posted
I posted a rather stylish, witty rejoinder to KoM and hatrack chose that moment to go down.
I'll take that as a hint. Though I'd really like to point out that without a rock hard, agreed upon starting point such as divine authority, there can be no debate either.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Where does it say in my science textbooks that God doesn't exist?
In the basic, foundational principle: You should not believe things you have no good evidence for.
That's more a principle of philosophy than science. You often conflate philosophical arguments that you buy into and good science. You need to learn to compartmentalize your beliefs better
'You should not believe things your have no good evidence for' is a philosophical value judgement. You take as an axiom the thought that 'you should not believe...' without telling us why we shouldn't believe it. I don't buy your premise.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, here's why : Without such a premise, we wouldn't have science at all - we'd still be stuck with Aristotle.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could somebody enlighten me as to how you can discuss spirituality without a godlike figure.
Maybe we disagree on what spirituality means, maybe I just haven't heard theories on the matter. Feel free to enlighten me.
As for KOM, Ill be honest I find him to be a bit more on the respectful side if you address is arguments specifically rather then getting mad from a personal standpoint. I fully agree that KOM can be more rude than is conducent to discussion, and I can see why it's obnoxious to discuss religion with him, but I do think he is a smart man, I've enjoyed some of our exchanges.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first step is education. People who don't understand science often find it unbelievable, and religious people who don't understand science sometimes concoct strange and illogical reasons to support their beliefs.
I can't count the number of times I've heard people say that entropy precludes evolution, or that because science isn't certain on a lot of things, it makes more sense to believe in religion, which is always sure, as though it were one or the other.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That makes absolutely no sense.
Assuming you and TL are addressing me, of course it makes sense. If we have no common ground, no common, arbitrary dogma such as "reason is valid" we can't argue and we're back to stabbing swords "as far as they will go", again.
Saying reason is valid because it's reason is just as circular as saying God's word is valid because God said so.
You can't fool me... it's all Turtles, all the way down...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could somebody enlighten me as to how you can discuss spirituality without a godlike figure.
Maybe we disagree on what spirituality means, maybe I just haven't heard theories on the matter. Feel free to enlighten me.
Buddhism. For one example.
edit: I should clarify. If one's definition of god is sufficiently big then "godlike figure" would only describe one aspect of god. In that case "god" could include spiritual elements that coincide with Buddhism.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The first step is education. People who don't understand science often find it unbelievable, and religious people who don't understand science sometimes concoct strange and illogical reasons to support their beliefs.
I can't count the number of times I've heard people say that entropy precludes evolution, or that because science isn't certain on a lot of things, it makes more sense to believe in religion, which is always sure, as though it were one or the other.
I don't disagree at all... except that I *do* find that this absolutely works in reverse as well.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Could somebody enlighten me as to how you can discuss spirituality without a godlike figure.
Maybe we disagree on what spirituality means, maybe I just haven't heard theories on the matter. Feel free to enlighten me.
Buddhism. For one example.
Ok Ill disregard the majority of Buddhists who do in fact worship dieties. Are we to believe that reincarnation, karma, dharma, nirvana, needs no origin and that they have simply always existed?
To be honest I actually think I can agree with Buddhism being an example of spirituality devoid of a diety. How do you mesh these beliefs with science?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: All right, here's why : Without such a premise, we wouldn't have science at all - we'd still be stuck with Aristotle.
Einstein initially used thought experiments to come up with general relativity. Some scientists believed them enough for years until they were able to actually get some hard evidence to confirm his theory. Science has to rely on some measure of belief without hard evidence in order to progress.
However, I made a mistake in my response. I took your statement more generally that it may have been intended. I thought you were making a blanket statement about life in general, not merely restricted to the realm of science. My apologies.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
That Science answers How That Religion answers Why
And that when they get confused; when Science tries to answer Why, or when Religion tries to answer How all they succeed in doing is looking foolish.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Explain more please. I am still just as interested in the concept of believing in human spirituality without at least believing in an afterlife.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are we to believe that reincarnation, karma, dharma, nirvana, needs no origin and that they have simply always existed?
Why is this any more or less likely than an eternal diety that needs no origin?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: You need to learn to compartmentalize your beliefs better.
I keep hoping that science and religion will come together in exciting or lucrative ways.
