The Faith & Religion mega Thread

I don't think anyone is saying that religious people claim to know everything. But surely you agree that 1) they often claim to know that God exists, and 2) they often claim to know His will in particular matters (generally justified by saying it's in the Bible, or other religious text).

Fair enough.

But of course, you also dismiss the idea that religious people are capable of knowing God or God's Will, except through scientific proof of the same. Therein lies the issue, because your definition of knowledge is limited only to the realm of physical science and what you can measure in the world around you while religious people probably include "revealed truth" as also knowledge.

Let us assume that it is impossible to prove God's existence scientifically anyway; and thus, one side dismisses religion and God as false because of this and the other side says that it doesn't matter because religion and God is beyond science anyway.

I think that sums up the respective positions. It's hard, no impossible, to go beyond this point.

I have not seen this kind of thinking here. So it would be nice if discussion returned back to original topic. Besides, in addition to atheists/believers there's a middle ground, plus there are many kinds of atheists, and many kinds of religions. As far as I can tell, "problem of evil" in conjuction with "bible tells truth" makes christianity invalid. It doesn't deal with other religions of possibility of existence of god in general.

And I agree. The thread has gone too much off topic.

//merged with other post

Originally Posted by SigTerm I think it doesn't really matter where information came from (revelation or not) as long as it can be verified/validated. Blindly accepting "divine truth" without question isn't a good idea, though.

Yes, I agree with that.

Originally Posted by vharishankar But of course, you also dismiss the idea that religious people are capable of knowing God or God's Will, except through scientific proof of the same. Therein lies the issue, because your definition of knowledge is limited only to the realm of physical science and what you can measure in the world around you while religious people probably include "revealed truth" as also knowledge.

Well, I am throughout using the philosophical sense of knowledge as, roughly and with some caveats, justified, true belief.

If you want me to accept revealed "truth" as knowledge, please tell me how to differentiate between different revealed claims? Why should I accept the Pope's revealed truth and not Osama Bin Laden's revealed truth, if I cannot appeal to outside criteria? There's millions of different odd religious beliefs running around out there, which one's are legitimate revealed truths, which ones are not, and how do we know? How many gurus and religious leaders have abused their positions? How many people have been duped into cults because they trusted revealed truth? I understand that religious folks want to claim revealed truth as knowledge. I've been trying to explain why that doesn't work. No one has yet given me a reason why I should think of revealed truths as anything more than stories people make up. And if the answer is that you have to "feel" it in some way, what criteria do you have to say that my feelings that it's all B.S. are wrong?

Let us assume that it is impossible to prove God's existence scientifically anyway; and thus, one side dismisses religion and God as false because of this and the other side says that it doesn't matter because religion and God is beyond science anyway.

Yes, but individual religious claims are not beyond science, and if a religion constantly makes claims that are shown to be false, when does it become difficult to maintain your belief? We can never totally disprove the idea of God, sure, but most people don't believe in the sort of non-interventionist deist kind of God that applies to.

You, presumably, don't believe in all religions. Why not? What is your criteria to choose between religious beliefs? If it is based on "revealed truth", how can you know that your revelation is true and Bob's across the street is not? Is there a line beyond which one should start relying on empirical truths? Where is that line? I've mentioned before examples of people who don't treat their kids medically believing prayer will cure them. Is that a line? Should I respect their revealed truth in the power of prayer, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Should I respect their revealed truth in the power of prayer, despite all evidence to the contrary?

I personally handle things like this on a person-for-person basis: if the person seems to have a decent head on their shoulders (i.e. they aren't a religious fanatic), and they don't let their beliefs cloud their judgement to a point where they can't function in everyday society, I just let it go.

As an example: what if someone wants to believe in reincarnation or an "afterlife" of some kind, however scientifically unsubstantiated the concept(s) might be? IMO if they aren't using that belief as an excuse to just laze off and not live their life, and they just want to believe that when they die, there might be something "beyond the grave", without having to fulfill any ridiculous requirements in "the earthly life" or anything, I wouldn't try to force the "nothing after death" view on them, even if I personally think it's much, much more likely.

