Taking Science on Faith

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I think its pretty funny when people attempt to equate the use of science to religious faith. All they are trying to do is give their religious faith the same credibility as the scientific process. This is a pretty silly proposition. Religious faith is not based on logic. While scientific research is based on logic and subject to scrutiny by anyone, either it works or it doesn't. You can't test for existence of any god. All scientific discoveries can be tested in one way or another. Faith requires the you stop questioning. Science requires you to continue questioning.

This deserves the Nobel Prize!!! Science begs you to disprove them, religion dares you to. Religion is not only not based on logic, it is often downright illogical. This doesn't mean religion, any of them, are wrong, it just means that the process to believe things that are not scientifically testaable, empiracal, is illogical. But as they say, even a topped clock is right twice a day, so one of these religious dieties might be legitimate.

[maadmax 0]

Quote

I think its pretty funny when people attempt to equate the use of science to religious faith. All they are trying to do is give their religious faith the same credibility as the scientific process. This is a pretty silly proposition. Religious faith is not based on logic. While scientific research is based on logic and subject to scrutiny by anyone, either it works or it doesn't. You can't test for existence of any god. All scientific discoveries can be tested in one way or another. Faith requires the you stop questioning. Science requires you to continue questioning.

______________________________________________

Well, for the most part you did a good job repeating exactly what I just said, but in different words. Faith used by scientists to fill in the unknown holes of their theories is not equal to the faith one has in God. If it was God would have said " Believe in science and you shalt be saved." Sorry, but He didn't say that and neither did I. The bottom line is easy, if science is right it produces repeatable results and allows you to predict future results. If a spiritual truth is correct it also produces repeatable results and allows you to predict future consequences of similar actions with a high degree of accuracy. And I don't know about you but I question and examine my faith in science and spiritual matters on a daily basis.

[beowulf 1]

I don't know what you read but it doesn't sound like what I wrote.

Quote

Faith used by scientists to fill in the unknown holes of their theories is not equal to the faith one has in God.

Scientists do NOT take anything on FAITH. The unknown holes are just plain unknown. Theories are created to possibly explain those holes, but all they are are theories and must be tested and proven before they are accepted as fact. The scientific process is constantly being tested and revised.

How often do you question the existence of god? How often do you test god? There is nothing sacred in science. Everything is tested and challenged.

[Hausse 0]

That's like asking why 2+2=4

I mean why is 4 not 6?

[billvon 3,070]

>I mean why is 4 not 6?

I could demonstrate if you would kindly buy me a six pack of beer. Pyramid Hefeweizen would do nicely.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Spiritual enlightenment eh... What exactly is that?

For starters it is the absence of hate, anger, fear, greed, vindictiveness, dishonesty, lusts, envy, and self deification. If you valued spiritual development then you would know that humility, love, honesty, charity, reverence, peace, transparency, and joy are some of the characteristics manifested by those who do.

I find it rather insulting that you would tie (in a sort of non-committal language) the absence of the former characteristics and presence of the latter to what you are calling "spiritual development." Not insulting as an individual, mind you, but insulting as a member of the human race.

I've stated before on this forum, and still believe, that we are generally a bunch of imbeciles, but that doesn't mean we need a religion to be philanthropic.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Spiritual enlightenment eh... What exactly is that?

For starters it is the absence of hate, anger, fear, greed, vindictiveness, dishonesty, lusts, envy, and self deification. If you valued spiritual development then you would know that humility, love, honesty, charity, reverence, peace, transparency, and joy are some of the characteristics manifested by those who do.

Have you seen the shit people do in the name of God? You stand more chance of getting "spiritual enlightenment" (whatever that is) free in a breakfast cereal box.

[Royd 0]

Spiritual enlightenment eh... What exactly is that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For starters it is the absence of hate, anger, fear, greed, vindictiveness, dishonesty, lusts, envy, and self deification. If you valued spiritual development then you would know that humility, love, honesty, charity, reverence, peace, transparency, and joy are some of the characteristics manifested by those who do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Have you seen the shit people do in the name of God? You stand more chance of getting "spiritual enlightenment" (whatever that is) free in a breakfast cereal box.

