Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,701-8,750 of 12,463

[Lucas]

I would rather live in a world without religion. It seems to me most war is brought about by religion. Ironic really, seeing as how many scientific breakthroughs were made in religious conquest.

[Travis]

Hp wrote: "Michael wrote: "So, getting somewhere? Where you started pretty much. But where else can you go? ..."

We're always getting somewhere further than we were; that's the nature of time and entropy.

N..."

I think we are most likely going in circles, but at least having an interesting chat along the way.

[[deleted user]]

Lucas wrote: "I would rather live in a world without religion. It seems to me most war is brought about by religion. Ironic really, seeing as how many scientific breakthroughs were made in religious conquest."

Please refer to post 8725. Thank you so much!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi...

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: but compared to the creator idea, it's got truckloads of crumbs.
.."

...what are the crumbs telling us?"

that stuff happens and it makes other stuff happen.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Lucas wrote: "I would rather live in a world without religion. It seems to me most war is brought about by religion. Ironic really, seeing as how many scientific breakthroughs were made in religiou..."

When I read that I hear the voice of the customer service lady who tells me 'thanks for holding. Your call is important to us..."

it would be cool if you made a little audio file we could click on.

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: You must read more than the first few words of a sentence:

"I DO have an idea why we are here: science explains almost all of it

A typical politicians reply, just repeat what you have previously said. You said YOU had an idea and when I asked what it was you repeated that science explains almost all of it

Hp wrote: Science is well on the way to completely explain the creation evidence .

That’s good, care to put a time frame on that.

Hp wrote: And this science, which accurately predicts the ratio of light elements and radiation from this creation event and the creation of the heavier elements of which we and all planets and potential life in this universe are made, then goes on to give us all of the chemistry we use and the electronics that we now depend upon. Wow! impressive stuff.

Again more politician speak. Tell us all the things that have been done but avoid the question.

Hp wrote: And the creator idea gives us, eh, well, um, a creator. Who we can’t explain and who appears to have taken no further interest in its work.

I could say the creator who you think appears to have taken no further interest is the one who has given you science…………. But I won’t.

Instead I’ll ask again, can you give an alternative to a creator?

Hp wrote: Why does the process which resulted in the universe have to be a sentient entity (as far as we are concerned) rather than an unthinking, uncaring process?

It could be anything. We could all just be an experiment created by a super intelligent race that has had a million years head start on us.

Hp wrote: Another simple explanation for the creation event observed in our particular volume of the universe would be a simple, natural procedure which rapidly expanded a multidimensional space/time pocket, which looks massive to us but is just a microcosm, within the greater and complete universe. Alright that sounds an awful lot more complex than “creator did it” but that misses the point that the creator has to be a vast, complex entity greater the universe we observe. And where did that creator come from? Points that the wonderfully simple “creator did it” fail to address.

I have read similar ideas. Our universe could be part of something as small a pinhead in another universe. Or another explanation I got from a TV programme a few weeks ago, is that before the big bang there was nothing. But, a particle (I can’t remember what they called it) so small that it did not exist, but for the smallest fraction of a second it did exist, then it did not and it kept repeating like this. This somehow lead to the big bang. But that still leaves the problem of what caused / created this particle.

Hp wrote: And your creator suggests what exactly? I am sure we are heading down the biblical route eventually (after your Freudian slip earlier) even though you seem rather reticent to admit your true faith…

Your last posts opening sentence was…………. “You must read more than the first few words of a sentence:”

So in reply to your Freudian slip comment, I would say that you must read previous posts on this thread. Although I understand you may have joined the party late and there are a lot of posts to read.

Anyway. Like other regulars here I have a religion. But unlike the atheists who may have given up that religion I have not. What I do is pick and choose the bits I think relevant, combine my belief with science and even a little philosophy and here I am, not quite good enough for the atheists here and maybe not religious enough for the others.

Is the bible 100% correct, no. Is it 100% incorrect no. I feel that there is an element of truth within it and for me that is ‘evidence’(belief). I also understand that atheists can’t prove that there is not a creator, so by trying to disprove everything of relevance in the bible that then somehow disproves god.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: but compared to the creator idea, it's got truckloads of crumbs.
.."

...what are the crumbs telling us?"

that stuff happens and it makes other stuff happen."