Originally Posted by MrCode Reduce, reduce, reduce! Dissect, dissect, dissect! Everything is just math! Everything is just physics! Everything is just <insert universal theory of everything here>! No more! NO MORE!!! Consciousness is an illusion! Life is pointless and hopeless! Free will is naught but delusional fantasy! …but what about…? SILENCE!!!

Silence is golden...



Duct tape is silver.

Originally Posted by SigTerm It sounds like it is time to nuke this thread, though. All "intelligent discussions" end when people start attacking their opponents instead of their opponent's viewpoints and fall into "us vs them" thinking.

This is why I am in this discussion. You got nasty and started picking, as you always do, at people who you felt superior to. Do you want your posts deleted from this one to so you can hide your behaviour from the world? Why is it when someone can show you, yes you SigTerm, to be either wrong or just plain nasty, you want something closed?

Originally Posted by MrCode I personally handle things like this on a person-for-person basis: if the person seems to have a decent head on their shoulders (i.e. they aren't a religious fanatic), and they don't let their beliefs cloud their judgement to a point where they can't function in everyday society, I just let it go.

I certainly wouldn't advocate jumping down someone's throat every time they mention a religious or superstitious belief. I don't go around saying "There is no God!" every time someone tells me "God bless you" or anything. (In the case of potential danger to someone, like in the prayer in lieu of medicine case, you have an obligation to intervene, though.)

Generally in my personal life, I have this conversation with friends and coworkers at least once, since it invariably comes up for one reason or another, and then we move on. My boss is an evangelical creationist, and we had quite a conversation on the matter. Now we don't talk about it much, beyond the occasionally friendly jibes. As a person, she's lovely, but I have no respect for her religious beliefs, and I imagine she feels I am equally wrong headed. (Except that I'm right. )

Originally Posted by reed9 What in the world are you talking about? Science has a better method of getting at answers.

I never said it doesn't.

Originally Posted by reed9 Sometimes the answers are wrong or incomplete. (Well, probably always incomplete.)

Yes I'd suggest nearly always incomplete which is a problem for people who believe science is always right.

Originally Posted by reed9 We have very incomplete answers when it comes to questions like the origin of the universe or how life actually started.

Again this is a problem, you don;t have answers at all, incomplete or not. You do however have theories, theories which people seem to blindly trust until a better one comes along.

Originally Posted by reed9 The Big Bang theory, by the way, is not so much about the origin of the universe but more about how the universe developed. As the cosmologist Jim Peebles put it, "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began."

duly noted

Originally Posted by reed9 The honest stance to take when we don't have answers is, "I don't know." Not to insert gods and ghosts and ghoulies or otherwise make claims to knowledge you do not have.

Why aren't we seeing honesty then from many atheists? They don't have knowldege they have a belief in someone else's theories.

Originally Posted by reed9 Richard Feynman said it better than I ever could, "You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things. But I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit; if I can’t figure it out, then I go onto something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell — possibly. It doesn’t frighten me."

Lovely quote but again it comes back to the point that most athiests just blindly believe some else's theory. I would doubt very much that every atheist has tested any theory let alone all of them so they are blindly trusting something they have been told about or read about in a book.

Originally Posted by reed9 Because science is the only method that reliably gives answers about the universe that work. I don't claim science to be the end all be all. I claim that outside of science, we cannot have knowledge about the universe. Other things might be true, they might not be true, but we have no way to know. Once again, my entire argument is about claims to knowledge about the universe, that are unsupported. You have said religion is not about empirical claims, but since religious people keep making those claims, there is an obligation, if you care about evidence and truth and reality at all, to offer evidence in support of them.

So start supporting your arguments, by you I mean atheists who blindly believe something.

Originally Posted by reed9 I'm not the one claiming that science makes you good or religion causes people to be evil.

But that was written in this thread was it not?

Originally Posted by reed9 And I personally find evil actions done out of a false belief to be tragic.

As do I and that is my reason for being here in this discussion.

