Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,051-1,100 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Cerebus wrote: "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 s..."

:) I hope it didn't look like I was suggesting that someone had started doing it.

[cerebus]

Hazel wrote: ":) I hope it didn't look like I was suggesting that someone had started doing it. "
Nah :) I'm actually really impressed with the civility of this thread, despite what can normally be such an emotive topic. Fair play to everyone!

[Bukky]

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.

Well since we have science now it may help make the evidences reliable.

I read an article years back in new york times that actually tried to use science to explain the existence of God.I also recall a particular statement "that you explain a thing dosen't mean you explain it away".You can explain in detail the working of the human eye dosen't mean you're still not in awe of it.
And then religious claims about facts not being so reliable......well profound truth dosen't always need complex theories.

And concerning evidences of God as relates supernatural experiences,in all truthfulness it does really exist to which I am a witness.And if you so think it's hallucination or the sorts,I really wonder why it should always happen in churches or christian gatherings rather than in the laboratories.

Cerebrus you really got me there.The issue of evolution have always been a fight but then as a Christian,you probably have an idea whose side I am on,pending an explanation.

[Bukky]

Shannon wrote:Her message to me was to use my intellect in trying to navigate my understanding of religion and develop my faith.

Sincerely this is one the best statements i've had to consider in a while

RECONCILING INTELLIGENCE WITH FAITH or perhaps
RECONCILING FAITH WITH INTELLIGENCE

I would be lying if I told you that I am totally satisfied with the history,evolution and all proceedings of the christian faith.
But you also have to know,the fact that religion have no doubt been flawed by frail humans dosen't still take away it's importance no more than failed marriages makes the institution ignoble.

[Giansar]

Hazel wrote: "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. "
Well, first and last of all you proved by the above utterance that you believe in free will whether you want to admit it or not.

" I'm actually really impressed with the civility of this thread, despite what can normally be..."
I'm pleased but not quite surprised by that.
Despite Goodreads being a kind of social networking site I'd like to regard us as a slightly better than average bunch of forum trolls.

[Hazel]

One of the most important questions you should consider is "does the god I have faith in actually exist? What evidence, actual verifiable evidence that isn't an anecdote, or from the bible or unverifiable personal experience is there to prove the existence of god?"

Once you've answered that question, then you can start considering whether religion is worth considering, because anything that has a basic precept should have that basic precept confirmed before accepting it as truth or fact.

I hate this idea of "frail" humans too, we're actually pretty robust, we have inhabited all parts of the planet, even the harshest parts of it. We also have the ability to apply an immense amount of brain power to understanding the world, which is why I can't understand someone accepting a stunted non-answer relating to a supernatural entity that cannot be proved to exist.

[Sarah]

I would go with science. Religion seems to create radical groups throughout history and nothing good comes out of it. Science can get out of hand also but I believe in the present, that we don't need to rely on religion anymore as with the past, science is replacing the need for humans to understand the world better.

[Cyd]

Well said to Shannon.

[Giansar]

Hazel wrote: "One of the most important questions you should consider is "does the god I have faith in actually exist? What evidence, actual verifiable evidence that isn't an anecdote, or from the bible or unver..."
If you had evidence of God's existence you wouldn't believe in him.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Giansar wrote: "If you had evidence of God's existence you wouldn't believe in him..."

What counts as evidence?
If the evidence stood up to scrutiny then you wouldn't need to believe in god any more than you need to "believe" in shoes, or cats.
But as most "proof" tends to self referencing I think there is little danger of it standing up to any serious scrutiny.

[Old-Barbarossa]

And what if the proof was solid and held...but proved that god was a one eyed mead swilling brawler from the Norse pantheon?
How would the non-heathen god botherers deal with this?
Probably by reacting the same way creationists react to evolution...by saying it is only a "theory" of god.

[Hazel]

Giansar wrote: "Hazel wrote: "One of the most important questions you should consider is "does the god I have faith in actually exist? What evidence, actual verifiable evidence that isn't an anecdote, or from the ..."

you're correct, I wouldn't have to have faith in his existence, I would know he existed, in the same way as I know my mother exists. But if there was proof of his existence, and it proved that he is this almighty being with the ability to create worlds and all within it, then it would be a damned good argument for worshipping and mollifying him/her/it, specially with the fact that any given deity is rarely a nice, kind individual.

But as there's no proof, and there's no reason to suspect that such a thing exists, I won't be wasting time trying to ingratiate myself to it. You wouldn't work for 6 months in a sewer on my word that I will give you £500,000 at the end of it without proof that the reward exists, why do people waste their lives trying to achieve a reward from a being they can't show exists, for a reward they can't prove is real?

[Old-Barbarossa]

If the scientific and verifiable proof of god showed that dread Cthulhu was the deity, an uncaring and chaotic being, then the promise of eternal life from another deity would mean nothing.
Likewise if the proof showed Odin was the "real" god then the meek would be in for a hard time in Valhalla.
But, again, there is the assumption by the worshipers that their god is the "true" god...the only way that that opinion can be sustained is by self ref to the holy books of their particular branch of god bothering, as any ref to "revelation" etc holds as much validity as any other subjective belief, the fact that this belief may be shared by others does not make it any more valid...otherwise we'd have to take into account the fact that 50 Million Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong (as the lp said).

[Danica]

Cerebus wrote: "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'."

Yeah, I got that. I guess you just didn't undersatnd what I was arguing. To restate... I only assume that you're implying religion "robs the bank" to get their "money" or truth. You said that religion claims answers without any work or proof. I just don't understand how claiming to know an answer is like robbing the bank in order to be rich. I think a better analogy is that religion received an inheritance (since for Christians Christ is the one with all the answers, so let's say when he died, religion inherited his "money"/truth). Now, by spreading religion, Christians are just trying to share the wealth/truth. How is that wrong? (Or comparable to "robbing a bank"?)

