The joy of religion - part xxxxxxxxx

[MajinCry]

Ummmnnnn science cannot disprove faith, nor can faith stand-in for science. To assume that they can shows a distinct lack of understanding of science AND faith.

M

James 5:14-15 - "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."

And yes, medicine is a science.

 

[Moonbeam]

Verily, if thineself dost persist in such of a manner, pertaining to one's very self, verily, one hast persisted through thine own innumerable identities, residing upon that which awaiteth promptly and ceaselessly, concerning one's consideration.

Woe is not thineself, as for that which be not known cannot be known for-when knowing is, truthfully, awaiting at the end of one, not in the middle. Verily, this be present for all of yon, and thusly thine, accounted.

Forgive me for replying to you. I thought you might have something to say. Now I see you only came to display your arrogant ignorance and poisonous blind conceit.

 

[flexy]

morality
məˈralɪti/
noun
noun: morality

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Principles "concerning the distinction between right and wrong" or "the extent to which an action is right or wrong" cannot be learned from a book or "taught" by a priest. But, of course they are, but this is a FAKE "morality".

Morality (for me) is something you develop on your own, without external "help". Only then it is true morality.

The morality of not killing others, torturing animals etc. I didn't "learn" from my parents and sure I didn't need to study the Bible to develop this mindset.

It's part of growing to develop a morality, a sense of "right or wrong", which has not been taught...it is the difference between a mature/developed person and a undeveloped/immature/"bad" person.

A person who is using a "holy book" where they needed to "learn" principles (or was TAUGHT principles, teachers, parents, priests etc.) "homosexuality is bad because it's in the bible" (just one example) is actually a scary thought because I can assume that person does not have ever developed a REAL morality on their own.

Those people did not ever THINK whether their sense of "good or wrong" is actually genuine/legit/"right"...because simply ADAPTING a morality codex from a book or a belief system doesn't require you to think. You just echo what the others think and say.

***

Lots of good posts here, many of them about the definition of good/evil...what part religion plays etc.

Let me *attempt* a definition of good & evil.

"Evil": Actions where greed and personal gratification are the driving factor w/ disregard for the result/consequences for others.

Example: There are people who drive and an animal might cross. They intentionally steer the car to hit the animal. Motivation: Personal gratification of some sense of entertainment that arises from having hit the animal.

Then of course other examples like amassing money, slavery, oppression, "ME ME before everything", as long as I can satisfy my urges and I don't care how I do it.

This is evil.

"Good:" The scarification of my own urges/desires/wishes/greed/egotism etc. and prioritizing the well-being of others over it.

Example: I go into a burning house trying to save someone w/ a high risk that I get injured myself. I give money away, I share food, I care for others and not for me.

This is good.

In my own "spiritual joerney" (lol) I came to the conclusion that our ultimate learning process, the ultimate goal of our lives is to learn this...the goal the entire abandonment of our own desires "for others"...only then a soul has truly "matured".
This process is (possibly) necessary because only a soul that has advanced to this realization is ready to be "one with all". (The rest would be too "esoteric" and "new-agey" to explain and also OT

 

[MajinCry]

Forgive me for replying to you. I thought you might have something to say. Now I see you only came to display your arrogant ignorance and poisonous blind conceit.

Don't worry, you are forgiven.

 

[maluckey]

James 5:14-15 - "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."

And yes, medicine is a science.

Was knowledge of higher medicine known = no...but I do understand where you are coming from. Belief of something does not in any way prove something.

It used to be believed that flys spontaneously generated, and now we know (most people anyways) understand that it's not the case. Why, because it's true, and can be proven. It's not a process of faith, it's a testable hypothesis. That's also the very reason that faith cannot be disproven. Can you devise a test to show that God does/does not exist? If you can, you are far greater than any man that has ever lived, and I would truly llike to know that proof for certain, since the very definition of faith would be proven incorrect. By now, you get that I still stand by the statement that very nature of Faith precludes application of logic, and the very nature of science precludes the ablility to prove/disprove faith.

M

 

[realibrad]

Was knowledge of higher medicine known = no...but I do understand where you are coming from. Belief of something does not in any way prove something.

It used to be believed that flys spontaneously generated, and now we know (most people anyways) understand that it's not the case. Why, because it's true, and can be proven. It's not a process of faith, it's a testable hypothesis. That's also the very reason that faith cannot be disproven. Can you devise a test to show that God does/does not exist? If you can, you are far greater than any man that has ever lived, and I would truly llike to know that proof for certain, since the very definition of faith would be proven incorrect. By now, you get that I still stand by the statement that very nature of Faith precludes application of logic, and the very nature of science precludes the ablility to prove/disprove faith.

