The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by MrCode …and this is exactly what makes the prospect of "neurological prediction machines" so disturbing (at least for me). The point I'm trying to make is that we may reach a point where one can predict a person's entire life (or at least large chunks of it) before it happens, and people can use that information in very bad ways. It could be known: what you're going to have for breakfast/lunch/dinner today whether you'll win at a game of cards whether a piece of art you create is likely to be considered good (since it could be inferred what it will look like, at least roughly) (approximately) when/how you will die I could go on… Would you like to live in a world where all of this could be known and that knowledge could (and probably would) be abused? I certainly wouldn't. I may not be a "believer" in free will anymore (at least not on an academic level), but for me, ignorance is fscking bliss when it comes to predictions. I'd rather not have someone know exactly what my life's outcomes will be…would you?

I understand your concerns, but I wouldn't worry about this, because, chaos theory. There are just wayyyyyy too many small incidents that cannot all be observed and/or accounted for, which can have huge consequences, that this sort of predictability is simply not possible. All day long, individuals are having experiences, making choices about how to react to those experiences... and those experiences are having consequences to other people, who have to choose their reactions, etc. ad infinitum.

Incidentally, this also applies to evolution, because there was some significant discussion in this thread earlier about whether it was a random process. Someone (reed9, I think) pointed out correctly that it is not a random process... but it bears pointing out that while it's not random, it is chaotic.

Originally Posted by jay73 That's because you believe that it does not make sense to believe that kind of thing. But what would make your belief superior? Empiricism, logic, science? Those would only matter to someone who believes they do. But where is their foundation? That would need to be something that does not require itself to be assumed/believed. And what would that be? Any idea? Don't bother with objectivity, consensus or any of the other claptrap. All of them just beliefs.

The difference is, science makes predictions which come true.

Originally Posted by reed9 If you really believe empiricism and induction to be insufficient, I invite you to go onto the roof of a very tall building and step off. We'll see whether my inductive, empirical justifications for believing you will fall are valid.

Your reply misses its target by a mile or two. Contrary to what you are suggesting, I have never contested the validity or usefulness of either science or logic; I question their priority.

What I have been saying is this: if I jump off a highrise, it won't be to verify the laws of physics. My objectives would be different, would have nothing to do with science. At best, the decision could be informed by statistical evidence about the efficiency of jumping off a building, but in no way does that evidence dictate my decision to jump or not. Some will use the evidence to justify staying away from the roof, while I may use it to take the opposite decision. To jump or not to jump, that is a matter of objectives, not physics. Science is merely a tool; if there is a better one for what I have in mind, I'll take that one.

And therein lies the answer. Science works, empiricism and induction work. Figuring out why they work may be impossible and perhaps tomorrow they will suddenly stop working, but do you really deny the knowledge that led to computers and planes and rockets to the moon? Do you really deny that if I take a few thousand people with bacterial infections, give some of them an antibiotic, some of them a sugar pill, and some of them get no treatment, and almost all of the antibiotic group improve within a week while almost none of the other two groups improve, that we are justified in believing that antibiotics cure bacterial infection? Do you deny that pilots and ship captains are justified in believing the earth to be round and it would be irresponsible of them to act otherwise?

Beside the question, again. Same objection: I have no gripe with science but with its idolaters.
More fundamentally, if it works is all it takes, then I am confused why anyone would object to religion. Either it works and then it is good; or it does not and then it is bad - but if it does nothing, how could it be a threat?

@jay73

I think it's pretty much useless arguing with reed9 about this…

if it works is all it takes, then I am confused why anyone would object to religion. Either it works and then it is good; or it does not and then it is bad - but if it does nothing, how could it be a threat?

I predict the usual comeback of "it most certainly does not 'do nothing'", and citing one or more incidents in which religion, directly or indirectly, was involved in the cause of one or more people's deaths and/or disabilities. Again, always taking the bad, and only the bad, and focusing on that in order to attempt to justify one's vehement position against something.

Originally Posted by MrCode I predict the usual comeback of "it most certainly does not 'do nothing'", and citing one or more incidents in which religion, directly or indirectly, was involved in the cause of one or more people's deaths and/or disabilities. Again, always taking the bad, and only the bad, and focusing on that in order to attempt to justify one's vehement position against something.

Speaking of good/bad I know at least one person that has been saved from death by a charity that has been established by a priest. Is this a good or bad thing? Hard to say.

Originally Posted by jay73 Your reply misses its target by a mile or two. Contrary to what you are suggesting, I have never contested the validity or usefulness of either science or logic; I question their priority.

Ok, well, when you say "But where is their [empiricism, logic, science] foundation? That would need to be something that does not require itself to be assumed/believed", forgive me for misunderstanding.

