The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by alberich An interesting amandment is the point to 'not defend yourself against evil, but to overcome evil with good' But that is hardly human and surely not animal-like, that is transcendental.

I would suggest that both are necessary since, indeed, the latter cannot be possible without the former.

Rather the same idea as the physician who is too sick himself to effectively treat others, or the politician who is so overcome by corruption that he no longer does any good.

That's where I dislike most religion. It takes revolutionary ideas like we don't need evil &c and must ignore* them to last and\or put off new, new, new testaments.

Originally Posted by OregonJim This is why I challenged you to come up with a concept not rooted in reality.

That would depend on your definition of being "rooted in reality". According to your previous posts, I suspect that you're thinking about something like "material" reality. Then you might want to consider the abstract concept of asymptote, or that of complex number. Our mind is capable of abstraction, which is exactly what allows us to create and manipulate difficult concepts without having to deal with something we can perceive with our senses.

According to your line of thought, you are assuming that we would not be able to deal with mathematical and other abstract concepts without having some entity "not rooted in reality" that gave them to us. Then you use this assumption to suggest that such entity actually exists, but this is a circular argument, and as such it cannot give any legitimate conclusion. That having been said, of course I respect your belief.

But you failed to recognize the most basic presupposition here: If we did not ALREADY recognize the infinite and the non-created, we would not have realized that created and finite were even concepts! Like a (truly) blind person has no concept of light, we cannot recognize finite without infinite, created without non-created. All must be real - what other option is there?

I would relate such presupposition to the human ability to think abstractly. In fact I think that you're making up a problem where there is none, as the ability to create, understand and manipulate abstract concepts is inherent in our mind, and in my opinion there's no need to assume the existence of something supernatural in order to explain the origin of such concepts.

When we learn by experience that people die, we understand that one day we will die as well, and from there it is very easy to wish that we didn't. We can also look at the behavior of a simple convergent series like 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... and we'll soon realize that the sum will never actually reach the limit of 2, no matter how many numbers we'll add. This will slap the concept of infinity in one's face without the need of too much abstraction, and without having to imagine odd things like infinite physical distances, etc.

Again, you should not underestimate the human ability to think abstractly. I respect your belief, but the line of thought you are presenting in support of it just makes use of other unsupported and even circular assumptions.

Originally Posted by enorbet @sundialsvcs - I think you have a misconception about Science and possibly scientists. Mathematicians have "proofs" but scientists do not. No reputable scientist considers anything immutable. There are only degrees of certainty that never reach 100% though who wouldn't bet on 99.999% odds? or in real life terms, even 80%? The reason "genesis" is forbidden in school is exactly because it is, as of yet and for the foreseeable future, a meaningless term. What good can come from speculating on something unknowable? For that each individual is left with the choice of Faith. It seems possible that one either has it or one does not, although considering the early programming, it is exceedingly difficult to test whether that is empirically true anymore or just Legacy. It is possible to reject Faith as a meaningful exercise but no rational person "doesn't listen" since it is impossible to ignore that, in general, Life is easier with Faith, at the very least in getting along in Society, since The Faithful are clearly in the majority. Even Galileo recognized this and only muttered under his breath, "and yet it moves". TLDR - Scientists consider The Standard Model to simply have the best odds, currently, of being closest to Truth while fully recognizing it's problems and limitations.... hardly "immutable".

Me? "Have a misconception about science, or scientists?" Hardly ...

Galileo found himself facing "religion in the service of the State," and that State was left-over from the Holy Roman Empire, and ... well, we already know what the Romans did to anyone they perceived to be a threat to their rule!

Personally, I think that it is very easy to become "extremely religious" about "science." The moment you start talking about "Big Bangs," or "Evolution apart from 'Species'," you ... (speaking impersonally here; "you" === "one") ... have (IMHO) delved into exactly the same territory that "religion" customarily explores, and you have no more standing to assert that you are "right" than they do. You are now making conjecture. You are very much (IMHO) invoking "Faith," but you're just not calling it by that term.

(And, to clarify: another word should be used, since the "(Christian) religious" use of the word, "Faith," is not what I am referring to. So, let me drop by my Apple Thesaurus. Here's a good word: conviction. Well, it will have to do.)

People who say that "all that is" came from "a big bang" ... have a conviction that "this is so," and a need or a desire to believe it, because this answers their Great Kahuna Question. Ditto the folks who talk about "primordial soups."

Science is a great invention, but it is also (by design ...) very limited. It cannot answer "the Great Kahuna Questions." It can speculate in that direction, and people can have a conviction that the speculation is correct. But it will never be possible to subject this to a test that it is so. (An argument that "I find no apparent contradiction to the possibility that it might be so" is an entirely different proposition, as any philosopher would know.)

