The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by reed9 No argument there. Scientific and religious outlooks are incompatible.

Then why are you expecting proof from someone discussing religion? As someone who proclaims to be scientific in mindset you whould be aware that your request is unscientific.

Originally Posted by reed9 Well, there's a value judgement implicit there. I value knowledge and truth, free inquiry and curiosity. Religious truth claims are a mockery of that. As for the rest, I was thinking specifically of evangelical Christianity and most of Islam. The prime example these days in in regards to gay and lesbian rights and women's reproductive freedom.

This entire discussion is a judgement. You judge religion and people who believe in it as having poor morals based on your own feelings of religion.

We have the gay and lesbian rights discussion in Australia right now, tell me what do you want for them?
The word gay used to mean happy, now you can't say the word without fear of being labelled a hypocrit.
The word lesbian used to mean a native of the island of Lesbos.
Women's reproductive freedom, where are you going to go with that?

Originally Posted by reed9 The issue, as as been stated, is whether they claim to know something because of their faith. If they said, I don't know if God exists, or that he created the universe, then the issue wouldn't come up. But they claim God does exist and did make the universe, and so the burden of proof is on them. If they claim knowledge and cannot back it up, well, it demonstrates the intellectually bankruptcy of religious thought.

Thus my raising of the issue of atheists/agnostics knowledge. You are the only one to say what you know, and I admire your honesty, I do think however that some people who were very vocal and have now become rather silent need to explain their knowledge.

Going back to faith, and as I have already explained, religious texts teach that knowledge comes through faith. You trust and believe what is written so you "know". How is your "faith" in science different? You have already stated you don't know the answers yet you trust the scientific explanation. Have you yourself tested, as in done it yourself, scientific theories?

Originally Posted by reed9 Only to creationists.

Not at all, there are many people who are not religious in this sense yet do not believe scientific explanations.

Originally Posted by reed9 Nope. No dilemma there. Being christian is not required to do good works, nor is it required for morality. Whereas science is required to learn about the world enough to create computers. All your example shows is that religious people can do good things, just like non-religious people.

But someone pointed out before that religion causes people to do bad things. Are you saying science doesn't cause people to do bad things?

Do you see what you are doing? You are making blanket statements and they are not correct or can be thrown right back at you.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Then why are you expecting proof from someone discussing religion? As someone who proclaims to be scientific in mindset you whould be aware that your request is unscientific.

This question has already been answered a few times, but I'll repeat it once again: If you say you believe something, I'm not going to ask you for any proof. If you claim you know something, then I'd expect you to provide some kind of proof.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 This entire discussion is a judgement. You judge religion and people who believe in it as having poor morals based on your own feelings of religion.

I personally don't judge all religious people to have poor morals. What I mentioned a few days ago is that sometimes really good people are so blinded by faith that they do bad things, actually believing they do good (example: healing HIV with prayer - link provided by me a few days ago)

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Thus my raising of the issue of atheists/agnostics knowledge. You are the only one to say what you know, and I admire your honesty, I do think however that some people who were very vocal and have now become rather silent need to explain their knowledge.

As I said before I don't have all the answers, science doesn't have all the answers, but, unlike religion, neither science nor myself claims to know it all.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Going back to faith, and as I have already explained, religious texts teach that knowledge comes through faith. You trust and believe what is written so you "know".

That's what's always puzzled me: how is trusting something without a shred of proof a virtue?

Originally Posted by k3lt01 How is your "faith" in science different? You have already stated you don't know the answers yet you trust the scientific explanation. Have you yourself tested, as in done it yourself, scientific theories?

By living in this world (walking, driving, using a computer, etc.) you yourself verified many of them to be true. If we are talking of less tangible theories, you could always ask to witness some science experiments or to be shown some proofs. So you can actually test many scientific theories yourself which can't really be said of the stuff included in the bible.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 But someone pointed out before that religion causes people to do bad things. Are you saying science doesn't cause people to do bad things? Do you see what you are doing? You are making blanket statements and they are not correct or can be thrown right back at you.