Priority in what? I'm talking about the ability to find out what is probably true about the universe. That is my primary gripe with religion, that it pretends to knowledge through "revelation". If everyone wanted to go and be Deists and like Thomas Jefferson, excise all the supernatural bits of the Bible, I wouldn't be having these conversations.

What I have been saying is this: if I jump off a highrise, it won't be to verify the laws of physics. My objectives would be different, would have nothing to do with science. At best, the decision could be informed by statistical evidence about the efficiency of jumping off a building, but in no way does that evidence dictate my decision to jump or not. Some will use the evidence to justify staying away from the roof, while I may use it to take the opposite decision. To jump or not to jump, that is a matter of objectives, not physics. Science is merely a tool; if there is a better one for what I have in mind, I'll take that one.

I've never denied that science is a tool. I am arguing that it is the only reliable tool we have found which gives us knowledge about the universe. And I've never argued that, in your hypothetical here, science could tell you whether to jump. I've argued that if your goal was to kill yourself, for example, you could use some of the scientific toolkit, ie, induction and empiricism in this case, to know that jumping off a tall building would be an effective way to do so. Religion would be the one telling you that you could fly.

Beside the question, again. Same objection: I have no gripe with science but with its idolaters. More fundamentally, if it works is all it takes, then I am confused why anyone would object to religion. Either it works and then it is good; or it does not and then it is bad - but if it does nothing, how could it be a threat?

Well, MrCode answered for me. Obviously religion doesn't do nothing. I won't bother with the citations, beyond saying that when people like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are serious contenders for President of the United States while Jon Huntsman is disqualified simply for admitting he believes in the science of evolution, I'm terrified of religion.

To answer the charge that I focus on the bad and only the bad of religion, I do recognize that there are positives to religion. I think that the negatives outweigh the positives, and that the positives are not unique to religion and can be had without the dogma and supernatural nonsense. But even if religion was all positives, it wouldn't matter. I can't emphasize enough how much I am not a consequentialist. You could prove beyond a doubt that belief in God made people happier, healthier, kinder, and longer lived, and I would say that's nice, but is it true?

Originally Posted by SigTerm Speaking of good/bad I know at least one person that has been saved from death by a charity that has been established by a priest. Is this a good or bad thing? Hard to say.

Why would that be hard to say? I'm not opposed to religious based charities, unless they push their faith as a requirement of getting help. That I think is despicable.

Originally Posted by reed9 Why would that be hard to say?

(IMO) Well, consequences of saving a person are unpredictable, so you'll know if that was a "good" or "bad" thing to do only 50 years later. This isn't related to religion, though.

The charity is not directly related to the faith thing though. Decent and good secularists also start charities and that doesn't say anything at all about religion as a power for good. WRT the religion aspect, you are talking about the power of prayer: yes, sometimes knowing you are beign prayed for can help someone; however, studies are inconclusive and have shown that prayer can actually be harmful - the person stops fighting because they think that prayer will do the work. And, of course, faith healers need to be stopped.

…possibly a little off-topic, but I've been linked to a certain webcomic, and I found a strip that is somewhat related to my viewpoint on this whole thing (see the last panel).

(Note that this isn't to say I'm religious (though I've probably already made that apparent several times now ), just that I think I understand where religious/spiritual people are coming from when they oppose atheism/skepticism)

Originally Posted by MrCode …possibly a little off-topic, but I've been linked to a certain webcomic, and I found a strip that is somewhat related to my viewpoint on this whole thing (see the last panel). (Note that this isn't to say I'm religious (though I've probably already made that apparent several times now ), just that I think I understand where religious/spiritual people are coming from when they oppose atheism/skepticism)

Aha, battle of the comics!

I prefer Jesus and Mo.

Originally Posted by MrCode …possibly a little off-topic, but I've been linked to a certain webcomic, and I found a strip that is somewhat related to my viewpoint on this whole thing (see the last panel). (Note that this isn't to say I'm religious (though I've probably already made that apparent several times now ), just that I think I understand where religious/spiritual people are coming from when they oppose atheism/skepticism)

Since you've mentioned smbc...
This and this is relevant to the thread's topic...

Hi Gang;
I see that I am in a minority here, being a christian. I would be interested in having a conversation here about the bible and christianity, if its civil, and maybe even if its not (I am not a child, and most names that can be called have been said before - amazingly, I survived). Before you castigate any of this if you are a mind to, please read it first. (Many who "dis" the bible are only parroting others opinion, having never read it in full themselves).
Some comments,and observations:

1.) In certain ways I agree with Dawkins, et al: Truth is Truth. Belief is arguable, best done amicably, and best done with reasonable argument. People differ. We have that right as human beings. I would also like to point out that while science can be done on a "What do I observe basis", you cannot find God that way. Even the bible says so: "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must do so in Spirit, and in truth". I don't think He is asking us to throw away our minds, as He made us like this. He even says "Come let us reason together: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow". These are just snippets, if you want further discussion on this area, post here. Point: Science is a search for physical truth. Our relationship with God is the search for what is Spiritually true. They need not contradict. Modern Atheism would hold that you cannot be a believer, and be a scientist, much less a great one. History would differ. Newton and Faraday were definite believers. Where it not for what these two men discovered, I would not be writing this e-mail and you would not be reading it, and we would "not be doing it" by candle light.