Actually, I think science and religion come together quite frequently with favorable results. For example we have Bible-believing scientists who have been scoffed at for clinging to their theories of catastrophism, but within the last 20 years have started to gain some respect. It was this community that theorized that petroleum may have origins other than diatomaceous marine deposits and predicted the discovery of oil in non-traditional locations. The discovery of petroleum relatively close to the surface and in isolated cells may prove to be very lucrative.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edited to explain what I mean about it working in reverse...
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The first step is education. People who don't understand religion often find it unbelievable, and science-focused people who don't understand religion sometimes concoct strange and illogical reasons to convince themselves no one should believe it.
I can't count the number of times I've heard people say that evolution precludes God, or that because Religion doesn't produce quantifiable results, it makes more sense to disbelieve in religion in order to believe in science, as though it were one or the other.
Something "spiritual", to me, is something that is incorporeal and/or immaterial. Imagination is spiritual. The arena of mind is largely spiritual (although it may be housed in a material matrix in the brain). If I think of a cake, it exists spiritually even before I bake it.
Spirituality does not require a god-like figure at all, though such a figure is very often a product of human spirituality. (Or many, perhaps most, believe it's the other way around.)
I believe my life has a very important spiritual aspect to it that in no way requires there to be any sort of godlike figure. It could very well be, even, that there is an afterlife of some sort (for all I know) but that doesn't require a God any more than the existence of this Earth requires one.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Buddhism. For one example."
Explain more please. I am still just as interested in the concept of believing in human spirituality without at least believing in an afterlife.
What is wrong with a (theoretical) belief that something spiritual is born when intelligence reaches a point of self-awareness, and that this spiritual entity ceases to exist when the matrix which sustains it collapses?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are we to believe that reincarnation, karma, dharma, nirvana, needs no origin and that they have simply always existed?
Why is this any more or less likely than an eternal diety that needs no origin?
You misunderstand that was a question of clarification not a challenge.
Karled: So for you does the spiritual remain a deeply personal experience without universal application?
Example: You think of a cake and for you its true that it tastes good if cooked properly but to others the cake might taste terrible.
BTW thanks for the personal example, I enjoy learning others perspectives on what we all experience.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is wrong? For me it all sounds so pointless. If I (personally) don't see any future beyond this life then there is no reason for me to have any life - period.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the spiritual necessarily is a personal experience without universal application. One can share one's experience of the spiritual within the limits of one's abilities to communicate, and others can choose to encorporate elements of another's spirituality within their own.
However, to me, the only spirituality that has universal applicability is that which can be rationally demonstrated and consistently replicated. Mathematics is one example. I'm not sure if there are any others, actually. Religious strife is largely founded on the misguided assumption of universal applicability of personal spiritual experience.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think that the spiritual necessarily is a personal experience without universal application. One can share one's experience of the spiritual within the limits of one's abilities to communicate, and others can choose to encorporate elements of another's spirituality within their own.
However, to me, the only spirituality that has universal applicability is that which can be rationally demonstrated and consistently replicated. Mathematics is one example. I'm not sure if there are any others, actually. Religious strife is largely founded on the misguided assumption of universal applicability of personal spiritual experience.
Thanks again Karl, that explains alot. I might have questions later.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"misguided assumption" is pretty strong words. Perhaps even fighting words. I VERY strongly disagree with everything you have said.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: What is wrong? For me it all sounds so pointless. If I (personally) don't see any future beyond this life then there is no reason for me to have any life - period.
That's sad. I have no such problem finding a reason to live. To me, my life itself is justification enough for me to live it. I find it enjoyable, and I find the lives of others enjoyable. And I find the enjoyment others have in their lives enjoyable, so I want to see them enjoy their lives as much as I do mine. That is what love is, to me.
If this life is all there is, then my life becomes all the more precious to me, and so does yours become precious to me. This moment itself, you and I connecting in communication, is a beautiful and precious thing. The fleeting nature of it only underscores the importance of enjoying it while it lasts. It's a terrible tragedy to let the possibility (or even probability) of an end destroy the enjoyment of what is now.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Edited to explain what I mean about it working in reverse...
That's interesting to me, because in my experience, the more one learns about and participates in the scientific process, the more sense it makes. The more one learns about and questions religion, the more illogical leaps and omissions one must make to continue on.
