A conundrum

[=SputniK-CL=]

Canute,

"There are perfectly rational versions. "

Would you please give examples?

"The idea that "I think is safe to say the domain of science encompasses ALL!!!" is just about as unsafe as it could be. The evidence is all to the contrary. "

I think you misunderstand me, for I do agree with you that Science has only dominion over what it knows, I mean that science is the ONLY way we can ever have a valid view of the universe.

Cris hits the spot: "this is gross misunderstanding of the role of science. Science is a process or set of processes for discovering knowledge. Science has never claimed that it knows everything or will ever know everything. Science doesn’t care about philosophical issues. Science is incapable of caring about anything or can have any opinions on the matter"

"Blind faith refers to a belief where facts are absent. Hence religious faith = blind faith" - Cris

Why is it so hard for me to explain the obvious? Thanks Cris, spot on again.

"Are you therefore suggesting that religion has a superior mechanism for determining knowledge, and if so, how? "

This is exactly what Jan, I feel, was on about. But they never can do the 'how' part, can they?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris

Outside of a religious context the term faith is usually synonymous with inductive reasoning. I.e. there is usually some factual basis behind most statements that include the term faith.

The factual basis you are reffering to, cannot be "factual" otherwise there would be no need of faith. If one has a factual basis, but still requires faith, then ones facts are as useful as no facts. But the fact remains, faith is primarily a leap into an unknown reality to some degree or other, but having realised the potential, the unkown becomes known, and that knowledge gives more understanding. Learning to ride a bicycle is a good example.

Although there are some experiences that do include blind faith, e.g. I have faith that I won’t die if I jump off a 50 storey building,

That is no more blind-faith than checking all the statistics from the last hundred years to now, and making a mathematical equation to find out your chances of survival.
Blind means one cannot see, so unless one gets help from someone who can, his life is very dangerous. Blind-faith means having faith without any knowledge or understanding, of what it is you have faith in.

We see a departure from that approach in religious faith where a belief cannot be based on facts, i.e. no one has established any facts that show that gods or spirits actually exist.

There have been facts, such as NDE's, that the mind/soul continues after the body is dead.

Blind faith refers to a belief where facts are absent. Hence religious faith = blind faith.

We can say something is fact, and 2 days later after new information as emerged, that is no longer fact. So where faith is concerned facts are only useful in establishing a stronger faith, but it doesn't mean the facts are truth, which is the only destination for faith.
If we have facts, then faith tends to be absent from our decisions until something goes wrong, but to believe a fact, there first has to be an element of faith.

Strictly speaking if faith were based on reason, as you claim, then it would no longer be faith but would be reason.

Humans have the power of reason Cris, and it would be totally arrogant and elitist to say that people who have faith in God do not have a mind to reason, and therefore a complete waste of time talking to you.

But religionists can never refer to their belief as being based on reason since they have no facts

You missed.....

...............that agree with mine.

and it is this essential truth that reveals that religious beliefs are based on blind faith.

So you have the monopoly on "essential truth" now?

However, many religionists are uncomfortable being seen to believe something that is outside of reason (i.e. unreasonable and irrational).

I would have thought many people would feel uncomfortable, why only religionists?

And they fight hard to try and claim that faith is indeed based on reason, or that believing on faith is some kind of special way to discover truth.

Is that so? Maybe you could give an example within what is being discussed here.

Gibberish.

Gibberish;
Rapid and inarticulate talk; unintelligible language; unmeaning words; jargon.

I said;

“What you are most probably talking about is blind-faith, where the person doesn't understand or care why they have faith, but that is the person, not faith.”

Exactly which part of that statement didn’t you understand Cris?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Jan,

"but to believe a fact, there first has to be an element of faith. "

I certainly dont believe any fact 100% so how can there be an element of faith? Science obviously cannot believe a fact 100%, so where do you see an element of faith? Once again, having faith in something implies believing in it absolutely.

"it would be totally arrogant and elitist to say that people who have faith in God do not have a mind to reason"

You can be unreasonable and reasonable at the same time.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=

"..faith is based on reason.."
I am without words. You honestly expect that phrase to stand up in a Science Forum?

Reason, (Websters Dictionary)

1. A thought or a consideration offered in support of a determination or an opinion;
2. a just ground for a conclusion or an action; that which is offered or accepted as an explanation;
3. the efficient cause of an occurrence or a phenomenon;
4. a motive for an action or a determination;
5. proof, more or less decisive, for an opinion or a conclusion; principle;
6. efficient cause; final cause; ground of argument.

Faith, (Websters Dict..)

1. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters;
2. firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.
3. The belief in the facts and truth of the Scriptures, with a practical love of them; especially, that confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ, which affects the character and life.
4. That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.).
5. 4: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith";

I implore you to explain to me how faith is based on reason, for the sake of the argument. NOTE: reason as in logic as in rational thinking.

There is no point explaining it to you, but I have put down just a few official descriptions of the words, maybe you can tell me why faith cannot be based on reason.

My dictionary sais: Faith is founded on authority ; apart from proof. Your definition please so I may ammend? (Sarcastic Snicker)

There is no one description of these words but I guess you already know that, but seem only interested in this one account. But then, ignorance is bliss, so they say.

The attitude of the given person towards his faith (how wierdly you put it) does not change that he has faith and that it is blind. Enuff said.

What are you talking about?

I mean, very obviously, that using logic you must rely on reasons and proofs for your conclusion, thus reason is not blind. Definitions!

One has to rely on reason almost every part of ones waking moment, all humans use logic and reason and the outcome of their decisions is based among other things, on their level of intelligence and awareness of any situation. It is not only dangerous, but completely stupid to assume that only people like yourself has this capability, nothing you or I have, can or will do, is outside the human capability, unless there is some kind of defect. And if you think people who have faith are somehow defected, then as far as I am concerned, you are in a bad way.

Definitions again. The idea is if a person sais he/she has faith in x then he believes absolutely, never mind proof. Enlighten me, please.

Do you want to discuss ideas or do you want to know what faith in God is, from a person who has faith in God. I wouldn’t be surprised if you chose the former, as it is in line with your posts.

If you refuse to give me your idea of religion, ill be blunt.

I don’t have an idea of religion, but...... religion is a process by which one can come to the platform of realising ones true-self, the Supreme Self (God), and establish our true relationship with Him. There are many ways to this goal, these are called religion or as I prefer to say Sanatana Dharma.

Wich is fine by me because whilst I cannot attack you, I have massacred conventional religoin.

You mean you have massacred your brain-cells.

As I have explained to the best of my abilities, the concepts of religion and faith undermines itself when it admits a chance of bieng wrong.

When learning to ride a bicycle and your first attempts fail, are you wrong, or are you right?

Fine. Lets agree to disagree. I can be certain however that your motivation is much more emotional than mine. I have surmised this from the beginning since you refuse to face facts.

*yawn*
Facts?
What facts?

Its called statistics, and yes, there were numerous surveys held at the Academy of Sciences in the USA and elsewhere. Scientific American, New Scientist, Science Journals of all sorts shows this fact. You actually doubt this. Go read some.

Oh! It must be right then. Now I don’t have to think for myself, what with all the statistics flyin around.

Spot on.

I thought you might.

Jan, it seems, is beyond logic!!!

Thanks for the compliment.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Jenyar
those who did would be inferior because they lack the willpower and support of healthy reason to achieve anything.

Wow, aren't you emotionally devoted... the problem is that you're devoted to a bunch of lies. The problem with the lies is that they preclude possibility. The problem with precluding possibility is that when faced when what should be blatent evidence to contradict your devotion, you adapt your input to justify your perspective rather adapting your mind to encompass the evidence. You're fundamentally on a fantastic voyage bound for nowhere if sincere understanding is your intent because you taint your perspective with fundamental eronious presumptions. Seems to me that as religious person, you lock yourself into the unhealthy exploration of emotional disfunction, gratifying your need for answers with the numbness of the cult mojo. Fine work there.

Originally posted by Jenyar

You are waging an argument from a rather simple attitude that since, in your own eyes, every true scientist should reject all forms of religion, every theist should likewise reject all science or reason.

Reason is not selective. You cannot be partially reasonable. You either are or you are not. At some point a theist abandons reason for faith. Agnostic reason dictates technically there is no answer questions like "is jesus lord?" or "which deity is right?". Faith dictates whatever you want that whore to dictate. She's a great whore, but she comes at the cost of authenticity.

I would add though that IMO there is one exception to the reasoning above. That is: Faith in reason. I think that valid since it is reasonable to have faith in reason by definition.

Originally posted by Jenyar

Theists reject neither reason nor science.

All theists do indeed at some level abandon reason for faith, remember?

Originally posted by Jenyar

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

As if a human could comprehend the choice of it's presupposed 'god'. Quite rich.

If one were bold enough guess, wouldn't the only valid conclusion be that god DID make his choice and it is exactly what you see before you? Yet that implies that both of our perspectives are correct.. or does it? Doesn't Occum's Razor fit here? You say "god did it", i say "i don't know what did it." which claim is more in line with "that which can be verified"?

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Debating with you, Jan isnt bieng very productive, partly because we are discussing seperate concepts and partly because you wont accept at face value what ive been trying to get across.

