The Faith & Religion mega Thread

I was simply calling 'water divining' by the locally used name. I don't see anything divine about it.

For the purposes of this thread, shall we call it water locating? It saves a protracted discussion on a subject of little interest. 'Divining' can imply many things, mostly distasteful. It is not the preserve of religious people.

Intuition I don't get involved with. There is too much potential for auto suggestion and suggestion from external parties. I don't see it as coincidence that so many forms of spiritism/fortune telling & similar nebulous practises rely on intuition exclusively for 'inspiration.'

Accurate knowledge? I'm guilty of using a Scriptural term. Accurate knowledge in this context means a knowledge and understanding informed by a correct understanding of the Scriptures. The phrase translates one greek word. Many translations leave out the 'accurate,' but that's open to misinterpretation. A good example of this in practise was the treatment of pseudoepigrapha in the second century. Many books of dead authors turned up, and were examined and rejected, because they exalted humans, contained nonsense or taught apostasy. Bible canons written at the time didn't include them. It wasn't 'accurate knowledge,' but 'falsely called knowledge' which is another scriptural term.

I'm slightly unhappy with the habit in science of in effect saying: "We know everything, and there is no need for Divine Beings," when they clearly don't. Scientists acknowledge some discoveries are yet future e.g. water locating. But they refuse to acknowledge that some discoveries will not and cannot be made. The 19th century approach of non-atheistic science was imho a better approach.

Originally Posted by business_kid I was simply calling 'water divining' by the locally used name. I don't see anything divine about it. For the purposes of this thread, shall we call it water locating? It saves a protracted discussion on a subject of little interest. 'Divining' can imply many things, mostly distasteful. It is not the preserve of religious people. Intuition I don't get involved with. There is too much potential for auto suggestion and suggestion from external parties. I don't see it as coincidence that so many forms of spiritism/fortune telling & similar nebulous practises rely on intuition exclusively for 'inspiration.' Accurate knowledge? I'm guilty of using a Scriptural term. Accurate knowledge in this context means a knowledge and understanding informed by a correct understanding of the Scriptures. The phrase translates one greek word. Many translations leave out the 'accurate,' but that's open to misinterpretation. A good example of this in practise was the treatment of pseudoepigrapha in the second century. Many books of dead authors turned up, and were examined and rejected, because they exalted humans, contained nonsense or taught apostasy. Bible canons written at the time didn't include them. It wasn't 'accurate knowledge,' but 'falsely called knowledge' which is another scriptural term. I'm slightly unhappy with the habit in science of in effect saying: "We know everything, and there is no need for Divine Beings," when they clearly don't. Scientists acknowledge some discoveries are yet future e.g. water locating. But they refuse to acknowledge that some discoveries will not and cannot be made. The 19th century approach of non-atheistic science was imho a better approach.

Taking no exceptions here, and not at all arguing the terms, just the point. This is not the "unexplained human perception" thread, it is the "faith and religion" thread. (And to be clear, it appears that this kind of water detection may not be a feature ONLY of some humans. It appears that some animal apecies also have individuals with this "talent" and leverage it to survive in dry areas.) My question is "how do we tie this back to faith and religion?", if that is even possible?

If we cannot, all of these posts discussing "water divining" by whatever name are all entirely off topic!

@wpeckham, I have no problem with discontinuing this angle of discussion. After all, I've got a glass of water sitting here right beside me ...

Originally Posted by business_kid I'm slightly unhappy with the habit in science of in effect saying: "We know everything, and there is no need for Divine Beings," when they clearly don't. Scientists acknowledge some discoveries are yet future e.g. water locating.

Going by the Wikipedia page, it rather seems to be classified as pseudoscience by most current scientists.

But they refuse to acknowledge that some discoveries will not and cannot be made.

I think most scientists would acknowledge that science won't and can't discover god. (Also, "we know everything" seems rather the opposite of the sentiment I usually see scientists expressing, so I don't agree with your attempt to attribute that to science)

Originally Posted by business_kid Accurate knowledge in this context means a knowledge and understanding informed by a correct understanding of the Scriptures. I'm slightly unhappy with the habit in science of in effect saying: "We know everything, and there is no need for Divine Beings," when they clearly don't. Scientists acknowledge some discoveries are yet future e.g. water locating. But they refuse to acknowledge that some discoveries will not and cannot be made. The 19th century approach of non-atheistic science was imho a better approach.

