Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by crunk-colt, Aug 7, 2009.
Both science and religion are subsets of philosophy
I disagree. Religion you could make a case for, but not science. Science is fact based (when its being done correctly). You can have a philosophy based off of science, though. In the scope of this discussion, you could argue that it is, but real science is not a philosophy.
Science is a subset of philosophy.
Science is "fact" based, however it all starts with a "what if" base.
I do not really see how in the scope of this argument has anything to do with it. It all started with philosophy and branched off.
I totally disagree, real science is a philosophy.
Not really though.
Science actually starts, with "how"? Things like, invention, start with what if.
I'm a 6, working my way towards 7 lol. The God Delusion was a really good read. You read any of Dawkins' other work? Was thinking of picking up some of his other stuff.
I know this was directed at the OP, but if I may...
I agree with Dawkins on about 110% of what he says. However, he's too angry for my tastes. I think he comes more from a, "hatred of religion" sometimes.
maybe i should elaborate on why i said science and religion are polar opposites. yes, they both try to answer questions that we don't know the answers to... but that is where the similarties end. they go about answering these questions in entirely different ways.
science thrives on evidence, whether it be good or bad for current theories. the mantra of science seems to be "our best answer at the moment." and that is the good part about science - it is refinable. in fact it encourages refinement upon the discovery of new evidence.
can the same be said for religion? not even close. religion is not based on evidence and it is not refinable. it thinks it has the answers to everything, even though all of these "answers" are based on nothing. they see something that is not explained and say "GODDIDIT!" without even considering other possibilities.
science: start with the evidence, and arrive at a conclusion based on that evidence
religion: start with a conclusion, and use that conclusion to explain everything
Dawkins does hate religion (and with good reason), but his hatred is easily paralleled and probably surpassed by Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. TGD is the only Dawkins book i have read, but i have read Hitchens and Harris as well. i dont really want to focus on one guy.
Like I said I agree with him, and I used to be a religion hater myself, but I realized along the way that, the anger and hatred, puts one at odds with the other side and resolutions never come forth. Personally, I've never seen anyone soften their stance or open their mind when the opposition comes at the discussion angry.
This is a tough topic, and its hard to not be too judgmental or opinionated. I put 4. I was raised Roman Catholic and still am, as is my wife and our child. At this point, it is closer to being a family relic and tradition than anything else though. For who knows how many centuries, our blood has been one way, and its something we celebrate and embrace. But the traditions and motions we go through are not really about being God fearing or finding salvation. Its simply a ritual our family goes through, the same as our ancestors did for generations before.
I think a problem with the generation before, is that they took their teachings and upbringing too literally. School taught them about God. Mama taught them about God, and thats just the way its gotta be. I see a lot of people put their self worth into the decisions they make. Some need God and use him as a crutch, so they believe. Others deny him because of past experiences.
But as a 4, I think its fascinating to deny the possibility of the one extreme vs. the other. I see a lot of cynical people who are quick to deny an existence because the truth is simply not in front of their face. The fact is, there is no proof to either confirm or deny God and no argument carries any true weight in changing this fact.
Some of the smartest people I know believe in God. I mean rare and elite intellect. And I see people who let themselves get influenced by religious zealots seeming stupidity or ignorance, and the go and deny God, and grow to hate religion.
The truth is not out there for us. You can only feel. You can only think you know.
One thing I agree with was Hardkore, and the fact that, maybe God is a force. Perhaps a galaxy making phenomena. Or an entity, not necessarily with a gray beard, that is beyond any sort of tale we tell ourselves to help us think we're not alone, and the party doesn't end once we expire. Part of me can't help to think though, that we come from nothing, and we simply go back to nothing. And that's really what its all about right? What happens to us when we die?
So inventions are not part of science?
For anyone interested I point to this website...if anyone has this book, I find you fortunate...but the site is loaded with the content as well.
They use science. I use a light switch but I'm not an electrician.
An inventor can be a scientist. It took the abstract to come up with the idea, but it takes the concrete to prove it works.
Again, you're basing it off the "what if" question, which isn't what science is about. Science is about "how". Figuring out the "how" through research, observation and experimentation is not a philosophy.
how does changing the question, change it from philosophy?
Lots of our greatest scientists start with "What if", and then get to the hows. Without "what if" or "why" there is no How. You can not seperate them. How is pretty useless without what if or why.
Still "how" is just another philosophical question. Science is the philosophy of figuring out the "how"s.
Because "what if" is a philosophical question. Less so then "why". "How" is a mechanical question.
Most of our great scientists, are known for asking "how" not "what if". At least not until they asked and answered the how first.
