PDA

View Full Version : Is science a religion?



dfz111
04-15-2004, 01:01 AM
Just interested on your thoughts. I think the whole hearted belief in science is a religion, the knowledge of science is miniscule compared to what we are yet to learn , and even the things we don't even know we have to learn about.

The.Giant
04-15-2004, 03:50 AM
Simple answer...NO.

Science is based upon fact and proof.

Religion is built upon beliefs.

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by dfz111
Just interested on your thoughts. I think the whole hearted belief in science is a religion, the knowledge of science is miniscule compared to what we are yet to learn , and even the things we don't even know we have to learn about.

For some it is. Science doesn't explain everything, many unproven theories abound. People who believe in the totality of science exclusively, to the extent that it precludes the possibility of any higher power, worship science as a deity. It is what they believe in, it is their theology.

bts327
04-15-2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by dfz111
Just interested on your thoughts. I think the whole hearted belief in science is a religion, the knowledge of science is miniscule compared to what we are yet to learn , and even the things we don't even know we have to learn about.


Good question.

I think that a lot of scientific theory is based upon nothing more than faith, belief. Same as religion. Just because you prove something to be "true" doesnt mean that what you proved it to be is true. All it means is that you have proved it to be what you expect, believe, or can directly observe with the limited capicity of the human mind, to be true. Kind of like the "fact" that 1+1=2 has a very strong possibility of occurrence, but who is to say that if you carried out this equation enough times that it would always remain the same?

You can easily prove something to be true if you have created the system upon which that truth rests.

Jcfreak_02
04-15-2004, 09:14 AM
It can be. Pure science as... I don't know when in history it was pure science, is simply the cumulation of facts and data from those facts. When data is presented to change the prior known facts the knowledge is changed. Today, I think the scientific theory that is probobly the one that will come up (evolution) I do not think it has been science as it should be. Today, many scientists believe the science that was previously shown to have evidence and hold that as a belief, and essentially turn it into a religion. People have to believe certain things about science, I understand the mathematic principles of carbon dating, but recently I have actually seen some of the arguements about why carbon dating is inaccurate and how it has had problems since the procedure has been made, yet people put faith in the results that carbon dating provides and in some ways believe it like a religion.

fkarcha
04-15-2004, 09:56 AM
Rarely is there a simple answer. Fortunately there is a simple answer for this. No, science is not a religion.

15u
04-15-2004, 10:14 AM
science = facts
religion = beliefs

Jcfreak_02
04-15-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by 15u
science = facts
religion = beliefs That implies that there are not facts to back up a religion's validity. I don't know about eveyone else, but I am certain that the historical reliability of the Bible has been proven through history. Also, does that mean the scientists only speak on facts? If so, why did I have to go to a creationist source to learn that there are problems with carbon dating? Why must I go to bible based organizations to find facts that do not support what "science" has found to be true in the past. There is not supposed to be any problem with scientific data correcting itself or making new theories and conclusions. There is a problem when scientists want to insist that their mode of thinking was the correct one and is the right one, that is the thinking of a religous minded person, not a scientist.

uhhduh
04-15-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
I am certain that the historical reliability of the Bible has been proven through history.

You shouldn't be so certain :(


Also, does that mean the scientists only speak on facts? If so, why did I have to go to a creationist source to learn that there are problems with carbon dating?

Perhaps because there aren't? :rolleyes:

I'm not saying there aren't. If I see enough facts to prove there are problems, then I'd believe that. But I don't consider a creationist source unbiased. Also, how do these amazing "creationists" explain the problems in creation? :rolleyes:

Ragnarok
04-15-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
That implies that there are not facts to back up a religion's validity. I don't know about eveyone else, but I am certain that the historical reliability of the Bible has been proven through history. Also, does that mean the scientists only speak on facts? If so, why did I have to go to a creationist source to learn that there are problems with carbon dating? Why must I go to bible based organizations to find facts that do not support what "science" has found to be true in the past. There is not supposed to be any problem with scientific data correcting itself or making new theories and conclusions. There is a problem when scientists want to insist that their mode of thinking was the correct one and is the right one, that is the thinking of a religous minded person, not a scientist.

Tell me what proof you have of the Bible's historical accuracy? I do not know of any way of proving anything in the bible. We have no verifiable artifacts, or any physical evidency of anything. I remember searches for Noah's Ark (never found), the fake Shroud of Turin, and so forth.

Science and religion to not mix. Science can only study that which can be measured. Bible organizations can make up whatever they want. Miracles here and there, mysticism. What facts have Bible organizations proven, that conflict with scientific data?

And why is there such a rift between the creationists and the evolutionists? Is it not possible to say that God created the world through evolution? The bible clearly states that in the Heavens, time has no meaning. "1,000 years pass as one day, and one day as 1,000 years". So, when God created the world, could he not have done do through evolution.

Also, I find it quite comical that and bible associations I have heard from neglect the verifiable fact of dinosaurs, which are not mentioned anywhere in the bible, or preached about in creationism. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of dinosaurs, human-like apes, or the evolution of man from earlier ape-like forms. How are you going to argue with that?

God created Adam and Eve, but what about the dinosaurs? After they were turned out of the garden, would they not have been instantly consumed by the dinosaurs?

If the ENTIRE world had really been flooded by God for 40 days and 40 nights, it seems to me that archeologists would find a distinct layer of fairly evenly distributed bodies strewn throughout the world.

Go ahead and have your faith, but please realize that the Bible itself is not a Holy Book, nor is it a historical account of anything. It's simply a collection of stories to teach the principles of the Christian Religion.

BuckWyld
04-15-2004, 02:39 PM
science is not a religion. science is modeling the universe through the best explanation you have at the time, when something is proven to be wrong it is replace with a better answer.

religion is based on blind belief.

when I get sick I know where I look for a cure

CerealKiller
04-15-2004, 02:41 PM
No, science isn't a religion.

