Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Carol wrote: "I believe open mindedness is a character trait and does not solely depend on whether you have religious beliefs or not."Carol, to test your open-mindedness, may I suggest you to read Richard Dawkins' books?
Just start with "The God Delusion"
I have requested it through my local library. Thanks for the suggestion.
You are not on shaky ground when your deity (the Almighty God of the Universe who created everything you see) is the one who enables the scientists with the brains to figure out all the scientific discoveries to date and those to come in the future. I am firmly rooted on the ground that He has created and thank Him for the scientific discoveries made thus far!
YK wrote: "Carol wrote: "I believe open mindedness is a character trait and does not solely depend on whether you have religious beliefs or not."Carol, I agree with this statement. But on Aug 16, your post..."
YK, I still believe that open mindedness is a character trait whether you are religious or not. I have met many people who are not religious that are very open minded and also many religious people who are open minded. I don't think you can equate open mindedness with one or the other. There are also many people in both camps that are very closed minded. I have read many of their comments here!
What I was trying to say was that I feel if you are religious you should try to develop the character trait of open mindedness. Does that make more sense?
Carol wrote: "YK wrote: "Carol wrote: "I believe open mindedness is a character trait and does not solely depend on whether you have religious beliefs or not."Carol, I agree with this statement. But on Aug 16..."
After your clarification, I agree that you did not contradict yourself. However, I still feel, in general, religious people are less open-minded. But I am not here to debate this point. Either side will find it difficult to prove or disprove. I just want to exchange reading suggestion. Hope you enjoy the book.
I will let you know. And I do agree with you that most religious people are less open minded and I feel this is wrong, that we should be more open minded. Thanks for the book suggestion.
Carol wrote: "You are not on shaky ground when your deity (the Almighty God of the Universe who created everything you see) is the one who enables the scientists with the brains to figure out all the scientific ..."Using something for which there is no proof it even exists as your proof about how you are solidly based in science...?
Yeah, that shows a solid understanding of how science works.
Travis you will never change my mind. That is what faith is. Believing even though it can't be seen or prooven to someone else's satisfaction. And that is where the open mindedness comes in too where we can agree to disagree and still be friends.
Carol wrote: "Travis you will never change my mind. That is what faith is. Believing even though it can't be seen or prooven to someone else's satisfaction. And that is where the open mindedness comes in too whe..."Not trying to change your mind.
Just pointing out the disconnect in your statement.
People are more than welcome to as much faith and belief as they want/like/need.
Claiming those things as science, as things that cannot be proven, are not science. Kind of the opposite actually, is where I get grumpy.
That's all.
I think it takes as much faith to believe in the naturalistic explanation of the origin and development of complex and diverse life forms, as it does to accept that there is a creator. Neo-Darwinists "believe" that science will ultimately explain things that are not currently understood, or provide explanations for evidence that is in conflict with macro-evolutionary theory. This is faith.
A world without religion of course. Would be nice to wipe the collective lies out of history.
Are you guys all on the same page in your definition of "religion"? That's part of what brought Gary and I to an impasse...waaay back in this thread. How can you banter a question when one of the components--religion in this case--might not have an agreed upon meaning? Does it for you guys? Do all of you define religion the same way? Wendy Joyce
"Religion fires the Holy Spirit." - Kenny Luck, Fight: Are You Willing to Pick a Fight with Evil?Kenny Luck starts one of his chapters, Evil Loves Religion, with this quote from Blaise Pascal, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
As I said in this thread, way back when, I choose science because the search for Truth leads to the discovery of God. Remove pride and see if the Intelligent Design is not evident in this pursuit. The miracle of a human cell, or any living cell, is not random. There is a program for every action balanced in a harmony Divine.
Hahaha Wendy, what do u expect? 2 craziest subjects to bring up that peeps would argue until u die or they lose interest without any minds changing is religion & politics lol... Whoever started this thread it's like Pandora's box, never ending, ever repeating, same points, all open to interpretation because we are only Human!! We have this funny habit of trying to argue a point NO ONE will ever openly admit a change of mind, maybe on a persons deathbed or faced with eternity, Midas well cover all ur bases no? Just in case one of the religions are right, LMAO
Such a question is like asking if one would rather have no brain or no heart. And then nobody in the room realizes that both are essential.
I know a lot of inconsequential & useless information.Hmmm...Gordon, you sound like a cynic, but you're not, are you? I believe you DO know a lot of information, but I'm also quite sure it's neither inconsequential nor useless. (I perused your have-read list, which, BTW, inspired me to add Daniel Silva's book to my to-read list.)