Cerebus said: "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."

Ok, duh. Science is the rational side, Religion is the spiritual/faith side. I believe I already pointed that out if you actually read my prior post. Thomas Aquinas argued that Reason/Science is just another means of getting to the same truth that faith/Religion does.

Thomas Aquinas believed that "Reason, while not so corrupted by sin that on its own it yields falsehoods as certitudes, nonethess needs the guidance of faith to do its best. Philosophical reason is an important tool in spreading and maintaining the faith"
http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/i...

Cerebus said: "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."

And yes, I do believe I mentioned this in my post too. He made a hypothesis (ie an assumption) then submitted it for testing. You're saying the same thing in different words and trying to get a different conclusion.

Cerebus said: "So unlike religion, science is willing to accept the evidence and chance accordingly."

Ok, I'll give you that over the centuries churches have not been so accepting of ideas, but what you have to understand is the difference between a church and a religion. Especially in the Middle Ages. Churches used religion to gain power over the people. They used religion to manipulate. That's why eventually Martin Luther wrote his 95 theses and changes started being made.

Those who understand religion are open to science as well. Science doesn't change my beliefs. The truth of my God and afterlife are only strengthened as we discover how vast and complex the universe is. The more we discover, the more I realize there must have been a divine creator who designed and organized the universe. I don't know any other way such a complex, wonderful world could come to be.

Cerebus said: "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!"

Actually, you apparently don't realize what an axiom is. By definition (Merriam Webster): "a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit"

WIDELY ACCEPTED but not certain or proven. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Probably. We can assume it will. But we cannot even know for certain that it actually exists. What we do is have FAITH that the sun will rise. Have you read Descartes? His meditations (number 2 specifically) talk about how we cannot know of anything (except "cogito ergo sum") for certain. And (as I said before - I really don't think you actually read my post. At least you didn't understand any of it) as I said before, many philosophers today doubt that we can know we exist.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Danica wrote: "Will the sun rise tomorrow? Probably. We can assume it will. But we cannot even know for certain that it actually exists. What we do is have FAITH that the sun will rise..."

Well that's pish...sophistry.
Live in the real world folks...

[Hazel]

Martin Luther also spread loads of anti-semetic propoganda, and manipulated many peple with his writings.

Thomas Aquinus's comment can only be related to the state of science and religion in the time he was alive, in the 13th century, he didn't have access to the knowledge we have now, so without knowing what he'd say with what we know now due to science, and without reflecting on the fact that religion is pretty much in the same place as it was in the 13th century, you can't apply his statements to the modern world. The two may have had the same aim then, mostly because the church controlled what the scientists did. They may have originally had the same aim, but only science went in the right direction, and discovered that science reveals more than religion, including making religion moot. As an analogy if the aim of both science and religion was to reach Australia, religious people would have started digging, scientists would have consulted charts, worked out tides, built a boat, and used scientific equipment to navigate their route using the sun and the stars, and knowledge of the world that has been shown to be fact in order to get there. What Aquinus said in the 13th century has no bearing on how we apply what we know now, as he didn't have the evidence we have available to us now.

We don't need to assume the sun will rise tomorrow, it won't, the earth will rotate and different parts of it will be facing the sun at different times, the sun never rises. No faith is required for this, we have made the observations, we have evidence, we have reams of data, and mathematical formulae to explain how these things happen, and it requires no faith at all.

Those who understand religion are open to science as well. Science doesn't change my beliefs. The truth of my God and afterlife are only strengthened as we discover how vast and complex the universe is. The more we discover, the more I realize there must have been a divine creator who designed and organized the universe. I don't know any other way such a complex, wonderful world could come to be.

This to me suggests that you don't understand what you're seeing, and so attribute it to god. God is a flawed explanation for the complexity you see, basically, because if you attribute the complexity to a god, that god would have to be complex to create the complexity, and if god is complex, he can't just have come into being, he would have to be created, as complexity can't exist without a creator, so, you have to ask who made god, and you get an infinite regress.

[Gary]

The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World

[cerebus]

Danica wrote: "Yeah, I got that. I guess you just didn't undersatnd what I was arguing. To restate... I only assume that you're implying religion "robs the bank" to get their "money" or truth"
No, you're reading more into the analogy than I intended. You suggested that science and religion are both searching for the truth, and are therefore the same, or at least sufficiently similar. I am not suggesting that religion is robbing anything to do anything, the *only* point I was trying to make with that analogy (did anyone else get the point I was trying to make?) is that even accepting that religion and science have the same end goal, it is unreasonable to say they are similar, or different sides of the same coin, when the method they use to get to that endpoint is so very different. Unlike the bible there is no other hidden meaning to be read into what I said....

Danica said: "Ok, duh. Science is the rational side, Religion is the spiritual/faith side. I believe I already pointed that out if you actually read my prior post. Thomas Aquinas argued that Reason/Science is just another means of getting to the same truth that faith/Religion does."
"Ok, duh"?? Why is this starting to feel like arguing with a recalcitrant child? Please don't tell me that your response to this post will start with "Well, you know, whatever!".....
I obviously did read your prior post, because the point I am trying to make again and again is that even if we do accept that they have the 'same truth' as a goal, their method of arriving at that 'same truth' is sufficiently different to make them, in my opinion, not different sides of the same coin. If we're down to arguing about the meaning of the phrase "two sides of the same coin" then lets forget that phrase...my point is that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. Religion requires you to have faith and, in order to maintain that faith, to ignore evidence that contradicts that faith. Science will have a position on something, but will change according to the evidence. Those two positions are fundamentally in opposition.

