The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix I don't understand why many people feel so annihilated by the idea that there might *not* be such a being, or a heaven, or an eternal life, or whatever. [...]

Granted, Philip. However, I for one am also not willing to reject the point-of-view of the thousands of years' worth of our human predecessors, who not only embraced such points-of-view, but who in one way or another built their societies and indeed their lives around it. (For better, of course, or for worse.)

There were, of course, many such points-of-view, all different, and in this post I do not mean to distinguish between them. Merely to say, "maybe they were on to something." We certainly should be very careful not to let ourselves 'feel annihilated by' that possibility, either. We should strive to think outside the box, and to give the ancient ones the benefit of the doubt. And, we shouldn't cop-out by calling them "ignorant." They were people, very much like ourselves, and I don't think that they were anybody's superstitious fools. They thought what they did, and perchance they might have been wiser than we.

(Not to suggest that you said or thought any of these things, nor that you would. Nothing "personal" here. Just sayin'.)

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs We certainly should be very careful not to let ourselves 'feel annihilated by' that possibility, either. We should strive to think outside the box, and to give the ancient ones the benefit of the doubt. And, we shouldn't cop-out by calling them "ignorant." They were people, very much like ourselves, and I don't think that they were anybody's superstitious fools.

I am pretty sure that, whatever period of history one will consider, the people who really think outside the box are always a small minority, because it is something difficult to do, and very often it is not accepted or encouraged in one's environment. I believe that mainstream culture (i.e. what most people more or less passively believe and aknowledge as being the reality, or the "truth") is largely determined by personal desires and by those sources of information (of whatever kind they may be) which are the more pervasive and the better able to match those desires. So, most people mostly think and believe what the mainstream "thinks" and "believes". That said, while mainstream culture and traditions allow a society to have some kind of cultural continuity, the kind of *contents* of that culture will determine its openness toward evolution and changement. The more closed, short-sighted and conservative a culture is, the more violently and blindly it will react against (what it considers) non-ortodox thinking and behavior.

The interesting (and paradoxical) thing is that some of the most dogmatic and closed forms of thought are believed to have been founded by revolutionary individuals, who tried to dismantle the traditions of their own time and to bring something new. However, when such "revolutions" are heavily based on personal beliefs, alleged revelations, prophets, and arbitrary interpretations of the reality, they easily lead to mutual slaughtering. In fact I don't know if, for instance, the Christian culture has produced more deaths among its own members, because of subtle and less subtle divergences in the interpretation of the alleged absolute "truth", or among native Americans, Muslims, Africans, etc. I also don't know, in such contexts, where the sanity stops and where the idiocy starts. While I try to respect the other people's beliefs, I am sure that the "benefit of the doubt", when applied to this kind of topic, is not a strong enough argument in support of whatsoever point of view. If it was given a too decisive role, then anything could be accepted as a sufficient reason for whatsoever interpretation one might come up with (as in Russel's "chinese teapot" joke).

I for one am also not willing to reject the point-of-view of the thousands of years' worth of our human predecessors, who not only embraced such points-of-view, but who in one way or another built their societies and indeed their lives around it. (For better, of course, or for worse.)

The fact that something happened in the remote past and originated a long and lasting tradition followed by many people is, again, not a strong enough argument in support of the claims of that tradition, even if societies do have built themselves around it. Besides, the past is often given an aura of wisdom, it is idealized, but it actually existed only as a (mostly) non-mythicized present. Not so long ago almost everyone, in the Occidental world, believed that the Earth was the corruptible center of a non-corruptible universe, because "Aristotle said that". So everyone said that as well, for centuries, and refused to look out the window, at the dirty and corruptible world, because the truth was believed to be in the books of the "tradition" (of course only those which didn't contradict the already accepted beliefs). As said, this lasted for many centuries, societies were built around that, and I'm not sure that they were enjoyable. Many people were horribly tortured and burned alive because of that, but of course all that mess didn't make such a tradition true. My point is that ignorance is not a sin, unless it is deliberately pursued and promoted.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs {...}We should strive to think outside the box, and to give the ancient ones the benefit of the doubt. And, we shouldn't cop-out by calling them "ignorant." They were people, very much like ourselves, and I don't think that they were anybody's superstitious fools. They thought what they did, and perchance they might have been wiser than we.{...}

Precisely!!! Finally!! Someone got it! YES we should give them benefit of doubt but NO we should not treat what they teached literally 1:1 but instead we should focus on translating symbolism and hidden messages inside those ancient materials. If we now know that lightning is not God's weapon of choice but manifestation of science then it doesn't cancel out lightning itself! It does exist but description just gets corrected. Pretty much what our future descendants will do when they will find our current date teachings and books. Just imagine the opposite that we don't know truth that future humanity will know as false teachings today about something despite being so sure about it today!