....could these crumbs be a sort of code-word for creator?

[Manikandan]

World without Religion ofcourse :)If it happens, we will not have to fight among ourselves on which religion is better, your God or my God etc. We all can live in Peace and Harmony :)

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: but compared to the creator idea, it's got truckloads of crumbs.
.."

...what are the crumbs telling us?"

that stuff happens and it makes other stuff hap..."

No they couldn't.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: You must read more than the first few words of a sentence:

"I DO have an idea why we are here: science explains almost all of it

A typical politicians reply, just repeat what you have ..."

The complete lack of evidence for there being a god is how we disprove him.

I generally leave the bible alone, until someone uses it as their proof of god.
My feeling, is since the bible is considered the word of god, and it's all myths, parables, hearsay and allegory than yeah, that is an extra spoonful of disproof.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "When I read that I hear the voice of the customer service lady who tells me 'thanks for holding. Your call is important to us..."

it would be cool if you made a little audio file we could click on. "

Mmmm.... Or, perhaps, in keeping with books, etc..., people here might be interested in doing a group read. Topic? History. I'm game.

[[deleted user]]

Manikandan wrote: "World without Religion ofcourse :)If it happens, we will not have to fight among ourselves on which religion is better, your God or my God etc. We all can live in Peace and Harmony :)"

Tempted to say, "Please refer to post 8725. Thank you so much!" However, I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

Hmmmm.... On the off chance that you're serious, I've posted the 8725 reminder.

And, again, I'd love to throw out the idea that maybe we should do a group book read. Topic? History.

Any takers?

Or, are people simply content to read Brown, their scripture of choice, and Hitchens?

Funny thing .... Whether people read scripture all day or Hitchens all day, we get the same result. People lack an understanding of the world around them. True, my understanding of all things chemistry and physics is lacking, but I sure as heck have an understanding of world history.

Scary thing .... Regardless of our belief system or lack of belief, the old adage that states we'll make the same mistakes we've always made if we forget the lessons of our past is true. Very, very true.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Manikandan wrote: "World without Religion ofcourse :)If it happens, we will not have to fight among ourselves on which religion is better, your God or my God etc. We all can live in Peace and Harmo..."

Who is Brown and what did he write?
I didn't get that reference.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "The complete lack of evidence for there being a god is how we disprove him."

In my attempt to learn more about all things scientific, I read an article yesterday about a scientist who says millions of species on this planet have yet to be identified. I tried to verify whether or not this is true. It seems, from what I gather, that scientists agree that there are millions of species, in existence, that have yet to be proven through verifiable evidence; the dispute deals with how many millions.

As an aside ....

I'm quite certain that, regardless of the fact that we've no evidence for their existence, these species exist. I, for one, am not going to say it's impossible for them to exist. Nor will I say they don't exist unless and until our species finds them, names them, and experiments upon them. But, that's just me.

Another aside ....

Going to go back to watching the snow and reading The Winter King.

But, again, if anyone wants to do a group read, a historical read, I'd be more than happy to put this book aside and give it a go.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Who is Brown and what did he write?
I didn't get that reference. "

Ummmm....


Angels & Demons

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Who is Brown and what did he write?
I didn't get that reference. "

Ummmm....


Angels & Demons"

Oh, that Brown...!

In my defense, it is a pretty nondescript last name.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "In my defense, it is a pretty nondescript last name.
"

Ahahahaha.... True.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "The complete lack of evidence for there being a god is how we disprove him."

In my attempt to learn more about all things scientific, I read an article yesterday about a scientist w..."

There was a cool article a couple years back about how a large tribe...pod...whatever you call a bunch of gorillas was discovered and it was a large enough...gaggle that it got that breed of gorilla off the endangered list.

I do doubt that 'omnipotent being' is on that list of undiscovered species, so will stick with 'no evidence, no god'.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I do doubt that 'omnipotent being' is on that list of undiscovered species, so will stick with 'no evidence, no god'. "

Hey.... I'm perfectly comfortable with you sticking with that. We, many of us, have the right to make up our own minds. That's something for which I'm grateful and it's something I'd fight for. Grateful that I get to make up my own mind and grateful that you get to make up yours, even though we come to different conclusions. Further, I'd fight for your right as hard as I'd fight for mine. As far as I'm concerned, it's a good day when people can have different ideas and opinions. ;)

As you can imagine, while you're sticking with the no evidence theory, I'm going to keep an open mind. I definitely believe in things I can't see or explain. Different experiences .... But, that's totally cool.