How can science cause people to do bad things? Bad people sometimes use science (eg. weapons/bombs, etc) to do bad things but it's because they are bad people in the first place. What does science have to do with it? If I kill a person by smashing a hard copy of the bible on their head, would you blame religion for that?! No, it was just a tool a bad person used. If I use baseball bat to assault a person, would you say that sport causes people to do bad things?
When it comes to religion, it's different. They don't do bad things using religion. Some perfectly good people may do bad things because of religion or their religious faith (eg. hiv healing). I'm sure you can spot the difference.

That's what's always puzzled me: how is trusting something without a shred of proof a virtue?

This is where we leave the realm of the rational and scientific knowledge and enter the domain of spiritual knowledge.

If you are willing to concede that there may be a domain of spiritual knowledge out there for discovery and you are willing to apply a different set of rules to judge this domain, then maybe you acknowledge that Man might be able to evolve in a spiritual sense, in a somewhat analogous way to improving your mind in the physical and scientific sense.

However, if you completely reject the notion of a soul or a spirit inside man that can be evolved spiritually, then you shut this door completely.

I am not saying which is right or wrong, but maybe that is where many people hit the brick wall as far as religion is concerned. Beyond a point, I think the whole issue shifts from science and rationality to a different domain of knowledge which might be impossible to assess from the scientific or rational basis. This may also explain why religion is so hard to defend in any discussion where the basis of the discussion is science and human rationality.

Maybe at some point, we have to acknowledge science and rationality as tools of the human mind that can be used in certain problem domains but not necessarily every single problem domain. Take even emotions like love for instance. Can you explain all kinds of love from a scientific and rationalistic viewpoint? You might be able to assess physical beauty of a person in purely scientific terms, but can you explain why a less beautiful person is loved by somebody else in preference to a more physically beautiful person?

Originally Posted by k3lt01 That is not true. you cannot tell me that if you are lucid (i.e. in your right mind and have nothing that is interfering with your mental faculties) that you cannot state that you see something and it is actually there. Example, I'm sitting in bed it is 5.16 am and I am typing this on the screen, that is an absolute truth and nothing mathematical on my part entered into it.

What you say may be true, but it is without proof. Proof would come in the form of credibility ("He has always been correct and true before, so he is credibile. Therefore, I believe him when he says 'X'."), or observation, which requires faith that the observer is not biased and has made a complete observation.

So while I think that saying that "only" mathematics can be absolutely true (no credibilty or observer issues) overdraws the situation a bit, mathematics does represent an example of proof that cannot be challenged.

Originally Posted by vharishankar This is where we leave the realm of the rational and scientific knowledge and enter the domain of spiritual knowledge. If you are willing to concede that there may be a domain of spiritual knowledge out there for discovery and you are willing to apply a different set of rules to judge this domain, then maybe you acknowledge that Man might be able to evolve in a spiritual sense, in a somewhat analogous way to improving your mind in the physical and scientific sense.

The problem is what are these different set of rules, and how do you know those are the rules??? The only thing the religious can say to this is some nonsense about revealed knowledge. But there is NO way to distinguish between legitimate revealed knowledge, if some a thing existed, and false knowledge, neither for the individual who believes they received the knowledge, nor, especially so, for those of us who this prophet-type is trying to communicate with. Which is why trust is religious authorities is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

However, if you completely reject the notion of a soul or a spirit inside man that can be evolved spiritually, then you shut this door completely.

I don't. I just ask for proof that the soul exists first. Here's my dilemma. If I relax my standards for evidence, then where do I stop? To be consistent, I'm in a position where I essentially have to believe everything, if my standard for belief is not tied to evidence. There is NO criteria to choose between competing religious beliefs. Indeed, I would also have to include ghosts, goblins, aliens, unicorns and all manner of mythological beasts, and on an on.

Maybe at some point, we have to acknowledge science and rationality as tools of the human mind that can be used in certain problem domains but not necessarily every single problem domain. Take even emotions like love for instance. Can you explain all kinds of love from a scientific and rationalistic viewpoint? You might be able to assess physical beauty of a person in purely scientific terms, but can you explain why a less beautiful person is loved by somebody else in preference to a more physically beautiful person?

