quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Resh, I was talking about why I dislike both extreme ends of this argument. They act a lot alike in their disrespect for anyone who disagrees with their point of view, which is ironic, but mot fun to be around.
Oh yeah, I'm with you on that. I of course, find it ironic that I dislike the extremes and the disrespect, but then actively engage in taking an extreme and disrespectful angle.
posted
Pixiest: I could be wrong, but it seems you think Porter was saying that its almost all a decision and almost devoid of any feeling. I doubt he meant it that way. If you thought the ratio was much closer and still find it sad, nevermind then.
I agree with Porter though. If love was not a decision I'd be divorced by now, because feelings are just not strong enough to carry any marriage as far as I am concerned.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: mph wrote:
quote: I feel the same way about love -- it's much more a decision and a commitment than it is a feeling.
Wow.. Porter.. That's really sad =(
I think it is a great thing, and my wife does as well. It doesn't mean there isn't feeling....of course there is....but I had to think long and hard about if I wanted to marry my wife. I had thought I was in love before I had met her and been wrong, so I was questioning my feelings.
Questioning those feelings only made me more sure in the end that we were made for each other.
I also cried like a baby during her walk down the aisle....so remember, just because I feel it takes positive decisions and a willingness to work things out doesn't mean there is no feeling involved. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I agree with Jay's post, but I think the general feeling comes from the pressure so many religious people feel (real or imagined) to change their views, either by abandoning their faith entirely, or altering part of it, to correspond with scientific advancements. The push back is that, science keeps changing, why should I change my beliefs if tomorrow you could change your mind and agree with my position of today? I don't think that this discovery was anything like that kind of switch, I'm speaking in generalities now, not as it relates to this specific example.
Religion and science are different in this respect because religion can declare absolutes, where as science deals only in probable explanations and predictions. You can only theorize the real world from science, which is why it can adapt and change. Religion is declarative. In Christianity the statement that Christ is the Savior of mankind has no room for error or adaptation. Change in this principle is not possible based on new information; if it is discovered that Christ is not the Savior of mankind than the religion crumbles. In my mind the supposed conflict between science and religion is more of a sideshow than anything. The two fields overlap in such a minor way as to make it of almost no importance to me. In my religion, the important declarative statements simply can not be proved or disproved by scientific investigation. Christ being the Savior of mankind as a perfect example. The importance of evolution or creationism in my life and my religion is almost nill. Now of course that's not true for everyone, there's plenty of religious people who find, for example, that evolution plays a very important role in their life to the point that they'll spend hours arguing about it, and some even crusade for or against it. I can't speak for them, but I can think of no area where science overlaps my religion in a life-influencing way with the possible exception of dietary restrictions.
I think the real problem for most people is determining what is a defenitively true statement and what is conjecture. This comes down to each particular religion; some seem to have almost nothing as facts (I've met hundreds of Christians who seem to feel that other than the aforementioned Christ as Savior, nothing else is definitive). Others seem to feel that each iota of their religious belief, including their belief in creationism, is definitively truth, and not speculation from text. That's something each person has to determine for themselves; obviously enough people are towards the latter end to cause this fight to take place, but I think most people on this form find themselves closer to the first. A looser definition of definitive truths allows for a greater acceptance of change (obviously) but any time someone else's opinion or theory (no matter how valid) differs from a core belief conflict will ensue. The main problem there is that in general, the reason for believing the two sides of this argument (faith and science) are of a very different nature. It is difficult to convince a scientist that a higher power could answer their questions on the matter and resolve any concerns, and it's difficult to try to reason a person of faith out of something they feel came from a divine source.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: ... In my religion, the important declarative statements simply can not be proved or disproved by scientific investigation. Christ being the Savior of mankind as a perfect example.