Originally Posted by reed9 When people blowing themselves up with the belief that they will go to heaven for their sacrifice, that is tragic. When people withhold medicine from their kids in the belief that prayer will heal them, that is tragic. The consequences of irrational secular beliefs are also tragic. But religion holds particular sway and power in the world and I don't want political leaders acting on their irrational religious beliefs. I don't want people who expect the Rapture to come at any time, or see world conflict through the lens of holy war, in control of nuclear weapons. I don't want people who think murdering children isn't so bad, because they're going to eternal paradise in heaven, in control of anything. I don't want people who think God wouldn't let humans destroy the world in control of environmental policies. And on and on. And these are not rare beliefs. In the United States a good 14% of Americans though President Obama might literally be the Anti-Christ in 2010. A major religious figure in the US view Japan's economic woes as a consequence of the Japanese Emperor sleeping with the "sun goddess". These are not quacks lurking the dark recesses of the internet, but prominent people with millions of followers. This is why I cannot just sit back and say to each their own, believe what you will.

Then pick at each thing equally.

Originally Posted by reed9 So morality can be rational endeavor, and can be objective without being absolute or handed down to us from on high.

I don't disagree with this but some, and I don't disagree with them either, believe that their morality comes from a religious belief.

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.

Do I you want me to rephrase my answer.... again?

Originally Posted by k3lt01 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.

Of course, religion as a system of beliefs can provide you with all the answers. Whether those answers are satisfactory is another matter. I don't think that there's a question that can't be answered with: "It's God's will" or "God created it" or something along those lines. I think those answers are coherent with religion as a system of beliefs which dictates undisputed trust in god's decisions/actions.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 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

Did you read my post? I really doubt my English is that bad that you completely misunderstood what I wrote...
Sorry I really don't have time for a discussion where you completely twist my words.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Why aren't we seeing honesty then from many atheists? They don't have knowldege they have a belief in someone else's theories. Lovely quote but again it comes back to the point that most athiests just blindly believe some else's theory. I would doubt very much that every atheist has tested any theory let alone all of them so they are blindly trusting something they have been told about or read about in a book.

Obviously I can't speak for other people, but I haven't seen that to be true. Among the many atheists I personally know, they all think 1) that belief should be proportional to the evidence, and 2) scientific truths are provisional, not the absolute truth or answer.

We trust in science to the extent that it is an open process, that the evidence and methodology is equally available to anyone, and that disinterested third parties check scientific work (generally through peer review, though that is imperfect). When the experts in a field all arrive at the same conclusion and there are multiple lines of evidence leading to that conclusion, we consider it true, but not True, if you understand my meaning. And it's not too difficult to learn enough to spot certain problems in scientific papers. For example, there's a few papers showing inconclusive, non-specific effects for homeopathy. Proponents argue that supports the notion that homeopathy works, but it's not too difficult to understand that you cannot make that strong a statement by cherry picking a few positive studies, while ignoring the host of negative studies, or to see that the positive studies generally engage in anomaly hunting and place too much importance on statistical artifacts.

It sounds to me like you're saying, for example, that belief in the Theory of Gravity is equivalent to belief that unbaptized babies are no longer condemned to purgatory because the Pope said so. That just seems indefensible. There is no way to check the Pope's work, you know?

But that was written in this thread was it not?

Not by me.

Then pick at each thing equally.

Do you mean pick at secular irrational beliefs equally? This thread is about religion, so the focus has been on religious beliefs. Plus, as I've mentioned, religion has a privileged position in the world, it has enormous political and social power, so it gets special attention.

I don't disagree with this but some, and I don't disagree with them either, believe that their morality comes from a religious belief.

I know. And some who believe their morality comes from a religious belief go on to blow people up because of it, or propose the death penalty for being gay. Believing the source of your morality comes from religion does not make your actions moral. But believing you have had the Truth revealed to you makes it very difficult to change your mind or listen to opposing viewpoints. If someone believes God has spoken and commanded they kill the infidel, it makes reasoning with them rather difficult, no? And it doesn't help us understand the biological roots of morality or how humans actually behave in particular situations, to understand, for example, how it could be that Penn State or the Catholic Church didn't take stronger action when confronted with information about child rape. Understanding how people actually behave allows us to design systems to counterbalance human nature. Religious morality cannot help us with that, it gives us no usable information.