And if anyone says past humans were unwiser then us then go ahead - recreate ancient constructions today with modern technology etc. or explain why they really exist? Why not? Cause we are not wiser we are just different.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs ... Granted, Philip. However, I for one am also not willing to reject the point-of-view of the thousands of years' worth of our human predecessors, who not only embraced such points-of-view, but who in one way or another built their societies and indeed their lives around it. (For better, of course, or for worse.) ...

Yes, lets stick to sacrifice and other archaic ways just because?!?

Good read Philip Lacroix. There's smart and innate seems simple to me...

Originally Posted by Arcane Precisely!!! Finally!! Someone got it! YES we should give them benefit of doubt but NO we should not treat what they teached literally 1:1 but instead we should focus on translating symbolism and hidden messages inside those ancient materials. If we now know that lightning is not God's weapon of choice but manifestation of science then it doesn't cancel out lightning itself! It does exist but description just gets corrected. Pretty much what our future descendants will do when they will find our current date teachings and books. Just imagine the opposite that we don't know truth that future humanity will know as false teachings today about something despite being so sure about it today! And if anyone says past humans were unwiser then us then go ahead - recreate ancient constructions today with modern technology etc. or explain why they really exist? Why not? Cause we are not wiser we are just different.

Whew.... OK I suppose it is possible, judging by your profile header (Latvia), and maybe even likely that English is not your first language, even though overall it is really very good.... good meaning convincing that it well could be your native tongue. However, your grasp of some definitions is inaccurate. "Theory" does NOT equal "Imagination", "Conjecture", "Assumption" or any other haphazard guessing. "Ignorant" does NOT equal "unwise", "stupid", nor in any way less able to think clearly. Ignorant simply means unaware of a subject or the intricacies of a subject and it's pros and cons.

See? I am ignorant of your actual location, birthplace, and education..... but I'm not also stupid, so I didn't jump to a conclusion. Instead, I am trying to nail down the Definition of Terms, a requirement for any serious debate. Otherwise it is just flapping of the gums...babble. or Babel, if you prefer.

So, if you wish to appear wise, or vastly more importantly to BE wise, then please refrain from interchanging these terms or fuzzy interpretations of what they mean. They are exact terminology.

Regarding progress, and how future people will judge our body of knowledge, especially in Science, it will likely only be refined, not trashed as you seem to imply. One plus One still equals Two. Isaac Newtons Principia is still valuable and correct within it's context. Evolution is still a Fact and will still likely be, at the very least down here on Earth, 10,000 years from now. OTOH there was NEVER any evidence supporting a Flat Earth at the Center of the Universe in ANY context. Concepts and Conclusions are only as solid as their tested evidence and have nothing at all to do with how old (or new) they are or how many people have Faith in them.

Philip, et al, I do sincerely respect your positions as-expressed, although I myself do not share them.

Clearly, clearly, I am not embracing "animal sacrifices" ... although that is a good bit better than the (hint: two-legged) creatures that other civilizations have been known to sacrifice to their gods! The history of human society is sometimes pretty gruesome, and that grue is often reflected in their gods. Or, "God."

All right, all right, all right. Somehow we have to reconcile all of this, among ourselves, and within our present-day. It isn't easy. It certainly isn't "black and white." Yet somehow it does get done. As far as I know, Jews today don't go to synagogue and sacrifice thousands of heads of cattle, as Biblical texts do say that ancient kings of those societies did do e.g. in the celebration of a victory in war. So, religion does evolve. (And of course, on other parts of this orbiting rock, many other religions exist which never intersected Judaism or Christianity.)

What I am, simply, saying is that "religion, as a very-human institution," and the even-more ephemeral very-human sense that "there is something Above Us, out there ..." are things that we should not dismiss in our zeal to replace it with something else. We don't have to "replace it."

In other words, I think that we can – and that we should(!) – have both. We ought to be peeking behind every curtain, poking at every unexplained thing, trying our damndest to explain every trick ... a-n-d at the same time we should be prepared to graciously accept: (a) that we never actually will succeed in doing that; and (b) that, even when we think that we have succeeded, we could be totally wrong.

So, let's embrace many things, and not sacrifice any one of them to any other. Religion, philosophy, science. "They're all good." They're all useful. They're all valid ways of looking at the same cosmic elephant. None of them are enemies of the other.

And ... when (not "if") you hear "a still, small voice" in the middle of the night ... coming without any "scientific" explanation whatsoever ... listen. It won't make you any less of a scientist.

