Originally posted by: ijester
I would like to go somewhat back on topic.
One of the main paradigms of the human belief system is that 99% of everything we 'Know' to be true, is simply faith of one kind or another. Simply put, if you haven't directly observed something, you are exercising faith in other people and what you are being told is true. How many people really 'Know' that the way their car can tell them how to get to a specific destination is because there are satellites in the sky? Have you seen them up there firsthand? You might have seen a light that you were told was a satellite. But you don't really know it the same way you know that your car is in the driveway because you can see it sitting there. We all know a lot of things simply because "Everyone knows that" and from what we are taught by the various social systems currently in place.
The problem with organized religion, I believe, comes from those who take our ability to have faith in what we learn from and are told by perceived authority figures and twist it for their self-aggrandizement. It does not seem so strange to me that the human capacity for faith and hope should lead to a belief in a deity, a chance to carry on beyond our small existence in the midst of the harshness that befalls so many of us in the living of our daily lives. But when personal and political aspirations cause some to prey on that for nothing more than the chance to accumulate their own (power, money, sex with small boys, etc. etc.......), then we are all made smaller as a result.
Religion and/or lack of same can and should be a personal choice, based on an individuals beliefs, learning, opinions, upbringing and any other knowledge they have accumulated and not the result of some form of twisted psychological blackmail eg: "Either you believe what we do, or you go to Hell", or "You don't believe what we do, so we will now kill you all".
I am not a religious person, but I still do not understand the enmity engendered by the whole "Creation vs. Evolution" argument. I do not 'Know' there is no God, but I also realize that if there was one, he could certainly have created the universe to function as it does, and evolution could have been a guided process just as easily as it could have been random chance. Until these things are proven definitively one way or the other, I am unwilling to shut out the possibilities.
Darryn
It's *MY* shortcoming that you hold a position that only follows from a premise lacking all basis in fact? LOL! I haven't seen mental gymnastics like that since the last time I debated a YEC.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As mentioned previously, that's your shortcoming, not mine. Your lack of ability to understand it doesn't mean it's incorrect.Originally posted by: Garth
I don't see how that can follow except from a hidden premise that the total energy of the universe is finite. Please acknowledge that premise and present an argument in its defense. To the best of my knowledge, that premise is not supported by available evidence.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No. You can peg me as falling into a fundamentalist category, but not their demographic. Check the definition of that word before waving it around. Besides, I disagree with them on many political issues, so even the former would be incorrect. Of course, you're not interested in being correct, only in discrediting me.Originally posted by: Tab
No, you fall into the "Christian Fundamentalist" demographic catagory because of your vast opposition to abortion and gay marriage. For one to be associated with a catagory doesn't require them to adhear to each indiviual trait associated with the group. I am member of NDSU's College Democrats, yet my thoughts concerning the Death Penatly are completely opposite of the vast majority of indiviuals associated with my group.
And this is why you have so little to contribute. The pool that you draw your material from is relatively small. I'm probably the only populist on this board (even the only populist I know), yet I still have plenty to say. See the difference?Libertarians are by far a minority on this board.
How witty. Can't quote anything in particular that I didn't address?This weekend I didn't have any $1 bills on me, my friend gave me a dollar so I could get a pop. He hasn't asked that I pay him back, so I suppose he just doesn't care about the money I owe him...
My comment is an analogy with your comments toward Garth's lack of commenting.
Originally posted by: ijester
I would like to go somewhat back on topic.
One of the main paradigms of the human belief system is that 99% of everything we 'Know' to be true, is simply faith of one kind or another. Simply put, if you haven't directly observed something, you are exercising faith in other people and what you are being told is true. How many people really 'Know' that the way their car can tell them how to get to a specific destination is because there are satellites in the sky? Have you seen them up there firsthand? You might have seen a light that you were told was a satellite. But you don't really know it the same way you know that your car is in the driveway because you can see it sitting there. We all know a lot of things simply because "Everyone knows that" and from what we are taught by the various social systems currently in place.
