Consider the following definitions: Sociology is a branch of the social sciences that uses systematic methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social structure and activity, sometimes with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of social welfare. Its subject matter ranges from the micro level of face-to-face interaction to the macro level of societies at large. Psychology (Greek: Ψυχολογία, lit. "study of the mind", from ψυχή psykhē "breath, spirit, soul"; and -λογία, -logia "study of") is an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of human mental functions and behavior. Occasionally, in addition or opposition to employing the scientific method, it also relies on symbolic interpretation and critical analysis, although these traditions have tended to be less pronounced than in other social sciences such as sociology. Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior and interpersonal relationships. Some, especially depth psychologists, also study the unconscious mind. Add Jesus to those definitions and that would sum up 70% of what I do as a pastor.
Honestly. . . that seems a bit of a ignorant view of religion but . . to each his own . . . [Honestly DM . . comes off as almost a Hatred of Religion] Religion is about faith. Science is about methodology. To me. . . Religion will tell you about God and the things he did Science will attempt to explain how God did things. for instance . . . to borrow from Fatty Fat b*stard . . .and it was . . . God Spoke things into existance just because the mechanism and/or HOW he did it is now known does not make him doing it any less miraculous or denies him doing it When I say atheism is about LUCK . . it says the Big Bang was a lucky break for us . . .whereas I would say . . the Big Bang was HOW God did his work . . he set the conditions and BOOM . . . and it was .. . You don't tell a child . . . the whole reproductive process . . you say . . . you was in moms belly and BOOM .. . and you was when they find out later about sex and reproduction etc Does that mean . . . you and his mom did not make them? You did not set the conditions? Understanding . .. does not invalidate anything. Rocket River
Religion is what we use to fill in the gaps at the edge of our knowledge. Science does not explain anything about "God".... if you think I am misguided in my thoughts on religion, I turn the table towards you and ask you to understand science better... because science does not deal in the supernatural.
I think I postulated the Science is like a Religion now. . . not Fatty Fat b*stard My point in saying that is looking at some of the scientific debates .. Global Warming for one the 'sects' in that debate are very much ingrained Neither budging. . .. slinging data at each other but each has faith in his own idea and as far as they concerned . .the people on the Other Side are ignorant and fools . . .. and they ardent in that beleif Rocket River
Science attempt to explain the 'supernatural' 200 yrs ago . . .me talking to someone on the otherside of the planet would be a 'supernatural' experience 100 yrs ago . . .me cooking food without a open flame would have been a 'supernatural' feat now . . . me instantly appearing on Mars would be a near supernatural feat. . . . that does not mean we won't find a way to do it with a nice tidy explaination. 'supernatural' is just a word that means .. .we have not figured out an explaination yet . . .. Rocket River
Not really. Religion is an answer to the unknown. The answer is "god". There is no questioning. No introspection. No observation. It's a catch-all solution to being comfortable with ignorance. No. Science is about observation - the method is simply a way to legitimize those observations through a logical and testable approach. Horrible, horrible analogy. If you told your kid that children came from storks, end of story - that the stork was the answer and nothing else was possible. That the stork was an infallible "belief" --- that would be a more legitimate example. You force that child to disavaow everything he/she sees or hears or contemplates and just "believe" in the stork. The child grows up not understanding. Even after intercourse and children of his/her own, that child still clings to the stork mythos, because it's an ingrained facet of his/her own reality. That would be an appropriate analogy. Do you think this is a good thing? Thus, my comment that religion should be restricted to people over 18. Furthermore, your own story is just goofy regardless. You seem to imply that religion is just a way to simplify reality for people too idiotic to grasp it. I'm sure that was not your intent - but it's rather hilarious given the context.
Religion is not the antithesis of knowledge, that is way too broad of a generalization. When you say "knowledge" it can encompass a broad number of topics. I hate the term "religion" anyway, I prefer to say personal faith... because its different for everyone. When i think of religion I think of organized religion and I despise organized religion, it has been a business for far too long now. However, the way you guys keep defining knowledge seems to limit knowledge to scientific discovery and theory. What about other forms of knowledge? Math? Communication? Literature? Technological advancement? Faith in God is not always in direct conflict with science. Many great scientists and philosophers maintained a firm belief in God while bringing about groundbreaking advancements in science and thinking in general. Descartes, the father of modern thinking reduced everything to doubt, saying that you could only be sure of one thing, Cogito Ergo Sum. Yet, he also came up with a proof for the existence of God (although it is not a very solid one, the emphasis is that he maintained a faith in a higher power.) Personal faith does not mean you automatically have an agenda to dismiss everything science says as "new-fangled hocus pocus." Just trying to bridge the gap here, there seems to be some ignorance flowing on both ends.