"Can not" by principle or "can not" by current scientific methods? Say some scientist goes out, invents a time machine and finds out that there was no Christ and instead that Christ was actually a con man who faked his own death, that would seem to be a pretty good proof one way. On the other hand, if that same scientist found that Christ's body really did manage to disappear from his tomb and that he really was the result of a virgin birth, that would seem to be a pretty good proof the other way.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. Obviously his god happened to work through that con man in such a way that human souls are saved anyway.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: ... In my religion, the important declarative statements simply can not be proved or disproved by scientific investigation. Christ being the Savior of mankind as a perfect example.
"Can not" by principle or "can not" by current scientific methods? Say some scientist goes out, invents a time machine and finds out that there was no Christ and instead that Christ was actually a con man who faked his own death, that would seem to be a pretty good proof one way. On the other hand, if that same scientist found that Christ's body really did manage to disappear from his tomb and that he really was the result of a virgin birth, that would seem to be a pretty good proof the other way.
You are assuming of course that God is OK with somebody FINALLY proving through science that Jesus is the savior of all mankind thus removing any need for anybody to have faith.
Also if the scientist found that Christ had indeed disappeared inexplicably and was born of a virgin that would not prove that He was the savior of mankind. Scientists would all posit different explanations as to how a virgin could give birth as well as how the body might have decomposed so suddenly or disappeared.
Even if a scientist did biological tests on Jesus while he suffered for the sins of the world, it would not IMO be possible to scientifically measure what happens when a sin is atoned for. At best he would record that Jesus was under a ton of stress and bleeding through his pores.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I am not literally saying I have read every scientific paper but I know the gist of the majority of the arguements to know that ID and YEC arguements seem to be easily debunked.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, in spite of KoM's sarcastic depiction of believers looking for other explainations, I imagine that many non-believers would be looking for alternate explainations if they found what BlackBlade describes.
quote:You are assuming of course that God is OK with somebody FINALLY proving through science that Jesus is the savior of all mankind thus removing any need for anybody to have faith.
The fact that miracles were permitted to be viewed in the first place seems to indicate that God's OK with direct observation. I don't see why the fact that our tools of observation are more powerful now should be an impediment.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are assuming of course that God is OK with somebody FINALLY proving through science that Jesus is the savior of all mankind thus removing any need for anybody to have faith.
The fact that miracles were permitted to be viewed in the first place seems to indicate that God's OK with direct observation. I don't see why the fact that our tools of observation are more powerful now should be an impediment.
IMO if a miracle happened now and God allowed our current tools to observe it, it would be because the miracle does not conclusively prove anything, and that down the road the record would not remove the need for faith in future generations of believers.
Or else it would be Jesus' second coming in which case scientific tools observing that event are hardly at the top of anybody's concern list.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. Biblical miracles were often pretty impressive displays. If "they would preclude faith" wasn't an argument against them then, I don't see why it's a valid argument now.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I dunno. Biblical miracles were often pretty impressive displays. If "they would preclude faith" wasn't an argument against them then, I don't see why it's a valid argument now.
People in various places and time have also been more willing to believe that such things were possible. It says quite specifically that Jesus could do no miracles in certain places because people were so skeptical and unwilling to believe.
But more importantly, no matter how emphatically somebody tells me that they saw something, that does nothing to prove to me the truth of the matter. As time passes incredible events become harder and harder to believe until we simply pass them off as myths.
In terms of hard evidence, somebody's say so is hardly anything, and increasingly less so as time goes by.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People in various places and time have also been more willing to believe that such things were possible. It says quite specifically that Jesus could do no miracles in certain places because people were so skeptical and unwilling to believe.
Uri Geller was unable to exercise his powers when Johnny Carson wouldn't let him touch the props. The inability/unwillingness to demonstrate power before nonbelievers is typically associated with people who don't actually have the claimed powers. That's why James Randi has never had to pay his million dollars.
By behaving in a manner which we associate with the conman, he doesn't just demand faith, but a level of credulity which in similar circumstances may end up being harmful.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that miracles were permitted to be viewed in the first place seems to indicate that God's OK with direct observation.
It is doctrine in the LDS faith that miracles are not to convince non-believers but to confirm the faith of believers. We believe that miracles will not come at all without faith.