The problem with organized religion, I believe, comes from those who take our ability to have faith in what we learn from and are told by perceived authority figures and twist it for their self-aggrandizement. It does not seem so strange to me that the human capacity for faith and hope should lead to a belief in a deity, a chance to carry on beyond our small existence in the midst of the harshness that befalls so many of us in the living of our daily lives. But when personal and political aspirations cause some to prey on that for nothing more than the chance to accumulate their own (power, money, sex with small boys, etc. etc.......), then we are all made smaller as a result.
Religion and/or lack of same can and should be a personal choice, based on an individuals beliefs, learning, opinions, upbringing and any other knowledge they have accumulated and not the result of some form of twisted psychological blackmail eg: "Either you believe what we do, or you go to Hell", or "You don't believe what we do, so we will now kill you all".
I am not a religious person, but I still do not understand the enmity engendered by the whole "Creation vs. Evolution" argument. I do not 'Know' there is no God, but I also realize that if there was one, he could certainly have created the universe to function as it does, and evolution could have been a guided process just as easily as it could have been random chance. Until these things are proven definitively one way or the other, I am unwilling to shut out the possibilities.
Darryn
Originally posted by: ijester
My comment is an analogy with your comments toward Garth's lack of commenting.
No comment.
Originally posted by: Moot
I'm with you except for the last paragraph. Intelligent Design is a wedge strategy used by the Discovery Institute to get the phrase "other possiblities" out into the public conscience. Placing doubt on evolution is the first step in their overall goal of forcing theism on the United States and discarding material science
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Amen ijester. Sure wish everyone could feel that way.
People have also really got to get over the whole "brainwashing" crap. Come on guys, the fact that someone opinion does not agree with your own does not make the other person brainwashed. Organized religion is not manditory for anyone. No one is forced to go and listen to what is said. And most of the time, at least these days, people create opinions for themselves and THEN find a religion who's belief system agrees with their own. That's not called brainwashing. In reality, it actually requires thought.
Point is, you've got to get over the idea that people are all being brainwashed. Do you really think that the approximately 80% of the population of the world who believe in some form of religion are all brainwashed and that you few remaining individuals are the only sane people in the group? Get over yourself and recognize that people have their own thoughts and feelings, and oh, they might even share those feelings with others. Imagine that.
Religion is not about brainwashing people to agree with every ascept of their doctrine. It's about people with similar belief joining together. Is it possible that some brainwashing is going on somewhere? Sure. Is it the standard? Not even close. Religious organizations brainwash their members about as much as scientist brainwash the public. So why don't we drop the brainwashing crap.
Originally posted by: hscorpio
I have to really disagree that most people choose their religion. By far the overwelming reason why someone is of a particular religion is because they were born into it. You could split hairs by arguing how people can choose different denominations amongst say christianity, but by and large people practice the religion their parents raised them to believe.
I know brainwashing sounds harsh, but children usually are indoctrinated at a very early age and that tends to stick for the rest of their lives.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: hscorpio
I have to really disagree that most people choose their religion. By far the overwelming reason why someone is of a particular religion is because they were born into it. You could split hairs by arguing how people can choose different denominations amongst say christianity, but by and large people practice the religion their parents raised them to believe.
I know brainwashing sounds harsh, but children usually are indoctrinated at a very early age and that tends to stick for the rest of their lives.
So then if someone is raised in a home where religion is not taught, but say only science is taught, does that mean the person is brainwashed with science?
Yes, people are taught certain things by their parents and they grow up under a certain set of guidelines. However, that doesn't take away the ability of the person to eventually develop an opinion of their own. If someone grows up never questioning what their parent teach them, then that is their fault, not religions or science or whatever. Blame the person, not the setting, for their lack of independent thought.