Here is the reason "water divining" even came up in the Faith and Religion thread and also the crux of the different ways people arrive at their conclusions. First there is the total reliance on ancient scriptures from a time of unimaginable superstition and upheaval in culture, technology and fact gathering tools, as well as language and then there is the complete lack of understanding of the alternative of the logic-based scientific method. NO accredited scientist(s) assumes we know everything, exactly the opposite. Real scientists assume almost everything will be expanded, revised, and in a few cases dropped as new evidence and new events (and the ability to "view" and measure them) will surely arise.

I'm sorry, I expressed myself very badly, and you are quite correct in what you say, and were right to pick me up. Let me clarify:

The man of faith says: "For these [various and unspecified] reasons, I believe" …
The man of science says: "Science has proved [various and unspecified] things, so I know" …

Now I believe the pair can coexist peacefully, as long as both viewpoints respect each other. The problem that irritates me comes when scientists disrespect positions of faith. Let me mention Richard Dawkins, andf you'll get the picture. Then you get such lines of reasoning as:

• Faith is defined as [followed by a definition matching the English word 'credulity'] therefore faith is baseless.
• Anyone who expresses faith is stupid, and cannot be heard in peer reviewed journals.
• There is no place for faith in the modern age.
• By implication, religion is a load of <expletive deleted>.

But as you pointed out, science doesn't know it all. There are weak points in the scientific story where faith provides a superior solution. But the effect of the above attitude is to attack faith.

EDIT: Water Divining/Locating was mentioned by me as part of a list of 'things possibly tapping some supernatural source' and others siezed on it

@wpeckham: The 'global warming & Revelation 11:18' has also been ruled off topic in the global warming thread. So it's here - get used to it. I gather that although this is a faith & religion megathread, spiritual subjects are off topic because everyone dodges them. It's a simple question: Does the fact that we're ruining the earth mean Revelation 11:18 is being fulfilled.

@ntubski:In this area, as in some others, wikipedia carries the bias of it's editors. The article for Creation is "Creation Myth." And science won't discover God, but that won't prevent God from existing, or judging them.

@enorbet: I point out this phrase: "and then there is the complete lack of understanding of the alternative of the logic-based scientific method." Of course the people to whom you might be referring (inside or outside of the present context) thoroughly understand both "logic" and "the scientific method." They're not uninformed. They maybe just don't regard it as "a binary 'alternative.'"

P.S.: I might candidly observe that things like "nuclear physics" these days involve plenty of what might easily be called "faith" – because it is (presently) impossible to verify many of the things that these scientists are now using to stitch their theories together. Of course, when you do not "know," you have to resort to "the philosophy of science." Which, maybe, is not that different from "faith," and which might well be used for more-or-less the same reasons! Sometimes, "objective observation" does not and cannot take you everywhere that you wish to go.

I really don't have a problem embracing both religion and science together. I don't find a conflict between the two – not at all.

Instead, what I see is two very different strategies that people have used in their quest to know the unknowable. One purposely uses the human intellect, observation (as we think that we understand what we think we have observed ...), while the other just-as-purposely does not. I think that we should be unafraid to embrace both of these at the same time. After all, humans have been doing exactly this for many thousands of years now, and I don't think that any of them were wrong, mistaken, "ignorant," etc., for having chosen to do so. I believe that our powers of understanding are, in fact, greatly increased(!) by "thinking outside the box" in this way.

My personal middle-of-the-road perspective is that I do not ascribe "certainty" either to science or to religion. I hold one of them up in my left hand, and the other in my right, and look at them both and say, "how very interesting." But I don't dare to say that either one of them is "right" or "wrong." That's my personal choice of how to deal with things like this. I respect that others – including yourselves – differ. As far as I'm concerned, both of you are right.

Originally Posted by business_kid @ntubski:In this area, as in some others, wikipedia carries the bias of it's editors. The article for Creation is "Creation Myth."

Yes, I agree. But I think it's pretty okay at giving the Mainstream academic view (for better or worse).

And science won't discover God, but that won't prevent God from existing, or judging them.

And I agree that science can't affect whether God (or any other thing) exists or not.

Science and Religion are not opposites, and are not even (in their pure forms) in conflict. Many scientists are people of faith. Science is how we STUDY creation and the natural world. Religion is all about what we CANNOT prove and the unnatural world.