Yes, science has limits. So what? Religion doesn't fill in where science cannot go. Science gives limited true answers and religion gives unlimited fake answers. Not being constrained to reality, it's easy, religion can just make stuff up as it needs to.

And yes, you can in principle explain love, both at the chemical level, and through the lens of evolutionary biology. The difficultly in explaining love is an issue of complexity, not because it's some magic, non-material "thing".

Originally Posted by vharishankar This is where we leave the realm of the rational and scientific knowledge and enter the domain of spiritual knowledge.

People that reject certain religion, normally have a very simple problem with that specific religion - things they experienced in real world contradict things that are told to be true by that religion. "Problem of evil" is the most obvious example.

As for the "spiritual knowledge" - it is quite possible that it too can be broken down into set of laws, so i don't see why wouldn't you want to apply "scientific methods" there as well.

The main problem with religion is that it normally results in dogmatism. "A 2 thousand years old book say it is true (without explaining why it is true), so it is true". This is inefficient and will hinder further development of technology/society.

Originally Posted by vharishankar Take even emotions like love for instance. Can you explain all kinds of love from a scientific and rationalistic viewpoint?

As far as I know, this topic has been researched by many people, and there are books on the subject. If you can't explain emotion rationally, it doesn't mean it cannot be rationally explained at all.

Originally Posted by vharishankar You might be able to assess physical beauty of a person in purely scientific terms, but can you explain why a less beautiful person is loved by somebody else in preference to a more physically beautiful person?

That's actually quite easy - character, shared experience, etc. Beauty != love/attraction.

Originally Posted by reed9 But there is NO way to distinguish between legitimate revealed knowledge, if some a thing existed, and false knowledge, neither for the individual who believes they received the knowledge, nor, especially so, for those of us who this prophet-type is trying to communicate with. Which is why trust is religious authorities is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

I agree on the logic, and at some point I could say the same with politic / economic authorities. I mean economy could be a religion, if present information with numbers is a way to make people believe it's true

Originally Posted by Cedrik I agree on the logic, and at some point I could say the same with politic / economic authorities. I mean economy could be a religion, if present information with numbers is a way to make people believe it's true

As I've said before, any system that attempts to impose truth through fiat, or places ideology above free inquiry, is a problem, be it secular or religious. Those things happen to be built into religion as core principles - as has been mentioned religions elevate belief without evidence as one of the prime virtues - but that doesn't make secular movements immune from the problem.

Originally Posted by reed9 yes, you can in principle explain love, both at the chemical level, and through the lens of evolutionary biology. The difficultly in explaining love is an issue of complexity, not because it's some magic, non-material "thing".

The thing is, most people (yes, even most atheists) prefer to see love (or anything similarly tied closely to the human condition) as something "magic and non-material", even if it's just at a subconscious level. Think about it: would you really tell your girlfriend/wife that your feelings arise from some impersonal biochemical process, or would you just tell her that you love her, without going into all the nitty gritty details, even if the former is the truth?

In other words, most people, religious or not, want to see love (and related things) through a human lens, not a strictly scientific one.

This, I think, is the problem most people have with atheism/skepticism: it reduces people to impersonal minutae. I think that at some level, there has to be some form of "magical thinking" when interacting with people in everyday life, otherwise you'd simply go nuts, because you'd be seeing everything from a "scientific, rational" perspective, instead of experiencing those things on a "human" level (which, strictly speaking, means nothing objectively). It's a matter of being a player vs. being an observer.

EDIT: As an example, take my own rantings about the whole "free will" problem that I occasionally inject into this thread (): believe it or not, I'm not really that insane IRL. I am perfectly capable of setting aside that kind of sh*t to get along in the real world (and, ironically enough, I have no choice ). In other words, I subconsciously assume "free will exists", because I have to in order to get anything done without going totally nuts. I'm sure similar arguments could be made for love, etc.