Wendy Joyce
Wendy wrote: "I know a lot of inconsequential & useless information.Hmmm...Gordon, you sound like a cynic, but you're not, are you? I believe you DO know a lot of information, but I'm also quite sure it's neit..."
Thanks, I am a bit cynical. but I do believe in something, if u are interested I'm sure u can find my comments no need to keep repeating each other as u mentioned... I'm glad u added Silva, he's a solid author who relies on good background & a 'cloak & dagger' style worthy of Le Carre, early Follet, u get the point. Cheers :)
Benjamin wrote: "Such a question is like asking if one would rather have no brain or no heart. And then nobody in the room realizes that both are essential."I AGREE! I AGREE!
WOW! Just when I was feeling like an impossible contrarian...finally, a post that I agree with. YEAH!
Wendy Joyce
Gordon wrote: "Hahaha Wendy, what do u expect? 2 craziest subjects to bring up that peeps would argue until u die or they lose interest without any minds changing is religion & politics lol... Whoever started thi..."Nope the 2 craziest subjects are "Politics" and "Religion". But perhaps one of the craziest subjects. However...
The topic is not by any means useless. I agree it will not change many minds that are set in stone. But the topic may change a few people in how they think about religion and science. After all in church one will rarely here an opposite view of their faith. And also the science fields will typically not discuss religious topics as well.
But these two worlds do collide in my opinion in many areas and discussions like here can go a long way to persuade to one view of life or the other.
As for the subject of "Open Mindedness" is one that is highly subjective and I tend to avoid that phrase. I prefer the phrase "Logical and Reasonable". I believe that if there is a contradiction in what is written and what is found in the real world, I will be inclined to reject what is written.
Faith - the belief in something in which all the facts are not there. Religion is loaded with faith. Science has some faith as well, like the presupposition that objects either move continuously through space or move discreetly.
However it is by the many contradictions that I reject religion. Science has very little room for contradictions and when they occur scientific minds will do thier best to remove the contradictions. People that are religious minded often live with those contradictions, like a kind loving god sending good people to hell for an eternity, because they do not belive, and still think of their god as justly.
Benjamin wrote: "Such a question is like asking if one would rather have no brain or no heart. And then nobody in the room realizes that both are essential."It's actually like asking if you would rather choose between your brain and the unicorn that hides behind your spleen.
If you had soul, then you'd have a good comparison, but the heart is an actual physical thing and for your comparison to work you need an organ powered by belief.
Benjamin wrote: "Such a question is like asking if one would rather have no brain or no heart. And then nobody in the room realizes that both are essential."Benjamin, I don't agree with your analogy. No one can live without brain or heart. But anyone can live a meaningful life without religion (in fact I guess it would be more meaningful than those with religion).
Yk, Travis, I think you missed Benjamin's point...or wait, hmmm, maybe you proved it. "...nobody in the room realizes that both are essential."Now, before you start hammering on your keyboards, What the heck is essential about religion? you'll have to define religion. How I defined it in previous posts (and how dictionaries define it as well) religion is NOT essential. In fact, it's detrimental. But here in this forum, religion seems to be defined as "a spiritual belief." That's it. All other qualifiers are superfluous. Doesn't matter if anyone joins the belief, doesn't matter if it's a singular belief, doesn't matter where the belief manifests--be it a deity or be it a soul...or heck, be it the power of a dung beetle. If you have one spiritual belief, you are religion. (Not religious, but religion.) Given that definition, (that weird, narrow definition) I agree 100% with Benjamin; ... both are
Wendy Joyce
Wendy wrote: "Yk, Travis, I think you missed Benjamin's point...or wait, hmmm, maybe you proved it. "...nobody in the room realizes that both are essential."Now, before you start hammering on your keyboards, W..."
Couple thoughts:
I've always said my definition of religion is belief in a deity, plus some form of organizational structure.
Also, having a really old book of some kind, dictated by a supernatural being fits in their somewhere.
My comment on the heart/brain thingee is more about it being a weak metaphor, rather than disagreeing with his idea.
i do disagree with the idea, but in this instance the nitpicky english major part of my brain spoke up first.
I don't like the continual comparison of science and religion as though they were equal opposites.
Brain and Soul would have been better and even then, it gives no strength to the idea that both are essential.
and I think you are painting with a broad brush saying the definition of religion is such and such on this forum, as I don't think there is really a general consensus.