But "water divining" is hardly an example of either, since our science does not (yet) explain it, and there is no indication that it is limited to or influenced by faith, religion, or scientific measurement or observation. We KNOW that there are things about perception that we have yet to understand, we do NOT know if this will be something we WILL understand.

There ARE better examples of both, but I think that trying to set them against each other or label anything we do not understand well as one or the other seems remarkably unproductive.

Myth: A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

Creationism, mentioned and described in very different terms in a large number of religions, is certainly a myth. That does not mean there is no truth there, just that if there is we do not understand it. Science can determine some things ABOUT creation that makes it very certain that none of the description are literally true, but cannot ensure (and no reputable scientists would claim) that there is NO truth there.

Certainly THAT subject DOES pertain to this thread and is certainly a valid subject for conjecture here.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs @enorbet: I point out this phrase: "and then there is the complete lack of understanding of the alternative of the logic-based scientific method." Of course the people to whom you might be referring (inside or outside of the present context) thoroughly understand both "logic" and "the scientific method." They're not uninformed. They maybe just don't regard it as "a binary 'alternative.'"

While that is certainly true in some religious individuals, in many, especially fundamentalists, it is very far from the truth. People of that degree of blind faith commonly don't even grasp the difference between common usage of "theory" and "scientific theory". A very large percentage of fundamentalists do not even come close to grasping Mathematics any higher than Arithmetic and cannot possibly comprehend how Math can model and predict with any degree of accuracy since they simply don't speak the language nor have endured the strict discipline.

Simply put, Religion and Science have valid usage but overlap has changed over time since Science embraces even depends on progress while religion prefers things stay the same, rigid, and in most cases, controlled. If you find it valuable to contemplate unanswerable questions like "What happens to us after we die" then Religion is your tool. If you want to understand how to build a bridge, how Life has evolved, how Nature works, the Science is the go to tool.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs P.S.: I might candidly observe that things like "nuclear physics" these days involve plenty of what might easily be called "faith" – because it is (presently) impossible to verify many of the things that these scientists are now using to stitch their theories together. Of course, when you do not "know," you have to resort to "the philosophy of science." Which, maybe, is not that different from "faith," and which might well be used for more-or-less the same reasons! Sometimes, "objective observation" does not and cannot take you everywhere that you wish to go.

Of course that depends on where you "want to go" as outlined in my above response. I totally disagree with you on Nuclear Physics. What you view as "faith" is simply the progression from "what if" through "maybe" to "it appears so" or not. Much of that has to do with Mathematics since higher Math can and does make excellent models and predictions. Even the predictions that later turn out to be misleading are almost always useful at the very least in ruling out concepts under study given that among scientists falsification is, while sometimes personally a letdown, is nevertheless on the whole a triumph. That is completely anathema in Religion.

Do scientists engage in speculation? Of course! BUT... the method accepts and depends on accepting that it IS just speculation until sufficient evidence is in. As new events and evidence is discovered it is a given that even what in the past was considered "Law" is likely affected by locality and thus subject to revision and expansion. This is absolutely not the same as faith which has the expectation of being unshakeable, in some cases to the point of murdering anyone caught "shaking", even cartoonists, let alone satirists and scientists.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I really don't have a problem embracing both religion and science together. I don't find a conflict between the two – not at all. Instead, what I see is two very different strategies that people have used in their quest to know the unknowable. One purposely uses the human intellect, observation (as we think that we understand what we think we have observed ...), while the other just-as-purposely does not. I think that we should be unafraid to embrace both of these at the same time. After all, humans have been doing exactly this for many thousands of years now, and I don't think that any of them were wrong, mistaken, "ignorant," etc., for having chosen to do so. I believe that our powers of understanding are, in fact, greatly increased(!) by "thinking outside the box" in this way.

I agree largely with the above as long as we stick to "the unknowable". Religion can have that. It can't, or rather shouldn't, have the knowable and yet it is happening again right now in many places in the world and is starting up in the US where those in some pulpits are now preaching politics. It is extremely distrubing and for good reason. It has always been very dangerous and could be more dangerous than ever since we have ingrained contradiction.

How can many who spout "The Constitution" in the same manner as "The Bible" not grasp the danger and ironic contradiction in Separation of Church and State in that Consitution? It appears to me entirely subjective, like "whose ox is gored" which is common in my experience among those of undisciplined intellect, used to magical "thinking".