Science is a tool we use in an attempt to get at the truth and explain phenomena and tries to conform to rules of evidence. It doesn't demand acceptance without question.

Religion is a set of beliefs, values and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. It demands acceptance without question.

Neither is absolute.

LordNeon
04-15-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
That implies that there are not facts to back up a religion's validity. I don't know about eveyone else, but I am certain that the historical reliability of the
Bible has been proven through history.


Not quite. There is evidence that Biblical accounts may indeed be based on actual events. That's not proof that the Biblical interpretation of them is entirely correct, though.



Also, does that mean the scientists only speak on facts? If so, why did I have to go to a creationist source to learn that there are problems with carbon dating? Why must I go to bible based organizations to find facts that do not support what "science" has found to be true in the past. There is not supposed to be any problem with scientific data correcting itself or making new theories and conclusions. There is a problem when scientists want to insist that their mode of thinking was the correct one and is the right one, that is the thinking of a religous minded person, not a scientist.

Well, the reason you have to go to creationist organizations to find these issues is because, frankly, they're often not really issues. A lot of what creationists claim as evidence against evolution is pure nonsense, like the one about the amount of dust on the moon. The few issues that are brought up that have some basis are certainly grounds for more scientific investigation, but don't represent arguments against evolution.

If evolution, or our understanding of it, could be proven to be lacking with solid evidence, science would accept that. But simply pointing at problems with the current understanding doesn't undermine the theory. If anything, it only indicates it is not perfectly understood with regards to every detail, which I don't think any scientist would claim it is.

CerealKiller
04-15-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
[B]Not quite. There is evidence that Biblical accounts may indeed be based on actual events. That's not proof that the Biblical interpretation of them is entirely correct, though.



B]

Exactly. There is a historical component as well as a theological component to the bible.

LordNeon
04-15-2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by bts327
Good question.

I think that a lot of scientific theory is based upon nothing more than faith, belief. Same as religion. Just because you prove something to be "true" doesnt mean that what you proved it to be is true. All it means is that you have proved it to be what you expect, believe, or can directly observe with the limited capicity of the human mind, to be true. Kind of like the "fact" that 1+1=2 has a very strong possibility of occurrence, but who is to say that if you carried out this equation enough times that it would always remain the same?


Well, obviously there's a lot of things we have to assume about our world and enviornment every day that may not be true, but are still useful. One of those assumptions is that observations of the past can say something about observations in the future. It may not be fully "true" by some definition, but the fact that, say, putting your fingers in the electric socket hurt like hell the last several times usually proves to be enough to say you shouldn't do it again.

I mean, if you couldn't accept that general idea, you'd never be able to get out of bed in the morning.

bts327
04-15-2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Well, obviously there's a lot of things we have to assume about our world and enviornment every day that may not be true, but are still useful. One of those assumptions is that observations of the past can say something about observations in the future. It may not be fully "true" by some definition, but the fact that, say, putting your fingers in the electric socket hurt like hell the last several times usually proves to be enough to say you shouldn't do it again.

I mean, if you couldn't accept that general idea, you'd never be able to get out of bed in the morning.


Well like I said I think that a lot of science is similar to religion, but not all of science. Certainly there are scientific tools and assumptions which are very useful, like what you have illustrated. I was mainly talking about big things like the big bang and such and arguing that even the simplest equation takes a certain amount of faith, as does the idea that keeping your hand away from the electrical socket will ensure that you wont be shocked.

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Ragnarok
Tell me what proof you have of the Bible's historical accuracy? I do not know of any way of proving anything in the bible. We have no verifiable artifacts, or any physical evidency of anything. I remember searches for Noah's Ark (never found), the fake Shroud of Turin, and so forth.

Science and religion to not mix. Science can only study that which can be measured. Bible organizations can make up whatever they want. Miracles here and there, mysticism. What facts have Bible organizations proven, that conflict with scientific data?

And why is there such a rift between the creationists and the evolutionists? Is it not possible to say that God created the world through evolution? The bible clearly states that in the Heavens, time has no meaning. "1,000 years pass as one day, and one day as 1,000 years". So, when God created the world, could he not have done do through evolution.

Also, I find it quite comical that and bible associations I have heard from neglect the verifiable fact of dinosaurs, which are not mentioned anywhere in the bible, or preached about in creationism. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of dinosaurs, human-like apes, or the evolution of man from earlier ape-like forms. How are you going to argue with that?

God created Adam and Eve, but what about the dinosaurs? After they were turned out of the garden, would they not have been instantly consumed by the dinosaurs?

If the ENTIRE world had really been flooded by God for 40 days and 40 nights, it seems to me that archeologists would find a distinct layer of fairly evenly distributed bodies strewn throughout the world.

Go ahead and have your faith, but please realize that the Bible itself is not a Holy Book, nor is it a historical account of anything. It's simply a collection of stories to teach the principles of the Christian Religion.

God created animals before man. Scientific theory places dinosaurs on the Earth before man. And there is archeological evidence of an ancient worldwide flood.

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by 15u
science = facts
religion = beliefs

Science is the search for facts. Theories abound to be proven or disproven.

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
science is not a religion. science is modeling the universe through the best explanation you have at the time, when something is proven to be wrong it is replace with a better answer.

religion is based on blind belief.

when I get sick I know where I look for a cure

And what of the personal experiences people have with God. Of feeling his presence, answered prayer, insights, etc.?

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
No, science isn't a religion.

Science is a tool we use in an attempt to get at the truth and explain phenomena and tries to conform to rules of evidence. It doesn't demand acceptance without question.

Religion is a set of beliefs, values and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. It demands acceptance without question.

Neither is absolute.

If you place your faith in science to explain how life and the universe began, when science has only theory on these issues, not fact, yet you believe anyway, isn't that religion?