Danica said: "And yes, I do believe I mentioned this in my post too. He made a hypothesis (ie an assumption) then submitted it for testing. You're saying the same thing in different words and trying to get a different conclusion."
My anaology, which you have taken issue with, was in response to someone else who said that science and religion both claim to know the answer before the question is even asked. I was disagreeing with that. If my point that Einstein used the scientific method is reaching a conclusion different to the one you are reaching, what then is your conclusion from your bringing Einstein into the discussion?

Danica said: "The more we discover, the more I realize there must have been a divine creator who designed and organized the universe. I don't know any other way such a complex, wonderful world could come to be.
This is where we differ. When you don't understand something, you are content to say "it must be god", I am not. I may as well just say "it was Zeus". How are they different? Why do you propose the christian god rather than the muslim god? I prefer to leave it as "we don't know yet, but we'll keep looking"...by accepting that your christian god did it, you already have your answer, so where is the incentive to keep looking? And when science does answer the question, do you reject your previous stance of "god did it" for the scientific explanation? Or do you do as your faith intends, and reject the science?

If you have caught up with earlier posts yet, then you will have seen this quote already...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts
So on what basis, when you say "...I realize there must have been a divine creator who designed and organized the universe. I don't know any other way such a complex, wonderful world could come to be.", do you reject Thor as that divine creator? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? What is it (other than I suspect the culture into which you were born) which makes you so sure that if you are going to give credit to a deity that the christian god is the one to go with?

Danica said: "Actually, you apparently don't realize what an axiom is. By definition (Merriam Webster): "a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit" WIDELY ACCEPTED but not certain or proven."
Neither is it disproven. An axiom is accepted on its "intrinsic merit"...does that mean you do not look for evidence to contradict that "intrinsic merit", or if you find evidence to contradict it that you ignore it? Is your belief in your preferred god axiomatic? "WIDELY ACCEPTED but not certain or proven"? Where your god says in your bible that man was created in his present form, do you accept that as axiomatic, or do you accept the contradictory evidence of evolution?

Danica said: "And (as I said before - I really don't think you actually read my post. At least you didn't understand any of it) as I said before, many philosophers today doubt that we can know we exist. "
It's a bit rich to say "if you actually read my post" when you have already admitted to jumping into this discussion without reading the preceding discussions. "At least you didn't understand any of it" Hardly, I just don't agree with much of it.
"many philosophers today doubt that we can know we exist" Great, they can knock themselves out with their solipsism. Is that really the point you are trying to make? Why bother with your god if you aren't even sure that you exist yourself? If I am merely a figment of your imagination, why don't you save yourself the hassle of this discussion and make me agree with you?

[Old-Barbarossa]

I'm bored waiting on novel arguments from the god botherers...
Also bored waiting on a non-christian to enter the discussion.
I may have to play devil's advocate soon...

[cerebus]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "I'm bored waiting on novel arguments from the god botherers...
Also bored waiting on a non-christian to enter the discussion.
I may have to play devil's advocate soon..."
Well now that solipsism has entered the discussion you could 'create' a few non-christians to join the fray? :)

[Hazel]

Giansar wrote: Hazel wrote: "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. "
Well, first and last of all you proved by the above utterance that you believe in free will whether you want to admit it or not.

No, I don't believe in free will.

If you prefer, the answer to "why don't I just lie down and give up if I don't believe in freewill", well, the things I enjoy and reasons I have to live aside, the biological and psychological makeup of the human species doesn't allow for just lying down and giving up, I haven't got the free will to simply lie down and give up. And when someone does become suicidal, they have little free will over the effects of the chemicals that are unbalanced in their brains that make them want to give up and end it and its pretty much always the intervention of other people that leads to someone in that position seeking help.

[[deleted user]]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "I'm bored waiting on novel arguments from the god botherers...
Also bored waiting on a non-christian to enter the discussion.
I may have to play devil's advocate soon..."

Hmmm.... Obviously, I don't know the intent behind these comments as I don't know Old Barbarossa. In addition, I just joined GR this summer and have not followed these posts from the beginning.

I'm sitting here, taping a spot on my computer, thinking. To reply or not? How to reply? Hmmm....

I guess what I want to say is this ...

I find it ironic, in 2011, that we haven't come to a point where difference is accepted. Granted, there have been some science-minded people with whom I've disagreed within this thread. There have been some religious-minded people with whom I've disagreed. While I disagree, I accept their right to an opinion, even if I think it's flawed. People are different. We have different upbringings, different experiences, different learning styles, etc....

Do we really, in 2011, need to make derogatory comments about people who are different? Yes, I consider "god botherer" to be a derogatory comment. Whether it was meant as such, I don't know. But, I'm 99.9% certain the term carries negative connotations.

Truly, must we?

Why can't we be more open-minded? When I say that, do I mean that I want the science-minded folk to run into the first church they can find and start praying or to book a flight to Scandinavia in search of Odin or Greece in search of ....? No. But, I'd like to see the "scientists" among us say, "You know, I disagree. Let me share my thoughts," without putting others down. Similarly, I'd like the religious-minded folk use some judgment. All good doesn't come from religion, for example. As someone with American Indian ancestry, I can tell you religion and religious people did unmentionable things to my people. Frankly, the very mention of organized religion and the idea that one must believe in a certain faith makes many American Indians I know quite uncomfortable. While some religious people might truly believe all that's good comes from religion, it would be wise and open-minded to take the experience of others into consideration prior to making such an argument.

At this point in our history, knowing all that we know, do we truly need to categorize people and label people and see those who are different as ... "the other" ... that other person who clearly isn't as intelligent or sophisticated or pious or devout? Can't we just see one another and deal with one another as people, all of whom are worthy of respect, whether we're in agreement or not?