2.) All talk of "religion" is garbage. The one single place that the bible mentions "religion" specifically, it says: This is true religion: to help widows and orphans in their affliction. As to all the ceremony and pomp that we call religion, not only do atheists hate it, God hates it (if you want a bible reference on that go to Isaiah chapter
1)
3.) Atheists talk disparagingly about christians being simpletons, and christians demonize atheists. Everybody is different. We can debate, we can argue. Only a man can make up his own mind, and if you will allow - God made us this way and gave us that right - it is actually a great honor, most of this world lives by instinct.

4.)I would like to put before you that if God exists, (and I profoundly believe that He does), that his desire is to have a relationship with human beings (if you want a bible reference, that would be John 3:16 and 2cnd Peter 3:9). In that relationship, He gets to be GOD. I suspect that that is what scares some non-believers the most (The age old question: If I believe, will God send me to darkest (you fill in the place) to preach - The answer I believe would be most probably not (most christians are not preachers in deepest, darkest __________ . I also suggest that if that was God's call on your life, He would prepare you for it, and give you the desire for it, and the worst thing that could be said to you in the end would be "You can't go" because you would have all of your heart wrapped up in it.)

5.) Why do I believe. Biblical Prophecy(and the conviction about what God says about man, his sin, and God's solution for it: Jesus Christ Crucified for it (Isaiah 53)). Having studied Biblical Prophecy, especially the parts that the atheists lampoon the most, I have found this:
a.) Its God's prophecy, and He does not necessarily fulfill it in ways that we like (He does not ask our opinion on how he should do it). Take for example the religious leaders of Christ's time. Outside of their own avarice, and greed, one of the major things that kept them from faith in Christ was they adamantly believed that God had to do it the (currently approved method for their time) Jewish Traditional way - Messiah coming as King, kicking out the Romans, establishing his kingdom.
Instead he was crucified (the portion of Old Testament prophecy that concerned the suffering messiah)
b.)If you search, you can see where God has fulfilled a given prophecy, and if you are a mind to blow off God, or deny that He exists, there is a way to do that also (historically, many have).
6.) Christians and Atheists debate with people about God. God doesn't. If you will accept a bible story illustrating this, look at Moses before the burning bush. God says "I am going to send you" Moses says "Who shall I say sent me?" God says "Tell them "I AM"" sent you. He did not say "Um, look, I'm this God person, uh, the one your fathers knew "You know, the "God of Abraham"" stuff - would you like some demonstrations maybe"?"
7.)If God does not exist, the bible agrees with atheists: Paul states: "If Christ is not risen, then let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. But, if Christ be risen from the dead, then what manner of lives should we lead?" The rhetorical answer would be Godly lives (I will what that would be to other discussion).
8.) Whether you believe or not, I am willing to be your friend, and to be friendly. If you, whether you believe or not, want to be nasty, um, thats your right, but I would rather be friendly.
Later
The SWGeek

@swgeek: You only argue about Christians and Atheists. You may be right about the "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must do so in Spirit"-thing, but when you only can belief in your god, not knowing about him, what makes you think that the Cristian god is the right one. Why not be a muslim? Or a member of some of the other hundreds of religions?

Originally Posted by swgeek I suspect that that is what scares some non-believers the most (The age old question: If I believe, will God send me to darkest (you fill in the place) to preach - The answer I believe would be most probably not (most christians are not preachers in deepest, darkest __________ .

This is not exactly right. The problem "non-believers" have with bible is there is no proof that bible tells the truth. For non-christian bible looks no different from pyramid scheme, nigerian scam or greek mythology. You waste a lot of time for something that can be a lie. Another problem is that christian god requires different kind of universe. The universe we are in is obviously non-human centric, so it is kinda incompatible with christian deity. IN my opinion while there might exist SOME kind of deity, there is no proof of its existence, and it most likely have nothing to do with christianity or humans. I.e. if there is a creator, then it is most likely non-human (non-human intelligence), indifferent and/or insane/"evil". In this case a lot of things start making sense.

Originally Posted by swgeek I also suggest that if that was God's call on your life, He would prepare you for it, and give you the desire for it, and the worst thing that could be said to you in the end would be "You can't go" because you would have all of your heart wrapped up in it.)

This is just a speculation. If the god existed, then you wouldn't be able to know what it would do.