I just read today an example of evolutionary theory being used to help design a program to help at risk High School students.

What happened? The RA students responded so quickly to their new social environment that their grades rocketed up by the first marking period. The dropout rate plummeted. The most stringent test came at the end of the year with the state-mandated exams. Not only did the RA students greatly outperform the comparison group, but they performed on a par with the average Binghamton High School Student. These results have recently been reported in the Public Library of Science's online public access journal PLoS ONE. They provide proof that a policy informed by evolution--in this case educational policy--can succeed at solving problems that have appeared difficult or impossible to solve from other perspectives.

Philosophically speaking, the Greeks pretty much debunked the notion that morality can come from the gods. See Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Lovely quote but again it comes back to the point that most athiests just blindly believe some else's theory. I would doubt very much that every atheist has tested any theory let alone all of them so they are blindly trusting something they have been told about or read about in a book.

The difference is that I can put my faith into something that can be measured and tested and replicated, OR I can put my faith into something that cannot be measured and tested and replicated.

Guess which course of action makes the most sense?

Originally Posted by sycamorex Do I you want me to rephrase my answer.... again?

Do it as many times as your heart is willing to do it. It is no skin off my nose

Originally Posted by sycamorex Of course, religion as a system of beliefs can provide you with all the answers. Whether those answers are satisfactory is another matter.

No, whether they are satisfactory to the person as an individual is another matter. You don;t, nor does a religious fanatic, have the right to tell people what is satisfactory for them. People have been talking about morals, where does science give anyone the moral right to tell others what to believe. It is the exact same thing with religious belief. There is a section in the bible that actually says "if they wont listen wipe the dust of your feet and leave".

Originally Posted by sycamorex I don't think that there's a question that can't be answered with: "It's God's will" or "God created it" or something along those lines. I think those answers are coherent with religion as a system of beliefs which dictates undisputed trust in god's decisions/actions.

So what? Seriously we have worked out people can do and have done some shocking things using ideologies. If someone wants to believe god caused these things then what is the problem? If someone else wants to think science was used to cause these things then what is the problem? I'll tell you what the problem is, fanatiscism on both sides.

Originally Posted by sycamorex Did you read my post? I really doubt my English is that bad that you completely misunderstood what I wrote... Sorry I really don't have time for a discussion where you completely twist my words.

This is exactly what you said

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.

Why is the use of science, I gave an example where the Australian government in the 1930s and 1940s used science to justify the "breeding out" (read genocide) of indigenous Australians the same ideologies were used in other places, different to the use of religion?. How can you tell me science, and the scientists behind the ideology of white supremacy (or in the case of Nazi Germany-the supremacy of the Aryan race above all others including other caucasians), different to religion in cases such as this? Sorry but your argument is flawed. In instances such as this both beliefs are equally guilty and I find it rather presumptuous of you to suggest religion is the only thing used to cause such atrocities. Science, not religion, provided the means for the Nazi's to conduct experiments on people who they tortured, enslaved, gassed, raped, children kidnapped from Eastern Europe (slavic populations) and tested for "aryan" traits and left to starve to death if they did not meet the scientific criteria. This is why I am saying you have blinkers on. You are not looking at the history of humanities use of science, instead you are totally ignoring it.

Originally Posted by reed9 Obviously I can't speak for other people, but I haven't seen that to be true. Among the many atheists I personally know, they all think 1) that belief should be proportional to the evidence, and 2) scientific truths are provisional, not the absolute truth or answer.

But they are being taught as the truth against all opposing points of view.

Originally Posted by reed9 It sounds to me like you're saying, for example, that belief in the Theory of Gravity is equivalent to belief that unbaptized babies are no longer condemned to purgatory because the Pope said so. That just seems indefensible. There is no way to check the Pope's work, you know?

Lol, I haven't said, or even sugegsted any such thing. I think the pope is a tool but that is just my opinion and I'm not going to call a catholic names because they don't agree with me.

Originally Posted by reed9 Not by me.