That some miracles might be viewed by non-believers is not the issue. Scriptural accounts (some that are LDS-specific scripture) suggest that non-believers who witnessed miracles were often hardened in their non-belief rather than being converted, and thus it further impeded their progress rather than benefitting them.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:People in various places and time have also been more willing to believe that such things were possible. It says quite specifically that Jesus could do no miracles in certain places because people were so skeptical and unwilling to believe.
Uri Geller was unable to exercise his powers when Johnny Carson wouldn't let him touch the props. The inability/unwillingness to demonstrate power before nonbelievers is typically associated with people who don't actually have the claimed powers. That's why James Randi has never had to pay his million dollars.
By behaving in a manner which we associate with the conman, he doesn't just demand faith, but a level of credulity which in similar circumstances may end up being harmful.
Uri Geller and Johnny Carson as a yardstick for miracles?
quote:Uri Geller and Johnny Carson as a yardstick for miracles?
Just an example of the "it won't work if you don't believe it" argument in modern times. Unfortunately there aren't many loftier examples. That was kinda my point.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scriptural accounts (some that are LDS-specific scripture) suggest that non-believers who witnessed miracles were often hardened in their non-belief rather than being converted, and thus it further impeded their progress rather than benefitting them.
Which is really really hard for me to accept. If someone claimed to have supernatural powers and them performed an act which I could not explain I might start from the assumption that they were a particularly talented illusionist, but I can't see being less convinced of the likelihood of them actually having the claimed powers than if they had not performed that act and I'm a REALLY skeptical person. Average Joe off the street is not going to be more likely than me to have his heart "hardened" by such a display.
I realize that's what the scriptures and some church leaders say, but how does that really make any sense?
quote:In my religion, the important declarative statements simply can not be proved or disproved by scientific investigation. Christ being the Savior of mankind as a perfect example.
I think a perfect example would be the acceptance of the Book of Mormon as a historical document. It doesn't require faith to try to prove or disprove that particular claim.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but faith has enabled a lot of people to ignore the totally negative testimony of rather an extensive amount of archeology in the relevant area. "Oh, we just haven't looked in the right place yet, and besides it's rather smaller than the book implies."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So how do you defend the idea that science simply has yet to explain some of the details concerning evolution? Is that not the same thing: faith?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Trolling
I am above the age of 20 and still believe Evolution is the most plausible explanation for the origins of intelligent life and I have considered all the evidence, intelligent and otherwise.
Now could someone explain this to me? How exactly am I trolling? And why am I being accused of trolling by someone who has had nothing to do with the conversation up to this point and just jumps in with a post like this?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP: Ezra Booth personally witnessed Joseph Smith heal the lame arm of a woman Booth had known to have had no use of the arm her entire life. He later left the church because he did not feel like he was seeing enough miracles in his ministry. He specifically cited the gift of tongues as lacking in missionary work as he felt missionaries should be frequently overcome with the spirit into uttering sermons.
Look at the three witnesses who saw the actual gold plates. All three of them left the church, and people make a big deal about how they never denied their testimonies of the gold plates. They may have believed perfectly that the gold plates and the Book of Mormon were from God, but that did not stop any of them from deciding that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet who needed to be replaces by themselves or somebody more in agreement with their ideas. It also did not stop them from signing false statements that Joseph Smith and the Mormons were in open rebellion to the state of Missouri.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how any of that indicates that witnessing miracles caused people to lose their faith.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I don't see how any of that indicates that witnessing miracles caused people to lose their faith.
You seemed to be saying that a miracle of sufficient magnitude would be a good mechanism for creating lasting faith in God. Or that regular manifestations of God's power would make the world more willing to believe in God. Is that wrong?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I have personal experience with people witnessing, and sometimes participating in powerful miracles and not believing.
Hobbes
Care to elaborate? Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seemed to be saying that a miracle of sufficient magnitude would be a good mechanism for creating lasting faith in God. Or that regular manifestations of God's power would make the world more willing to believe in God.