M

Science is observing and learning from evidence.
Faith is the belief without evidence.

I think the better question is why do you believe with any evidence. Why did you choose to believe in 1 thing over another. I would bet you would give a reason, and that in a way is evidence. Its that evidence that science questions.

If you want to argue faith, then understand you are saying you believe without reason. If you have a reason, science and logic can disprove the validity.

So, which is it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Science is observing and learning from evidence.
Faith is the belief without evidence.

I think the better question is why do you believe with any evidence. Why did you choose to believe in 1 thing over another. I would bet you would give a reason, and that in a way is evidence. Its that evidence that science questions.

If you want to argue faith, then understand you are saying you believe without reason. If you have a reason, science and logic can disprove the validity.

So, which is it?

Suppose I told you that faith is important because depending on whether you observe with faith or not will determine if you know God exists or not, that God is one thing or another depending on how you observe.

 

[Zorkorist]

One might laugh and ask for an experiment.

Would you and your god like heads, or tails?

-John

 

[shira]

One might laugh and ask for an experiment.

Would you and your god like heads, or tails?

-John

In your case, I doubt you would be able to tell the difference between the two sides of a coin.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Science can disprove Faith

wrong!

 

[Zorkorist]

Science can and does disprove faith.

The world is round.

It was created in millions of years.

Monkey's evolved in to humans.

etc.

-John

 

[shira]

Science can and does disprove faith.

The world is round.

It was created in millions of years.

Monkey's evolved in to humans.

etc.

-John

Actually the world is an oblate spheroid, not "round," and it was "created" over several billion years (not "millions"). And sad to say, humans didn't evolve from monkeys or even from apes. Humans, apes, and monkeys all have separate lineages (pre-humans, pre-apes, and pre-monkeys), all tracing back to a common ancestor. Then humans, apes, and monkeys evolved separately.

I agree with you (to some extent) that science can disprove faith. But it can't completely kill faith. Humans (many; most) will always believe in God, no matter what.

But, hey, 1 out of 4 is better than your usual score.

 

[Zorkorist]

Thanks for having my back Shira.

-John

 

[JEDIYoda]

Suppose I told you that faith is important because depending on whether you observe with faith or not will determine if you know God exists or not, that God is one thing or another depending on how you observe.

Science can and does disprove faith.

-- sorry you are wrong!! faith can be neither proved or disproved!!
Faith is the one common denominator of people who believe in God!!

 

[shira]

-- sorry you are wrong!! faith can be neither proved or disproved!!
Faith is the one common denominator of people who believe in God!!

People can have "faith" that God created Adam and Eve. But given sufficient fossil evidence of human ancestors, only the most willfully-ignorant believer will continue to keep THAT faith.

There ARE some areas of faith - such as the very existence of God - that ARE beyond the reach of science. So not ALL faith can be "disproved."

 

[Moonbeam]

-- sorry you are wrong!! faith can be neither proved or disproved!!
Faith is the one common denominator of people who believe in God!!

When I said, "Suppose I told you.......", I was particularly directing that to realibrad and for reasons I have not yet expressed. It was not my intention, necessarily or not, to imply that is what I believe. I had already expressed my opinion that his notion of what faith is as opposed to what I think is a different kind of experience, the knowing of God via the experience of a God Conscious State. We can witness, I think, the phenomenon of personal transformation, some sort of religious experience that is life transforming, while both ineffable as well as interpreted in whatever the religious tradition or otherwise, the person may have been raised in.

 

[Moonbeam]

People can have "faith" that God created Adam and Eve. But given sufficient fossil evidence of human ancestors, only the most willfully-ignorant believer will continue to keep THAT faith.

There ARE some areas of faith - such as the very existence of God - that ARE beyond the reach of science. So not ALL faith can be "disproved."

Indeed. Additionally, in the laboratory by stimulating a particular area of the brain,an experience can be induced of the presence of Another, that one is not alone, that perhaps a Being is with us everywhere we are.

From a scientific point of view we can say that God may be just chemical reactions happening in the brain but for another it may mean the intention to die upon the cross so that humanity may know it's forgiven.

You may see a Shaman in a trance sitting under a tree whereas the Shaman has become an eagle and flown to eternity. Poor us with out feet of clay.

 

[flexy]

Monkey's evolved in to humans.