[Hazel]

Personally, Shannon, I thought that's what we've been doing, and yes, like you, I do find the term god-botherer to be derogatory, but we also have this thing called freedom of speech, so even if I don't like the term barbar's using, I fully stand up for his right to use it. There are worse things that can be said.

Also, personally, I have very little issue with individual religious people, they're the same as non-religious people, we all run the gamut. But religious institutions who exert their will to the detriment of their congregation I have a problem with (by which read pretty much all of them), and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to err towards disliking being told how to worship, so I guess you have your faith, and don't need to label it with a denomination? This would be why you can cherry pick too, you can take bits from any holy book, philosophical works and secular writings that you like, and that resonate with you, and create your own version of faith that fits you. However, I don't see why you have to include a god with that, why can't you take those good things, and just apply them to being a good person, create a morality framework that works for you, and not include a god of whom there is no proof?

[Danica]

Cerebus wrote: "even accepting that religion and science have the same end goal, it is unreasonable to say they are similar, or different sides of the same coin, when the method they use to get to that endpoint is so very different."

Ok, so if your goal is to get on to the roof, you can accomplish this using different means, such as using a ladder or a jet pack. There is a big difference in these two ways of getting to the roof, but you have to admit they are similar in the sense that they accomplish the goal. I'm not arguing how successful religion or science is in getting to the truth. But if the goal is the same, you must admit they are similar. They have essentially the same goal. They both attempt to reach that same goal. Those are two similarities right there. Goal. Attempting to reach said goal.

Cerberus wrote: "my point is that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. Religion requires you to have faith and, in order to maintain that faith, to ignore evidence that contradicts that faith."

How about the Native American tribes. Their medicine was part of their religion. "Native Americans traditionally believe that illness stems from spiritual problems." Yes, many of their medicines are primitive in comparison to our medicine, but there are still some cures that illude our western science. Science is studying these cures to figure out how they work. Is it science or religion? Perhaps the reason science is illuded by these cures is because they are missing the religious aspect. At least you can admit that they are in fact compatible, at least in this instance.

And you can't just pretend that science has always been so accepting of different ideas. What about Pythagoras's School who drowned Hippasus for revealing the existence of irrational numbers because they went against the beliefs of their school.

Cerebus wrote: "If my point that Einstein used the scientific method is reaching a conclusion different to the one you are reaching, what then is your conclusion from your bringing Einstein into the discussion?"

Nice run on sentence, btw.
My conclusion is what I stated in my first post. Science purports an assumption (hypothesis) then attempts to prove it (experimentation).
Religion purports an assumption (that they have the truth) then attempts to build faith (religious "proof" if you will) that it is true ("proven" in a vague sense).

Cerberus wrote: "This is where we differ. When you don't understand something, you are content to say "it must be god", I am not."

False. I ask questions about the world too. Yeah, there are things I don't understand yet, but I hope to understand all the workings of the world. I want to know all the laws of nature because I believe that the laws of nature are God's tools. I believe the more we learn about science/the laws of nature/how the universe functions the more we learn about God and how He opperates.

Just a side note, I have a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy - the whole point of Philosophy is to ask questions about the universe. Also, my husband is a scientist and his views regarding religion and science are the same as mine. He makes a living studying the universe and asking questions about it, yet his faith is probably a lot stronger than mine.

Cerebus wrote: "I may as well just say "it was Zeus". How are they different? Why do you propose the christian god rather than the muslim god? I prefer to leave it as "we don't know yet, but we'll keep looking""

Yes, you may. I kept it simple by proposing a Christian God because I know more about Christianity as I am a Christian.
But from my point of view, you don't seem to be looking. You seem to be saying "we can't know about God so I'll just stick with science."

Cerebus wrote: "...by accepting that your christian god did it, you already have your answer, so where is the incentive to keep looking? And when science does answer the question, do you reject your previous stance of "god did it" for the scientific explanation? Or do you do as your faith intends, and reject the science?"

As I said above, I do keep looking for answers because I want to know how my God opperates and how the world works.
I think it's fair to reject some science because not everything is right. As you said yourself, science is constantly changing and discovering things that throw other theories out the window. I think it is acceptable to therefore reject some if you think there is a better solution. I also think it is reasonable to reject parts of religion. I think all religions have some aspects of truth, but I think few have all the answers. I believe that religion is a tool to find the answers on a personal level.

Cerebus wrote: "What is it (other than I suspect the culture into which you were born) which makes you so sure that if you are going to give credit to a deity that the christian god is the one to go with?

I do have to admit I was born into my religion. But I had my doubts. Being a Philosophy major, I have asked myself why I believe what I do quite a bit. Believe me. I believe because I honestly feel it is true. I don't expect you to understand or appreciate this answer, but that's all I can say on the subject (unless you want me to go into specifics and bare my testimony of my religion - which I suspect would not only bore you but be pointless).

Cerebus wrote: "Neither is it disproven. An axiom is accepted on its "intrinsic merit"...does that mean you do not look for evidence to contradict that "intrinsic merit", or if you find evidence to contradict it that you ignore it?"

Ok, you're starting to get it. But actually no, you don't look to disprove axioms. Instead you base your data ON the axioms. Axioms are your starting point. For instance, if you have a hypothesis that "tomorrow will be sunny" you are basing that on the axiom that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Cerebus wrote: "Is your belief in your preferred god axiomatic?"

Interesting question. I think that for myself I do take the existence of my God axiomatically. However I wouldn't make a blanket statement saying that the existence of a God is axiomatic. I may take it that way, but I do not force my beliefs on others. Perhaps in the Middle Ages it was taken for an axiom, but too many people don't believe in God for it to be an axiom in my book.