I get the distinct idea that if I were to say black was different from white, you would find a way to prove me wrong via some twisted logic.

"maybe you can tell me why faith cannot be based on reason"

Beg me...and no, love is not enough.
Truth + Unknown does not equal Truth.
Just so Reason + Faith does not equal Truth.
Your statements implied meaning is therefore crap.

"but seem only interested in this one account. But then, ignorance is bliss, so they say."

Yes, well, I am interested in the relevant definition. I am dealing with why faith, in the theist sense, is blind BTW.
As for ignorance, I am ignorant about what your points are, if you have any.

"stupid to assume that only people like yourself has this capability, nothing you or I have, can or will do, is outside the human capability, unless there is some kind of defect. And if you think people who have faith are somehow defected, then as far as I am concerned, you are in a bad way."

Well, at least im not arrogant enough to think ill go to heaven because of my ideas.
Hope, to me, has always been a better bargain. People who have faith, deny themselves mystery in return for comfort. Shame on them.

"Do you want to discuss ideas or do you want to know what faith in God is, from a person who has faith in God. I wouldn’t be surprised if you chose the former, as it is in line with your posts."

You wouldnt give me an answer if I asked...

"I don’t have an idea of religion, but...... religion is a process by which one can come to the platform of realising ones true-self, the Supreme Self (God), and establish our true relationship with Him. There are many ways to this goal, these are called religion or as I prefer to say Sanatana Dharma. "

Supreme Self? Interesting, you really do think you know it all, dont you?

"When learning to ride a bicycle and your first attempts fail, are you wrong, or are you right? "

Not relevant. Even after a hundred failures if you still believe you can ride, your faith is sound. As soon as you believe there is a possibility of never ever reaching your goal, you dont have faith anymore, but hope. BIG difference.

"Oh! It must be right then. Now I don’t have to think for myself, what with all the statistics flyin around. "

Thinking for yourself cant help you here. I do not lie, niether, I think, do statistics. For the record, next time, when crossing a road, dont believe what the traffic lights tell you, just keep walking no matter what, ok?

"Thanks for the compliment. "

Manipulate all you want, ive seen from your first post how fanatical you are!!! (Yes, go read it. How you have changed!)

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=
By definition science and religion are incompatible as demonstrated by Q. You argue with this?

Golly gee. Sorry to "argue" with such august expertise. Unfortunately, neither you nor (Q) demonstrated anything other than a polemically contrived and narrow definition of compatibility.

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=
There is a difference between science and religion being compatible and them co-existing. The 2 co-existing simply means people choose to subscribe to both realms not that they have anything in common.

Main Entry: in·com·pat·i·ble
Pronunciation: "in-k&m-'pa-t&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Medieval Latin; Middle French, from Medieval Latin incompatibilis, from Latin in- + Medieval Latin compatibilis compatible
Date: 15th century
1 : incapable of being held by one person at one time -- used of offices that make conflicting demands on the holder
2 : not compatible: as a : incapable of association or harmonious coexistence <incompatible colors> b : unsuitable for use together because of undesirable chemical or physiological effects <incompatible drugs> c : not both true <incompatible propositions> d : incapable of blending into a stable homogeneous mixture

All in all, it's not a big point ...

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

"Golly gee. Sorry to "argue" with such august expertise. Unfortunately, neither you nor (Q) demonstrated anything other than a polemically contrived and narrow definition of compatibility. "

Well, you care to explain in wich regards science and religion are compatible?

"...used of offices that make conflicting demands on the holder "

I believe this to be the case as the two realms are fundamentally different. What are we discussing again?:bugeye:

 

[Cris]

Jan,

Which version of Webster are you quoting from? Your definitions look to be about 100 years old. I found a version from 1828 that came pretty close to your definitions of faith.

The definitions from my Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary (2000) gives me this -

Reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways.

Faith:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions.

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust.

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

(1) is not relevant for our discussion.
(2) links religion and a lack of proof in the same category.
(3) Is about conviction, and doesn’t mention reason.

 

[Jenyar]

Arguing over definitions aren't going to solve anything. Meaning comes first - word merely try to describe that meaning unambiguously (and since their are such things as synonymns it will quite often fail).

a) belief and trust in and loyalty to God(1) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion(2) b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof(3) : complete trust(4).

All are true, of course. But not in a relativistic sense.

(1)Faith is belief in and loyalty to God;
(2)Depending on what you experience as 'traditional', this is also true. In this case: that what I have faith in is reasonable to believe;
(3)If you have "Faith" in something for which there is no proof, then this is true;
(4)Amen.

 

[Cris]

Jenyar,

Arguing over definitions aren't going to solve anything. Meaning comes first - word merely try to describe that meaning unambiguously (and since their are such things as synonymns it will quite often fail).