And this is the thing that I regret "is no longer taught in school." In Charles Darwin's time, it was not only taught, but it was a popular gentleman's-parlor exercise. Sometimes, I despair that it seems that our thinking (speaking impersonally, again ...) is a whole lot more superficial than it used to be.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Me? "Have a misconception about science, or scientists?" Hardly ...

Yes, you clearly do.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e That's where I dislike most religion. It takes revolutionary ideas like we don't need evil &c and must ignore* them to last and\or put off new, new, new testaments.

May I suggest that you ought not confuse "religion" with ... shall we say ... "religiosity."

Always remember that Christianity (as we know it today ...) began as "the Official State Religion of the Roman Empire." This is (IMHO) definitely where we saw religion being used as an instrument of [State] Control of the masses. It is where we got the once-capital(!) crime(!!) of "heresy." To this day, there are too-many people who are fully prepared to tell you ... "on pain of (eternal) something-or-other" ... that you are damned wrong. And then, "to proscribe to you what you must(!) think, instead." (By the way, their own assertions are 'sacrosanct.' Not subject to review by damned people like 'you.')

We can't purge the history of this religion of these influences, but we can recognize them. And, politely side-step them.

After all, the Leader of It All, when faced with a woman whom The Law had condemned, calmly said: "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

In fact, "He" seems to have spent most of three years turning "organized religion" (and, those who had snuggled-up to the State ruling powers ...) on its head. "He" was radical.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Yes, you clearly do.

Then, I yield that point without further comment.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Again, you should not underestimate the human ability to think abstractly. I respect your belief, but the line of thought you are presenting in support of it just makes use of other unsupported and even circular assumptions.

Well, I see the argument coming full circle again back to the beginning - where did we get this ability for abstract thought?

I don't want to get too deep into philosophical meanderings, but I simply wish to point out that there are MANY more "questions of origin" than just the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe. Science is not an able venue for any answer regarding origins.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Always remember that Christianity (as we know it today ...) began as "the Official State Religion of the Roman Empire."

You have a critical and misleading flaw in your wording.

The Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official state religion. (over 300 years after it began!)

Quite a different picture than your original statement implies. Remember that Rome persecuted Christians for several centuries until Constantine came to power and saw the advantages of exploitation rather than persecution.

And, of course, the Roman Catholic church, from that point on, turned its brand of Christianity into barbarism, bribes, and political control of the masses - finally sparking the Reformation in the 16th century.

Originally Posted by OregonJim I see the argument coming full circle again back to the beginning - where did we get this ability for abstract thought?

Well, a great amount of data and research suggest that the most probable answer is the biological evolution of our species into the form we know today. I'm surprised that you didn't know about this.

I don't want to get too deep into philosophical meanderings, but I simply wish to point out that there are MANY more "questions of origin" than just the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe. Science is not an able venue for any answer regarding origins.

Regarding the origin of our species and of life in general, science definitely is the best and most refined way to learn about them. Relying on vague and heterogeneous myths and books from different and often questionable sources, on the other hand, is not the most reliable approach, to say the least. The same holds with respect to the origin and evolution of the universe itself. I'm sure that as a firm believer you will disagree with me, but I really can't do nothing about it.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Regarding the origin of our species and of life in general, science definitely is the best and most refined way to learn about them.

Pseudo-science is different from genuine science. This has already been discussed at great length.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Pseudo-science is different from genuine science. This has already been discussed at great length.

Yes, I'm aware of your style of discussing, and unfortunately your statement above just confirms it. Double standards, fickle definitions and circular arguments.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Yes, I'm aware of your style of discussing, and unfortunately your statement above just confirms it. Double standards, fickle definitions and circular arguments.

Nope, several others in this thread agree - not to mention the millions outside of it.

Besides, how does a single statement "confirm a style" to you? What does that even mean?

Double standards, fickle definitions, and circular arguments - sounds strangely like evolution (and many other religions).

If a "big question" (to surf is an easy one ) can never have an answer, it's a circular argument and will\has hold\held back progress while going nowhere! IMHO!

All the people of the world can get along, if not for opinions!

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Yes, I'm aware of your style of discussing, and unfortunately your statement above just confirms it. Double standards, fickle definitions and circular arguments.

Excellent perception, analysis and conclusion but you did possibly leave out "infinitely repeating broken record" but then you were likely just being congenial . I gave up trying. I sincerely doubt he's ever going to see just how thick and opaque his rose colored glasses are.

I do hope it is instructive to any who read much of this thread that men of Science don't claim to know or even to be able to know what he (and those like him) thinks he knows but we do claim to know more about things he denies offhand simply because they don't fit in his interpretation of scripture. IMHO, "fickle definitions" deserves Bold and Capitalization. You nailed it.