Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,001-1,050 of 12,463

[Alle]

This is a super hot topic and obviously there are a lot of different opinions.

For me I think that we need both, but in the sense that both are at there most simple meanings and ways. I think we need religion because it represents all the good in this world. I like the Buddisim way of thinking:
We are here to bring our gifts and love into the world and to live our life we must learn how to be happy with what we have.

On the other side of this argument, we need science because it is the energy that drives our learning curve. It is what fuels us to go and learn new things and share our gifts and love with the world. It fuels us to go do what religion is asking of us. Without sience, our world would be cold and dark and we would be stuck in one way of living and we couldn't come out because nobody could learn something that would move us forward.

In all I agree with the Thinker (message 47) and that all w need to do to live in balance is to love and respect.

[Hazel]

If religion represents all that is good with this world, then can someone stop the world so I can get off please?

[Travis]

That's what I don't get, is the idea that religion makes the world good.

The world would be worse without religion?
How? Can I get an example that isn't already happening now?

Seems to me that religion is the ultimate example of 'talking the talk, but not walking the walk'.

[Bunnie]

york-message 1056 -thanks for that. i hope we can discuss inportant issues like these without being nasty to anyone for their beliefs.
i think even if there were no religion man would still be fighting and arguing and cheating his fellow man--it's our nature to be greedy for our own survival and well being.

[Hazel]

I was discussing free will with my other half because of this thread, and his thoughts on it are interesting. He reckons that free will is a logical fallacy, and that there is no such thing as free will because every decision we make is tempered and effected by everything else. We take into account our families, the people we care about, even the people we intensely dislike, we are restrained by the level of resources we have, the current religious/economic/political climate, etc etc and so on into a list that includes all existence. We make no decision based only on what we want, and without the influence of other people/life/objects. Even the chair you are sitting on is effecting how you are sitting, whether you are comfortable, what position you're sitting in etc. His thoughts were that for free will to exist, there has to be a vacuum with nothing in it but a single consciousness that is not effected by the existence of anything else, and that as soon as anything else comes into existence it effects that conciousness, and thus removes its free will. Free will cannot exist while there are other things, other than ourselves, for us to take into consideration. I'm inclined to agree with him, as it makes sense to me.

[[deleted user]]

While Hazel spent some time discussing this with her other half, I did an hour or two of reading on the subject. (Needless to say, I'm tempted to pop over to the store to buy a box of cones to nibble upon in order to make the madness in my brain over dueling philosophies stop. Ah... sugar. No, no. I will control myself.) At any rate, I have to say something. Who knew there were so many theories about free will?! Well, some of you did, it would seem. After the first hour of reading, I also had vague recollections of my freshman year in college and Intro to Psychology and Intro to Sociology and trying to make sense of this very issue. As some of you might guess, I find I'm most intrigued by Kane.

This is quite a world, isn't it?!

[Old-Barbarossa]

The free will discussion is similar to the idea of nothing being truly random.
Now without getting all maths about it and wheeling out supercomputers to do the number crunching...
Any system with enough variables can appear random,but once you start being able to measure the variables then you can predict the outcome better. The huge amount of variables in Wx forecasting is an easy example to get your head round.
Now peoples actions are obviously influenced by many things, some quantifiable (cultural background, gender etc) some not easily so (mood, recent interaction with others...whose own actions were influenced etc, etc, etc see where that goes?)
But on a day to day basis we can't predict with 100% certainty what anyone will do, we can make informed guesses though. Based on what is know about them. Advertising tries this with whole demographics, not so useful when the focus is one person...but we do all have a bit of conditioned Pavlovian response to one thing or another.
I think for all intents and purposes we have free will but within parameters set by our genetics and experience...but on closer examination, given enough computing time and sci-fi stylee measuring equipment, and a really big computer, we are predictable as the Wx.

[Bunnie]

all of you--i have a question--will each of you give a description of the ideal grandmother?i have a reason believe me.

[Hazel]

I honestly don't think I'm equipped to answer that question, I'm afraid Bunnie. Sorry.

[[deleted user]]

:)

A woman who loves her family ... who opens a world of intellect to her grandchildren, reads to them, takes them to museums, buys them books and encourages them explore the world, both the physical world and the world of ideas ... who encourages them to wonder and to believe.