What I really want to know is ....

Are you up for a book read? Something about history. Hmmm...? You, Cerebus, Shanna, etc.... cHriS?

Who's game to learn a bit about the world around us and our past. The real deal. Not blurbs that are colored by one ideological background or another. A, for real, book that delves into all things historical.

Hp? Michael? Anyone want to accomplish something and learn about history?

[cerebus]

Michael wrote: "I may be meandering. I am not concerned. "
...or you may be trolling. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Hp? Michael? Anyone want to accomplish something and learn about history? "
If anything comes of this, let me know, I'd be willing. Just to comment on the reading Hitchens all day thing, I've only read a couple of his essays a while back, haven't actually read any of his books, and have only read one Dawkins. Been more interested in reading about things like neuroplasticity recently....

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "If anything comes of this, let me know, I'd be willing. Just to comment on the reading Hitchens all day thing, I've only read a couple of his essays a while back, haven't actually read any of his books, and have only read one Dawkins. Been more interested in reading about things like neuroplasticity recently.... "

;)

Well, you know .... Something might come of it if people sign on. Are you willing?

I have to admit that I absolutely LOVE history and always have had a passion for it. Therefore, I'm willing to read anything that has to do with history. I know not everyone shares that passion, though.

Neuroplasticity, huh...?

A possible suggestion ....

Plagues and Peoples by William H. McNeill, which isn't on GR for some reason. Here's a link for the book via Amazon ...

http://www.amazon.com/Plagues-Peoples...

It could have something for everyone. Further, it would stretch those who don't do much with history and those who don't do much with science.

Let me know.

Of course, I'd be up for a different book. That one came to mind as it melds both science, with regard to disease, and history and the impact disease had on humanity. Making it, perhaps, more palatable for those who aren't as into history.

[cerebus]

Looks interesting, I'll check my libraries to see if they have it. Something available on Kindle would be good (but not essential :))....a possible alternative (not trying to hijack your suggestion btw) is The World Until Yesterday which I picked up recently but haven't read yet :)

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Looks interesting, I'll check my libraries to see if they have it. Something available on Kindle would be good (but not essential :))....a possible alternative (not trying to hijack your suggestion btw) is The World Until Yesterday which I picked up recently but haven't read yet :) ..."

I'd be willing to read that. I was looking at it in the bookstore the other day.

My reservation, though I'd truly be willing, is Diamond is a scientist vs. a historian. I'm cool with doing a science/history combo and he definitely delves into culture and society. I just wonder how much is based on knowledge of history and how much is based on his personal observations as a scientist who often travels to New Guinea. Further, I couldn't help but notice, when looking at it in the store, that there's a whole section on religion ... from the standpoint of a scientist, for sure. Yes, we can do that. But, .... Will it give us a better understanding of history and stretch people? Or, will it be a lot like reading newspapers and the A & D thread? (There's info on diet, for example, etc... A lot of what I saw, giving it a very cursory skim at the store, were things I've read and come across elsewhere.)

But, again, having said that ... I'd be more than willing to give that book a go. :)

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I do doubt that 'omnipotent being' is on that list of undiscovered species, so will stick with 'no evidence, no god'. "

Hey.... I'm perfectly comfortable with you sticking with tha..."

Will gladly add any suggested books to my 'to be read' list, as am always looking for more to read, but really don't have any interest in joining a book club.

[cerebus]

Fair point, but I don't think Diamond is as anti-religious a scientist as some....I could be wrong though, to be honest that's just an impression I have, not sure what I've based it on! I've read one other of his, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, and found it interesting without being too much "hard science" (by which I don't mean difficult).

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "Will it give us a better understanding of history and stretch people?"
That's a hard one to judge, I guess it depends on the person....anything history related stretches me as it's not something I'm normally interested in...
Btw, if you want to read a good book on neuroplasticity I'd highly recommend The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science

[cerebus]

I've set up a reading group if anyone is interested in taking this any further....