Jef-El
04-15-2004, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
God created animals before man. Scientific theory places dinosaurs on the Earth before man. And there is archeological evidence of an ancient worldwide flood.

A little off topic but...

A world wide flood is impossible. There isnt enough water to completely cover all of the land.

CerealKiller
04-15-2004, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
If you place your faith in science to explain how life and the universe began, when science has only theory on these issues, not fact, yet you believe anyway, isn't that religion?

No.

Science is not based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Faith in anything is merely a guess or estimate that something is correct. The only thing faith has to do with religion is that many religious people have adopted it as their mantra.

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Jef-El
A little off topic but...

A world wide flood is impossible. There isnt enough water to completely cover all of the land.

Not off topic, very relevent. How much water is there then, contained in the polar caps, oceans, and suspended in the air?

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
No.

Science is not based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Faith in anything is merely a guess or estimate that something is correct. The only thing faith has to do with religion is that many religious people have adopted it as their mantra.

Science could be based on the teachings of several religious leaders, top scientists, if one views science as a possible faith for some. I guess it's really about where you place science in your personal hierarchy of what you believe and why.

M_D
04-15-2004, 08:04 PM
I agree that there is faith in science, but not to the same degree as religion (which is built on faith). The faith in science is in it's principles and tools, that these principles and tools are actually discovering things that are really there, and where just not merely constructing them through some clever formulas and theorums.

Jef-El
04-15-2004, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
Not off topic, very relevent. How much water is there then, contained in the polar caps, oceans, and suspended in the air?


I wish i could find the literature about it, I saw in on a documentary on the discovery channel.

The amount of water needed to flood the Earths highest mountains would have to be enough to cover Mt. Everest at 29,000 plus feet or over 5 miles higher than present sea level. If Earth had been covered over 5 miles or 8 Km deep it would require 980 million cubic miles of water or 2.55 billion cubic kilometres of water. That water would have to be obtained and then carted away somehow. There are no empty spaces within the Earth for all of that water

Section 8
04-15-2004, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by 15u
science = facts
religion = beliefs

In other words, "I have no idea what I'm talking about."

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Jef-El
I wish i could find the literature about it, I saw in on a documentary on the discovery channel.

The amount of water needed to flood the Earths highest mountains would have to be enough to cover Mt. Everest at 29,000 plus feet or over 5 miles higher than present sea level. If Earth had been covered over 5 miles or 8 Km deep it would require 980 million cubic miles of water or 2.55 billion cubic kilometres of water. That water would have to be obtained and then carted away somehow. There are no empty spaces within the Earth for all of that water

The Biblical flood was caused by God, a supernatural occurence to destroy the Earth. He would be the cause and then the solution to carry the excess water away. I wonder how deep the water would have to have been to merely destroy life on Earth, as life doesn't naturally exist at 29,000 feet. It is a very interesting point you've brought up.

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
In other words, "I have no idea what I'm talking about."

That would depend on which topic you're discussing.

Jef-El
04-15-2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
The Biblical flood was caused by God, a supernatural occurence to destroy the Earth. He would be the cause and then the solution to carry the excess water away. I wonder how deep the water would have to have been to merely destroy life on Earth, as life doesn't naturally exist at 29,000 feet. It is a very interesting point you've brought up.


I was raised Christian, but i have always questioned my religion.
I currently consider myself Agnostic, because I believe in God, and Kharma etc.. other things.

I just think its really simple for some people to throw a book/or books together and say you should believe in it.

To cover up any mistakes you are told to follow it blindly.
Then when something bad happens to someone, god is 'testing' them.

Believing all this means that you must drown out any tangible proof that contradicts the bible, and claim 'i have faith' or 'faith is all i need' or it says to in the bible.

Heavily Armed
04-15-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Jef-El
I was raised Christian, but i have always questioned my religion.
I currently consider myself Agnostic, because I believe in God, and Kharma etc.. other things.

I just think its really simple for some people to throw a book/or books together and say you should believe in it.

To cover up any mistakes you are told to follow it blindly.
Then when something bad happens to someone, god is 'testing' them.

Believing all this means that you must drown out any tangible proof that contradicts the bible, and claim 'i have faith' or 'faith is all i need' or it says to in the bible.

I have found the experiences of my life to be more than random coincidence. I too have questioned, but found answers. "God causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust." Continue to search. I pray that you find the answers.

Davesta
04-16-2004, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by M_D
I agree that there is faith in science, but not to the same degree as religion (which is built on faith). The faith in science is in it's principles and tools, that these principles and tools are actually discovering things that are really there, and where just not merely constructing them through some clever formulas and theorums.

Can you really have different degrees of faith?

Faith in science lies in the validity of an inductive argument and the accuracy of fictional theories. This isn't far removed from the faith that is involved in religion - faith in writings claimed to be conveyed by God.

Ragnarok
04-16-2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Jef-El
I was raised Christian, but i have always questioned my religion.
I currently consider myself Agnostic, because I believe in God, and Kharma etc.. other things.

I just think its really simple for some people to throw a book/or books together and say you should believe in it.

To cover up any mistakes you are told to follow it blindly.
Then when something bad happens to someone, god is 'testing' them.

Believing all this means that you must drown out any tangible proof that contradicts the bible, and claim 'i have faith' or 'faith is all i need' or it says to in the bible.

I am in the same situation. Raised a Christian, but I cannot reconcile the faith with my true believes about what is God, and what is propoganda written by the church. I do not dismiss any other religion, so on and so forth.

Ragnarok
04-16-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
God created animals before man. Scientific theory places dinosaurs on the Earth before man. And there is archeological evidence of an ancient worldwide flood.

Never though of it that way. Animals before man. So this still does not answer my question of "Why the rift". I believe that God has chosen to abide by the physical laws of this universe, therefore if you choose to believe in acts of God, those acts must not break the physical laws of the universe.