[Bunnie]

hazel--honest as usual--but because you probly don't have any grandchildren yet. True?
i would say if it were possible for all grandmothers to do what Shannon says it would be a wonderful world--an ideal world- thanks for the input.

[Hazel]

No, no grandchildren, I'm 30, so though its technically possible to have grandchildren at this age, I managed to avoid it. I also didn't have the most exemplary grandparents, so I don't have much of a frame of reference. My mam's pretty good though, for my daughter. On the basis of what I've seen, just someone who is willing to spend time with their grandchildren, and show them love should be enough.

[York]

Bunnie wrote: "york-message 1056 -thanks for that. i hope we can discuss inportant issues like these without being nasty to anyone for their beliefs.
i think even if there were no religion man would still be..."

Even though I didn't express myself the way I should have, I guess my anger at the world's current state got the better of me. I agree that greed, money, basically avarice has been one of the biggest problems with today's world and with humans in general. However, I think the greatest continuing problem is that people almost always want to feel special (not that alone is a bad thing), but when people gather in groups, whether they be religious, monetary(as in private clubs or elite groups), intellectual, familial, or any subgroup that seeks to set itself apart AND above! others it creates dissention among those left out. Religeous and eliteist groups are some of the best at excluding others...we only need to look at the problems in the world to see it happening right now.
That's pretty much what I was trying to get across. I am in an unfortunate situation in my life right now and the only things keeping me from being destitute are a loving wife and that we saved up over the last years instead of living beyond our means. The pain I have sometimes comes across in my words and for that I am sorry.

[Bunnie]

york. i am sorry if you are in an unfortunate position right now--i guess a lot of people are--not sure of what your problem is --none of my business. i also have kept out of debt and have never lived above my means--it's a good thing-but can you believe i have been critized for it. people call me cheap-i say thrifty.i try to avoid running up any bill i can't afford to pay. i am so glad you have a loving wife to back you up in trying times.-i think you express yourself very well. i would be glad to hear from you anytime you need to talk.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "Free will cannot exist while there are other things, other than ourselves, for us to take into consideration. I'm inclined to agree with him, as it makes sense to me. "
Hi Hazel, your other half raises some interesting and valid points, but only I think if you have a very specific definition of free will...one in which any influence on a decision means it is no longer free will. It's a valid definition of free will, but not one I would say is what most people would commonly think of when hearing the phrase?

Yes, a chair affects the way I sit, but I have free will in whether I sit or stand. I will get more tired when I stand, so I probably won't be able to do it for as long, but I would still maintain that in a non-strict definition that choice would qualify as free-will.

For me to say that there is no free-will implies that having made the choice to sit or stand, it turns out that that choice was actually always going to be made in one way only, and to me that veers too close to the concept of 'destiny' which is something I reject.

Of course this isn't meant to imply that there aren't instances in which free will is not available (I don't have much choice in whether I occupy physical space) or that there are things in which I have free will (whether to keep my foreskin attached to me or not) where others don't, often due to religious traditions (in that case though the free will has moved from the child who has the procedure to the parents who could choose to not allow it).

[cerebus]

Tony wrote: "I think Religion and Science can work hand in hand perfectly, my understanding is that God uses natural laws (scientific Laws)to accomplish his work. I am sure scientists of faith understand that."
I'm afraid I disagree with this view. In order for a scientist to have religious faith they have to ignore the scientific approach (particularly the requirement for repeatable evidence) when it comes to their chosen religion. Religions require you to ignore lack of evidence, and to ignore evidence to the contrary. Religious scientists are relying on the common (at least to my eyes) habit of people of faith cherry picking the bits they like, and ignoring the bits that don't quite sit well with them. But who are they to make that call? Is religion configurable to your personal preference? Why is the religious literalist who says that the universe was created in 7 actual days any more wrong (or right) than the religious scientist who says the universe is billions of years old but is controlled by a god? Is religion that malleable? Like going shopping? I think this week I'll choose the interpretation that says I can work on the sabbath 'cos I'll get paid double time?
To me, and I have yet to see a valid argument to the contrary, religion and science are mutually exclusive. If you claim to be scientific then there is no easy 'ah, but!' clause when it suits you. I should say this also applies to those who struggle to accept AGW, many of whom are scientific in other areas of their life, but because it is inconvenient to accept AGW, they choose to ignore the overwhelming science that supports it.