I believe that it is important to note that science invites questioning, and becomes stronger each time something previously understood is clarified, each time new answers are found, each time a something previously believed to be true is shown to be false.
Religion accepts no such revisions, questioning, or correction. It insists that it is correct, and cannot stand if shown otherwise. In fact, religion sets itself up in such terms that it is impossible to discredit it within its own worldview. Its ideas are not open for discussion or debate, they simply ARE.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mighty Cow: While its possible for you to lump science all together as they are bound by a singular method, I think you do a discredit to this community when you try to lump religion together in such a manner as you have. You are assuming there is a unifying premise behind religion. To be honest I do not think such a principle exists.
Therefore your conclusion that religion as a whole invites no revisions/questions/debate/discussion, I just think you are dead wrong.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the things that's bugging me in the whole "science v. religion" debate that no one seems to touch on is that while I find no issue with the scientific method, almost exclusively conclusions are based on incomplete scientific data.
Basis: I am a Catholic engineer who believes in evolution.
Problem: Evolution is not completely 100% proven. There is a whole ton of very authoritative data on the issue, but there will always be holes where certain things either don't make sense, or the data is just missing.
Basically, through the very nature of science itself it is basically impossible to completely prove anything, because there's always the possibility that we missed something, didn't take something into account, some assumption was not quite right etc...
So the problem comes when scientists keep claiming "this is absolute truth because science says so" when in fact science doesn't say so. At best science will have a lot of evidence that points in one direction and no evidence that points in another direction.
Consider the aerospace field (of which I am a part) even when we theoretically know the equations that govern a particular phenomena they always rely on a certain amount of assumptions (even if it comes down to: We assume that solar wind doesn't have a noticable effect on the flight of a 777) that leave open the possibility that things aren't quite as we think they are. If I had a nickel for every time we've had to revert to experience-based data over basic physics I'd be a rich man...
The problem is that many within the science community already use "Science" as a religion and many of those are the kind of bad scientists who knowingly ignore data, skew it to draw bad conclusions and such.
I'm not saying that it's appropriate for religion to teach that the scientific method is wrong (and I haven't found that to be the case) but I do think it's appropriate for everyone to be taught to question any conclusions be they religious or scientific or neither.
With the number of scientists with solid data backing them up out there claiming both that Global Warming is and is not happening, or that it's our fault or not, or that galactic cosmic radiation is likely to destroy the chances of interplanetary travel or not, how can anyone blindly say that "science" in and of itself is some kind of be-all-end-all?
Much as it's silly, Southpark's recent stint on atheism had a lot of great points weasled away in there.
My basic summary: Science can never give us 100% answers. Religion aknowledges that decisions need to be based on less than 100% answers. Even founding decisions on scientific bases requires a certain leap of faith, even if it's only that the 0.000001% of unknowns isn't going to bite us in the end.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "misguided assumption" is pretty strong words. Perhaps even fighting words. I VERY strongly disagree with everything you have said.
The fact that I can believe one person's (or even one group's) personal spiritual experience is not evidence of universal applicability triggers in you a "fight" response just underscores for me how the assumption of universal applicability is responsible for the majority of wars in human history. To me this is evidence of its misguided nature.
I'm sorry if you are offended by my feelings on the matter. I'm being honest and as polite as possible, and I don't think I'm even skirting the TOS at this point.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering how much I absolutely hate the "now" and have hated it from my teenage days, recognition of something more than "now" is the only thing that saved my life. If I wasn't "eternal spiritual" then I would be a nihilist. For those who find happiness in living, I either find them dilusional or materialistic.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm sorry if you are offended by my feelings on the matter. I'm being honest and as polite as possible, and I don't think I'm even skirting the TOS at this point."
I am not sure what the TOS has to do with what you have said. There is nothing against the "rules" that you have said. I, also, am saying what I honestly believe. As such I believe there is a universal truth where you don't. I believe it so strongly that any statement that my beliefs are "misguided" can't help but come across as offensive.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Errr, wow. I'm religious and disagree with pretty much everything you just said.
Edit: In response to:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Considering how much I absolutely hate the "now" and have hated it from my teenage days, recognition of something more than "now" is the only thing that saved my life. If I wasn't "eternal spiritual" then I would be a nihilist. For those who find happiness in living, I either find them dilusional or materialistic.