Cerebus wrote: "do you accept the contradictory evidence of evolution?"

I don't find evolution contradictory. I guess parts of the theory are controversial, but even Darwin didn't actually believe "all" of evolution (that single cell organisms developed into monkeys). He believed in natural selection, that creatures adapt - heck, I think God would be cruel to not allow creatures to adapt to their circumstances.

Cerebus wrote: "Great, they can knock themselves out with their solipsism. Is that really the point you are trying to make? Why bother with your god if you aren't even sure that you exist yourself?"

The point I was making was that neither science nor religion has any claim to proof on any truth. Typically the argument is that science has hard proof about X and since religion has no proof, it is inferior to science. My argument is to say that science cannot claim to be superior for that reason since they base their "proof" on axioms that have no proof.
Also, I do not subscribe to solipsism. I was merely using it to prove a point.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Personally, Shannon, I thought that's what we've been doing, and yes, like you, I do find the term god-botherer to be derogatory, but we also have this thing called freedom of speech, so even if I ..."

We definitely do have freedom of speech. Well, scratch that. Some of us do. Even in places that don't allow this freedom, people could choose .... Oops, there I go again.

I don't believe I said Old Barbarossa couldn't use the term. He definitely can say it over and over and over again if he'd like. I believe my point was ... really, truly ... in 2011 ... must we. I stand by his right to say it and my right to call him on it.

Hazel state ... However, I don't see why you have to include a god with that, why can't you take those good things, and just apply them to being a good person, create a morality framework that works for you, and not include a god of whom there is no proof?

I'm sure I could. I haven't. Why? To tell you the truth, I haven't explored that. There was a time in my life when I was very angry with God. Mid-twenties. I was working as a social worker and was dealing with a particularly nasty case. I definitely won't go into the details. But, I will say, as part of the interview and investigation, it came out that as the child was being horribly abused, s/he called out to God to save her. She was six. No one came to help her. I remember railing at God. I didn't go to that place of ... well, this proves it ... there is no God. I went to a place of ... if this is the best You can do ... if You can't help an innocent child when s/he cries out to You and begs, I don't want much to do with you. Yup. That's what I said and that's what I felt. But, nowhere in that mass of raw emotion and shock and disgust did I question that God existed.

At the end of it, the end of my anger, I still had no answers. And, it took years for my anger over that to mellow ... if not disappear. Even today, I sit here not knowing, admitting confusion, as I've mentioned in an earlier post.

But, as far back as I remember, I do recall believing in something more. The reason my mother first took me to church, when I was around five, was due to my talking about the people in the light. I had almost gotten hurt one day. It doesn't matter why or how. My mother lost it. Cried. I told her not to worry. The people in the light would never let anything hurt me. My parents had never, so they say, talked with me about God or religion. So, when I said that, my mother freaked and took me to church. (It didn't last, but that's another story.) I actually remember the incident and talking about the people in the light. I had not one clue who they were or what I was talking about. We could go on and on, both sides arguing why a child of that age might believe in such a thing. I can tell you, at some point, I equated the people in the light with God. I always felt there was something more, something bigger, something watching over me. It's one of my very first memories. That feeling, that belief in God, comforted me at times. I've questioned a lot of things within faith and within religions, but that's not something I've really questioned or, more to the point, perhaps, ever given up on. You might disagree with my belief in God or need to believe in God, but ... this is an honest answer to your question.

Ultimately, I don't have all the answers. I have a lot of questions. As I question and attempt to develop answers, I'm going to try to do so without belittling others. That's something that I don't hold with.

[Hazel]

And thus we show how our parents effect our lives :). That's a really interesting story, I actually enjoyed reading it, I'm not going to give any suggestions about what was or was not really happening, but I can honestly tell you, that if I'd said that the people in the light wouldn't let anything hurt me, my mam would probably have thought that was very cute, and how sweet it was that I had a shiny imaginary friend/s, in the same way as my sister had an imaginary friend called Mr Nobody. And then she'd have ignored it until I grew out of it. *shrug* I think its wonderful that you have that faith, and that it gives you comfort, but personally, I can't bring myself to believe in something for which there's no evidence, and which I'm pretty convinced is false, no matter how good it would feel.

I agree about not belittling others, but sometimes that can be very hard, because even if you don't intend offence, people are going to take it anyway. For example, I try to talk about the ideas, and the reasons for belief, I don't try telling people they're wrong, I word it so its my viewpoint, eg, I try to say "I think this", or "I would say", not "this is so". I'm pretty sure I slip on occasion, but no-ones perfect. There are a lot of religious people out there who will take personal offence at you discussing ideas about their religion, or about gods existence, and they will even then claim that their family etc are being insulted too, people who aren't even there! To me, this is crazy, an open and frank discussion should be done without taking offence (whether that offence was intended or not), not only without causing offence

[Danica]

Hazel wrote: "I can't bring myself to believe in something for which there's no evidence"

I don't think you can say there is "no evidence" that a God exists. There are several philosophical arguments that support the existence of a God. My personal favorite is the argument by design.

This argument takes the analogy of walking into a forest and finding a watch on the ground. How would you respond? Perhaps you would think, "What a cool watch. Wonder who made it so I can buy one for myself."

You probably wouldn't think, "How did this cool gadget spring into existence here?"

You would probably respond somewhat in the first manner because with such a complex gadget, you assume someone designed it and that it couldn't have just formed itself.

Now look at how complex the universe is - even just simple things like a heart, or an eye, or a pinky finger - how complicated and wonderfully designed! Many people, such as myself, Einstein, and others, take this as evidence of a God or designer/creator of the universe.

On the other hand, if you're looking for solid proof...sorry to disapoint you, but there is no solid proof of anything.