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Will it give us a better understanding of history and stretch people?"
That's a hard one to judge, I guess it depends on the person....anything history related stretches me as it's not something I'm normally interested in...
Btw, if you want to read a good book on neuroplasticity I'd highly recommend The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science ..."

Thanks for the suggestion. Clearly, as a teacher who works with some special needs students, I'd be interested. Further, when it popped up on my page and I started reading, I wondered if this could help our troops. I know a lot of them have come home with traumatic brain injuries. A friend's nephew is one of them; I guess it's as if he's a different person. In addition, I was reading an article the other day about a study of the brains of killers, serial killers if I recall correctly. When given an MRI while watching certain clips, their frontal lobes don't light up ... unlike the rest of the populous. I thought of that, too, and whether or not this could, in the future, be used to address that. Very interesting and exiting.

Regarding a book and a possible book read, let me know if you'd like to and which book you'd like to read. Wonder if others will be interested...? I appreciate your willingness. ;)

@Travis .... Come on, Travis. Don't you want to live dangerously! It would be a different twist on the thread. Hmmmm...? If you really and truly don't want to read a book with us, perhaps you'd be interested in commenting on some of the things we come across and/or learn while we read the book. That would be cool, too! I think it would be lovely, frankly, to work together and learn together vs. simply "debating" one another. Further, it seems to me that it would be a very good thing for more people to know more about history. Clearly, that's not outside my comfort zone, but it will be if there's a science component. I challenge my students to read outside their comfort zone. Time for me to walk the walk with a book and not just a bunch of articles. ;)

[cerebus]

I've set up the group I mentioned above so we can keep the book discussions separate from this thread, thought it might get a bit unwieldy if we had both the usual "science/religion" discussion and also book discussions intermingled?
Edit: Shannon, I'd have sent you a direct invite for the group but I can't do that....

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "I've set up the group I mentioned above so we can keep the book discussions separate from this thread, thought it might get a bit unwieldy if we had both the usual "science/religion" discussion and..."

Woo Hoo!

[cerebus]

:)

[Michael]

Cerberus wrote: "or you may be trolling. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. "

I couldn't troll if my life depended on it. I only found out what that meant about 6 months ago - that's true believe it or not. This is a very staid thread if anything I say could be considered trolling. Though I suppose you have to start somewhere. (Just kidding!)

[Hp]

Wow Chris! Are you standing for parliament?

A typical politicians reply, just repeat what you have previously said. You said YOU had an idea and when I asked what it was you repeated that science explains almost all of it

My alternative IS science for fsm's sake!

You keep repeating “creator” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Pot calling…

Science is (more than) my idea of how it all came about. Are you sure you understand any of the underlying mathematic and physics?

That’s good, care to put a time frame on that.

I have already estimated but I have no crystal ball. A hundred years ago we had no idea what was just around the corner. Can you put a time frame on when there will be actual evidence for a creator?

Again more politician speak. Tell us all the things that have been done but avoid the question.

Better than saying “creator did it”? I don’t think so.

Repeating the same thing time and time again without any evidence is worse than politician speak. Where is your independent, repeatable evidence for this creator? Anecdotes and ancient folk tales don’t cut it. I suppose next you’ll be saying the amazing prophetic insight of the bible is proof.

If the creator was a true scientific theory it would have been thrown out years ago. This is what happens in science: if a theory doesn’t cut the mustard it’s out.

I could say the creator who you think appears to have taken no further interest is the one who has given you science…………. But I won’t.
Instead I’ll ask again, can you give an alternative to a creator?

I could say the creator is a figment of human imagination: an imaginary friend. But I won’t.

My alternative is either a time travelling wizard or perhaps it’s some uncaring, unemotive process explicable by scientific means. Does the mention of science create a mental block with you? I’ve proposed this as an alternative many times (as have others) and you don’t seem to see it.

It could be anything. We could all just be an experiment created by a super intelligent race that has had a million years head start on us.

It could indeed be anything so why pick a creator? Evidence points to explicable processes.

I have read similar ideas. Our universe could be part of something as small a pinhead in another universe. Or another explanation I got from a TV programme a few weeks ago, is that before the big bang there was nothing. But, a particle (I can’t remember what they called it) so small that it did not exist, but for the smallest fraction of a second it did exist, then it did not and it kept repeating like this. This somehow lead to the big bang. But that still leaves the problem of what caused / created this particle.