Therefore it would make sense to say that God created the Earth through evolution. I don't understand why there is a necessity of Science vs. Religion.

I would appreciate any reference you have on evidency of a worldwide flood, as I have researched and found none. There is a post earlier before this, that talks about how much water would be required (A read an article similar to that).

Now, it seems that all evidence points to the fact that God has chosen to limit himself to work within the physical laws of the universe, and therefore a worldwide flood would be impossible.

Is it possible that all of Israel was flooded? Yes. Is it possible that Israel and surrounding areas that could be seen were thought to be "the entire world", yes. I could see a major flood being a viable event in Israel, and that this was mis-interpreted as "the world".

Let's face it, the bible was assembled by the church and its various followers, and we have NO verifiable evidence of any of the events of the bible. We have no evidence of the wine-into-water, curing of the blind, or the feeding of the 5,000.

Heavily Armed
04-16-2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Ragnarok
Never though of it that way. Animals before man. So this still does not answer my question of "Why the rift". I believe that God has chosen to abide by the physical laws of this universe, therefore if you choose to believe in acts of God, those acts must not break the physical laws of the universe.

Therefore it would make sense to say that God created the Earth through evolution. I don't understand why there is a necessity of Science vs. Religion.

I would appreciate any reference you have on evidency of a worldwide flood, as I have researched and found none. There is a post earlier before this, that talks about how much water would be required (A read an article similar to that).

Now, it seems that all evidence points to the fact that God has chosen to limit himself to work within the physical laws of the universe, and therefore a worldwide flood would be impossible. More later. I've got an out-of town softball tournament awaiting me.

Is it possible that all of Israel was flooded? Yes. Is it possible that Israel and surrounding areas that could be seen were thought to be "the entire world", yes. I could see a major flood being a viable event in Israel, and that this was mis-interpreted as "the world".

Let's face it, the bible was assembled by the church and its various followers, and we have NO verifiable evidence of any of the events of the bible. We have no evidence of the wine-into-water, curing of the blind, or the feeding of the 5,000.

The Bible has many supernatural acts of God chronicled, which would seem to go outside the physical laws of the universe, which He created. I don't know what evidence there could be of curing the blind, feeding of the 5000, etc. that could be shown, since no eye-witness is alive today. The written accounts are as close as we can get. I was watching something awhile back on the history or discovery channel, I was surfing through. Anyway, some archeologists were excavating in a desert region and were talking about evidence of an ancient flood. They stated, without Biblical reference, that this evidence had been found in other parts of the world. I of course, thought of the flood in Noah's day. Sorry I can't be more specific. I was visiting my in-laws, they have cable tv, I don't.

One could reasonably expect that a sovereign God could get us an accurate Bible despite the meddling and prejudices of men. Otherwise, how could we know Him?

Jef-El
04-16-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
I was watching something awhile back on the history or discovery channel, I was surfing through. Anyway, some archeologists were excavating in a desert region and were talking about evidence of an ancient flood. They stated, without Biblical reference, that this evidence had been found in other parts of the world. I of course, thought of the flood in Noah's day. Sorry I can't be more specific. I was visiting my in-laws, they have cable tv, I don't.

Couldnt fossiles etc. be spread throught the planet via plate movements? I can believe that most of the world, at one point or another has been underwater, at seperate times.

irpker
04-16-2004, 10:21 PM
Science, no not really. No explicit religious doctrine.

However, Scientology, oh ya!

bts327
04-16-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
I was watching something awhile back on the history or discovery channel, I was surfing through. Anyway, some archeologists were excavating in a desert region and were talking about evidence of an ancient flood. They stated, without Biblical reference, that this evidence had been found in other parts of the world. I of course, thought of the flood in Noah's day. Sorry I can't be more specific. I was visiting my in-laws, they have cable tv, I don't.

I saw something similar back in the day when I had cable. The scientists had an idea that a huge flood had occured at one specific place which was at that time the center of civilization. I cant remember the region. But at that time the survivors considered it to be a flood that wiped out the entire world as they knew it, which only happened to be a fairly small region. They wrote of this and eventually the story turned into what we now know as the great biblical flood. I know there are many of you who actually take the bible literaly, Im just trying to offer up another view point.

Section 8
04-16-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
One could reasonably expect that a sovereign God could get us an accurate Bible despite the meddling and prejudices of men. Otherwise, how could we know Him?

Arguments such as that which I have emphasized above simply baffle me.

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
...
...
And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had to do in sight of the beast ..."

Revelations 13:11,14

Why do you think that God gave you a brain? So that you can reprimand yourself for its purported weaknesses, or so that you can be free from belief -- from assenting to every crackhead with whom you happen to agree?

Here's a better question for you:

God is everywhere, and everything that exists does so by his design. Why would he need a book to demonstrate his existence? Or, a better question: why would he intend for our intellectual capacities only to deceive us? Why do I always seem to be the only person who doesn't believe God capable of imperfection? Perhaps, the self-esteem of society, as a whole, is simply so deplorable that most people are unwilling to acknowledge that in order to find, one first must seek -- and that the only logical purpose for the immense capacities of the human mind is to serve as a compass for the journey.

dfz111
04-17-2004, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by Section 8

God is everywhere, and everything that exists does so by his design. Why would he need a book to demonstrate his existence? Or, a better question: why would he intend for our intellectual capacities only to deceive us?

Think about it if you were a creator wouldn't you want your creations to willingly love you?

uhhduh
04-17-2004, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
God created animals before man.


The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden...The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him." And the Lord God formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky

The Kurgan
04-17-2004, 06:07 AM
2+2=4. If that is accepted, all else follows. Religion teaches that 2+2=5 if that benefits the beliefs of that Religion.

In science, nothing can be truly accepted until it is proven.

In Religion, the emphasis shifts to beliefs of the individual.