As I have already discussed, axioms are statements that are accepted as true, but not PROVEN as true.

Furthermore, David Hume breaks down the notion of causality, showing that we cannot assume one event causes another. Obviously we realize certain events may be related but do not CAUSE the second event. For example, turning on a light switch does not CAUSE the light to turn on. You can flick the switch all you want, but if the lamp isn't plugged in, or if the bulb is dead the light won't turn on. Hume expands his view - using mathematical reasoning to support his claim - that no two events are NECESSARILY related, thus showing that we cannot know that two events are linked causally.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hum...

Causality is important to science since it breaks the link between the start of an experiment and the result.

Basically I'm saying that while science appears to have solid evidence, it isn't as certain as you may think.

Religion has evidence too. And just because you can't PROVE it doesn't mean it isn't good evidence. You can't PROVE the axioms upon which all science rests either.

[cerebus]

Danica said: "But if the goal is the same, you must admit they are similar."
I still don't agree that their goals are the same, but even accepting that they are, I will dispense with analogies and say that my view is that because of their different approaches, ones which as I have stated are fundamentally opposed, that they are not similar. To me religion is intellectually lazy in that it once it has an 'answer' it doesn't feel the need to test that or to accept contrary evidence. I can see the point you are trying to make it, but I don't accept it.

Danica said: "Yes, many of their medicines are primitive in comparison to our medicine, but there are still some cures that illude our western science. Science is studying these cures to figure out how they work. Is it science or religion?"
It is religion if you accept the anecdotal evidence that they work, the scientific method is to examine them to find a) efficacy and b) explanation. A faith based approach would be to say "it works, I can accept that on faith and I don't need science to explain why it works". If in fact science is able to show that it cannot work, e.g. homeopathy, then the faith based approach ignores that evidence and says "I will continue to believe that this works". I do not see anything compatible in this example.

Danica said: "Nice run on sentence, btw."
Ah, so we have now reached the grammar corrections, does that mean as Hazel said "Its the last resort of a floudering argument to start picking out grammatical errors, it just becomes trolling at that point."

Danica said: "And you can't just pretend that science has always been so accepting of different ideas"
Straw man, I have never made that claim.

Danica said: "Religion purports an assumption (that they have the truth) then attempts to build faith (religious "proof" if you will) that it is true ("proven" in a vague sense).
So in other words, not proof at all.

Danica said: "False. I ask questions about the world too. Yeah, there are things I don't understand yet, but I hope to understand all the workings of the world. I want to know all the laws of nature because I believe that the laws of nature are God's tools. I believe the more we learn about science/the laws of nature/how the universe functions the more we learn about God and how He opperates. "
So on that basis every scientific explanation you can bring into your faith by just saying "yes, but it is god who is directing it"? If that is the case then I accept that that is your world view, but wonder why you accept scientific explanations, but then feel the need to add a totally unnecessary deity behind it all, and then require no similar evidence for that deity. Again, still assuming you haven't read back through the thread, I will reintroduce the elephant in your fridge. I say there is an elephant in your fridge, assuming you don't believe me, the question is why not?

Danica said: "Just a side note, I have a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy - the whole point of Philosophy is to ask questions about the universe. Also, my husband is a scientist and his views regarding religion and science are the same as mine. He makes a living studying the universe and asking questions about it, yet his faith is probably a lot stronger than mine."
Excellent, I'm sure your parents are very proud. How exactly does that add to your discussion? Congratulations to your husband too. Assuming he is not a biblical literalist, how does he reconcile the evidence of the creation of the universe with the biblical story? And all the other parts of the bible that are not supported by science? Noah's Ark? A worldwide flood?
On a side note, not related to science, again assuming a non-literal interpretation of the bible, how do you reconile the morally objectionable sections of the bible with your faith?

Danica said: "But from my point of view, you don't seem to be looking. You seem to be saying "we can't know about God so I'll just stick with science."
Nope, it's just that there hasn't been a single piece of evidence for god yet....science has not yet needed him in any theories. How's the elephant in your fridge going?

Danica said: "I think it's fair to reject some science because not everything is right.
ANy particular examples in mind? We are totally in agreement here....if the theory is not in agreement with the evidence, reject the theory, or the part that is not in agreement. If there is no evidence that is not in agreement, on what do you base your rejection?

Danica said: "I do have to admit I was born into my religion. But I had my doubts."
And what was it that assuaged those doubts? Which religions did you look into, and what was it about those religions which you rejected in favour of the religion that you were (coincidentally?) born into?

Danica said: "I believe because I honestly feel it is true."
That's fine, but it is insufficient for me.

Danica said: "I don't expect you to understand or appreciate this answer, but that's all I can say on the subject (unless you want me to go into specifics and bare my testimony of my religion - which I suspect would not only bore you but be pointless). "
I do understand it, but like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, it's just not for me. As for 'testimony', I am more than happy to hear anything you feel is relevant or that adds to the discussion.

Danica said: "Ok, you're starting to get it."
Is the patronising tone intended, or is it sanctimony from "already knowing the truth"?

Danica said: "But actually no, you don't look to disprove axioms. Instead you base your data ON the axioms."
So if someone did have a proof that contradicted an axiom we can safely ignore it because that is not the purpose of axioms? If I make the prediction that "tomorrow will be sunny" I would base that on several things, none of which require axioms....there would probably be the weather report from tonight's news, and also the scientific evidence that the earth is rotating which will bring the part that I happen to inhabit back into a position facing the sun.

Danica said: "I don't find evolution contradictory."
You don't find the statement that god created man in his currrent form contradicted by the science of evolution which states that we evolved from more primitive life forms? I have to say, I do.