How is hardly useless without a why. That's your own personal philosophy.
How do we get to how without the why?
Why is a huge philosophical question. It is one of the ultimate philosophical question that will never be answered by science.
How is a mechanical question when there is an ability to actually test it. Before that, it is purely philosophical. Such as, "how does the universe still accelerate?"
Philosophy isn't just sitting on a rock thinking about things.
All questions, "how", "why", "who", "what" are philosophical questions. We just understand more now and are able to figure something out. It doesn't take something out of philosophy and turn it into science. It just goes into the subset of philosophy that we call science.
I don't call science a subset of philosophy. It's cool if you do, but don't include me in the "we."
I'm an Athletiest.....which is basically just an Athiest jock. LOL.
Posted via Mobile Device
So science isn't a system of beliefs accepted by a group of school?
I do believe that there is thinking and beliefs in science.
Just re-reading through the thread. I find it fascinating that the onus of proof that there is a God is on religion but yet no one has asked the non-believers why they dont believe in God? So ill ask it now...fire away.
The majority of people who do believe feel God is in some form omnipotent. I know I feel that way. But if he is neither seen or heard how can his "legend" be believed? For me that conclusion is simple: There are certain things the human mind just cant process fast enough or are outside of our ability to hear (dog whistle anyone? lol). Is it not possible God could be outside of that spectacle?
havent read the thread and dont intend to tangle much but i just want to remind the 7s that you are asserting a belief
I believe that there is no god because that is how I feel, just like you believe in god because of how you feel. I'm not asking you to prove god exists, just like I am not trying to disprove god's existence. You can be a pastafarian for all I care, that would not make you wrong in my book. Now if you try and tell me outright that what I believe is wrong, then yea, we're going to have problems. I'm not placing any onus of proof on anyone's beliefs unless they question my own though.
That's why I voted for 6. I'm almost positive there is no God, but there is no way for me to know for sure. I'm am however 100% positive that if there is a God, he's nothing like what's depicted in the Bible.
I think when someone asserts something, the onus is on them to prove it. The non-believers are waiting for proof of God. I would personally like some hard facts before following an ideology.
Personally, I've never liked the idea of organzied religion because to become a believer is to believe hearsay. (This is just my opinion and not meant to offend anyone BTW)
Had we lived in the times of Christ, it may be a little different. However, going off the word of others on events that took place 2000 years ago never sat right with me.
EDIT: I also agree with Stiches. I would never force anyone to prove their God, I just wouldn't follow one until they do.
When the discussion goes no further than belief, no one has to prove anything.
However, when the discussion turns into what other people can and can't do based on another's religion, then questions should be answered.
Besides, the "proof" for a god not existing isn't excepted as proof by the religious. So the higher standards of what makes proof or a fact is placed on the atheists, yet those standards aren't applied to proof of a god. For example:
- We cannot detect god with any of the 5 senses.
- There is no mathematical evidence of god.
- There's no evidence, fossils, remains, etc to prove there was a god.
These things are not proof enough. Which is fine. Yet, when asked to prove the existence of god, we're given things like, "our brains can't handle it" or "I just know/feel it",...which is less proof then the atheist "evidence".
While I, as a human, can not dispute your statement of the facts as we know them. I ask you this "Do we, in fact, know all the facts?" From God's point of view why should he concern himself with any need to prove anything to us? Just what would be the point? He stands ready show himself if we but open up to him and ask; yet if we demand proof he laughs and moves on.
I ask you, if you were he, would you be any more willing to lower your standards? I wouldn't.
To be fair, you would agree your list is from the perspective of a non-believer....obviously, a believer's list would clearly claim that God has been heard by man's ears; God (and his many forms) have been seen by man's eyes; God through Jesus his son and one in the same with the Holy Spirit has been tasted, smelt, and touched! And the 6th sense clearly leans toward God by his believers for anyone not blessed/fortunate to have used the other 5 senses.
Mathematical evidence is the calendar and the entire B.C. A.D. reference (thats pretty huge historically)
Fossils, remains, etc have corroborated the stories, based on many of the findings in the middle east and Holy sites and other places "and people" referenced in many of the Biblical stories, Torah, Koran, etc and locations that have been passed down by many of the worlds religions in which their God has been spoken of, and all His acts, in all His glory.
Heck based on these items listed, there is far more historical evidence of his existence and presence than not.
(so its really about perspective and beliefs when it comes to what you feel are finite supporting arguments in your position)
Atheists are the "Doubting Thomas" of our society...that's fine....that doesn't equal proof/evidence of their position; it just reinforces no-belief unless one can touch, can see! "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"!
All opinion based on your strong beliefs.