[York]

Cerebus wrote: "Tony wrote: "I think Religion and Science can work hand in hand perfectly, my understanding is that God uses natural laws (scientific Laws)to accomplish his work. I am sure scientists of faith unde..."

Thank you Cerebus, this is what I was trying to get across earlier, but got a bit feisty since I have nothing but bad experience with trying to have a discussion about science vs religion and usually the other person gets angry or I get too stressed at banging my head into a reinforced concrete floor. Thanx again

[Giansar]

Cerebus wrote: "In order for a scientist to have religious faith they have to ignore the scientific approach (particularly the requirement for repeatable evidence) when it comes to their chosen religion. Religions require you to ignore lack of evidence, and to ignore evidence to the contrary."
Not at all. The scientist in order to be a scientist and a religious person has only to be able to separate these two spheres of his/her life. There's nothing in science that rules out God. There's nothing (or rather there needs to be nothing) in religion that rules out science.
Mixing both science and religion - here's where lays the trap.

[cerebus]

Giansar wrote: "Not at all. The scientist in order to be a scientist and a religious person has only to be able to separate these two spheres of his/her life."
And how do you separate them when they are in conflict? When your religion says that the earth is 6,000 years old, and science says billions of years? When your religion says god created man and woman in his image, and science says we evolved from more primitive forms of life?
The point is not that "there's nothing in science that rules out God", the point is science does not require a supernatural explanation, it requires evidence...there is no more evidence that the earth was created 6,000 years ago by a god or that it is resting on the back of an elephant standing on a turtle....in the abscence of this evidence there is no good reason to believe either, especially when there is evidence pointing to an age of billions of years.
To do science is to demand evidence, religion requires you to ignore any evidence which contradicts what the religion says....these are in conflict, and for someone to be scientific and religious requires them to apply that requirement for evidence in some cases, but not others. That, to me, is dishonest. And in the cases where a religious person accepts the scientific explanation for something like evolution, it requires them to cherry pick the parts of their religion they choose to have faith in, but based on what?
"to separate these two spheres of his/her life" is effectively living a double life, it's like the preachers who rail against promiscuity and then are found to have mistresses or visit prostitutes. Are you saying that there is nothing wrong with that, they just need "to separate these two spheres of his/her life"? It's hypocrisy, and it's the same with science and religion, you can't have it both ways (no pun intended).

[Travis]

cerebus basically said what I was going to, so I'll just say 'ditto' and 'thanks for saving me all that typing'.

[Giansar]

Cerebus wrote: "When your religion says that the earth is 6,000 years old, and science says billions of years?"
To venture a guess... a scientist wouldn't pick a religious view, which says earth is 6,000 years old.

Cerebus wrote: "When your religion says god created man and woman in his image, and science says we evolved from more primitive forms of life?"
That is just a bad example because first doesn't rule out the second. I would have been better of if you had written about God making man out of clay like a dreidel.

Maybe I didn't make myself quite clear before.
By religion I mean belief in something beyond science - God, supernatural, secret space energy, whatever you want to call it. I don't mean this or that fixed set of religious dogma.

[Prerna]

world of science is much better because atleast it improved our lives and brought convenience
and when it comes to religion, it seems unnecessary as it mostly forms a invisible wall between the people of different castes, breaking any chance of unity we can have

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "When your religion says god created man and woman in his image, and science says we evolved from more primitive forms of life?" That is just a bad example because first doesn't rule out the second.

Ha! Oh, my. That gave me a bit of a chuckle. :)

Giansar is hinting at something; I'm going to be more direct. Judeo/Christian religions are not the only religions practiced. I don't know a lot about Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.... But, I do believe the examples given most recently are from Judeo/Christian dogma.

[Cyd]

It doesn't surprise me that there are over 1000 respones to this discussion. Talk about a loaded question. I'm glad it stayed friendly.

[Kathleen]

Someone famous once said, "When the tools of science meet the power of faith, hope is born." I would never want to live in a world without hope. I guess that means I couldn't choose between a world with either religion OR science. To me, one is water, the other, oxygen. We need both to survive.

[cerebus]

Giansar wrote: "That is just a bad example because first doesn't rule out the second. I would have been better of if you had written about God making man out of clay like a dreidel."
Excellent, we'll go with your example. Question still applies. Please continue.