Danica said: "but even Darwin didn't actually believe "all" of evolution (that single cell organisms developed into monkeys)."
That's irrelevant. Darwin proposed a theory 152 years ago, and science has spent that 152 years subjecting that theory to tests, and adjusting where necessary. The common claim that evolution is somehow a religion would require us to take the theory as orignally published and defend it against all contrary evidence. Science doesn't do that. So what Darwin 'believed' is at this stage of no relevance.

Btw, your patronising tone and flaunting of your qualifications suggests you are making assumptions about the people with whom you are having this discussion. You may already have decided on the 'truth' about the people you are having this discourse with, but I would suggest that without evidence you refain from making judgements.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "And thus we show how our parents effect our lives :). That's a really interesting story, I actually enjoyed reading it, I'm not going to give any suggestions about what was or was not really happen..."

Ah, parents .... I agree. I also agree that it's hard not to see people as different or treat people as different, etc.... Given my ancestry, I was treated as different and less than and worse on more than a few occasions. As a result, I'm very sensitive to this and try very hard not to act the same way. I'm often successful but not always. What's important, though, is to attempt to be truly cognizant of one's thoughts and careful with one's words.

[cerebus]

Danica wrote: "Basically I'm saying that while science appears to have solid evidence, it isn't as certain as you may think. "
It is considerably more solid than any evidence for religion.

The argument from design has been dealt with so many times....and is most commonly brought up in creationist discussions. Are you a creationist? Btw, if you accept intelligent design then the answer to the creationist question is 'yes'.

[cerebus]

Danica wrote: "Religion has evidence too. And just because you can't PROVE it doesn't mean it isn't good evidence. "
Some examples would be great.
Is the evidence testable? If not, it's not evidence.

Danica said: "For example, turning on a light switch does not CAUSE the light to turn on. You can flick the switch all you want, but if the lamp isn't plugged in, or if the bulb is dead the light won't turn on."
I would still say that flicking a switch can be seen as cause and the light turning on as effect. That doesn't imply that every instance of flicking the switch will result in the effect of the light turning on, you need to look at each instance. In the instances you have described the combination of flicking the switch with the lamp either unplugged or with a blown bulb would be the cause, the light failing to function as expected (assuming you didn't realise it wasn't plugged in or the bulb was blown) would be the effect.
Any more philosophical games with little correspondance to reality for us to play?

[Old-Barbarossa]

Danica wrote: "I don't think you can say there is "no evidence" that a God exists. There are several philosophical arguments that support the existence of a God. My personal favorite is the argument by design..."

By design...OK.
Many of the designs then are flawed...glorious in many ways, but flawed.
Does that imply a creator that isn't planning the design well? Not paying attention? Using poor CAD software?
An example: the human appendix.
Now the whole "works in mysterious ways" argument can be wheeled out. But if on a helicopter being rushed to hospital after it bursts you stop to ponder the glory of the design of the appendix you may question that design.

BTW: I do not mean to insult by using "god botherer", it is a colloquialism. I shall try and use a more neutral term. If you are insulted and are a christian then I ask to be forgiven.

[Travis]

I find the whole 'causality' argument as dubious as creationism and intelligent design.
It sounds vaguely more like science, than ''mysterious ways' and 'god's will/ grand design/ plan etc. so people give it a pass, but then uses manmade items ( the watch and light bulb) to then go "and it must work the same way with rocks, clouds and bunnies."

If there is a design and creator, then he must not like us, because nearly everything he designed seems set up to kill us and we are poorly designed to cope with his world.

[Sarah]

Pandora Kat wrote: "Actually there is a third part missing. In my own philoshpy in order to have a good society you need to build it like a triangle. The base is religion, the two sides are science and philosphy. I..."

I liked the sign on a church I passed by on my way to work. It said " God wants spiritual fruits, not fanatical nuts. Everyone has a difference of opinion, no one is right and no one is wrong it is just their opinions. We need Science, religion and philosophy. Just like we need air, water, and food.

[Danica]

Clearly we've reached an impasse. And I'm tired of shouldering the burden of proof. If you can prove that there is no God, that's fine, but why is it that religious people are always asked to prove there is a God? To the religious, a God is just as obvious as the sun. You know the sun is there because you feel the warmth and it hurts your eyes when you look in the sky. I know there is a God because I feel His love. Yes, He allows bad things to happen. That is because there is evil in the world. Satan. But I believe there is more good in the world and in people than bad.

I'm not going to argue my side any more because you don't understand my arguments.
(I'm sorry, but David Hume's light switch example is an easy one. Turning on the switch may SEEM like the cause, yes. And yes, the second even occurs after the first event. However, what happens when you turn on the light switch and the lamp isn't plugged in? That means the light switch isn't a SUFFICIENT cause.)

I'm tired of repeating and dumbing down my ideas and then getting ridiculed for thinking differently.

I appologize for "flashing my credentials." I didn't realize a Bachelor's degree is so prestigious. I was simply trying to say that I'm not some ignorant person clutching a Bible. I have studied the world. I like science. I like questioning the world.

And lastly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your beloved elephant, but the way I see it, if you're an honest person, I have no reason not to believe you. Besides, it could be a figurine or picture of an elephant. It's possible you are using the word "elephant" but referring to something else. However, if YOU are telling me, I'm sure it's a prank or lie of some kind.

Ok, I'm done. If you want to actually discuss things, that's fine, but I don't appreciate you nitpicking and not actually discussing my arguments. I leave the burden of proof to you. Prove there isn't a God.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Danica wrote: " You know the sun is there because you feel the warmth and it hurts your eyes when you look in the sky. I know there is a God because I feel His love...Turning on the switch may SEEM like the cause, yes. And yes, the second even occurs after the first event."