I believe that both of these things are absolutely true, and that believers are kidding themselves when they convince themselves otherwise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seemed to be saying that a miracle of sufficient magnitude would be a good mechanism for creating lasting faith in God. Or that regular manifestations of God's power would make the world more willing to believe in God.
I believe that both of these things are absolutely true, and that believers are kidding themselves when they convince themselves otherwise.
Well I believe both of those things are not true, and that the two stories I posted are good examples of how that method does not work. If we are to believe the story of Judas it seems that people who see alot of miracles either become stalwart supporters of the faith or become the vilest of sinners. With no spread in between.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seemed to be saying that a miracle of sufficient magnitude would be a good mechanism for creating lasting faith in God. Or that regular manifestations of God's power would make the world more willing to believe in God.
I believe that both of these things are absolutely true, and that believers are kidding themselves when they convince themselves otherwise.
Well I believe both of those things are not true, and that the two stories I posted are good examples of how that method does not work. If we are to believe the story of Judas it seems that people who see alot of miracles either become stalwart supporters of the faith or become the vilest of sinners. With no spread in between.
There is another possibility. Perhaps he was made to tell others that he had seen miracles when in fact he had not, and was tired of repeating what didn't happen.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I agree that miracles would make a person more likely to admit either the existence, or possibility of existance of a higher power, and I suppose that could be what was meant. However, at least to me, when I say that miracles don't engender faith I'm not talking about faith as an intellectual consent to the existance of God.
posted
*nod* I know what you mean by that, Hobbes. And I'm sympathetic to the argument, if not convinced by it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So how do you defend the idea that science simply has yet to explain some of the details concerning evolution? Is that not the same thing: faith?
So if science can't explain it all completely, the parts it can explain are thereby discredited and useless?
The theories of the creation of life, evolution, and natural selection are deduced from what we can observe and what we can test. Some of the theories extrapolate from those tests and guesses are made. Tests are based on those guesses; some fail, some succeed. Some succeed reliably enough to use as maxims which we can then use to make more guesses farther along into the areas we can't go and actually look at. Sometimes new evidence contradicts one of the earlier guesses in a way we couldn't see before, and all of the guesses made since get re-evaluated, resulting in stronger guesses. There is no certainty, which is what makes it open to new ideas and flexible enough to account for new discoveries.
Faith is believing in what cannot tested, cannot be proved or disproved. There is certainty, which makes it closed to new ideas and inflexible towards new discoveries.
There are certainly scientists, and religionists, that believe in some combination of science and religion. My wife is a Christian who accepts evolution with no trouble at all. And there are certainly scientists and religionists who see any doubt cast towards their beliefs as personal attacks and respond accordingly.
But science, as it should be performed, does not rely on faith.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My "bottom line" belief would not be altered if the miracles related in the gospels were proved to be of natural causes or even proved to have not happened.
quote:But science, as it should be performed, does not rely on faith.
Sure it does. At the least, we must have faith that our senses are reliable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't, actually. That's why we don't rely on a single test, and generally request that others duplicate findings as much as possible. Get as many senses verifying the theory as possible and the likelihood of it being accurate goes up.
Granted, we do have to have faith that we're not, say, dreaming or collectively hallucinating, but I don't think faith in whether your eyesight is dependable is the same as faith in a six-day creation. If our senses are in fact being manipulated by an unknowable source we might as well give up now.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure it does. At the least, we must have faith that our senses are reliable.
Much of science is dedicated to discerning truth despite the inadequacies of our senses. We can't necessarily be trusted to determine the weight of an object by holding it in our hands, but we can read the digits of a scale with reasonably consistency.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, in line with Chris's post, I'd consider our senses functioning as more of an assumption than faith. I just can't classify my faith in God as equivalent with various assumptions about, for example, just dreaming my whole life only to wake up and find out this universe doesn't exist. Faith for me isn't assumptive, I don't use the words interchangeably.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And I have found it a very rewarding course to follow.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