Sorry, it was 2:42 PST...you're in a different time zone I'm sure.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
apologies for the double post, but I just saw MC's latest:
If I thought all religion were as you describe then I would agree with you. However, I find that the religions that I value and respect are those that in fact welcome questions and doubts. In my experience it is only through questioning religion that we can grow in it. Perhaps there are certain "absolutes" about which religion is based, but even those in my experience tend to not be as absolute as is problematic.
perhaps I can be proven wrong yet, but so far the most any questioning has done for my faith is to mold it around a bit rather than break it. Though I'll admit that there are many that would take issue with the fluidity of my beliefs, and that the type of religion you describe bothers me for the same reasons it seems to bother you.
The flexibility for example to believe that maybe the various miracles in the bible happened as described, and maybe some of them were pure coincidence of perfectly explainable natural phenomena and maybe some of them were natural phenomena that were instigated by a higher power is crucial to my stance on religion.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: For those who find happiness in living, I either find them dilusional or materialistic.
See, now I'd call those "strong words" as well as being short sighted, but I wouldn't fight you over them. I'd be happy to debate them, though.
I don't consider myself materialistic. I might be delusional, but no more so than any other human being might also be, yourself included.
Also, before you put too much emphasis on my "now", I am referring to the life we know about as "now", not "this very instant". I had some pretty crappy teenage years, too, but I don't think it was a belief in an afterlife that got me through them. Rather I think it was a belief in my own self-worth, and in the hope that my suffering wasn't permanent.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, my view of life hasn't changed much as an adult. The biggest difference is perhaps I have more of any ability to control my own destiny. Other than that, everything I have hated when I was a teenager still exists as ever. We just pretend we are all grown up.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As such I believe there is a universal truth where you don't.
See, you're not reading very carefully. I don't believe that there is no universal truth. I just don't believe that personal spiritual experience alone is a reliable method for learning it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Is the experience of someone discovering a scientific principle (say, the Krebs cycle) different or the same as when the principle is taught in the classroom and learned by the students? I went to a talk on this once. The speaker was distractingly handsome.
To me, learning a principle whether it is religious or scientific in nature is kind of a spiritual experience.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mighty Cow: While its possible for you to lump science all together as they are bound by a singular method, I think you do a discredit to this community when you try to lump religion together in such a manner as you have. You are assuming there is a unifying premise behind religion. To be honest I do not think such a principle exists.
Therefore your conclusion that religion as a whole invites no revisions/questions/debate/discussion, I just think you are dead wrong.
I certainly don't profess to be an expert on every religion in the world, so if I overstated my beliefs, I apologize.
Within the bounds of Christianity, which I am fairly familiar, and to my understanding of other religions which I am less familiar, I believe my statements are accurate.
Each Christian believes certain things, largely depending on their denomination and upbringing. These things are not open for debate. Jesus was the Son of God, God is good, if you don't follow certain rules you go to hell, our faith is Right and others are Wrong, etc.
If you show a scientist evidence that a previously held belief is incorrect, a good scientist will examine the new evidence and if it is strong enough, change her mind. If a Christian tries to convince a Jew that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, and that Jews are not God's chosen people, forget about it.
Science says, "I believe this is right because all the evidence I see makes this the most likely case. If other evidence shows something else, I will examine it and revise my answer."
Many religions (at least the ones I most strongly disagree with) say, "This is the way things are, because we say so. If you don't agree, you're wrong."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I have a question.
Is the experience of someone discovering a scientific principle (say, the Krebs cycle) different or the same as when the principle is taught in the classroom and learned by the students? I went to a talk on this once. The speaker was distractingly handsome.
To me, learning a principle whether it is religious or scientific in nature is kind of a spiritual experience.
To me, all learning is a spiritual experience.
Is the experience of discovery the same as the experience of learning? I'm not sure. To me they are somewhat different but both are spiritual experiences. But for me, discovering something on my own has rewards above and beyond learning something someone else discovered (though I don't make the comparison to in any way devalue the latter).
However, not all spiritual experiences are truthful. I believe people can have intense spiritual experiences that are lies and delusions. That is demonstrably so, although one might disagree with me on semantics. That is why I do not believe spiritual experience alone is a reliable method for ascertaining the truth of a given premise.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
That Science answers How That Religion answers Why
And that when they get confused; when Science tries to answer Why, or when Religion tries to answer How all they succeed in doing is looking foolish.