Giansar wrote: "By religion I mean belief in something beyond science - God, supernatural, secret space energy, whatever you want to call it. I don't mean this or that fixed set of religious dogma. "
So are we just back to the god of the gaps here then? Science and 'religion' can coexist, where you accept science where it has an explanation, and where it has not yet explained something you get to use this wishy-washy 'something more out there' concept? And when science does explain something that it previously couldn't, do you accept that, thereby showing that the 'something out there' was wrong in this case (and hopefully suggesting that the remaining 'something out there' explanations you hold may similarly fall in time)? To me that seems pointless....if something is unexplained, it is unexplained, there's no need to invent some vague supernatural mumblings to 'explain' it in the meantime.

I don't see any difference between dogmatic (that reminds me, I need to read some Asterix again soon, it's been too long) religion and the woo-woo of the "belief in something beyond science - God, supernatural, secret space energy, whatever you want to call it"....the way I see it both are antithetical to science. Acceptance of that kind of thinking is intellectually lazy, and is the same thing behind the acceptance of total bunk like homeopathy, astrology, reiky, feng shui and all those other forms of scamming people.

[Danica]

Sorry that I'm butting in here without reading all the responses, but I just wanted to throw out the idea that perhaps there really isn't a distinction between science and religion at all.

St. Thomas Aquinas believed that reason was just another means of coming to the same truth as belief/faith.

In fact, if you're on a discussion about Angels and Demons, I would think you should already have a sense of this from the book. The whole book is about the "God Particle" that the book claims can prove Creationism. IE: Science proving religion. Dan Brown's book The Lost Symbol only perpetuates this idea that science and religion are the same thing. Two entities searching for the same truth.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "But, I do believe the examples given most recently are from Judeo/Christian dogma. "
Certainly, christian dogma is the one I am most familiar with, but I would be surprised if examples from other religions didn't fit the question in muct the same way :)

[Mary]

Two sides of the same coin - can't have one without the other. Both know the answer before they ask the question.

[Travis]

JUst got Asterix reference. Clever.

I also agree that the 'god of the gaps' bit is as lazy and dishonest as when creationists want schools to 'teach the controversy'.

(Funny how they never want to teach the controversy when it comes to abstinence, other religions or books they want to ban...)

[cerebus]

Kathleen wrote: "Someone famous once said, "When the tools of science meet the power of faith, hope is born." I would never want to live in a world without hope. I guess that means I couldn't choose between a wor..."
Are you suggesting that religious faith is necessary for hope?? On what do you base that? I can assure you that as a person of no faith, it is entirely possible to have hope.

[cerebus]

Mary wrote: "Two sides of the same coin - can't have one without the other. Both know the answer before they ask the question."
If I understand you correctly, I think this may be statement that surprises me the most in this thread. Even if, as you seem to suggest, science claimed to know an answer before the question was asked, it is the fact that science then proceeds to put that answer to repeated tests, any of which could prove the answer wrong and require a new answer (which will also be tested), that makes it not only not the other side of the religion coin, it makes science a whole different currency altogether.

[cerebus]

Danica wrote: "Sorry that I'm butting in here without reading all the responses, but I just wanted to throw out the idea that perhaps there really isn't a distinction between science and religion at all."
But religion claims to already have that truth, and will reject anything that disagrees with that truth. Science actively requires evidence, and will change in response to that evidence. To me that is quite a large 'distinction' between the two.
A poor analogy is to say that there is no distinction between two people who just want to be rich, when one of them gets there by hard work and the other robs banks. I would say there is a distinction between the two, despite the aim of both being identical.

[[deleted user]]

Shannon wrote: "But, I do believe the examples given most recently are from Judeo/Christian dogma. "
Certainly, christian dogma is the one I am most familiar with, but I would be surprised if examples from other religions didn't fit the question in muct the same way :)

Well .... Like I said, I don't know a lot about other religions. However, I have worked with several Buddhists and know A BIT about that religion. I don't believe Buddhism makes proclamations about how humans came into existence or when, etc.... Isn't Buddhism about the idea that all life is suffering and that humans suffer because we focus on/believe in the wrong things or things that are illusions. I'm sure that's a simplistic definition, but ....