Which is great. I wasn't trying to argue god's existence, what I'm saying is that, believers categorically deny the "facts" I listed above, even though they are closer to what "proof" is, than anything believers use to try and prove a god.
Sorry if that is confusing.
No. I'm sorry. When discussing this under the scientific method, none of those things are true. Wait, "true" isn't the right word...how about this, none of those things qualify as facts. There is no verifiable evidence that anyone has heard, touched, seen, tasted or smelt god. That in of itself is not proof of anything, but when coupled with the other things in my list, at least point more towards proof.
A calendar is not mathematical evidence. Neither is BC/AD. First of all calendars are flawed, hence leap years, they prove nothing about god. Secondly, BC/AD is merely a human construct to delineate between 2 periods of time. So much so, that BC has been switched to BCE.
No they haven't. There's no actual evidence that even Jesus existed. The only things they can prove, is that certain places and some powerful people existed. Those things no more prove the existence of god then, JFK, the Vietnam War, AIDS, and a box of chocolates proves the existence of Forrest Gump.
Based on historical events, and the myriad of diverse religions, I'd say that certainly points to god being found solely in person's imagination or even vanity.
Actually its only about what feels right for each individual. It really should begin and end there.
The problem many of us have is when someone else's religious based morals are to be forced on us.
Annnnnnnnd, that I hope in the future, when "proof" is part of the debate, that the religious will hold themselves to the same level of what constitutes proof, as they hold atheists to.
Your desire for facts and proof are a product of a mind than can neither comprehend nor accept the existence of a being with more capability than the human being. Humans only have five senses, yet cannot define the reality around them in their relationships with any of those senses. Thus, there exists more than physical reality and delineation in this world, and indeed in the Universe. In fact, the edge of physics, string theory, etc. now speculate, and can mathematically provide evidence for the existence of 11 dimensions! Yet the vast majority of humanity cannot even have an intelligent conversation about that concept.
The limitation of a functional proof of the existence of God is placed upon God (and by extension, believers) by humans who cannot accept the existence of any thing superior to themselves - except perhaps another human with whom they have come into contact, but then the superiority is usually one which can be measured in a statistical method. Thus, the expressed desiderata is for those who have experienced the presence and power of God to describe or define it in such a fashion that it can be put into the "box" defined by the non-believers arguments that will be verifiable by their humanly constructed means of measurement. Thus they set up the standard by which they would accept a proof which is utterly futile because any means of measurement devised by humanity is far to puny and incompetent, being a product of finite human intelligence, to even register the spiritual reality and life. Such a means, therefore, cannot begin to encompass the reality of God's attributes, let alone God's existence. I would suggest that those desiring proof of that sort should prove that they could, by some means, quantify a human emotion, upon which all relationships, good and bad, exist. Those relationships are real, yet they cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted. Yet, by the demands of some on this thread, they cannot exist because they leave no tangible residuum of their formation or passage. Have they never felt anger, love, fear, joy, hope. Are these explicable by a human intelligence as mere mechanistic productions of the brain under the stimulus of some change in chemicals in the brain. No doubt, there's some bloody damned fool who will try to explain it that way, but I doubt he would try to use it to predict his wife's actions in the next week, or into maneuvering her into doing what he wants. That is, if he has a wife. I would expect that one so locked into the supremacy of human intellect over all would be as bereft of life in it's fullness that he could not comprehend the fact that there are things that we know but that we cannot 'prove' , at least by the means discussed in this thread - such as a father's or mother's love, or a God.
Yet, there are those who will insist that these things exist without giving any proof of their existence except experiential - which is the exact same thing that persons of faith give for their belief in God.
All in all, this is a shadow argument against shadow propositions. We cannot prove the existence of a supreme deity, but all of us will know one way or another very shortly, as the cosmos measures time. So if you doubt, don't worry about it. If you are right, nothing will happen. However, if that is not the case............
I'm not confused, are you?
I'm a believer and 1. I didn't deny what you said and 2. I would be the very last person to try and prove my belief to anyone. Opinion to you; facts to me.
Again, a believer has no doubt about the facts! Whether Scientific method, Mathematical method, or Philosophical method. No doubts, none!
Who is forcing anything on you??