So by your own argument the "love of god" you feel may not actually be caused by god?
I don't think you can have it both ways.
I expect serpentine philosophical gymnastics...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Danica wrote: "...why is it that religious people are always asked to prove there is a God?"

Because for those without that nebulous thing called "faith"...well, a wiser man than I said:

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
― Carl Sagan

[Bukky]

Old-Barbarossa wrote:“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

"Profound truth dosen't necessarily require complex theories"

[Old-Barbarossa]

I think one of the basic problems in this discussion is that no one agrees on what "truth" actually means.
Bukky I'm not sure what "profound truth" you are refering to...but my point was that for those without "faith" many things do actually require some form of proof. The more exraordinary the claim the more proof tends to be required.
Circuitous or self referencing arguments tend not to cut it.

[Hazel]

Danica wrote: "...why is it that religious people are always asked to prove there is a God?" "

Because the burden of proof always lies with those who make the claim (atheists don't make a claim, they reject a claim made by someone else). If I claimed I had a million dollars that you could have, as long as you walked down the main street of your town naked, you would expect me to prove that I had it before you would consider doing such a thing. If I said "prove I don't have it", and you then shrugged and said "ok, then I'll do it on faith", you'd prove yourself naive and gullible.

I would consider myself gullible in the extreme to accept that a god for which there is no evidence (your philosophical arguments that can prove nothing but a way of thought, rather than physical testable evidence, which is what is meant when I say evidence, aside), especially when it could be considered the most important question in the world. For something so important, and so extraordinary, as was quoted before, I would expect extraordinary proof. Until that proof appears, and I doubt it ever will, because I'm pretty damned sure there is no form of deity at all, like there's no dragons, no vampires and no fairies, then the rational thing to do is to reject the claim.

I leave the burden of proof to you. Prove there isn't a God.

This is once again, you failing to understand. A negative can not be proved. As such, my stance as an atheist is "based on the evidence available to us, there is very little to support the existence of any deity, and thus I reject the claim that there is a god". As such, I'm not saying with that stance that there is no god, but that theres so little evidence that its massively unlikely that there is one, so prove to me that there isn't by providing real evidence, not feelings, not philosophical stances (for which there are as many to "disprove" god as there to "prove" god). Actual physical evidence.

If you can't find real evidence, then start asking yourself why.

[Sarah]

Faith is not something you can see, feel, or touch, It just is. Do you have faith that your husband / wife isn't cheating on you? Do you have faith that you will wake up in the morning. While what Carl Sagan (astronomer/author)is true to a certain point the quote you used as said by Matt Slick of "CARM" "is subjective. "The fact is that a person presuppostions strongly affect how and to what degree the statement is applied". What would you call extradordinary evidence? And what if this "extradorniary evidence" happened? Then What??
Would you believe then?

[Hazel]

Do you have faith that your husband / wife isn't cheating on you? Do you have faith that you will wake up in the morning.

No, I trust my partner, this is not faith, its trust, and he's earned it through proving his fidelity repeatedly. I don't have faith that he won't cheat on me, I have trust in him, and in knowing his behaviour.

I do not have faith that I will wake up in the morning. In fact, i rarely consider it at all. And if I didn't wake up in the morning, I'd no longer exist, so it would be moot. I do not feel the need to have faith in whether I'll wake up each mornign, I either will, or I won't. Sometimes I don't wake up until the afternoon.

If this extraordinary evidence happened, then I would investigate it, or follow an invesigation by a more qualified individual, and then if it can be proved to be what it appears to be, then I would be more likely to accept the existence of a god. I wouldn't believe, I wouldn't need to, I wouldn't need faith, there would be factual evidence that such a being existed, and as such, I'd then decide if he/she/it deserved my attention, or if he/she/it would do anything to me if I didn't worship him/her/it.

[Sarah]

faith is what you trust upon

[Old-Barbarossa]

Sarah wrote: "What would you call extradordinary evidence? And what if this "extradorniary evidence" happened? Then What??"

As I've said before, what if the evidence pointed to a god/gods that was/were different to the ones you currently believe in?
If there was some proof then I'd take it on board, like when they discovered a living coelacanth...not really relevant to my day to day life, but interesting.
If someone of faith was presented with the same proof I still contend that unless it was refering to their deity of choice they would ignore the evidence in the vast majority of cases.
I note that this point has been made previously on this thread but that no one of faith has responded to it. Maybe I hit a nerve.

[Hazel]

Sarah wrote: "faith is what you trust upon"

No, faith is belief without evidence. Trust is very much based on evidence.

[Sarah]

says who

[Hazel]

Sarah wrote: "says who"

Faith is belief in something without evidence. If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith anymore, because you'd know what was what, you'd have a definitive answer.

Trust however, I'm sure we all agree, is something that has to be earned. You don't trust people as soon as you meet them, they earn it through their actions. If their actions are consistent, and positive, then you trust them. If their actions are inconsistent and negative, then you don't. Someone can trust someone and then have that trust destroyed by the actions of the person they trusted, thus, the evidence they have tells them to no longer trust that person. There is no faith involved, because you base your opinions of other people on the evidence they provide in their actions.

Evidence, its what lets us work out whats real, and whats fantasy.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hazel wrote: "Evidence, its what lets us work out whats real, and whats fantasy..."

Hazel, after your reasoned response I feel an urge to say...
Says who?

[Travis]

So, basically the argument on religion's side is ' You can't prove my imaginary friend doesn't exist!"

and that's considered a reasonable argument that we must respect?

[Hazel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Evidence, its what lets us work out whats real, and whats fantasy..."

Hazel, after your reasoned response I feel an urge to say...
Says who?"

Says me ;P

Though, the cosmic purple alligator tells me what to say, and you can't prove it doesn't... ;)