No true scientist would ever rule out an all powerful deity, but a believer would rule out a theory if it interfered with the beliefs of that person and their religion.

bts327
04-17-2004, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Section 8


Why do you think that God gave you a brain? So that you can reprimand yourself for its purported weaknesses, or so that you can be free from belief -- from assenting to every crackhead with whom you happen to agree?

Here's a better question for you:

God is everywhere, and everything that exists does so by his design. Why would he need a book to demonstrate his existence? Or, a better question: why would he intend for our intellectual capacities only to deceive us? Why do I always seem to be the only person who doesn't believe God capable of imperfection? Perhaps, the self-esteem of society, as a whole, is simply so deplorable that most people are unwilling to acknowledge that in order to find, one first must seek -- and that the only logical purpose for the immense capacities of the human mind is to serve as a compass for the journey.

Good stuff.

Its always(well for quite some time) been apparent to me that in order to find something you must first dispell all that you think you know about what that something is. Otherwise you will only ever find what you have projected that something to be, and this cannot be the actual thing. How do you think one should seek? Through the ideas and words of others, or through thought of ones own? Wont those thoughts be somewhat based upon learned ideas and parameters, making them equally useless?

Or, should one seek through non-judgemental experience? Through living life without bias? If this is even possible.

I only ask because you stated that one option for the use of the mind is to be free of belief. To be free of belief, to me, is the only logical way to find something in its truest form. If you seek with belief as a reference then the filtering action of belief will only ever allow you find what you wish to be true.

How then does one seek something without first believing in the object to be sought?

This question leads me to think that in order to find something like "god" you must not attempt to seek because the belief that inspired you to seek is the very same one which will keep you from finding what you seek. So then, something like "god", or whatever word is applied to catalog and to compare and to communicate, can only materilize when the mind is completely free of belief and completely free of seeking.

I bring this up not to argue, but because I would like your opinion.

Comments Section 8?

egon
04-17-2004, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by The Kurgan
In science, nothing can be truly accepted until it is proven.


there goes the theory of evolution

Section 8
04-17-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by bts327
Good stuff.

Its always(well for quite some time) been apparent to me that in order to find something you must first dispell all that you think you know about what that something is. Otherwise you will only ever find what you have projected that something to be, and this cannot be the actual thing. How do you think one should seek? Through the ideas and words of others, or through thought of ones own? Wont those thoughts be somewhat based upon learned ideas and parameters, making them equally useless?

Or, should one seek through non-judgemental experience? Through living life without bias? If this is even possible.

I only ask because you stated that one option for the use of the mind is to be free of belief. To be free of belief, to me, is the only logical way to find something in its truest form. If you seek with belief as a reference then the filtering action of belief will only ever allow you find what you wish to be true.

How then does one seek something without first believing in the object to be sought?

This question leads me to think that in order to find something like "god" you must not attempt to seek because the belief that inspired you to seek is the very same one which will keep you from finding what you seek. So then, something like "god", or whatever word is applied to catalog and to compare and to communicate, can only materilize when the mind is completely free of belief and completely free of seeking.

I bring this up not to argue, but because I would like your opinion.

Comments Section 8?

Many.

It has been my experience that, in most cases, religion leads its adherents astray. What most fail to realize, is that propositions (any statement about a fact) are never absolutely true; they can only be analytically true. Accordingly, the benefit of any given piece of writing is dependent entirely upon the readers' latent clarity of perception. In retrospect (after coming to understand many things for myself), it occurred to me that everything which has been attributed to Christ is indisputably factual, in the absolute sense. Nobody alive today can actually know whether or not such a person ever did exist; however, I feel that those who quarrel over such things have missed the point; fact is fact, and that is not something which is relative to anything.

In so far as I have seen, Ludwig Wittgenstein stated the matter most eloquently:


Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 6.54, 7.
My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them -- as steps -- to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

(7) Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must consign to silence.

True perception is not something that one can "will" upon oneself; it is something that must be nurtured. Any attempt to "dispell all that you think that you know" -- to start from scratch, so to speak -- is misguided by design. What is most important to keep in mind, is that language is an epistemic device: its purpose is to guide actions, not to create facts.

In the case of texts such as the Bible, the purpose is not to validate God, but to provide one with a way to actualize themselves via the will of God. The greatest error of the Christians, has been their erroneous assumption that they necessarily understand the meaning of the text in the same sense as by those for whom the text was originally intended to be read -- over 2000 years ago.

The world is all that is absolute; the best place to start looking for truth is to analyze the syntax, semantics, and grammar, by which they describe the world. Aside from that, I'm not really sure what more I am capable of saying on the matter. My experience has been that finding God is the easiest part; figuring out how one ought to live, in light of that recognition, is a much more difficult thing to accomplish.

bts327
04-17-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
True perception is not something that one can "will" upon oneself; it is something that must be nurtured. Any attempt to "dispell all that you think that you know" -- to start from scratch, so to speak -- is misguided by design. What is most important to keep in mind, is that language is an epistemic device: its purpose is to guide actions, not to create facts.

Very true indeed. I did not mean that one would be able to "start from scratch" based upon decision or through the power of will. It is true that this("true perception") is something to be reached through action, or "nurtured", rather than idea. To me, idea is something that will get in the way of the ability to nurture truth, because once you see truth you will immediately attempt to judge or to categorize it. This, to me, keeps one from the truth by masking it with the notions that one chooses to see based upon their belief about that respective truth.


Originally posted by Section 8
In the case of texts such as the Bible, the purpose is not to validate God, but to provide one with a way to actualize themselves via the will of God. The greatest error of the Christians, has been their erroneous assumption that they necessarily understand the meaning of the text in the same sense as by those for whom the text was originally intended to be read -- over 2000 years ago.