Originally posted by: hscorpio
You could try and make that argument that they are indoctrinated with science, sure. But at least science is testable and encourages finding truth and explanations. Don't you think theres a difference between raising a child to believe something completely unprovable and based entirely on blind faith than raising one to use a method of seeking out and testing verifiable explanations via the scientific method?
edit-
Also many religions specifically try and oppress any attempts to question it. Thats the whole point of faith right? Plus religion becomes a part of many peoples identity and heritage if they are raised on it, so questioning it is akin to abandoning everything including their own identity.
To be clear, there are scientific hypotheses which are testable in principle but have yet to be confirmed by actual scientific testing. Usually the reason is that we lack the technology to accomplish the kind of experiement that would either confirm or falsify the hypothesis. However, if a hypothesis is not testable in principle, it's not scientific.Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Not all science is currently testable....
Science and religion are two different means of developing our ideas about reality. The key importance to scientific knowledge is that it is gained through testing ideas against reality for confirmation or falsification. Religion, on the other hand, does not feature such a reliable method and thus its "knowledge" is very highly suspect. It is unreasonable to argue that science and religion are equally reliable epistemologically simply because neither are capable of "proof." "Proof," as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. When it comes to discovering true facts about reality, evidence, consistency, and parsimony rule.As for raising a child to believe something that is unprovable, consider this. Prove to me where and how the first two hydrogen atoms came from that started the whole Big Bang process. You can't. Not now anyway. Can religion tell you where God came from or how he became God? Nope. Therefore, science and religion are both based upon things that can and can not be proved. Though again I state, regardless of the upbringing of a child, if he is never capable of individual thought, that is his fault, not religions or sciences.
Actually, I just like the Golden Rule.Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Originally posted by: Future Shock
Originally posted by: Whaspe
Originally posted by: Future Shock
I'm amazed by this thread - it's been remarkably civil.
What I am not amazed by is the lack of human understanding that is evidenced by so many forum members, possibly because so many of us have such strong left-brain skills as we are predominantly techies. So let me expound...
IMHO, Religion exists because people:
1) Want to believe that they don't die
2) Want to BELONG - usually to a group, and usually to a group that enables them to feel slightly superiour to their bretheren
3) Want to CONTROL - take any random group of humans, and there is always a small but vocal minority that feel they MUST be in control of others.
{text del}
As someone has pointed out, a "true religion" can't be seen adjusting it's folklore to be in accordance with modern understanding - otherwise it couldn't be "true". So this folklore becomes out of step with modern understanding. These hierarchy leaders are, in many cases, powerful and wealthy - so quick, let's try to subjugate modern understanding! We can pay to set up Intelligent Design institutes. We can pay for the support of school board elections for members who may help us change the curriculum. Ad infinitum...
And of course, what happens when these religions have saturated the human race? Why then, they MUST come into conflict, so that the leaders of each can expand their position. They will try to outbreed each other, they will fight for territorial control - and they will even convince politicans to take that fight to the political level if they can, and fight a political war over a religious agenda.
And that's where we are -except now the modern understandings are coming up faster and faster, and the churches are fighting dirtier and dirtier to delay or prevent a mass-understanding that their "true religion" folklore is just that - folklore. And the organized religions are coming increasingly into conflict to try to amass as much territory under themselves as possible, except we WILL soon have religious militias with nuclear or biological weapons.
I believe that the future of the human race will be fought out over the next two centuries, and these two issues will be at the heart of all that happens...
Future Shock
Nonsense... I don't know where you can draw the conclusion that modern societies are somehow "smarter" than previous ones. There's some evidense that using your brain throughout your life is beneficial... however, any appearance of a society being smarter than another comes more from circumstance than anything else. I think the biggest evidence against this line of thinking is that we seem to be no better off in our ability to create meaningful lasting relationships with each other. Advances in psychology/psychiatry/science should have shown us how to live wonderful lives in union with our neighbors and spouses. Sadly evidense to the contrary turns up everyday.