Originally Posted by MrCode The thing is, most people (yes, even most atheists) prefer to see love (or anything similarly tied closely to the human condition) as something "magic and non-material",

IMO, that's a bold statement. As far as I know, while some people love or want love, they don't care what a love is.

Originally Posted by MrCode going into all the nitty gritty details, even if the former is the truth?

Well, there's a difference between being a jerk and being skeptical.

Originally Posted by MrCode In other words, most people, religious or not, want to see love (and related things) through a human lens, not a strictly scientific one.

In my experience, most people don't care about that at all.

Originally Posted by MrCode This, I think, is the problem most people have with atheism/skepticism: it reduces people to impersonal minutae.

It doesn't. A human is insanely complex, there are many scientific fields that study humans. The more you study, the more you understand how complex a human is, how complex emotion is, how complex life is. A religion does not provide that kind of appreciation. "Your entire race were made to do god's bidding in 1 day"? Pfft. What's the point in living in this case?

Originally Posted by MrCode I think that at some level, there has to be some form of "magical thinking" when interacting with people in everyday life, otherwise you'd simply go nuts, because you'd be seeing everything from a "scientific, rational" perspective,

"False dichotomy"? There's an easy solution - don't overanalyze. Accept life as it is.

Originally Posted by sycamorex This question has already been answered a few times, but I'll repeat it once again: If you say you believe something, I'm not going to ask you for any proof. If you claim you know something, then I'd expect you to provide some kind of proof.

Lol, I think you'll be repeating it for as long as people keep asking.

I'll rephrase my question, people say science is correct and religion is not, how do you know this? have you ever personally carried out tests or experiments? If you haven't then you are just trusting what others say as true.

Originally Posted by sycamorex As I said before I don't have all the answers, science doesn't have all the answers, but, unlike religion, neither science nor myself claims to know it all.

Tell me where does "religion" claim to know it all. You have zealots claiming to know it all on behalf of religion but religion, as an abstract concept, cannot claim anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by sycamorex That's what's always puzzled me: how is trusting something without a shred of proof a virtue?

Now that you've said this I'll ask you why do you have faith in science if you have not personally carried out any texts or examinations? If you want proof you cannot just trust an unproven theory you must have certainty. That is the logical and scientific way.

Originally Posted by sycamorex By living in this world (walking, driving, using a computer, etc.) you yourself verified many of them to be true. If we are talking of less tangible theories, you could always ask to witness some science experiments or to be shown some proofs. So you can actually test many scientific theories yourself which can't really be said of the stuff included in the bible.

And then someone from your side of the discussion comes out with something like "you can be a brain in a jar". Belittles your side of the discussion doesn't it?

Originally Posted by sycamorex How can science cause people to do bad things? Bad people sometimes use science (eg. weapons/bombs, etc) to do bad things but it's because they are bad people in the first place. What does science have to do with it? If I kill a person by smashing a hard copy of the bible on their head, would you blame religion for that?! No, it was just a tool a bad person used. If I use baseball bat to assault a person, would you say that sport causes people to do bad things? When it comes to religion, it's different. They don't do bad things using religion. Some perfectly good people may do bad things because of religion or their religious faith (eg. hiv healing). I'm sure you can spot the difference.

That's the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? An abstract concept (religion) can cause people to do bad things yet people of "intelligence" who promote scientific methods don't do bad things because they trust science. Is that what you are saying? I can spot the difference however I think you have a blind spot

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Lol, I think you'll be repeating it for as long as people keep asking. I'll rephrase my question, people say science is correct and religion is not, how do you know this? have you ever personally carried out tests or experiments? If you haven't then you are just trusting what others say as true.

The point is that the science is replicable. He, you, or I, can perform the experiement or test if desired. That is trust (faith) that can be verified. Replication and falsifiability is not possible in religion, therefore religion cannot gainsay science.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 And then someone from your side of the discussion comes out with something like "you can be a brain in a jar". Belittles your side of the discussion doesn't it?

Not really. It's a classic thought experiment in philosophy.

