I haven't read this whole thread but I had a situation like this while running at memorial one saturday morning. There was this table stand and people were giving away water and gatorade and i've seen this type of stuff before but this time it was a church organization. The guy that gave it to me starts talking about religion and stuff and I didn't want to be rude so I stayed and talked but it started getting too far and made me feel real uncomfortable but I couldn't seem to get away from it. Lesson learned, do not get water.
OK, I'll bite. Religion is (or should be) a right because... Simple question. I am simply dumbfounded. Are you truly comparing religion to science? Do I really have to explain the differences? Put simply, science (or scientific method) is a process for advancement, pursuit for knowledge what have you. Science involves observing, theorizing, testing, re-evaluation, not necessarily in that order. Though occasionally scientists do get trapped inside their ego, money issues, etc, a good scientist, whichever specific field, should always follow those steps. The common misconception is that the theories is science when they are simply the current findings. You could propose for example that evolution is false that we really are created by Martians as a slave race. And in science you would get the chance to present your evidence. If found credible, your new Martian theory will replace the old one as had been done so many times in history. And if not, well... Where do you find that in religion? It started off with nonsense and whenever challenged, the rebuttal is what, because god has a divine plan? Don't make me laugh.
I can also ask, by the same token, what was god doing before creationism? What was he doing before he created earth, the universe and the whole shebang. Was he just sitting on holy ass in boredom? Why did he create earth and the universe when he did it. If he's all wise and powerful why didn't he create it sooner so he's less bored? If there was no universe where was he sitting? And who created god? He's just kind of floating around in nothingness until a lightbulb went off? Scientists try to explain, but don't pretend to have all the answer to such things. Religion on the other hand... So if god didn't create religion and since no one has ever seen god, on what basis do you know you are doing his will. Are you sure you didn't get it wrong? Once again, you've gotta be kidding right? The scary thing is, once again, yes, I'm very scared by this, how many people (religious of course) actually believe it. If I remember correctly, the first known codified law was from somewhere along the lines of 1790 BCE, which pre-dates every major religion that exist today, meaning moralism would come, at the latest, 1790 BCE, pre-dating every major religion that exist today. And morals are still evolving, both for old problems as well as challenges faced today. Which basically means to any non-religious cultist that morals both existed before and after religion. Or perhaps you should convert to worshiping Anu and Bel instead. And I'd rather not believe in anything that false idol worship.
MFW, I suggest you check out Thomas Aquinas' Division and Methods of the Sciences. Religion does not always start with nonsense (Scientology excluded). Metaphysics in itself is a science that attempts to get at truth and being through logic.
So you claim not to have a problem with those who have faith. You then IMMEDIATELY turn around and crap all over them. Please....PLEASE...never procreate.
This is the true mark of intelligence. A wise man will make solid judgments. A wiser man will tell you that he does not have the knowledge needed to make those judgments.
A lot of people quote this because they are trying to be like that Socrates guy, but that Socrates guy admitted one thing he did know, i.e. the art of midwifery meaning the ability to give birth to new ideas, or the ability to participate in dialectic. But it's definitely not a concept that rings hollow in Christianity. We just think of it in terms of mystery. Logic leads to mystery.
I have not read it and perhaps will in the future. It the meantime if you care to continue that line of logic, feel free to summarize the main points of the work. Although I have to say that I've see the line "of course science is real, it is the method by which god works." I hope it isn't one of such works. How can you even argue with that line of reasoning?
Well this isn't that, this is metaphysical philosophy. Essentially it works from the premise that being had to have a starting point (big bang, etc. whatever you call it). The thing that went bang had to be created, or the thing that made the thing that went bang had to be created, you can keep going, but at some point, logic leads to the conclusion that there has to be a starting point. For Aquinas, while the mind might not be able to comprehend or understand that starting point (hence mystery), the mind is capable of positing that there must be a starting point. Christians call this God. Aristotle sort of deduced the same concept of the unmoved mover. The concept of God thus in a sense is outside of being (for he is not created). Hence the human mind moves through reason to a breaking point where it cannot go further (Heidegger would call this the horizon), and that's where in the Christian tradition we start to bring in faith, through what has been revealed. Keep in mind just because you are using the word faith doesn't mean that it is to be illogical. Concepts of charity, hope, etc. are not illogical, they are just not easy to come at a full understanding without revelation. They have aspects of mystery in them. That's why you'll always see Aquinas described as melding faith and reason. I've got a really long paper to write I can't keep getting in discussions on a basketball board about religion. I always come here to procrastinate though. Ergh Clutchfans you are crack.