The world is all that is absolute; the best place to start looking for truth is to analyze the syntax, semantics, and grammar, by which they describe the world. Aside from that, I'm not really sure what more I am capable of saying on the matter. My experience has been that finding God is the easiest part; figuring out how one ought to live, in light of that recognition, is a much more difficult thing to accomplish.

Yes, language is a very curious phenomenon indeed. Without it we would certainly be in a different situation. If no one had spoken the words, "airplane" or "skyscraper" then these things would not exist. It is interesting how we go about shaping and creating our own reality through the words that we speak.

If you mean by the word "god" the same thing as I mean by the word "truth", then yes this can fairly easily be recognized with the right pair of bifocals, as it is something that can be observed all around us in our daily lives. Like you, dealing with this truth is very, very challenging for me, almost to the point of impossibility.

But, like they say, "truth is poison to the ignorant". Or something like that anyway. I myself am a very ignorant individual indeed. The fact that I am able to recognize this I suppose signals that there may be hope for me yet. So its cool.

Heavily Armed
04-18-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Jef-El
Couldnt fossiles etc. be spread throught the planet via plate movements? I can believe that most of the world, at one point or another has been underwater, at seperate times.

I think most, if not all, of the plate movement "mixing" would occur at the edge of the plates, not uniformly across the plates.

Heavily Armed
04-18-2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
Arguments such as that which I have emphasized above simply baffle me.

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
...
...
And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had to do in sight of the beast ..."

Revelations 13:11,14

Why do you think that God gave you a brain? So that you can reprimand yourself for its purported weaknesses, or so that you can be free from belief -- from assenting to every crackhead with whom you happen to agree?

Here's a better question for you:

God is everywhere, and everything that exists does so by his design. Why would he need a book to demonstrate his existence? Or, a better question: why would he intend for our intellectual capacities only to deceive us? Why do I always seem to be the only person who doesn't believe God capable of imperfection? Perhaps, the self-esteem of society, as a whole, is simply so deplorable that most people are unwilling to acknowledge that in order to find, one first must seek -- and that the only logical purpose for the immense capacities of the human mind is to serve as a compass for the journey.

Because God has specific requirements for us, specific things he wants us to know and abide by.

Ragnarok
04-19-2004, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
I think most, if not all, of the plate movement "mixing" would occur at the edge of the plates, not uniformly across the plates.

As I recall, scientific evidence points to the very first land mass being a single mass, and through time, the land began to split through plate movements, and drifted apart, into what we now recognize as different continents.

What if we assume, for a moment, that the bible is completely made up. What if it's a collection of stories based upon some bit of truth, but greatly exaggerated (is all Hollywood movies do), with the sole purpose of teaching a few lessons.

What if there was no flood, no 10 commandments inscribed on stone tablets, no parting of the waters, no flood. What if all of that was pure embelishment? If none of that had ever happened, how would that change the true belief in God, or the fact that God is.

What if God exists, and he exists in each of us, and we must find our own way to this being? What if all the religious doctrines tought by the church were a bunch of nonsense generated by the church, in order to "scare" people into joining the church? We can see that's essentially what killed Jesus. That too many were leaving the Jewish leaders and turning to his teachings.

What if it was all nonsense. How would that change an individuals ability to have a relationship with God, and to define and understand that in his or her own way?

I personally believe the bible was not written "by the hand of God", but rather written by people of the church, with all the embelishments, in order to convey the general principles of the Christian Faith. I have no trouble dismissing most of the Old Testament. The New Testament is a little harder, probably because of my upbringing. But I think, regardless of the Church and the Bible, one must define their own relationship with God, and none of this "other stuff" really matters.

Heavily Armed
04-19-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Ragnarok
As I recall, scientific evidence points to the very first land mass being a single mass, and through time, the land began to split through plate movements, and drifted apart, into what we now recognize as different continents.

What if we assume, for a moment, that the bible is completely made up. What if it's a collection of stories based upon some bit of truth, but greatly exaggerated (is all Hollywood movies do), with the sole purpose of teaching a few lessons.

What if there was no flood, no 10 commandments inscribed on stone tablets, no parting of the waters, no flood. What if all of that was pure embelishment? If none of that had ever happened, how would that change the true belief in God, or the fact that God is.

What if God exists, and he exists in each of us, and we must find our own way to this being? What if all the religious doctrines tought by the church were a bunch of nonsense generated by the church, in order to "scare" people into joining the church? We can see that's essentially what killed Jesus. That too many were leaving the Jewish leaders and turning to his teachings.

What if it was all nonsense. How would that change an individuals ability to have a relationship with God, and to define and understand that in his or her own way?

I personally believe the bible was not written "by the hand of God", but rather written by people of the church, with all the embelishments, in order to convey the general principles of the Christian Faith. I have no trouble dismissing most of the Old Testament. The New Testament is a little harder, probably because of my upbringing. But I think, regardless of the Church and the Bible, one must define their own relationship with God, and none of this "other stuff" really matters.

I believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, written by men under His direction. I have considered the "what ifs". These do not hold up under a sovereign, omnipotent, omnipresent God. They are better classified under the deception of Satan. But for the sake of discussion, what if all the "what ifs' were true? We all live our lives without knowing much about our creator. Conveniently, no accountability for our lives. No rewards or punishments. Die into nothingness. It doesn't really matter if there is a God or not. Again, convenient for the non-believer, no eternal relevence for the believer.

One last "what if". What if the Bible is absolutely true? What of reality then?

Section 8
04-19-2004, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
I believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, written by men under His direction. I have considered the "what ifs". These do not hold up under a sovereign, omnipotent, omnipresent God. They are better classified under the deception of Satan. But for the sake of discussion, what if all the "what ifs' were true? We all live our lives without knowing much about our creator. Conveniently, no accountability for our lives. No rewards or punishments. Die into nothingness. It doesn't really matter if there is a God or not. Again, convenient for the non-believer, no eternal relevence for the believer.