War is as blind as religion, period!

kEEP gOINg...
˙˙˙ƃNIOƃ ԀƎƎʞ

We don't need cobras or seer stones or even infinity to see!

Edit\add: at least we're not on Snowpiercer, yet?

Originally Posted by jamison20000e War is as blind as religion, period!{...}

You forgot to mention blind science like this!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...eneticist.html
Really? So much for darwinism being undisputed champion... It is simple! If Evolution(not spiritual but Darwin) would be 100% fact not theory WE WOULD NOT NEED TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE AT ALL! We would just know! And there would not be made any extra theories about this. Also it doesn't resonate inside - so it is BS.

Sure there are wrong paths even stupid scientists and preachers we're all innate but this "DISCUSS"ion is so big because religion is more so "... so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

There truthfully are facts in the world outside of what your mommies told you!

Originally Posted by Arcane You forgot to mention blind science like this! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...eneticist.html Really? So much for darwinism being undisputed champion... It is simple! If Evolution(not spiritual but Darwin) would be 100% fact not theory WE WOULD NOT NEED TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE AT ALL! We would just know! And there would not be made any extra theories about this. Also it doesn't resonate inside - so it is BS.

Just for the record that man hosts a website called Macroevolution.net and since in actual Science (and Darwin) there is no Macro or Micro Evolution, those are terms coined by Creationists, his conclusions are suspect. That said, this wasn't even a conclusion! He states this is not a Theory just a suspicion, a hunch, based on his study of avian hybrids.

This is at least the 4th time people including me have warned you about using inexact terms in a debate, yet you persist apparently because it serves your desire to contemplate your navel and "just resonate...and know". You are obviously not willing to do the work and give the respect to others to keep your terminology accurate, let alone the work it takes to arrive at reasoned conclusions. You, Sir, are a dyed-in-the-wool mystic and intelligent conversation with you is impossible. I sincerely wish you well, but I can't talk to you anymore. It's an exercise in futility.

And furthermore, there are no scientific "facts," especially not in the field of biology, where Nature is always serving-up new surprises. There are only "theories" and "hypotheses." That is all we have with which to go on.

And, y'know, I also think that there's a lot of boots-on-the-ground wisdom to be gleaned from the final chapters of the Book of Job, in which God (in a series of delightfully-written scenes ...) basically calls-out Job for being a smarty-pants. ("Were you there when the foundations of the world were laid? ... Instruct Me! Surely you know!!") The Good Book doesn't tell us about the contents of Job's pants at that particular moment, but we can fairly easily guess ...

Okay, so ... here we [all] are. A bunch of blind-men riding on a great big celestial elephant. Perhaps the best thing to do, all things to considered, is to simply let go of the notion that "you've got to have all the answers." If you do that, you can also let go of the notion that some Holy Book contains all the answers, and you can instead regard it as the book(s) that it actually is, with all the warts and political intrigue thereunto attached.

Maybe, just maybe, "having all the answers" is not the most-important thing that we should be concerned with . . . and maybe we actually do harm when we try!

"Feed the hungry, because you could be hungry yourself. Tend to the sick, for you have been sick. Clothe the naked, because you came into the world naked." And, let the Celestial Answers take care of themselves.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs And furthermore, there are no scientific "facts," especially not in the field of biology, where Nature is always serving-up new surprises. There are only "theories" and "hypotheses." That is all we have with which to go on.

An OK opinion to have seems how human "facts" do change along with everything unlike the fact that we're breathing now and some day won't... oooh scary lets make up some more $ to take our minds off it, Psychology of the mind!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Okay, so ... here we [all] are. A bunch of blind-men riding on a great big celestial elephant. Perhaps the best thing to do, all things to considered, is to simply let go of the notion that "you've got to have all the answers." If you do that, you can also let go of the notion that some Holy Book contains all the answers, and you can instead regard it as the book(s) that it actually is, with all the warts and political intrigue thereunto attached.

LOL The elephant and me are on a turtle!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Maybe, just maybe, "having all the answers" is not the most-important thing that we should be concerned with . . . and maybe we actually do harm when we try!

And, the other way around but more so!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs "Feed the hungry, because you could be hungry yourself. Tend to the sick, for you have been sick. Clothe the naked, because you came into the world naked." And, let the Celestial Answers take care of themselves.

TEACH not preach; anyone who truly likes getting charity over learning to get it done themselves should be helpless not able bodied or politicians or cult leaders and so on!!! Why don't the churches use there billions, as if it would work - keeping us from fishing?!

Edit: I should have clarified what I meant $ to mean like one example $hit!