That's right, Travis, I don't think there is a general consensus. So I culled the ONLY common denominator I found in the posts...which was, "having a spiritual belief." That was it...until your post just now, which added, "some form of organizational structure." Thank you!...because I couldn't agree more. To follow it through, if "organizational structure" attaches to the definition of religion, (and I believe it does) then a person who believes in a higher power--just that, nothing more--is not "automatically" of religion, correct?
Wendy wrote: "That's right, Travis, I don't think there is a general consensus. So I culled the ONLY common denominator I found in the posts...which was, "having a spiritual belief." That was it...until your po..."'Higher power' seems like a cutesy way of dancing around the whole 'god' thing to me.
What's the difference between the two terms?
Seems to me, if you have some kind of spiritual imaginary friend, no matter what you try to call it, it's religion.
Yep, Travis, "Higher Power" because it's big and broad, and it means different things to different people. Had I said, "God," then we would start traveling down another definitional road, "What is God," and I wanted to avoid that. That said, Travis, don't you think your last post contradicted your earlier one? I mean, you're again leaving out the "organizational structure," which was my very point in post 11923...that this forum seems to define religion as the "act of having a spiritual belief." Nothing more required--required being the optimal word. Is that what you're now saying?
Wendy Joyce
Ken wrote: "You're correct"Wow! Thanks Ken. "Agreement" twice in one day and with two separate people? I'm giddy...and I'm off to the slots because it's obviously my lucky day!
Wendy Joyce
Wendy wrote: "Yep, Travis, "Higher Power" because it's big and broad, and it means different things to different people. Had I said, "God," then we would start traveling down another definitional road, "What is ..."See, I don't find higher power to be a more definite term than god.
I generally get what people mean when they say god.
I also generally believe that when people say higher power, they mean god.
If other people see a difference in the two terms than I'm going to need an explanation, because it reeks of nitpicking to me.
I left the structural part out as that seemed to be the part that wasn't getting debated.
I'm sure as a Muslim, there is no conflict between religion and science. Islamic religion hurry to think about how the creation of the universe and man and all creatures that religion also gives an ethical framework in order not to be misused science.Science helps us to discover the greatness and creativity of the Creator, we are now in 2013 and we still do not know a lot about ourselves and every minute we discover new information about our Organs and parents how to work the earth and the solar system And for the most important secret of the soul and life after deathfinally, I think that religion and science complement each other
Travis wrote: "Wendy wrote: "Yep, Travis, "Higher Power" because it's big and broad, and it means different things to different people. Had I said, "God," then we would start traveling down another definitional r..."Travis, U know from my posts I loath the organized structural power of 'religion', but believe in the end if it makes u a better person thats cool, just don't push it on me! So this is what goes thru my crazy head when I hear the thread about science & religion after I dump 'religion' for 'spiritualism', because u have to believe in something, even believing in nothing IS a belief.
Sry for long response but I feel the need to explain partially my definition of being 'spiritual,' no idea what anyone else thinks of it but it involves a type of science, maybe I'm a FRUITCAKE LoL. It comes down to the age old saying 'do unto others as u would want others to do to u' I AM NOT crediting that quote to any organization, book, or 'preacher', in its basic essence it should be (wish it was) a primal instinct an 'evolved' human is born with, & those who are not (murderers, rapist, etc..) will be selectively eliminated from the gene pool & as a human we live in a universe that ties into cosmic Karma (natural disasters), 'what goes around sure as Fu*! comes around', I say cosmic because the UNIVERSE is the CENTER of thinking, NOT the PERSON themselves. Meaning, we humans have this problem with believing every thing revolves around us & what we think, NO WAY, the sun did not revolve around the earth, there many other examples we know, but most simple ask a person to draw an alien, most would draw a humanoid shape, its our classic ignorance to even think it to be humanoid, but its what we base all we do upon. For all we know its a gaseous form that breathes methane, who knows is the point?
IMO that comes from some quantum/abstract unfounded principle (see below), which makes me try to be a better person & treat others as well, because being in the health field I know how powerful human touch can be, that has to do directly with energy.
A scientific explanation is one that we cannot really prove: (quantum mechanics, but it is obv. far beyond my knowledge to lecture about physics) The fact that mere human observance of an experiment will effect the outcome of said experiment. That is the extremely basic universal quagmire of quantum mechanics & other abstract math theory that does not give me the idea of a 'Higher Power' but a universal reaction at an atomical level during events that we are trying to understand, but its hard unraveling a puzzle that changes as soon as u touch it. Thanks for reading my flow of consciousness on paper for what its worth lol
Gordon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Wendy wrote: "Yep, Travis, "Higher Power" because it's big and broad, and it means different things to different people. Had I said, "God," then we would start traveling down another..."I have no problem with people having their individual definition of 'religion/spiritualism etc.