Agreed. It is the antithesis of curiosity, not knowledge. There is much knowledge to be gained in the introspection of spiritual people. Yes. True. It is perfectly understandable, IMO, to believe that the big bang was "let there be light", so to speak. I'd call it a primitive metaphor, others would call it sacred truth. The point is that if one can un-think the silly literalism that the church has injected into much of faith-based thinking (obstensibly, to maintain a more zealous following) all the silly minutaie falls away. Can you believe that people are building museums to extoll creationism? What would jesus say about that? Believe, or don't believe. To me, that's simple. The problem is that believing carries such a ridiculous amount of baggage. There's this overwhelming urge, in the face of rapidly advancing science and philosophy, to "legitimize" faith. That's really perturbing. And it speaks a great deal to the fear underlying much of faith's entire existence. There is comfort in feeling that everything is according to a "plan", fine. I won't argue that. But raising entire generations in this mindset is deplorable. Teaching them that alternatives lead to eternal damnation is just plain abusive. Me too.
I appreciate your candor rhad, and I agree with most of your points. We need to raise a generation of critical thinkers who will learn from a young age to question things early and often, not those crippled by fear soon after birth of some impending eternal damnation for actions. In many respects, science has affirmed my own belief in a higher power. The Earth is so intricately designed, so perfectly placed in the universe that it can only be described as a miracle, scientific or divine. Just glad to be here.
No, it does not. At least in this context. Supernatural, as in, pertaining to the immaterial or surreal. In other words, gods or dieties. Things not pertaining to the natural world. There are a ton of inexplicable things in the natural world, that does not make them the work of a ghost by default.
I used to think admitting that I "just don't know" would be the scariest thing in the world and really depressing. It's actually ridiculously freeing and joyous, evoking a peace I can't remember ever feeling.
I am the exact same way and I have had many discussions about this with my wife. If you had told me 10 years ago that I would denounce everything that I ever learned growing up I would have laughed in your face. Being able to without any guilt say that I don't believe in anything is probably one of the most liberating things that has ever happened to me. I know that there are people, like my mother, that do not care for it but it's not her problem, not mine. I'm easily the happiest I have ever been in my entire life and part of it is not having the guilt anymore.
Boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. Neo: What truth? Boy: There is no spoon. Neo: There is no spoon? Boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. Not that this means anything... but it is one of my favorite lines in "The Matrix" carry on,
What does atheism have to do with luck? Or the Big Bang? Do you even know what atheism is? (HINT: it is very simple and has been explained to you numerous times in this thread)
Creation vs. Big Bang is basically Destiny/Fate vs. Chance/Circumstance. Or in other words, a God-centered world vs. a Man-centered world. When you allow for the concept of a creator, you remove all doubt and chance. Everything is placed here as it was supposed to be, and nothing is ever as it should not be. If you walk out of your door this afternoon and Ron Artest punches you in the face, that was God's plan, live with it. I know someone is going to come in here and snipe "nuh uh!!! you don't have to deny free will if you believe in god or religion!". Hate to burst your bubble, but if you believe in creation and an infallable God, you cannot combine that, logically, with free will. When you remove the concept of a creator, and you actually, you know, *look* for the origins of life and start decoding celestial and biological mechanics, you start to realize how certain completely coincidental events shaped our universe, our world, and our existence. If some rock hadn't smashed into the Earth millions of years ago, we'd still be bowing to our dinosauric masters. If another rocket hadn't plowed into the Earth 3 billion years ago we'd have no moon, and logically, our planet would not be habitable. To me, that isn't discouraging, it is amazing and liberating... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ptwEV0xhTzI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ptwEV0xhTzI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I was watching the Matrix on TNT the other day and I was shocked to find this was one of the scenes they cut for "time considerations". It's a signature scene in the movie! Not to mention they cut out half of the Neo/Smith subway station fight. (The finger choking scene, gah) I couldn't believe it. Movies on TV blow.