Yup. From Karl:
quote: I think that the spiritual necessarily is a personal experience without universal application. One can share one's experience of the spiritual within the limits of one's abilities to communicate, and others can choose to encorporate elements of another's spirituality within their own. (snip) Religious strife is largely founded on the misguided assumption of universal applicability of personal spiritual experience.
I think we all have our own way to connect with the Divine. Each is a little different. We gather in communities because their is value in communion with others (and the Divine that is to be found in others). And I understand the desire to help others find a way to make that connnection, should they choose. But I have never understood (from a religious perspective) why it is important to expect other people to fit our particular mold.
Also from Karl:
quote: That's sad. I have no such problem finding a reason to live. To me, my life itself is justification enough for me to live it. I find it enjoyable, and I find the lives of others enjoyable. And I find the enjoyment others have in their lives enjoyable, so I want to see them enjoy their lives as much as I do mine. That is what love is, to me.
If this life is all there is, then my life becomes all the more precious to me, and so does yours become precious to me. This moment itself, you and I connecting in communication, is a beautiful and precious thing. The fleeting nature of it only underscores the importance of enjoying it while it lasts. It's a terrible tragedy to let the possibility (or even probability) of an end destroy the enjoyment of what is now.
Good heavens, yes. And, for me, those moments, those connections, that "beautiful and precious thing", that love, is where I find God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, this is presumptious of me, I know, but I can'tr believe that God wants us to live in a "now" that is hateful without trying to change that. He came so that we might live more abundantly after all. Let me know if I can help.
MC:
quote: Each Christian believes certain things, largely depending on their denomination and upbringing. These things are not open for debate. Jesus was the Son of God, God is good, if you don't follow certain rules you go to hell, our faith is Right and others are Wrong, etc.
Well, only two of those at all. Only one, really absolutely without some clarification. For me. I assume that I would qualify.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, kmb, it is only because God did help me learn how to live more abundantly that I care about life. He basically told me: Don't worry, this isn't all there is.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Edited to explain what I mean about it working in reverse...
That's interesting to me, because in my experience... Religion accepts no such revisions, questioning, or correction. It insists that it is correct, and cannot stand if shown otherwise. In fact, religion sets itself up in such terms that it is impossible to discredit it within its own worldview. Its ideas are not open for discussion or debate, they simply ARE.
I think that is a very shallow view of religion. I can point out instances where Catholic dogma was challenged, refined, and eventually changed.... and that is one of the most insistently correct and authority-rich religions around.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I have a question.
Is the experience of someone discovering a scientific principle (say, the Krebs cycle) different or the same as when the principle is taught in the classroom and learned by the students? I went to a talk on this once. The speaker was distractingly handsome.
I would say that they are vastly different experiences.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
well, obviously some of those statements-- I mean, if I didn't think Jesus was, in fact the Son of God, I wouldn't be a Christian, now, would I?
That doesn't mean I can't still listen with an open mind about the question. In fact, I would put forth to Christians that if you haven't listened with an open mind to the alternative, your faith is sorely lacking. I would say that an unquestioned faith is a faith that has never been tested, which is a faith that has never been applied to anything. Jesus himself doubted ("my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?") for any Christian to pretend that they are beyond doubt is arrogance bordering on blasphemy, IMO.
As my therapist put it, talking about another subject entirely, "you can't say 'yes' until you can say 'no'."
Basically, while I love Shepherd Book dearly as a character, I utterly disagree with him. You do "fix faith", in so far as you try to refine and improve your understanding of it, just as you do with science. I might go so far as saying that the process by which "Faith fixes you" is exactly that process of understanding it more deeply.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I have a question.
Is the experience of someone discovering a scientific principle (say, the Krebs cycle) different or the same as when the principle is taught in the classroom and learned by the students? I went to a talk on this once. The speaker was distractingly handsome.
I would say that they are vastly different experiences.
Yeah, the classroom learner exercises faith in the teacher and in the discoverer. The discoverer exercises faith in his senses, and in the instruments and tools at his disposal and in a set of standard methods and practices. Sounds a bit like religion to me.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
or materialistic.
