The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jamison20000e {...}is there should be one true religion{...}

Explain to me then why science is used in religion discussion? Science only provides with 1 option. Science is Black and White. It provides YES or NO answers only to specific questions. If you are one of those who suggest there are multiple options when it comes to religion that is no longer scientific view. How can there be paradox(God exists and God does not exist at same time, religions are all true and none at same time etc.) if laws of nature are supposed to be same for everyone everywhere everytime? If truth is not single anymore then Evolution fails. Only deities can provide that stuff.

Originally Posted by Arcane Explain to me then why science is used in religion discussion? Science only provides with 1 option. Science is Black and White. It provides YES or NO answers only to specific questions. If you are one of those who suggest there are multiple options when it comes to religion that is no longer scientific view. How can there be paradox(God exists and God does not exist at same time, religions are all true and none at same time etc.) if laws of nature are supposed to be same for everyone everywhere everytime? If truth is not single anymore then Evolution fails. Only deities can provide that stuff.

Ever heard of Schroedinger's cat? Science isn't as black and white as you might think.

Science is actually a very constrained point of view ... and devised to be so. Classical science depends completely on experimentation. Necessarily, it also relies upon conjecture, to handle the myriad cases where an experiment cannot be constructed. Atomic-level physics, for instance, consists almost entirely of conjecture bordering on speculation.

There is a discipline known variously as "scientific philosophy" or "the philosophy of science." In lay terms, this is "thinking about thinking." For instance:

We can observe a natural phenomenon called "evolution," and this generally accounts for The Origin of Species. Well ... what else might it possibly account for? How far can we go, without encountering a contradiction with what we do know? And, how can we judge how far to go?

Charles Darwin was engaged in this form of philosophy, and his audience of the time knew it. He played by the rules, and wrote several very excellent books including but not limited to TOofS. Yet he could not say and never did say that "man came from monkeys." One might say that there seems to be no contradiction, yet we also know almost nothing (still!) about genetics and reproduction. It would appear that animals reproduce "each after their own kind," and even if we dump in "millions of years" we're really just hand-waving.

In my view, "science quickly runs out of gas," and it can't take us all the places that we want to go. It's not designed to. If it doesn't have data, it can't go. If it does have data, but misinterprets it or does not have enough, it leads us wrong. And this is intrinsic to its design and purpose. Science's power derives from its limits.

It is "one helluva powerful tool." But it is not an oracle. (Neither is it a religion, although a great many people seem to treat it as one. It cannot answer any of "the Big Kahuna Questions.")

And so ... "other forms of philosophy, and religion." I don't think that these things are false, nor a waste of time. They have their place, as they have had for thousands of years and in every isolated example of human culture ... as has some form of science, primitive or not. The men and women who did these things, all those centuries ago now, were neither stupid nor ignorant. Nor are we. Science will never replace or invalidate these things: it can't. There is no "versus."

Sciences and religions are run by people (not logic, chaos or facts and) during an age when how much
of "our" world is feed and educated properly?!
One seeks absolute truth (at times) the other would be proven wrong when accepting something can never ever be proven
like an opinion!? How to except, wake up!!,!!,!!,!!\*

Originally Posted by rokytnji maybe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2-Pa60T2H4

Cheers, mate. Your link worked a treat.
jdk

Originally Posted by Arcane Explain to me then why science is used in religion discussion?

It is used by those who trust in logic and Science to counter claims about Nature (dating back to well before Galileo) and to caution those who simply "have faith" in unsubstantiated conclusions. As for the reverse, why so many religious folk even Clergy attempt to use logic and Science to shore up faith-based claims, this is a more modern phenomenon that Science has earned from centuries of ever-improving accuracy and field of study. I suppose this creates a dilemna for otherwise logical people for whom Faith is no longer the sole Rock of Gibraltar it once was.

As one guy I knew put it, "always remember, God always has one more trick up His sleeves!"

"Were you there when the foundations of the world were laid?" Uhh, no. "Do you actually understand ... physics, biology, chemistry, geology?" No. "Will you, ever?" No.

You'll do the best you can, and you'll never stop trying, and you never should stop trying. But, "a gulf is fixed."

So, you should maybe keep a little deference. To not rush to say that you, or science, "know(s) the answer." Be a little bit philosophical with regards to what your knowledge can tell you, and what it can't. Don't take someone else's pronouncement as ... uhh, "gospel" ... no matter how sonorously s/he tells it to you. Don't interfere with the affairs of Deities if you sense "in your gut" that One might be at work: help if you can. Don't obsess with what happens "after death," such that you spoil or waste your – or someone else's – "life." (Like everyone else, you'll know what happens after death when you get there, and it would really suck to then feel regret.)

When you do these things, magically, "faith, religion, and science" can happily co-exist.

#undef soapbox

It would be magic to accept "god" but the wafers are like magic (the wine on the other hand,) as I pull your table cloth away (how does everything else stay! Run it's a warlock!!!)