Your understanding of nothing doesn’t fit in with there being a particle “so small that it did not exist.” It may have been smaller than the Planck length, which is the smallest dimension that exists within quantum mechanics, but QM may be as a result of the creation event – the laws applicable to this universe could well have come about at “creation”. We have much to learn and I really enjoy learning it.

Quantum foam, virtual particles, monopoles – all nascent science which, given a bit more time, may further our knowledge of how our observable universe came to be. You’ve already admitted that you don’t care much about future developments in science which you will not live to see.

Perhaps the human race won’t survive long enough to achieve a complete “theory of everything” but it sure is an interesting ride. “Creator did it” hardly matches the intellectual pursuit of the true truth.

If only we had kept believing that volcanoes had angry god’s in them how happier we would all be; those eclipses – angry gods; earthquakes – my those gods are finicky; failed crops – blimey, can we ever please these creator overlords. Now where’s that virgin to appease that tectonic event?

As to “what caused / created this particle.” – this a very much a human concept. We seem to need to know why a thing happened and to us it must be something that did it. This is all very acceptable after 3.5 billion years of evolution where our ancestors very survival depended on them recognising who (probably a predator) had triggered its senses.

So in reply to your Freudian slip comment, I would say that you must read previous posts on this thread. Although I understand you may have joined the party late and there are a lot of posts to read.

8842: And, as I keep saying, I am not a great supporter of religion either.

Um, ”Like other regulars here I have a religion.”

Confused? I am.

”What I do is pick and choose the bits I think relevant”

Say no more.

” I feel that there is an element of truth within it and for me that is ‘evidence’ (belief)”

So truth is a feeling. No real evidence required just an innate internal register. You should apply your considerable talents to science – we would achieve so much more if we didn’t have to wait for that pesky, real evidence stuff…

[Alfian]

we can't separate science and religion is one part, like what einstein said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

i like science, it forces me to find all the reason behind something.
i am a moslem, i found what i need in this religion, it discribes all that happened or happening or will happen in the world and after life.

*my english is damn bad, sorry if there any mistakes

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Will it give us a better understanding of history and stretch people?"
That's a hard one to judge, I guess it depends on the person....anything history related stret..."

I appreciate the offer and will peak in occasionally, but book clubs feel too much like homework and I read for the fun of it.
even when I'm learning stuff and expanding my horizons.

[cHriS]

HP wrote: Wow Chris! Are you standing for parliament?

; )

HP wrote: My alternative IS science for fsm's sake!

Science is a way of finding an answer, it is not the answer.

HP wrote: . Does the mention of science create a mental block with you? I’ve proposed this as an alternative many times (as have others) and you don’t seem to see it.

It does when I speak to some folks here. Many words are spoken by these folk but little is said. Science is NOT an alternative. It may be an alternative to religion, for some people; but it is not an alternative to the idea of a creator. You can ridicule the creator idea as much as you feel you have to, but until you have one sure fire alternative, the hypothesis, the theories or what ever science wants to label them, are just ideas no better or worse than the ‘creator’ idea.

HP wrote: Your understanding of nothing doesn’t fit in with there being a particle “so small that it did not exist.” It may have been smaller than the Planck length, which is the smallest dimension that exists within quantum mechanics, but QM may be as a result of the creation event – the laws applicable to this universe could well have come about at “creation”. We have much to learn and I really enjoy learning it.

You are doing a Gary. It is not MY understanding, it is what I was told, by a scientist on TV.

The point I am making is that, whatever theory is put forward there will always be a question as to how it could have happened. Just like ‘who created the creator’, we will never get the definitive answer.

HP wrote: You’ve already admitted that you don’t care much about future developments in science which you will not live to see.

How does me not caring and you caring about future developments in science, which we will not live to see, make a difference about future developments?

HP wrote: truth is a feeling.

I think it is, you are right. I go with the feeling, while you wait for evidence that will never appear in your lifetime. Where I am standing now, feeling win 1 nil.

[cHriS]

Michael wrote: I couldn't troll if my life depended on it. ..."

I know what you mean; hang around long enough and you will notice that 'troll' is Cerebus most used word.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "Michael wrote: I couldn't troll if my life depended on it. ..."