Here's a link to a discussion on the topic I once had with MacBeth (you have to be here awhile to remember him)...It was in my younger days, but I pretty much stand by all the statements. Except maybe Meno being a butt pirate. That was pure dumb. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=61364&page=5&pp=20&highlight=macbeth+twhy77+Aquinas
Hmmmm, now that you mention it I think I do recall such theories, not necessarily those of Aquinas, but I don't believe his beliefs are unique in this regard. What I do disagree though is the melding of faith and reason. As you've stated, the human mind has such problems with mystery and proposes that there must be a beginning, that is perfectly logical. What is not logical is to propose theories that lack substance to explain such mysteries. In other words, logic began and ended at "somehow, somewhere it all began." To draw false conclusions is illogical irrespective of the prior steps. I am comfortable (and upset, the more I think about it, the more there I realize how much I don't know) to say I don't know how it all began and unless things change drastically, will never find out. I won't invent a new faith out of it though. Good luck on your paper.
Thanks, I hate to duck out of a conversation, but I have a tendency to get a bit compulsive about this kind of stuff. Cool story though, I'm sitting in Admin Law in South Bend, Indiana, and I look at the kid next to me's computer, and he's surfing Clutchfans. Awesome for the win.
W/O the dictionary version Faith is a belief in someone or something whether based on fact or something more intangible People have faith or a belief in science People have faith in God People seek to prove the existence of the world through God People seek to prove the existence of the world through science Science and religion parallel each other. Religion in the, spiritual aspect, is the science of the existence of God
The problem is you are looking at both as faith exercises in terms that you say people just take things like Evolution or the Big Bang on faith just like a Christian would take the resurection of Jesus on faith. Science doesn't work on faith but on skepticism and theories like Evolution or the Big Bang aren't actually believed in the sense of a leap of faith but are considered as what best fits the available evidence. As with other scientific theories such as Newtonian physics those theories could be superceded or proven wrong as later evidence comes out. Religion doesn't work that way. You can't be skeptical about a divinity and still have faith. Also you have to consider that the methodology used to formulate scientific theories is the same methodology that led to the creation of the car you drive or the computer you are reading this on. While something like Evolution or the Big Bang is difficult to understand since it is beyond a human time scale to observe directly that said the theory had to undergo the same sort of scrutiny that the theories of electro-magnetism and thermodynamics did.
Same thing in religion, its the process for advancement, pursuit for knowledge. Advancing ourselves through what we know about God and the pursuit of more knowlegde about him. People study the bible as well as other writings, evaluating and re evaluating it, testing its history and stories based on what we already know. You say it started off with nonsense, how would you know if you weren't there? Which means you would have had to have read it somewhere and believed what the author told you about how it started. Which is what most people do. They read or heard it somewhere and go off that to formulate their opinions. Honestly I can understand why people feel the way they do about religion b/c man distorts it and it gets away from what its truly for.
Actually you can be skeptical and still have faith. In the bible, you can have faith as small as a mustard seed and move mountains. Even if its just a little faith that is all that's being asked. "Ask and Ye shall recieve". God looks for us to come and ask questions. You cant just follow God blindly, you have to read his word get to know him in your life. In honesty religion is all relative b/c its just the man made practices of beliefs in a higher power. Believing is my biggest deal judoka, and I can understand where you come from with what you say on a science side of things but when it comes to believing w/o tangible evidence, I believe you tap into another part of you that untouchable by science. Science does its best to explain things and it can be beyond the scope of human time but so is God beyond the scope of human thought.
You either do not understand scientific theory or just ignore what you understand when you present your point of view that religion is same as science (based on faith).