I would say that more people have been killed in the 20th century by regimes who claim that there is no god than by all religions put together.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I would say that more people have been killed in the 20th century by regimes who claim that there is no god than by all religions put together.

And I would like to say bollocks.

So I will. Bollocks.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I would say that more people have been killed in the 20th century by regimes who claim that there is no god than by all religions put together.

Perhaps ... yes -The Soviets & Maoist China come to mind first, of course.
Perhaps ... no.

Matt White's calculated a total:
"92M deaths by Communism" [includes deaths from Vietnam & Korean Wars]
"96M deaths by non-Communism"
Graphical Analysis

Milton Leitenburg's (who is this fabulously crochety guy who is a stickler for data at U Maryland CISSM) monograph Death and Conflicts in the 20th Century estimated:
~36-90M Soviets & Chinese
~126.6-148.6M deaths, non-Communists

Do you have other references or calculations in mind?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

In doing so it treads on the toes of science, and does so incredibly badly.

only for fundies. Catholics & many mainstream protestants don't use the Bible as a science textbook.

Agreed. It is mostly lunatic fringe that interpret the Bible literally.

And the science-is-just-another-faith crowd are just people who know little to nothing about the history of science or science methodology.

The problem lies in the fact that a few fanatics and ignorants often make so much noise that they can carry the day, catching the more informed and typically more reserved mainstream off guard.

The lesson is that if you care about this stuff, you gotta make some noise and call the bullshit what it is instead of being nice, and friendly and polite and a candyass.

I threw in candyass on the end there just to step out of character, you know - take a walk on the wild side. Not aimed at any individual.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Have you seen the shit people do in the name of God? You stand more chance of getting "spiritual enlightenment" (whatever that is) free in a breakfast cereal box.

I got some in my Cracker Jack at the basketball game the other night. In the form of a bunch of peanuts that wreaked havoc on my next poop. I think poop will be my Word For The Day.

I was explaining to my daughters last night that they should NOT let the dog lick their face. He eats poop! So then my wife parrots some BS factoid somebody laid on her about how dogs mouths have fewer germs than people. I asked how that helped with the poop smeared on the dogs lips and nose, or the soiled cat litter hanging on his chin and whiskers. (He digs cat poop out of the litter box for a regular snack). And she wonders why his farts are so God-awful?

Did I stray too much on that one?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

For starters it is the absence of hate, anger, fear, greed, vindictiveness, dishonesty, lusts, envy, and self deification. If you valued spiritual development then you would know that humility, love, honesty, charity, reverence, peace, transparency, and joy are some of the characteristics manifested by those who do.

And by those who don't.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

The problem lies in the fact that a few fanatics and ignorants often make so much noise that they can carry the day, catching the more informed and typically more reserved mainstream off guard.

Exactly. I learned a long time ago that to further an agenda it doesn't matter how right or smart or awesome you really are, that's not what counts. What counts is how right and smart and awesome you can make people think you are. Hollywood credibility - the illusion of competence - people think if it looks good, it is good and it works beacuse most people are too damned lazy to check.

[maadmax 0]

[
I find it rather insulting that you would tie (in a sort of non-committal language) the absence of the former characteristics and presence of the latter to what you are calling "spiritual development." Not insulting as an individual, mind you, but insulting as a member of the human race.

___________________________________________

Interesting, would you care to elaborate?

[DannHuff 0]

Quote

the Bible is worthless as evidence for the Christian God.

The evidence for me is the power behind the words in the Bible changed my life. But this is not science.....

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Quote

the Bible is worthless as evidence for the Christian God.

The evidence for me is the power behind the words in the Bible changed my life. But this is not science.....

Their are people who can say the exact same thing about every single religious/astrological/hypnotic/crystal healing/I Ching/ghost talking/witchcraft/mystic/insert current pseudo-psychobabble here book that's ever hit the shelves. It doesn't make any of them true.

So you're very right, faith is not science.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

the Bible is worthless as evidence for the Christian God.

The evidence for me is the power behind the words in the Bible changed my life. But this is not science.....