That's the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? An abstract concept (religion) can cause people to do bad things yet people of "intelligence" who promote scientific methods don't do bad things because they trust science. Is that what you are saying? I can spot the difference however I think you have a blind spot

I think "cause" is too strong a term. I think it's obvious we would have people doing terrible things regardless. Though science is not an ideology that inspires people in the way religion is.

I think the point is that beliefs translate into actions. And therefore erroneous, irrational beliefs can translate into bad actions, and that is somewhat more tragic than poor outcomes based on the best possible information. Consider the case of a doctor doing everything they can for someone, using the best knowledge we have available, and yet the patient dies. That's tragic, but understandable. We don't blame the doctor for trying. But consider someone who "believes" in their patented, all natural cure-all super tonic water, and convinces someone to take their "treatment", and that person then dies of their illness (or of the treatment). That's tragic and reprehensible. We should condemn people for giving or promoting unproven treatments, even if they firmly believed that their cure worked. The latter is analogous to religious belief.

I agree that some science is replicable to say that all is replicable discount theories that are false.

I think many of you are either missing the point or are totally disregarding it. Statements have been made that are extremely wide ranging. Basically what I have read in the days prior to my re-involvement is that people who have religious faith are idiots. No one has said people who trust science are idiots yet not one of you can tell me what science says about topics that religious texts discuss, i.e the origins of the universe and the arrival of humanity. There are millions of pages throughout the internet on this topic yet not one of you can answer what is, for all intents and purposes, a simple question.

Beliefs translate into actions. I agree and science has been used and will continue to be used to give these beliefs credence. The one I mention above is but one. During the time of Nazi Germany science was used to "show" the lack of worth to humanity of various ethnic groups such as the Jewish people and Roma (Gypsies) it was also used to a lesser extent to bolster the Nazi desire to expand into Eastern Europe. There was nothing religious about it but science was most certainly used to justify the attempted extermination of different peoples.

What I am saying is you should not make wide ranging statements, that includes people like Blue, without knowing something about the topic.

I'm off to work :crying:

Originally Posted by k3lt01 I agree that some science is replicable to say that all is replicable discount theories that are false. I think many of you are either missing the point or are totally disregarding it. Statements have been made that are extremely wide ranging. Basically what I have read in the days prior to my re-involvement is that people who have religious faith are idiots. No one has said people who trust science are idiots yet not one of you can tell me what science says about topics that religious texts discuss, i.e the origins of the universe and the arrival of humanity. There are millions of pages throughout the internet on this topic yet not one of you can answer what is, for all intents and purposes, a simple question.

These are not simple questions. There are no answers. I mean, we can talk about the Big Bang, or we can talk about the possible scenarios that led to the first replicators that eventually led to life, but how life actually occurred, what caused the Big Bang, if cause is even a meaningful word in that context, was there a before the Big Bang, etc, are all mysteries. As far as religion weighing in on these topics, I have no more reason to believe God made the world and life than I do to believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster did. No, religious people aren't idiots, but yes, religious ideas are idiotic. Smart people believe stupid things all the time though. It's just that ideally, we're trying to figure out when we have bad ideas and correct them, not revel in them as an example of our virtue.

Beliefs translate into actions. I agree and science has been used and will continue to be used to give these beliefs credence. The one I mention above is but one. During the time of Nazi Germany science was used to "show" the lack of worth to humanity of various ethnic groups such as the Jewish people and Roma (Gypsies) it was also used to a lesser extent to bolster the Nazi desire to expand into Eastern Europe. There was nothing religious about it but science was most certainly used to justify the attempted extermination of different peoples.

Well, there's considerable disagreement on Hitler's beliefs, but he clearly used Christianity to motivate people, whether or not he personally believed. Though as far as I know, the evidence is that he was a theist of some sort. A better example for secular evils is Stalin. And as I've said, any ideology that is inimical to reason is a problem. Do you think Hitler was encouraging open discourse on his "scientific" ideas about race? Both Stalin and Hitler replaced religious worship with cults of personality and worshiping the State. This thread has been about religion, but I am opposed to all irrational, dogmatic, pseudo-scientific claptrap, from homeopathy to conspiracy theories to LaRouchies.