One last "what if". What if the Bible is absolutely true? What of reality then?

No, the necessity of the Bible doesn't "hold up under a sovereign, omnipotent, omnipressant God."

Logical form is valid a priori; as is the nature of God, and also the atemporality of the soul; don't you see any connection there?

How does one secure oneself from Satanic deception? By rejecting off-hand anything illogical claim.


Because God has specific requirements for us, specific things he wants us to know and abide by.

I am completely unable to fathom what part of my earlier post that was written in response to, as it seems completely detached from the context; however, that is irrelevant, for the time being.

Indeed: so don't you think that he would have given us an infallible faculty by which we can 1) know Him a priori, 2) inductively or deductively judge how we ought to act in response to a given situation?

Can you honestly tell me that, were it not for the Bible, you wouldn't be able to figure out that murder is wrong? Or, that stealing is wrong? Dishonesty? Would homosexuality suddenly seem conducive to a fulfilling life? Would drunkenness? Addiction?

How about idolatry?

In the Bible, there is printed only one ethical* maxim: love the sinner, hate the sin. Would that make sense if you didn't have the Bible? I think it would; in order to "love the sinner," one must act in such a way as to eliminate whatever circumstances or events propagated the instantiation of the sin itself; in doing so, they ensure that the reformed "sinner" will afford them with the same love in future instances involving themselves. Again, the form is purely logical; no appeal to senselessness is necessary to validate the claim.

*[Here I am using the term "ethical" exclusively in regards to how one ought to interact with others. IOW, irrespective of the epistemological considerations pertinent to conotations that are purely individual in scope. The latter I consider "psychological."]

Q: What drove Adam and Eve into the hands of sin?
A: Accepting the claims of someone else despite what they knew to be the case. They didn't have any reason to believe the serpent; they had only faith that what he was telling them was true.

Heavily Armed
04-19-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
No, the necessity of the Bible doesn't "hold up under a sovereign, omnipotent, omnipressant God."

Logical form is valid a priori; as is the nature of God, and also the atemporality of the soul; don't you see any connection there?

How does one secure oneself from Satanic deception? By rejecting off-hand anything illogical claim.



I am completely unable to fathom what part of my earlier post that was written in response to, as it seems completely detached from the context; however, that is irrelevant, for the time being.

Indeed: so don't you think that he would have given us an infallible faculty by which we can 1) know Him a priori, 2) inductively or deductively judge how we ought to act in response to a given situation?

Can you honestly tell me that, were it not for the Bible, you wouldn't be able to figure out that murder is wrong? Or, that stealing is wrong? Dishonesty? Would homosexuality suddenly seem conducive to a fulfilling life? Would drunkenness? Addiction?

How about idolatry?

In the Bible, there is printed only one ethical* maxim: love the sinner, hate the sin. Would that make sense if you didn't have the Bible? I think it would; in order to "love the sinner," one must act in such a way as to eliminate whatever circumstances or events propagated the instantiation of the sin itself; in doing so, they ensure that the reformed "sinner" will afford them with the same love in future instances involving themselves. Again, the form is purely logical; no appeal to senselessness is necessary to validate the claim.

*[Here I am using the term "ethical" exclusively in regards to how one ought to interact with others. IOW, irrespective of the epistemological considerations pertinent to conotations that are purely individual in scope. The latter I consider "psychological."]

Q: What drove Adam and Eve into the hands of sin?
A: Accepting the claims of someone else despite what they knew to be the case. They didn't have any reason to believe the serpent; they had only faith that what he was telling them was true.

I believe we have an innate God-given instinct for what's right and wrong. This instinct can be over-ridden by the experiences of growing up without a moral structure. Prisons are full of those who don't have the moral principle not to commit the gamut of crimes they're incarcerated for. Society is rife with those who don't distinguish between right and wrong, despite Biblical direction on the matter.

Yes, the neccesity of the Bible does hold up under a sovereign, omnipotent and omnipresent God. We are not programmed like robots. There is no infallible faculty within man. Such would infringe on your ability to choose.

I'll honestly tell you my speculation as to my life's direction without my christian faith. I would be totally in it for me alone. Why not? What morals would constrain me? There would be no right or wrong, just what suited me to my betterment. Would I murder, steal, rape? Why not? Other than the penalty of capture and punishment, why should I not harm others if it suited me to do so? Again, prisons are full of people with just this philosophy, people who are non-believers. My natural nature is to be hard and cold. Ruthless. A quick temper leading to physical violence. Accepting Jesus as my saviour has changed this. I place the good of others over my own welfare. I treat people kindly and with compassion. This is a supernatural change in my character and person. You would probably like me if you met me. But underneath I know what I was. Part of it remains. I'm still a work in progress.

How does one secure onself from Satanic deception? Reading the Bible, thinking on what one has read, and prayer. Daily. From experience I can tell you, if skip reading the Bible, my prayers decrease as well. I start to revert back into the person I mentioned above. By choice, I neglect my relationship with God. As in any relationship, neglect creates a chasm.

I think in the secular world, if you don't like something someone is doing or participating in, the offending person is disliked or even hated. There is no love the person but hate the sin.

And idolatry. One doesn't have to actively worship a statue representing something to participate in idolatry. Anything that is the most important thing in one's life is, in effect, their God. Idolatry is different things to different people. Whatever takes God's place in a person's life.

Section 8
04-19-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
I believe we have an innate God-given instinct for what's right and wrong. This instinct can be over-ridden by the experiences of growing up without a moral structure. Prisons are full of those who don't have the moral principle not to commit the gamut of crimes they're incarcerated for. Society is rife with those who don't distinguish between right and wrong, despite Biblical direction on the matter.

Yes, the neccesity of the Bible does hold up under a sovereign, omnipotent and omnipresent God. We are not programmed like robots. There is no infallible faculty within man. Such would infringe on your ability to choose.