I didn't mean to yell just found a theme and stuck with it(!). Lets look at humanity as a whole (maybe some peoples problem); giving our eras the benefit of doubt we could say we're the teenage years of humanity (at best) the further back we can see things get more chaotic towards the terrible twos where religions evolved from it's even tried to murder science so like teaching children we must put some emphasis in our voices at times... \s.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs What I am, simply, saying is that "religion, as a very-human institution," and the even-more ephemeral very-human sense that "there is something Above Us, out there ..." are things that we should not dismiss in our zeal to replace it with something else. We don't have to "replace it. In other words, I think that we can and that we should(!) have both. We ought to be peeking behind every curtain, poking at every unexplained thing, trying our damndest to explain every trick ... a-n-d at the same time we should be prepared to graciously accept: (a) that we never actually will succeed in doing that; and (b) that, even when we think that we have succeeded, we could be totally wrong. So, let's embrace many things, and not sacrifice any one of them to any other. Religion, philosophy, science. "They're all good." They're all useful. They're all valid ways of looking at the same cosmic elephant. None of them are enemies of the other.

That's because religion is an institution which originates from such senses, feelings and emotions, that it should be related to knowledge the same way in which feelings and emotions usually are. That is, it should be considered as a personal, private matter, that should not be given an absolute value or meaning. On the other hand, when religion attempts to universally negate established facts, recognized evidence and any progress of knowledge that contradicts its tradition and mythology, then problems do arise. That's why saying that we should have both reminds me of the cat and the dog who are trapped together in a bag: it's difficult to keep them together, unless one ceases to be what it is. Also, "usefulness" is a double-sided criterion, and I'm not sure that applying it to religion won't uncover even more of its dark side. That said, one of course is absolutely free to speculate on what cannot be known with the help of scientific means, however one should not, in the process, reject established knowledge in favor of unsupported claims, as this would only promote darkness.

And ... when (not "if") you hear "a still, small voice" in the middle of the night ... coming without any "scientific" explanation whatsoever ... listen. It won't make you any less of a scientist.

I personally do not hear "voices", but I'll try anyway to understand what you mean. I personally *do* appreciate the beauty and complexity of nature, however we should not confuse personal feelings or emotions with something that's our interpretation of them. Besides, a rational approach to life *does not entail* that feelings and emotions should be neglected - on the contrary. There's a nice interview with Richard Feynman, in which he explains that a scientist, far from making life grey and dull, sees a lot more facets of it than the layman or the poet: he sees beauty, poetry, AND much more. On the other hand, many people translate their deep feelings into the patterns provided to them by their religion of choice: this may be relieving, however it also implies that, at some point, one is supposed to choose in favor of the points of view of his religion, even if he is open to "non-orthodox" thinking. That's why he will probably experience a conflict, and in the best case he will interpolate any limits of the scientific approach with abstract religious ideas, but of course this assumes that he *knows what science is* and accepts it: if he doesn't, then he will persist in projecting on science his distorted misconceptions about it, sticking to his beliefs, thus refusing knowledge and pursuing ignorance, and his attitude will probably cause any debate on this topic to drown into nonsense.

And furthermore, there are no scientific "facts," especially not in the field of biology, where Nature is always serving-up new surprises. There are only "theories" and "hypotheses." That is all we have with which to go on.

In order to keep the discussion on track, we should not misuse words that already have a precise and established meaning. This, by the way, was already pointed out by enorbet a few posts ago, so it shouldn't be needed to repeat it all the time. That said, science *is* based on facts. If we can write on this forum, it is NOT because some folks woke up one morning with the whole IT knowledge having been revealed to them in a dream: we can post things here because thousends of people have been doing long, rigorous, difficult scientific investigations of relevant *facts*. Research in biology, as in other branches of science, *is* based on facts, and of course "new surprises" are "served-up" all the time: that's why knowledge is *always* being corrected and improved, but NOT discarded as a whole in favor of unsupported claims of any kind. For instance, it is not just because Darwin's work has been corrected and improved that the evoution theory (which *is*, by definition, based on relevant facts) must be discarded in favor of ancient semitic myths, conceived over two-thousend years ago in the Middle-Eastern deserts. If planes can fly, bridges do not collapse, cars do not lose their wheels, energy can be extracted from water, wind and so on, it is because lots of facts have been collected and investigated, and hypoteses, laws and theories have been formulated, allowing the generalization, prediction and reproduction of phenomena. Regarding this: «There are only "theories" and "hypotheses"», there should be enough references available around in order to make clear, once and for all, what scientific theories and hypoteses are, and what they are not.[1][2][3] But this was pointed out already.

I respect all opinion posted here. On the other hand, argument on religion, faith and will take us nowhere. Since all of us have different views and belief regarding that matter.