliefs might be wrong. That is IF I believed something like this to begin with.

 

[clipclopclip]

Well, I came to this thread late....

I am spiritually Pagan and I am ethnically and culturally Jewish. What a weird combo! I am a very spiritual person with no religious beliefs. No dissertation here hahahah. :rofl:

 

[suecornish]

Being right depends on one's perspective. When cops investigate an accident they may get many different versions of the same accident as it depends on where one was standing in relationship to the accident. It's like sailboat racing, The America's Cup. A camera from the side and slightly back will make it look like the boats are 5 feet apart but when an overhead camera is you can see that the boats are more like 25 feet apart.

I am sitting here wondering if this is going to be the longest thread on the site.

And I like the analogy of the opaque bowl, it's better than the apple one I used. If you take faith as the bowl and what's underneath it as God then some of us will come up empty. Either way, some of us are going to be very disappointed.

I sometimes think that what we are today is just a stage of a journey. When we die we go on with our journey somewhere else. Or maybe we are all just part of a dream and when the person wakes up we die. Or maybe,,,,,,,,,

 

[zwyatt]

Being right depends on one's perspective. When cops investigate an accident they may get many different versions of the same accident as it depends on where one was standing in relationship to the accident. It's like sailboat racing, The America's Cup. A camera from the side and slightly back will make it look like the boats are 5 feet apart but when an overhead camera is you can see that the boats are more like 25 feet apart.

Exactly, so isn't it premature for religions to make such bold declarations about the "truth" as they do before the view from that overhead camera is available? And what would count as the overhead view? I don't think that anything will ever happen that will put everyone on the same page. The fact that one can not prove the absence of something already suggests that religions will continue to persist creating their own versions of reality and the truth. :awcrap:

The fact that these are all just versions of what is right based on differing perspectives doesn't make them any more right. They can not all be correct and the correctness of one (if one is even correct) mutually excludes the correctness of the others.