We are programmed like robots, insofar as we are imbibed with the syntax of thought. Our choice, rests in our ability to decide with what standards we maintain in regards to the evaluation of our judgements; it is to them that we are held accountable (as explained by Christ: Matthew 7:1-5). Our God-given instinct is the evaluative mind; no two situations are alike; it is for each of us to evaluate every situation to the best of his ability, and we are judged accordingly.



I'll honestly tell you my speculation as to my life's direction without my christian faith. I would be totally in it for me alone. Why not? What morals would constrain me? There would be no right or wrong, just what suited me to my betterment. Would I murder, steal, rape? Why not? Other than the penalty of capture and punishment, why should I not harm others if it suited me to do so? Again, prisons are full of people with just this philosophy, people who are non-believers. My natural nature is to be hard and cold. Ruthless. A quick temper leading to physical violence. Accepting Jesus as my saviour has changed this. I place the good of others over my own welfare. I treat people kindly and with compassion. This is a supernatural change in my character and person. You would probably like me if you met me. But underneath I know what I was. Part of it remains. I'm still a work in progress.

Straw man. Are you suggesting that there aren't any religious inmates?

Besides: I don't see how what you have said makes any sense. Are you saying that an individual is only capable of finding God by reading the Bible? Is God not everywhere? Can something as pervasive as God be "escaped?" -- Or only denied? Are you saying that morality is not real? That it is only a figment of our imagination?

As an aside, in retrospect it occurs to me that my youth pastor was one of the more immoral people who had an influence upon me while I was growing up.



How does one secure onself from Satanic deception? Reading the Bible, thinking on what one has read, and prayer. Daily. From experience I can tell you, if skip reading the Bible, my prayers decrease as well. I start to revert back into the person I mentioned above. By choice, I neglect my relationship with God. As in any relationship, neglect creates a chasm.

Then what have you learnt from reading it?



I think in the secular world, if you don't like something someone is doing or participating in, the offending person is disliked or even hated. There is no love the person but hate the sin.

In as much as I have been able to see, from my own past experiences, religious people are, as a whole, no less hateful than the self-proclaimed secular. I attribute this to the fact that, for most, secularism is itself a religion.



And idolatry. One doesn't have to actively worship a statue representing something to participate in idolatry. Anything that is the most important thing in one's life is, in effect, their God. Idolatry is different things to different people. Whatever takes God's place in a person's life.

The word "God," as well as the Bible, have taken the place of God in just as many peoples' lives as anything else you might mention.

Heavily Armed
04-19-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
We are programmed like robots, insofar as we are imbibed with the syntax of thought. Our choice, rests in our ability to decide with what standards we maintain in regards to the evaluation of our judgements; it is to them that we are held accountable (as explained by Christ: Matthew 7:1-5). Our God-given instinct is the evaluative mind; no two situations are alike; it is for each of us to evaluate every situation to the best of his ability, and we are judged accordingly.



Straw man. Are you suggesting that there aren't any religious inmates?

Besides: I don't see how what you have said makes any sense. Are you saying that an individual is only capable of finding God by reading the Bible? Is God not everywhere? Can something as pervasive as God be "escaped?" -- Or only denied? Are you saying that morality is not real? That it is only a figment of our imagination?

As an aside, in retrospect it occurs to me that my youth pastor was one of the more immoral people who had an influence upon me while I was growing up.



Then what have you learnt from reading it?



In as much as I have been able to see, from my own past experiences, religious people are, as a whole, no less hateful than the self-proclaimed secular. I attribute this to the fact that, for most, secularism is itself a religion.



The word "God," as well as the Bible, have taken the place of God in just as many peoples' lives as anything else you might mention.

Programmed like robots doesn't encompass all that we are or are capable of. We have an ingrained basic morality, but can reject it completely.

Of course there are religious inmates, varying religions. Some draw closer to God while incarcerated, become saved, convert, whatever nomenclature is appropriate to their faith. I had a friend who went from pagan to the Bible while in federal prison. But the vast majority of those in our jails hold no claim to faith in God. I didn't say belief. I know many who believe there's a God. They just don't care to look into the matter further.

Jesus said; "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." This is in the Bible. So yes, the way to find to God is through the Bible. Once you are aware, through the Bible, you can pray and ask forgiveness of sins. Of course the evidence of God is all around us; the complexity of life and the universe. Even the feeling inside that there's more out there than our five senses perceive. God cannot be escaped but He can be denied. All kind of excuses and theories abound, people trying to convince themselves and others that there is no God. But I have something they don't. Peace. I don't wonder, in the quiet hours of the night, "what if?" I don't wake up at three in the morning thinking about my personal penalty for rejecting God, if He exists. I have no internal conflict on the matter. As my own mortality edges closer, I am content. Morality is real, as defined by God and Jesus through the Bible. We can either accept or reject it.

I'm sorry about your youth pastor. I too have known those claiming the faith amongst the "faithful", yet lead quite a different life out in the world.

My learning from reading the Bible is ongoing. It is a maturing process, like growing up. The things I have learned are my take on things as you read my posts. This is where I am. Specifically I am learning what is expected of me. Morality, compassion, love, boldness of faith, kindness, mercy, these are some of the things that I'm incorporating into my character. I am gaining a deeper appreciation for the power and need for prayer.

I note your belief in hateful people claiming to be christian. I know some who are very haughty and cold, almost as if their faith is a burdensome duty. I really don't know why. Perhaps their upbringing demands an obligation to attend church, without really accepting the concepts they claim to espouse. The world is an increasingly bitter place. Pressures, financial difficulties, disappointments, failures, tragedies; these things can harden a person. Indeed, secularism is a religion; the worship of self. This very idea was Lucifer's downfall.

A genuine pleasure to talk with you, Section 8.