I know what you mean; hang around long enough and you will notice that 'troll' is Cerebus most used word."
And normal service is resumed :)

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "the theories or what ever science wants to label them, are just ideas no better or worse than the ‘creator’ idea. "
Wrong, because the ideas that science propose are falsifiable, unlike the creator concept, which is just shorthand for "I couldn't be bothered thinking".

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "
I know what you mean; hang around long enough and you will notice that 'troll' is Cerebus most used word."
Or you could read back through the thread and get some pointers from cs (who changed his name to cHriS)....refuse to answer questions, claim to have answered them and then refuse to show where these supposed answers are. Disappear for a short while, then reappear with a new name....continue as before.

[Raven]

Sai Thein Than wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.
I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."

I realy like what you said, Sai Thein Than, is smart not be extrem, in any way. The ancient greeks said it. A&D is a very good book about science and religion, because shows what the humans beings are capable of, in both fields.

I personally can´t live without science, I believe in philosophy, and religion is a path for others.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "HP wrote: Wow Chris! Are you standing for parliament?

; )

HP wrote: My alternative IS science for fsm's sake!

Science is a way of finding an answer, it is not the answer.

But, the creator is neither an answer or a way to find an answer.
Not really a theory or hypothesis, as those imply something testable.

this idea that because science is not a hundred precent, the creator is an equal and valid theory keeps getting repeated and the only defense you ever put forward is 'science doesn't know everything'.

Can you come up with something that is actually for your guess, instead of being against science?



HP wrote: . Does the..."

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Science is a way of finding an answer, it is not the answer.”

And how do you think we got to the Big Bang and the Standard Model and all the other scientific descriptions of our observable universe? Science takes observed evidence and by fitting ideas to this evidence explains them (and predicts possible future events). Science is an explanation! It is an answer.

An example: Why is the sky blue? You could go down the rather inane path and say a creator did it. Or you could investigate the evidence and discover the mathematics and physics of the Rayleigh scattering of short wavelength blue light.

A creator explains nothing and just gives some of us a nice “feeling” of purpose and meaning. And, hey, feelings are all that matter to some people…

”How does me not caring and you caring about future developments in science, which we will not live to see, make a difference about future developments?"

Well there must have been people who didn't care about science in the late 1890's but we got General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics within a very short time from those who did. Two of the most accurate and enlightening explanations of the workings of our universe ever.

"Just like ‘who created the creator’, we will never get the definitive answer."

Nice to see you have changed tack on my question of how any creator came about.

Why are you so sure we will "never get the definitive answer"? You can have no cognisance of that whatsoever. It could come tomorrow for all we know, and with the right evidence it could be a sentient creator (e.g. if it could be arsed to put in a global definitive appearance).

"I think it is, you are right. I go with the feeling, while you wait for evidence that will never appear in your lifetime. Where I am standing now, feeling win 1 nil. "

Well I don't think my argument was that convincing but, yeh ok, I'll take the 1. Very magnanimous of you.

Once again, the evidence I await could come tomorrow – you can not know it will never appear. Perhaps it is just a feeling! You go with your feelings; that's cool but do not expect any truth. All you'll get is what YOU want. You might even "feel" like you're winning.

[Hp]

Raven wrote: "I personally can´t live without science, I believe in philosophy, and religion is a path for others. "

I'm sure you could live without science - may be a bit of a short life with few comforts but you'd still live until the global struggle for survival takes you out.

Good to hear you believe in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Worthwhile stuff.

How is religion a path for others? Is it heading somewhere? Or is it just a jazzed up Santa for grown ups?

[axveria]

I would rather live in a world with out either but that would just be selfish on my part, people need to have faith in something even when that something might not be real; the world is cruel and full of tragedies and cannot be overcome without hope. Faith is also dependent on science to cure illness and help discover the unknown, as humans we are naturally curious creatures and need to uncover that with which we do not fully understand. So a question such as this would be difficult to answer even after giving it much consideration as well as accepting the consequences that will follow with your choice.

[[deleted user]]

Hp wrote: "How is religion a path for others? Is it heading somewhere? Or is it just a jazzed up Santa for grown ups? "

Wanted to comment on this ....

First, I think this is a very individual question. I don't think one person could possibly answer the question for all believers. Further, I think it might change throughout a person's life. A believer might choose religion as a path for different reasons throughout his or her life.