-John

Sorry, wrong

We had a common ancestor, alright, but man did not really evolve from monkeys.

 

[maluckey]

Science is observing and learning from evidence.
Faith is the belief without evidence.

I think the better question is why do you believe with any evidence. Why did you choose to believe in 1 thing over another. I would bet you would give a reason, and that in a way is evidence. Its that evidence that science questions.

If you want to argue faith, then understand you are saying you believe without reason. If you have a reason, science and logic can disprove the validity.

So, which is it?

Even from my high school days, I remember that the scientific method requires a testable hypothesis and measureable/empirical results to be valid. Science questions that which can be measured and ignores or does not address that which cannot. It's the very nature of the process.

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven, ergo outside the scope of science.

That being said, your comment on testing the reason that someone believes cannot be applied. What's measureable in choice? Sure, you can debate the pros and cons to why a certain religion suits you. The end result is only the reason itself is subject to logic, not the higher being in question that you choose to follow.

M

 

[sandorski]

...

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven, ergo outside the scope of science.

...

That is not accurate. "Faith is a belief in something that has not been proven" would be far more accurate. Many have had Faith in things in the past that were later proven False or True as knowledge about things has been discovered. Some people continue to have Faith in some things that are clearly False, The Flood and Young Earth Creation for eg.

 

[realibrad]

Even from my high school days, I remember that the scientific method requires a testable hypothesis and measureable/empirical results to be valid. Science questions that which can be measured and ignores or does not address that which cannot. It's the very nature of the process.

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven, ergo outside the scope of science.

That being said, your comment on testing the reason that someone believes cannot be applied. What's measureable in choice? Sure, you can debate the pros and cons to why a certain religion suits you. The end result is only the reason itself is subject to logic, not the higher being in question that you choose to follow.

M

In this context, faith would be defined as this

Faith - belief that is not based on proof:

If you feel that your belief in good is right, then your proof is your feeling, and not faith. You can use the scientific method on why you feel that way. You can look at others that also feel their beliefs are right, and many of those beliefs are mutually exclusive to yours. The question then becomes, what makes your feelings the right one?

You have a faith because there is no evidence that your beliefs are right. Unless you have evidence.

 

[maluckey]

That is not accurate. "Faith is a belief in something that has not been proven" would be far more accurate. Many have had Faith in things in the past that were later proven False or True as knowledge about things has been discovered. Some people continue to have Faith in some things that are clearly False, The Flood and Young Earth Creation for eg.

Almost. Faith is NOT scientific. You cannot prove or disprove faith. What are you measuring? Is it repeatable and verifiable? You CAN disprove an idea based in reality though (your example is just that).

Faith is not belief in something unproven. It's just the opposite. Religious faith (which is the subject) CANNOT be proven.

M

 

[realibrad]

Almost. Faith is NOT scientific. You cannot prove or disprove faith. What are you measuring? Is it repeatable and verifiable? You CAN disprove an idea based in reality though (your example is just that).

Faith is not belief in something unproven. It's just the opposite. Religious faith (which is the subject) CANNOT be proven.

M

Faith cannot be proven, and it also has no reason to believe. If you justify your faith because of X, science can critique X.

So, if you say that you have faith in god because it makes you a better person, then science can critique that.

If you believe faith makes society better, science can critique that.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[sandorski]

Almost. Faith is NOT scientific. You cannot prove or disprove faith. What are you measuring? Is it repeatable and verifiable? You CAN disprove an idea based in reality though (your example is just that).

Faith is not belief in something unproven. It's just the opposite. Religious faith (which is the subject) CANNOT be proven.

M

That's not correct. People once had Faith that Zeus or some deity caused Lightning. Science has proven that to be wrong. Other things have also been taken on Faith that have been proven to be True/False.

Faith is taking a position on some unknown thing, but it is the act of accepting that thing. It does not define that thing though. That thing may or may not be provable by Science, it just usually hasn't been yet, if it is possible.

It may appear at this time that Faith pertains to the Scientifically unprovable, but that's mainly because Science has narrowed the available unexplained phenomena to such a significant degree as to leave only a few likely never to be known things left.

 

[Moonbeam]

Faith cannot be proven, and it also has no reason to believe. If you justify your faith because of X, science can critique X.

So, if you say that you have faith in god because it makes you a better person, then science can critique that.

If you believe faith makes society better, science can critique that.

Do you see what I mean?

I will try again:

Suppose I told you that faith is important because depending on whether you observe with faith or not will determine if you know God exists or not, that God is one thing or another depending on how you observe.