I'll try to address more of this later... however, I've got a dinner to go eat.
Where did I say that we are smarter? That we have a higher degree of scientific understanding - obviously yes. That we have a higher literacy rate - undeniable. These two things I lump into "modern understanding". Taken together, they may mean that we as a species are collectively getting a greater understanding of the world around us - certainly we as a race know a lot more than we did. But I would never assert that we have a better brain structure or are "smarter".
I have NO idea why you would think that advances science can make man better men, or to be better to each other. Science has never claimed to do that (at least I put it on you to show me otherwise). We have made strides in treating mental illness, and in helping people come to terms with the mental problems that a stressful modern life (or biology) can beset them with.
The only thing that makes men better men is teaching children live the Golden Rule...and we don't need religion for that, just good old fashioned parenting...
Future Shock
Ten Commandments + Golden Rule is all the moral guidance you'll ever need.
scientific method:Originally posted by: bleeb
The question becomes how do you explain the things that cannot be explained using science?
Originally posted by: hscorpio
engineereeyore let me ask you this; if you were born in say Saudia Arabia do you honestly think you would not be a muslim? Or if you were born in India what are the chances you wouldn't be hindu? You see my point hopefully.
Believing the big bang theory is correct is not really necessary to accept all the other aspects of science. The reverse can't be said of religion, you have to believe in god to be religous.
Originally posted by: bleeb
The question becomes how do you explain the things that cannot be explained using science?
Originally posted by: Hamlet2000
check out The End of Faith by Sam Harris - an interesting read for religious and non-religious types. Harris argues that our need to hold on to ancient beliefs without questioning them is destroying our world.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: bleeb
The question becomes how do you explain the things that cannot be explained using science?
Actually, I think everything can be explained by science. Consider the following. Take the example of Christ healing one of many blind men. The only difference between a blind person and a person who can see are a few cells that are not working the way they should be. Now most religious people believe that the very elements can be controlled by God. The elements are still just a collection of molecules, just with a different set of characteristics. If God can alter those molecules, why can't he alter the ones in people's body? Miracle solve. A miracle isn't necessarily something we can't understand, but something we can't do on our own. Healing the blind or the sick is only a matter of knowing how to correct the cells who are not working properly.
So I think the better question isn't how can we explain miraculous events, but how can we reproduce them? That is the problem that science runs into. As of now, science doesn't have the ability to alter the way an element, cell, or molecule works. We just take try to learn how they work and use them in the best fashion possible. When science discovers this ability though will be, IMO, the time when science discovers God.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: hscorpio
engineereeyore let me ask you this; if you were born in say Saudia Arabia do you honestly think you would not be a muslim? Or if you were born in India what are the chances you wouldn't be hindu? You see my point hopefully.
Believing the big bang theory is correct is not really necessary to accept all the other aspects of science. The reverse can't be said of religion, you have to believe in god to be religous.
Actually, I know several people raised in India and Saudi Arabia (I'm working on my master's, so there are a ton of foreign student here) that are not hindu or muslim, respectively. Is it more difficult in those areas to follows one beliefs? Absolutely. Is it impossible? No. I do see your point and I understand what you are trying to say. Some religions are quite tight, but not all. To generally say that anyone who is religious is brainwashed in not fair at all. To say that some religions are controlling, I will give you. To say that all religions are brainwashing institutions, I will not.
I do see you're point and I hope you see mine as well.
If science where to replace religion, theoretically, I would expect science to need to be able to answer the following two questions. Why am I here, and how did I get here. After all, isn't this essentially what religion is based off? Therefore, in order for science to ever "absolutely and unequivically" disprove religion or the need for religion, it would have to discover the answer to these two questions. If science doesn't use the Big Bang theory, you've just lost a lot of ground on the second question.
Will science ever determine the answers? To the second one, absolutely. The first one, well that I think will be based of the answer to the second question, but will require, shall we say, a leap of "faith."