My gut tells me that ... when having this conversation ... it would be best not to paint with so broad a brush.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "My gut tells me that ... when having this conversation ... it would be best not to paint with so broad a brush. "
Certainly buddhism appears to be one of the less dogmatic religions out there....in fact a quick read on the internet would appear to suggest it is closer to cognitive psychology than it is to other religions.
A question though, when I see something like "Prevent the unwholesome that has not yet arisen in oneself." in a discussion of the eightfold-way, my first question is "and what is considered unwholesome?". Is that defined anywhere, or is that considered to be an individual thing?
I've read a few bits discussing whether it is even a religion, or 'merely' a philosophy, but most discussions seem to stress the mystical nature of buddhism, which brings me back to the unnecessary reliance on the supernatural.

So for the moment I'm not yet quite convinced my brush is too broad, or if it is, it's not by much :)

[Danica]

Cerebus said: A poor analogy is to say that there is no distinction between two people who just want to be rich, when one of them gets there by hard work and the other robs banks. I would say there is a distinction between the two, despite the aim of both being identical.

A very poor analogy. How is claiming to know the answer "robbing a bank"? Is it a crime to claim to know truth? Einstein assumed many of his theories were correct long before he had the work to support his conclusions. Was he "robbing the bank" by assuming his hypothesis before doing the work? Does assuming an answer = robbing the bank in your analogy? Because that's what every experiment is. Also, faith isn't without effort. It may seem easier than finding proof, but maybe that's just because you can't prove everything. In fact, many philosophers would say you can't prove anything. Even Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" is disputed by many of today's philosophers. If you can't even know you exist, how can science claim to prove anything anyway?

Both science and religion require faith. Religion requires faith in the scriptures and salvation, whereas science requires faith in axioms and the laws of nature. Neither can be proven, but the faith in both instances requires work. The work in science may be more obvious because it is seen in formulas and experiments. The work in religious faith is seen through prayer, overcoming trials in life, and many less tangible means, but this faith is at least as hard to come by. It's a lot easier to lose this kind of faith. When a difficult trial in life happens (like the death of a loved one) we may question our basic faith and religion. In science we rarely have trials that cause us to question whether 2+2=4, but we have no more solid proof in the answer.

[cerebus]

Sorry, this ended up quite long.

Danica wrote: "A very poor analogy. How is claiming to know the answer "robbing a bank"?"
Apologies, I didn't flesh out my reply as I should have....that analogy referred to your comment "Dan Brown's book The Lost Symbol only perpetuates this idea that science and religion are the same thing. Two entities searching for the same truth." which appears to imply that religion and science are striving for the same goal and are therefore somehow the same. Even given the assumption that they are striving for the same thing (which I don't agree they are), the point I was trying to make (and I will admit I didn't make it well) is that it is the way in which we attempt to get to this 'truth' that is important, and is very different when it comes to science and religion.
In my (admittedly poor) analogy "robbing the bank" was not the answer, "being rich" was the answer, or the aim, or the 'truth', whatever you prefer. "Robbing the bank" was merely one of the many ways to achieve that 'truth'. In defending science I am saying that its method of getting to the truth, the scientific method, is a more rational method than the religious method of (seemingly) making things up and then refusing to accept evidence to the opposite.

Enstein did not "assume[..] many of his theories were correct long before he had the work to support his conclusions" and to suggest he did is yet another huge misunderstanding of how science works. Einstein came up with theories to explain observed phenomena, and which also made predictions. He submitted these theories to peer review, and once published these theories were open to testing. Any repeatable tests which disagreed with his theory required modification of the theory (and if they had been big enough, rejection of the theory). When his original theory appeared to suggest an expanding Universe, which to him at the time seemed incorrect, Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to remove that expansion. So as released his theory implied a static universe, when EVIDENCE showed that the universe is actually expanding he MODIFIED the theory accordingly. He did not claim that he already had the answer and ignore the evidence. And as time has gone on, further tests of the theory have been made and have confirmed predictions made by the theory. However, recently a neutrino experiment appeared to suggest that one of the fundamental conclusions of relativity (nothing travels faster than light) was being violated....scientists did not reject it out of hand and say "this disagrees with relativity so it must be wrong", they went "well, we weren't expecting that! Cool, let's look closer!" and have said if this is true, it will be a major rewrite of physics. So unlike religion, science is willing to accept the evidence and chance accordingly. (Latest information appears to suggest that the result is actually a failure to take into account the theory of relativity itself and the fact that the measurements rely on gps satellites, in whose frame of reference are stationary and it is the earth that is moving, making the path between the emission of the neutrinos and the detector shorter than it is in our stationary reference point on earth! Stuff like this is why I find science beautiful and religion (as a concept, there is some beautiful religious based music, art and architecture) less than beautiful).