@enorbet: Yes, science has a definite process for approaching things which cannot be empirically known - called variously "the philosophy of science" or "scientific philosophy." (I prefer the first term since the second erroneously implies that "scientific" is an adjective.) This is what physicists have to use when they're talking about atomic things which can't be directly observed ... until the day may come when they can.

This is also what Charles Darwin was using when he explored the possible boundaries of "evolution." We can empirically observe that "moths evolve," but how far might this process go before we encounter an apparent contradiction? That's what he was exploring when he wrote "The Origin of Species." (Notice: "Species.") And he assumed that his audience implicitly understood what he was doing. We can't observe these things directly, but we can meaningfully philosophize about them, and that is valuable also.

Philosophy lets us step past the boundaries of empirical observation without completely losing our footing. (I like this definition of the term: "Thinking about thinking.")

- - - - -

As far as "Creation Myth" is concerned, Genesis 1 & 2 comprise a beautiful poem. You can easily find web-sites where the passages are sung in the native language. (Many of these sites also sing Psalms, which of course are also poetry.) I feel that I understand what the poets were doing and that what they produced is lovely. I don't require it to be "literally true." I don't expect it to be "literally true." I admire it for what I think it is. This culture created a story about the beginnings of the world, and they sang it, and the song is beautiful.

Instead, I like the passage from Job: "Were you there when the foundations of the world were laid? Come now, then! Instruct Me!" It's perfectly fine to "wonder." Wondering is a very good thing to do – just, "don't get cocky!" There are some answers that we will never "know." (But: keep trying!)

While the range of views expressed are very negative towards religion, few things are worth correcting. The bulk of your comments are true for 99.99% of religions.

@sundialsvcs: I certainly use my intellect in my religion. Many scriptural verses tell us to search, ponder, meditate, etc. Some religions exist at the low intelligence level you describe.

@wpeckham: Many scientists may be people of faith, but no conclusion based on faith can be expressed in any peer reviewed journal, or their career is ruined.

If we are to have a religion/science debate, and need a subject to kick around in let's not use creation. There are too many versions, and it simply is too involved a story to have been given in detail to a people with such a limited vocabulary as the first humans had. I simply mentioned it as an example of Wikipedia's bias. The article on Mormonism is equally biased - in favour of Mormons.

@enorbet: Your description of science is a bit lily-white. You put your finger correctly on the unhealthy relationship between (false) religion and politics. The Bible depicts temporal powers as male, and religions mixing in politics as prostitutes. The prostitutes always meet a sticky end.

@ntubski: I suppose an unbiased article on Creation is a forlorn hope.


Like a few banks, some scientific ideas are 'too big to fail' and nowhere is this more true than the areas of the very beginnings. But how do you provide a materialistic explanation for events before there was any material? And an awful lot of subsequent results and theorizing depend on those unexplainable beginnings. That's why religion and science both have a place, imho. But I suppose it is unreal to expect men of science to discriminate between true and false religion.

Originally Posted by business_kid @wpeckham: Many scientists may be people of faith, but no conclusion based on faith can be expressed in any peer reviewed journal, or their career is ruined.

And rightly so. all of science is based upon the Scientific Method and all conclusions must be based upon scientific evidence and observations (measurements). One cannot measure faith, it cannot be replicated to reproduce results (pee4r checked), so it is entirely unscientific. Scientific evidence must be reproducible, if it cannot be verified it does not belong.

Faith is what you have in things you believe that cannot be proven, may be unique, and/or cannot be observed.

Science says NOTHING about such things, and can not conclude anything about them. Religion can say NOTHING about science, they are totally different domains.

Very well. Science isn't 100% there either.

It's difficult to frame this without drawing a firestorm on myself, but this is what annoys me - scientific folks claiming everything is locked down and certain, when it isn't.

I realise Folks will immediately want examples and then want to argue/debate them, but I'm not going to argue/debate them. Suffice it to say I have examples, and have laid them down before in this thread and elicited silence. If someone needs me to lay them out again, I reluctantly will. I feel Science that acknowledges God's role would be a better servant of mankind. This way, it serves as a way of indoctrinating atheism.

Originally Posted by business_kid I feel Science that acknowledges God's role would be a better servant of mankind.

Of course, that was the function of science for centuries! Most of the great scientists of the past were not only Christians but were more devout Christians than most of their contemporaries. That was certainly true of Newton, Faraday and Maxwell. Scientific research was seen as a way of serving and glorifying God by exploring and explaining His creation.

Without Christianity we would probably not have science as we understand it today.