I think that's really the only way you can go. I think Wendy is getting bogged down in there being some broad group view, where she'd be better off just taking it case by case, person by person.
I dislike religion as a whole, but can understand people's need for it and am willing to meet in the middle with individuals. Or at least agree to disagree.
To me, atheism isn't believing in nothing, but rather just a lack of belief.
Dawkins uses the example that atheism is a belief system the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby or not jogging is a form of exercise.
I think you have interesting ideas talking about the big science and the stuff out there, I just don't think any of that needs there to be a something or somebody connected to it for it to happen.
If you take whatever variation of a higher power you believe in out of science, the science is still there, so why include it in the equation in the first place?
Plain old science is awe inspiring enough to me, without adding Odin, Ganesh, Cthulu take your pick.
We are standing on the skin of a rock falling through space, while it spins a thousand miles a minute.
and to make that more impressive, it took astronomical odds and a metric ton of dumb luck for that to happen.
Hmmm, I guess rambling is contagious, cause you've got me doing it.
A hard question to answer, not from a personal standpoint, but just in general. I would personally vote religion out. I would rather live in a world that has science than religion.
Michael wrote: "i think Southpark answers this question remarkably well."Take a bow,dude! Spot on!
Nureen wrote: "Michael wrote: "i think Southpark answers this question remarkably well."Take a bow,dude! Spot on!"
Never seen SouthPark so what's the message?
I think all of you on the thread who enjoy this debate would really like my novel. Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but how many conspiracy thrillers feature the hard science of creation v. evolution. Warning, it is pro-intelligent design, but not preachy, Christian, or religious...and it's a NOVEL. "The Da Vinci Code for creationists"
Broken Paradigm
Steve wrote: "I think all of you on the thread who enjoy this debate would really like my novel. Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but how many conspiracy thrillers feature the hard science of creation v...."Thank you, Steve, for your shameless promotion, LOL. I shall add your Broken Paradigm to my Want to Read list.
i believe that both are needed, but religion should be trimmed, filtered and tailored to contain aspects like acceptance of others and some of the messages in "The Lost Symbol".
My apologies first. I know I am off the topic. I tried to open a new discussion but I was not allowed to unless I key in a book title as topic. So let me try my luck here until my post gets removed.
I am those type who still prefers to read a real book than to read from an e-reader. Therefore I am stuffing my bookshelves tighter every few months. Does anyone have any experience how to prevent book mite? Now, I have thrown a few scented-bags in the shelves. But I doubt its effectiveness.
All advice will be appreciated.
* Administrator, I think your site should reserve some space for this kind of question/discussion. After all, they are still related to reading. Yes, I am pleading not to be removed : )
YK wrote: "My apologies first. I know I am off the topic. I tried to open a new discussion but I was not allowed to unless I key in a book title as topic. So let me try my luck here until my post gets re..."
http://www.ehow.com/how_5627461_rid-b...
Don't know about book mites - but YK check your local used book store, they probably deal with that type of thing all the time.As far as religion or science goes - I think we need both, for different reasons. Each individual should have what they need to live with their own consciousness, some need religion... and as far as dictating what religion should teach - well that's a different question, and also most here would probably agree that freedom of speech and religion is paramount.
YK wrote: "My apologies first. I know I am off the topic. I tried to open a new discussion but I was not allowed to unless I key in a book title as topic. So let me try my luck here until my post gets re..."
I second the idea of talking with a local used bookstore. They'd probably have some experience with that.
Also, don't be too stressed on going on a tangent. Happens all the time on this thread.
Several pages devoted to Sean Bean and then the big gun control blow out come to mind.
Thanks to Renice, Elisabeth and Travis
I have no answer about this.but i'm believe once upon a time ONLY TIME CAN ANSWER ALL OF THIS.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Faith and reason each have their place. BTW many secularists have too much faith in their version of reason.
of course! many secularists sometimes can not think simplicity about this world!
Alice wrote: "The two are not mutually exclusive. Faith and reason each have their place. BTW many secularists have too much faith in their version of reason."
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "faith in their version of reason." Could you please define what a secular person's "faith in their version of reason" is?
Nyie wrote: "of course! many secularists sometimes can not think simplicity about this world!"Since secularists don't have an overly- complicated unprovable mythology, I think they see the world with more simplicity than religious folk.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
I mean I fully aree with Travis' this statement.
My previous post, some lines were truncated so I need to clarify