Edit\add: There will always be room for more opinions ie religions,,, that don't mean we won't find truth!

machineheart, Vanic - Circles ft. Vanic
https://youtu.be/MwCCIvog-mw

Is it a fear of; if we lose religion we'd have to let gambling, class warfare, the death penalty and what 1/2 of all law &c to be seen for the hypocrisies and ignorance we\they are or just let's keep bliss? Should be harder (actually impossible) to accept an answer that will never exist but they\we got to you before actual answers ie facts!

Which is considered porn by like Islam or Christianity?

A lovely naked tattooed pinup girl sitting on a motorcycle, or this?


Religious people can be so clueless at times. Makes them hard to be around.

@sundialsvcs - While I disagree a bit with how little confidence you have in Science and I do have a strong understanding in Logic, Physics, Chemistry, Cosmology and Electronics (not so much in other fields but a grasp nonetheless) I do agree in principle with your final statement if worded slightly differently. I can't help but look suspiciously at "faith and religion" because Faith is unreasonable and Religion has always tried to make that Law to foist on everyone, often violently. So I prefer to say that speculation and Spirituality can happily exist with Science, as long as what does have evidence in this life, in this Universe, Science gets the nod as better able to handle such questions. Although I don't indulge in speculating what came before The Big Bang I have no problem with those who do and the same goes for "afterlifers". People who have faith are fine as long as they don't try to force it on others.

AFAIK no atheist has ever stoned or burned a religious person for their beliefs but the converse is far from true. The court cases on so-called "Intelligent Design" prove that some will knowingly lie in print meant for mass readership to further their agenda so many are even willing to murder the truth. It is impossible to trust people like that. I have to agree with Francois Voltaire that it is a wonder that "one Divine (clergyman) upon meeting another, doesn't burst into laughter" (paraphrased translation) in the face of so many scams and atrocities.

Sacrifice one to save many? More like the reverse... thanks a lot religions. https://youtu.be/PUWrTREIWKc

Originally Posted by enorbet It is used by those who trust in logic and Science to counter claims about Nature (dating back to well before Galileo) and to caution those who simply "have faith" in unsubstantiated conclusions. As for the reverse, why so many religious folk even Clergy attempt to use logic and Science to shore up faith-based claims, this is a more modern phenomenon that Science has earned from centuries of ever-improving accuracy and field of study. I suppose this creates a dilemna for otherwise logical people for whom Faith is no longer the sole Rock of Gibraltar it once was.

Still do not get it? You can't use Science as a tool to proove or disproove God! God > Science. Science only describes laws around us and also are limited to our perception of reality. But who creates those rules? Who put everything real in motion? Also if you did not notice previous posts - original science admits easy there might be God because original science was created to find truth about world we live in. Whatever it might be. Heck! There might even be 4th option and we all might be wrong - no creation, no evolution and no aliens. But i get why you post such stuff. Matrix character answered that:

"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know when I put it in my mouth the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years you know what I realise? Ignorance is bliss" ―Cypher

For such people - ignorance is something they crave. They do not want to know because they prefer things to be just like they are. No truth - no problems! But that does not give you authority to decide that for everyone!

Thanks, enorbet - I can see my blanket statement about 'proving a negative' was ill-though-out, aka wrong, though I think it does apply to the "big negative:" it would be hard/impossible to disprove the existence of a god, especially one who is more powerful and intelligent than us mere mortals and who has a reason to stay (mostly?) hidden. That's not to say there's anything wrong with a "balance of probabilities" approach, of course.


In other news, I'm pretty certain Mao and Stalin killed more than a few religious people for their beliefs, and they weren't alone. Religion, even the other guy's religion, does not have a monopoly on power-drunk murderers.

... and that man who stones (or whatever) another man, "in the name of religion," is just a murderer. Nothing more or less.

I love the scene in the Bible of "Judgement Day," in which people protest: "But we performed miracles in Your name!" And they are rebuffed: "I never knew you." If you consider that the point of the story is that (presumably ...) these people did "perform miracles," it's obvious that they believed themselves to be "Very Religious People," and felt utterly confident that God must think so, too. (They must be the ones who bought Tim LaHay's vindictive books? Oh, no, it's not my place to judge them ...)

They are stunned to hear: "... when did we see You naked?"

In short: they utterly missed the point. They were so certain of themselves, that they were wrong about everything that mattered. They didn't care for their fellow man, but found that their God cared about nothing else. They obsessed about the mote in someone else's eye, and so on.

Anyhow – "you're here, for a time, then you are dust in the wind." Make the most of your time here while you are here, and, in any case, do not make trouble for someone else. If "your hand finds" a good thing to do, do it with no thought of reward. Remember that you can "sin against your brother" if you do something that "leads him astray," even if you think you are right and even if you are. (And, I think, that also applies to "using science as a religion." Don't be a about it ...)

I like these sentiments. I think that it puts both religion and science into a workable place. At least, it does for me.