I was going to say "You're right! It's not science; it's pure faith!"

But I'll qualify it: it's "sort of science", to the limited extent that religious belief can aid a person's psychological state of mind, or persuade a person to pursue a lifestyle that he finds personally fulfilling. But in this context, it's in the same category as psychotherapy, or membership in a community service club, or engaging in a fulfilling hobby, or meeting the love of your life. But that's not evidence that the Bible is the word of God; it's just evidence that you find it to be personally fulfilling.

[maadmax 0]

The evidence for me is the power behind the words in the Bible changed my life. But this is not science.....

[beowulf 1]

There currently is no evidence of anything other then a decomposing corpse. As far as anyone can tell there is no life after death. How is that faith?

[Lefty 0]

Quote

There currently is no evidence of anything other then a decomposing corpse. As far as anyone can tell there is no life after death. How is that faith?

I think you answered your own question.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[beowulf 1]

The only available conclusion is nothing, since there is no evidence of anything.

[maadmax 0]

Quote

The only available conclusion is nothing, since there is no evidence of anything.

_______________________________________

How can you be so close minded when so little is know about the universe we find ourselves in? 95% of the energy and matter is still yet to be identified. There is the possibility of other dimensions predicted in the string theory. Who knows how the Large Hadron Collider and the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope , coming on line in 2008, will rewrite physics as some
predict. These are just a few examples of the many gaping unknowns in the physical sciences. The essence of life, self consciousness, and the soul are still total mysteries.


.
.

[JackC 0]

Quote

How can you be so close minded when so little is know about the universe we find ourselves in?

Easy, we're open minded just not so open minded that our brains fell out. No evidence... no belief.

Quote

95% of the energy and matter is still yet to be identified.

Since it is unidentified, how did you come up with that number?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The evidence for me is the power behind the words in the Bible changed my life. But this is not science.....

I was going to say "You're right! It's not science; it's pure faith!"

___________________________________________

What I find interesting is how the atheists among us can use the limited state of scientific knowledge currently available to construct a reality based solely on faith. What lies beyond death is anybodies guess. To say "nothing" is unsupportable and requires pure faith.

Quote

Utter nonsense. That kind of circular, self-enabling argument can be applied to any conceivable fantasy. "How do you know the Dalai Lama is not the reincarnation of Genghis Khan's pet cat? Millions of people believe it, but you say No. Well, you can't support that statement, so it requires pure faith."

Once again, the word "faith" is being mis-used by being turned on its head.

Actually, what happens to a person after death is not "anybody's guess"; it's understood pretty well -it shuts down, and unless it's very well preserved in some fashion, its tissues physically degrade. And there's a basic understanding of the correlation of consciousness with neural activity of the brain; and when the brain shuts down and degrades, the neural activity and its electrical impulses eventually cease. The conclusion that there is "nothing beyond that" is not faith, it is an extrapolation from knowledge and evidence.

Let's not play games with the word "evidence", either. Science begins with a foundation of evidence which leads to a conclusion. Faith generally begins with a conclusion, and accepts it without evidence. But the definition of "evidence" can be massaged, too. A million years ago, a kid was knocked cold when attacked by a wooly mammoth. Everyone tought he was dead. The tribal chief sneezed, and just then the kid regained consciousness. From this "evidence" everyone presumed that the chief's sneez brought the kid back to life, and pretty soon the tribe developed a spiritual belief that the chief's sneezes have healing power, and this belief was passed on to later generations. But that faith isn't really based on genuine "evidence", even though one might use the word.

You want to have spiritual faith? By all means, do so. But call it what it is, and stop trying to rationalize that it is what it is not.

You want to maintain circular, self-fulfilling arguments playing semantic games with the words "belief", or "faith" or "evidence", or "theory" ("Why do you think they call evolution a 'theory' ?"), knock yourself out. It's a great intellectual excercise for an undergrad - in philosphy class, in the debate club - to craft an argument "demonstrating" that a horse is really a cow (even though it's really a horse). But for real-world applications, I just don't have the patience to engage the argument anymore.