As stated quite simply: "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"! "We are God, You are God, God is in each and everyone of us! God is all around us"
One day all secrets and mysteries will be RE-revealed
P.S. Which reminds me of one of my favorite childhood jokes......So young Johnny was pulling his little red wagon up the hill right in front of the old Church. He was struggling at the weight of the wagon, an the incline of the hill, and was starting to toss profanities all around about his struggle. At that point, the Parish Father approached Johnny about his frustration, and the colorful words he was choosing. The Priest reminded Johnny that God was all around him, and being near His house, wouldn't appreciate what Johnny was saying. So Johnny looked saddened, and sad, Father, so God in the Church? is in the Sky? is out here with the grass, the flowers, the trees? The Father felt he made a break through and said, Yes Johnny, exactly, God is everywhere, God is with you, God is with me, God is inside and outside, God is in your wagon! Johnny, paused, and said, well $%#@ tell him to get his butt out and start pushing then!!!!
There is nothing skewed. There's no evidence of a god, in fact, there's more evidence of big foot. But that's fine. There doesn't need to be any evidence. One's faith can't be fact, otherwise its not a faith anymore.
No one is forcing anything on me in this thread. But I think it would help, if you read how this leg of the discussion began, and you'll understand my point.
Please understand, my post was a response to someone asking for atheists to prove god doesn't exist. The point I was making was that the burden of proof non believers are held to, is considerably higher than the burden of proof that believers hold themselves too.
Granted had I simply said what I just did, it probably would have went over better
I think if you were to ask a thousand history professors if the man Jesus existed and was indeed crucified as a political revolutionary, the vast majority would say yes whether they were people of faith or not. I would need to go to the textbooks for the empirical evidence but Jesus existence is largely undisputed by the historical community.
What can not be proved in any sense is whether or not Jesus is/was/will be what people of faith claim on His behalf and that is whether or not He is the Son of God. I believe that but make no claim for it on a scientific basis simply as a person of faith.
Exactly as I stated based on Archilogical digs, etc.
There are actually 10 senses at least. They are discovering more and more all of the time. For all that we know there might actually be a "god" sense. Some people might just be more sensitive to it than others. Like super tasters, whose taste buds are extremely sensitive. (Also turns out tongue does taste for more than sweet, salty, bitter and sour.)
Myself I am not a fan of oraganized religion at all. They seem to be the best way to get god out of one's life. Most people I have met that are athiests used to be part of an organized religion. However that might be because a vast majority of Americans are in one.
The Jesus debate is an interesting one. History is one of the least exact studies that I know of. Plus if there were actual proof that Jesus never existed then out of 1000 history professors, chances are 10 would actually know of it and 9 of them would keep it a secret anyways.
Myself I am leaning towards Jesus never actually existed and that he is a combination of many god tales and "awakened" people of that era. That in the gigantic scheme of things it does not really matter since the message should be bigger than the person.
Interesting, however, I didnt read into the OP as having anything to do wtih "organized religion" at all. The question isnt even a reference to it.
Frankly, I believe we "all of us" are all God-like and have God abilities. From a research standpoint, Noetic Science is actually discovering and re-learning, re-veiling many of the mysteries that we Humans have previously knew about our mental powers, and multiple sense powers, and fascinating research on the "soul" of all beings.
Clearly, I think the Bible as written word is not a literal document. History, and scholastic research shows many hidden messages, and mysteries within it, one of which is exactly what I think/lean towards, we humans are in fact more God-Like as creators, then we are simply in being created. Our minds possess far greater power than we have even come close to taping as a resource. Yes, some are more naturally gifted in this endevour than others, but all have the capability. The question, like many past issues of HUMAN relations is good vs. evil use and harnessing.
Very, very, very few have tapped into this capability.
But this has zero to do with organized religion as a whole.
this is off the debate, but i was watching the history channel tonight on the nostradumus effect i think. they did the whole show on isaac newton. i had no idea that he held such strong beliefs. the guy was practically obsessed with the bible.
it makes me laugh when i think of a guy like bill maher and in general people i have come across who think they are too intellegent to believe in a god. how about isaac freaking newton? is that enough for you? the guy is arguably the smartest person to ever walk the planet
Fair enough, I guess I get frustrated at times with this debate because I have had it before and I have been on the side of the fence you sit on now and I feel like I know the answers sometimes before they come.
One thing I cant stress enough is that there is a massive difference between believing in and accepting organized religion and believing in God. I have never accepted organized religion...its controlling, persuasive and at this point probably somewhat inaccurate. Most people cant even repeat a sentence accurately and somehow the bibles and testaments have always remained the same? Every word of the language as it was then was interpreted properly? Doubtful. You dont need to believe in religion at all to believe in a higher being.
This is true but there are things our brains cant process right? Things that just move to fast. Ever drive too fast and get to the point where you need to slow down because you cant process the information fast enough to do it recklessly safe? If God is supposed to be omnipotent I find this the most likely way. I personally could never find "proof" on either side of the argument.
Chad Henne.......might just be GOD!!!!!
Lets hope so bro