As for your attempt to make science appear as a religion, I have dealt with that point several times already in this thread, and I reject it completely. If you want to find out way and discuss it further then I suggest you go back and read earlier posts, which by your own admission you haven't yet read.
The long and short of it is science is in no way a religion and does not rely on faith.

Your comments on science appear to show almost no understanding of what science is or how it works. There is no faith in an axiom, there is only overwhelming evidence of its correctness, and if *any* repeatable evidence is found that disagrees with the axiom, then it is no longer an axiom!

[Hazel]

Cerebus, I think I love you :P

[Giansar]

Cerebus wrote: "To me that seems pointless....if something is unexplained, it is unexplained, there's no need to invent some vague supernatural mumblings to 'explain' it in the meantime. "
Excellent, we'..."
Oh, but there obviously is a need.
People apparently need crutches like that - and for the sake of this particular argument it is completely immaterial whether their beliefs are true or not.
People apparently need to believe - in God, in heaven, in life after death, in magic, in whatever.
And before you write you don't need such a crutch same as no rational person needs it, let me ask you something.
Do you believe in free will?
If the answer is YES then you believe in something, for which existence there is exactly as much scientific evidence as for existence of Leprechauns.
If the answer is NO then why do you chat in here instead of just laying down and dying? I mean, if you have no say about what you do, why bother?

[Hazel]

People don't need to believe in anything supernatural at all, I have discarded all such beliefs, and I'm not miserable. I have friends and family, why do I need things that aren't real? I have people I know I can rely on to help if needed. In fact, the predictability of the world, and of people, is somewhat comforting.

If the answer is NO then why do you chat in here instead of just laying down and dying? I mean, if you have no say about what you do, why bother?

no offence, but what a ridiculously idiotic question. Why bother? because I have things I like to do, I have people I care about, and to be honest, I just like being alive. Not having free will doesn't bother me one little jot, if I enjoy where I am and what I am doing, then who cares whether I had complete autonomous choice in it.

[Bukky]

Cerebrus wote:So unlike religion, science is willing to accept the evidence and chance accordingly.

Obviously the thread was long enough but it was quite awesome.I just want to point out that concerning the view that Christians reject knowledge and evidence(which I think you pointed out),I think it's just a matter of understanding.
I for being a christian cannot just deliberately fall off a building thinking "his angels will keep watch over me and guard me lest I.....".And yes I read science books and practice science.
And I know a couple of dedicated christians who are also quite the best in their practices of medicine,engineering and so on and still preach their application in solving daily problems even amongst christians.
If you would be so kind to perhaps peer through to the gospel of Jesus as recorded by Luke,you will observe that luke no doubt a Christ- follower(a physician also) had to make investigations concerning the gospel before publishing it(no doubt he as a physician had to be skeptical about the immaculate conception)
Mary questioned the possibility of having a virgin birth as well as zachariah, of having a child in so late years.

My point is that to think Christians do not base faith on evidence(no matter how crude the approach might be) and oppose such would be totally unfair and should be left to each christian's perception.

[Hazel]

what he means bukky, is that faith is a rejection of evidence n order to maintain a belief. Some religious fol will even say they'd still believe in god even if he was unequivocally proved not to exist. Thats rejection of evidence. And the amount of evidence already available indicates a massive likelihood that there is no such thing as god, or any supernatural deity, yet religious folk not only deny this evidence to maintain their belief, some (creationist scientists, the ultimate in oxymoron) even create and make up pseudo-sciences to "prove" the existence of god, or miracles etc etc, and pass it off as fact, look up the Creationism museum, its laughable, but they pass it off as fact.

I fully believe that religious people base faith on evidence, but its not reliable evidence, its either unverifiable personal experience that cannot be proved (and so, could easily be hallucination, or mental illness), or they fall back on the fallacious belief that the bible (or other holy book) is evidence in and of itself, which of course, it is not, because then you have to prove that the book is what you claim it is.

Also religion maintains that a deity is responsible for the world, and how it works, and is used to explain anything we don't understand. It claims to know the answers to everything, the fact that the answer is "god did it", should be enough to reject the answer, as its not an explanation without being able to prove that that is in fact the case.