Originally Posted by reed9 It amazing me that someone who would otherwise be a perfectly good person can spout this kind of evil rhetoric and not see it for what it is.

So how are we supposed to take this? Is this not you saying religion is causing this person to be evil, even if it is just by speaking? Or do you have degrees of evil and speaking evil (i.e. inciting hatred) isn't as bad as punching someone deliberately to hurt them.

Originally Posted by reed9 Do you mean pick at secular irrational beliefs equally? This thread is about religion, so the focus has been on religious beliefs. Plus, as I've mentioned, religion has a privileged position in the world, it has enormous political and social power, so it gets special attention.

Yes I do mean that, and no this thread as by its title is about ranking your religiousness.

Originally Posted by oskar I'm just curious about the gross distribution of faith or non-faith on a forum like this. I wasn't quite sure how to divide the list. This could easily grow out of proportion, so I decided to put the 'firm believer' on top. Whether it's Polytheism, Monotheism, or some kind of New Age thing. I know some of you don't like to be mashed together, but it is more about the state of mind than the actual religion that I'm interested in.

The intent was not to pick at religion it was instead to find out the distribution of beliefs.

Originally Posted by reed9 I know. And some who believe their morality comes from a religious belief go on to blow people up because of it, or propose the death penalty for being gay. Believing the source of your morality comes from religion does not make your actions moral. But believing you have had the Truth revealed to you makes it very difficult to change your mind or listen to opposing viewpoints. If someone believes God has spoken and commanded they kill the infidel, it makes reasoning with them rather difficult, no? And it doesn't help us understand the biological roots of morality or how humans actually behave in particular situations, to understand, for example, how it could be that Penn State or the Catholic Church didn't take stronger action when confronted with information about child rape. Understanding how people actually behave allows us to design systems to counterbalance human nature. Religious morality cannot help us with that, it gives us no usable information.

Why don't you just state your issue with the gay and lesbian debate?

The same can be said about changing the mind of an atheist/scientist/motorbike rider. Everyone has their pet beliefs, you cannot honestly say to me your militancy isn't because you have an extremely firm pov and nothing will change it when it comes to religion.

Originally Posted by reed9 I just read today an example of evolutionary theory being used to help design a program to help at risk High School students.

Ok. Let me ask you a question. What theories have you seen taught in schools in the last decade? Have you seen anything opposing evolution from Ardi etc etc etc to homo and all the huge steps inbetween taught in state schools? I'm not talking about the occasional scripture lesson, I'm talking about a full on syllabus that teaches as a part of the curriculum many different points of view. If you have what are they? Please don't give me links I want to know what you have personally seen.

Originally Posted by reed9 Philosophically speaking, the Greeks pretty much debunked the notion that morality can come from the gods. See Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Here we go again, lol. This thread has been devoid of morality in recent pages, the last 10 or so that I can see. When you have people picking at, name calling etc etc etc other people because they have an opposing pov to science I really doubt it's a good idea for the science side of the discussion to start talking morality. When you, the science side, demand things that you yourself cannot provide yet you claim your ideology is better and you are abusive in doing so you loose any shred of credibility when it comes to the morality argument. Science obviously hasn't helped its own side so lets just stop picking at religion with regards to morality.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 The difference is that I can put my faith into something that can be measured and tested and replicated, OR I can put my faith into something that cannot be measured and tested and replicated. Guess which course of action makes the most sense?

Replicate human evolution as it is described within evolutionary theory then. Seriously you will be the first ever scientist to do so and you will put an end to this debate once and for all.

Sorry moxieman your argument is weak simply because you stick to the measured, tested and replicated idea. A theory remains a theory because it has not or cannot be measured, tested, or replicated. Your belief in such theories is, to put a very fine point on it, simply blind faith. You believe something that has not or cannot be proven by your pet methods of measured, tested and replicated, yet are so adamant that others are wrong because they believe in a god.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Replicate human evolution as it is described within evolutionary theory then. Seriously you will be the first ever scientist to do so and you will put an end to this debate once and for all.

Isn't replicate the Big Bang, one of the goal of the CERN ? At least they try