Is it heading somewhere? Again, I think that depends, person to person.

A lot of posts here deal with how we explain the world around us. Why is the sky blue? How did life begin? Etc.... The contention for some is that science explains these things while religion doesn't. Hey, frankly, I agree. What isn't often touched upon and is usually ignored when it is brought up is the fact that religion, for some, explains life within vs. life without. Again, for some, a religious path deals with learning lessons about oneself and humanity vs. explaining scientific concepts such as the Big Bang.

[Michael]

Shannon wrote "What isn't often touched upon and is usually ignored when it is brought up is the fact that religion, for some, explains life within vs. life without."

Absolutely. And even though Science would like to get its paws on that one, it can't, because no two individuals can experience these things the same way, religiously or otherwise.

Guess you're on your way though Hp, to tell us how we OUGHT to feel. You don't really need to though - you pretty much covered your scorn for subjectivity v truth (if I may summarise) at the end of post 8904, so that would be redundant. LOL, smiley face etcetera.

[cHriS]

HP wrote: And how do you think we got to the Big Bang and the Standard Model and all the other scientific descriptions of our observable universe? Science takes observed evidence and by fitting ideas to this evidence explains them (and predicts possible future events). Science is an explanation! It is an answer.

quote: “science is a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings “, it is an explanation, but NOT an answer. It gives us an answer. The Big Bang happened, regardless of whether we had science or not, science merely explained it.

Even if Big Bang was the answer to what caused our universe to happen, then the Big Bang is the ‘answer’, not science.

HP wrote: Well there must have been people who didn't care about science in the late 1890's but we got General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics within a very short time from those who did. Two of the most accurate and enlightening explanations of the workings of our universe ever.

True. But that was not the question. You were talking about me not caring, so I asked. “How does me not caring and you caring about future developments in science, which we will not live to see, make a difference about future developments?" and you change the subjest to the 1890’s.

HP wrote: You can have no cognisance of that whatsoever. It could come tomorrow for all we know, and with the right evidence it could be a sentient creator

Cognisance…. awareness, realization, knowledge or perception; plus evidence. But that would apply to anything.

HP wrote: It could come tomorrow for all we know, and with the right evidence it could be a sentient creator (e.g. if it could be arsed to put in a global definitive appearance).

….and what would you consider to be the right evidence?

….and why would it only be a sentient creator ‘with the right evidence’, how would evidence alter what it was?


HP wrote: Once again, the evidence I await could come tomorrow

…and Jesus may think it was time to put in another appearance.

[Hp]

Michael wrote: "you pretty much covered your scorn for subjectivity v truth (if I may summarise) at the end of post 8904, so that would be redundant."

I said "So truth is a feeling. No real evidence required just an innate internal register. You should apply your considerable talents to science – we would achieve so much more if we didn’t have to wait for that pesky, real evidence stuff… "

Truth is not a feeling: Truth is the truth. Just because you feel something doesn't make it true. If you have evidence it is no longer a feeling - it has a basis. And if that evidence is repeatable then it most likely is pointing toward a truth.

You simply have to look at religion (as we are talking about that) to find many examples: Jews feel they are the chosen people; Christians feel that a god came to earth as a human (and all that complicated triune nonsense); Muslims feel Mohammed ascended to heaven on the buraq; Millerites felt the second coming was due in 1843, 1844 and 1845; Heaven's Gate members felt that the planet Earth was about to be "recycled"; etc. etc.

Are these all truthfully correct? Of course not. But for some reason YOUR feelings are correct - a direct conduit to the mind of your god. Just how likely is that?

All these people (and many, many others) had feelings which were wrong. And we all feel things which are wrong. I feel and believe things which are incorrect (when I find them I discard them). Humans are not exact - we are fallible. Do your feelings always produce the truth? No way! Investigate your feelings by all means; don't just assume they are right because they feel right. And throw away those feelings and beliefs which are found wanting...

Religion doesn't explain life within vs. life without. Religion is a cop out. All it says is "We will never understand. It is just too mysterious. Let's make something up that makes us happy".

As to science getting "its paws on that one": Victor Stenger, in his "God: The Failed Hypothesis", writes that religion often makes claims that are very much within the abilities of science to investigate. And when tested the evidence is overwhelmingly against the religious belief/feeling.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98...