Science does not claim to know everything, thats why we still have science. Science, through investigation and research, and through the attainment of verifiable facts that can be checked by peers, and are available for anyone to review, and that can be repeated and reproduced, comes up with theories and the best answer we have with the evidence available, and then, as scientist investigate further, we find more explanation that is verifiable, and the "best answer" is adjusted or even outright rejected and replaced.

Science is based on evidence that is verifiable, that people can see, and that can be tested and reproduced. Religion is based on personal experience, and on the teachings of books that hold no veracity.

[cerebus]

Bukky wrote: "My point is that to think Christians do not base faith on evidence(no matter how crude the approach might be) and oppose such would be totally unfair and should be left to each christian's perception. "
I accept your position that christians do not do everything based entirely on faith, and that those of faith can apply the scientfic method in some aspects of their lives, but the issue for me arises when that faith and science are in conflict. When that happens it is a requirement of faith that you choose the religious explanation over the scientific one. Where do you stand on the evolution issue? Did god create man in his present form, or did we evolve from earlier life forms? If in this instance you choose to ignore the religious explanation and accept evolution, what do you base that decision on? In instances where you go the other way (accepting the religious explanation over the scientific), what do you base that decision on? My point is that the two are in conflict, and to say that you accept both you have to make compromises, but it is not clear to me what those compromises are based on? If you accept the scientific method in one instance, what makes you reject it in another?

[cerebus]

Giansar wrote: "Oh, but there obviously is a need."
Well obviously, but it is that 'need' that to me is another reason for rejecting religion....I can totally see how religion arose as a way to satisfy that need to know, particularly in times when knowledge of the world around us wasn't what it is now. Being able to see a valid reason for that need though doesn't mean that the supernatural is the solution. We didn't know better back then, we do now.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "Cerebus, I think I love you :P"
Aw shucks :) Now if only I did a bit of spell-checking before I posted!

[Hazel]

Cerebus wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Cerebus, I think I love you :P"
Aw shucks :) Now if only I did a bit of spell-checking before I posted!"

Grammatical errors can be forgiven if the point being made is a good one.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "Grammatical errors can be forgiven if the point being made is a good one. "
True :) Whether that distinction is available to me I will leave to others to decide!

[Hazel]

Cerebus wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Grammatical errors can be forgiven if the point being made is a good one. "
True :) Whether that distinction is available to me I will leave to others to decide!"

Its the last resort of a floudering argument to start picking out grammatical errors, it just becomes trolling at that point.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Bukky wrote: "My point is that to think Christians do not base faith on evidence(no matter how crude the approach might be) and oppose such would be totally unfair and should be left to each christ..."

I'll tackle this one. When I was a very young girl and trying to understand the treatment of women in the Christian religion, my mother asked me a series of questions. Who wrote the Bible? People. More specifically, did men or women write the Bible? Men. At which point, she told me a bit about life in the days the Bible was written, which included the treatment of women.

Interestingly, her take-away message was not ... so, the Bible and religion is ridiculous and verifiably untrue. Her message to me was to use my intellect in trying to navigate my understanding of religion and develop my faith.

In adulthood, after learning more about history and Constantine and how books of the Bible were selected or rejected, well .... Scary.

Using my brain and education, I believe in evolution. No question. On what did I base my decision? Evidence and science.

Do I believe in God? Yes.

Perhaps that doesn't make sense to those who are more science-minded. If I remember correctly, some have said, in these posts in the past, that people can't pick what parts of religion in which to believe. Why not? I'm not going to let a pastor in a church insist that I believe something that doesn't make sense to me. I'm not going to let a science-minded person tell me I have to believe in everything offered up by a religion or deny God. Yes, I'm going to pick what makes sense to me, both religious and science-minded folk can likely find common ground in how horrified they are at my statement. It's what I believe, though.

And, believe me, as a result, I don't fit in with either group ... those who are religious or those who are all about science. It would be so much easier for me to adopt one or the other in an all or nothing fashion. Unfortunately, that doesn't make sense to my heart or my head.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: "Its the last resort of a floudering argument to start picking out grammatical errors, it just becomes trolling at that point. "
And to be fair nobody has started that yet, it's just something I noticed in some of my own posts when I looked back on them....