But the definition of a word leads to its meaning and for effective communication between two parties they must agree on the definition otherwise communication fails. The misunderstanding of words and phrases has in the past led to wars.

The definitions of faith have been so screwed up by religions desperately attempting to counteract the truth of their irrationality that it is now largely pointless trying to debate with anyone when the word is introduced. Faith has become FUBAR.

The real issue is the basis for belief, and this comes in two primary flavors –

1. Belief based on known and established facts.
2. Belief where facts are absent.

Religious belief is (2).

The difference is vital since (1) establishes truth and (2) can easily lead to false and erroneous conclusions.

 

[Jenyar]

The real issue is the basis for belief, and this comes in two primary flavors –

1. Belief based on known and established facts.
2. Belief where facts are absent.[/list=1] ...The difference is vital since (1) establishes truth and (2) can easily lead to false and erroneous conclusions.

1. 
   I agree. However, I do not agree that the events the Christian faith is based on are fabrications. Trustworthy testimony - even when it does not comprise of hard, measurable, scientific proofs - remains trustworthy testimony.
   
   The problem lies in "establishing" the facts of history. History cannot be repeated. This is where we loose each other. I believe these people, including Jesus, weren't lying - and you believe they were, or didn't even exist. I don't know what you base this belief on, but I can bet you don't have "hard evidence" for it.
   
   Most religious faiths are (2), for various reasons - valid or invalid - one of which is that the 'facts' are at best not physical/scientifically provable, and at worst not 'factual' in the first place. A bit like looking for the 'facts' of love.
   I hold that the basis of the Christian faith is (1) - Being the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - who was the appointed Son of God, and through him is the only salvation we will have when God comes to judge his creation.

 

[Cris]

Jenyar,

I agree. However, I do not agree that the events the Christian faith is based on are fabrications. Trustworthy testimony - even when it does not comprise of hard, measurable, scientific proofs - remains trustworthy testimony.

But that cannot be established since it is known that the early church fathers manipulated and edited texts and destroyed texts to suit the story they wished to tell. What you read now has been filtered too many times to be reliable.

History cannot be repeated. This is where we loose each other. I believe these people, including Jesus, weren't lying - and you believe they were, or didn't even exist. I don't know what you base this belief on, but I can bet you don't have "hard evidence" for it.

Part of the evidence for what I believe is the mythology of Christianity is the silence that should not exist. But see this link –

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

The problem lies in "establishing" the facts of history.

Does it? I don’t think so. God is meant to exist today. Jesus is meant to be active today. The Holy Spirit is meant to be active today. These are modern claims that are independent of past history.

No one can show factual proof for any of these things; hence they could easily be false.

…. the 'facts' are at best not physical/scientifically provable, …

But if a claimed fact is not physical/scientifically provable then it isn’t a fact since there is no other type of fact. If religion wants to establish a different type of fact then they must show that such a phenomenon is possible and that has not been established.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris [/i]
Canute,

OK but religious faith is the shape and size that is irrational.

Yes but none involve religion. Religious belief is always irrational since it is based on the type of faith that doesn’t include reason.

Before replying can you make clear what you mean by 'religion'. Your last sentence suggests that there is a type of faith that does include reason and which is therefore more acceptable. Can you give an example (Just trying to see where you're coming from.)

Perhaps, but try abiogenesis, and the physics of Linde, Hawking, etc., first as a start on how to begin.[/B]

Abiogenesis comes late in the day. Don't know Linde but Hawking hasn't any better idea about how it started than you and I do.

What singular happening are you talking about?.[/B]

He was referring to the BB (or any equivalent first event).

The irrational part of course comes when anyone says they do know where it all came from, i.e. religions. .[/B]

Which religions? Most give metaphorical answers which have perfectly sensible logical structures (eg let there be light, or turtles standing on turtles). At least most religions recognise the absurdity of the question. Even Wittgentein thought the answer was beyond science.

No, this is gross misunderstanding of the role of science. Science is a process or set of processes for discovering knowledge. Science has never claimed that it knows everything or will ever know everything. Science doesn’t care about philosophical issues. Science is incapable of caring about anything or can have any opinions on the matter..[/B]

I feel that the misunderstanding may be yours. Science is a way of gaining scientific knowledge, no more and no less. However there is no evidence that scientific knowledge is all that there is. To say that science isn't interested in philosophy is profoundly incorrect. I think you mean that these days most jobbing scientists aren't interested in it, which is not the same thing. (Again it depends what you mean by philosophy, for instance physics used to be called natural philosophy.)

Are you therefore suggesting that religion has a superior mechanism for determining knowledge, and if so, how?[/B]

I think that you're confusing scientific knowledge with knowledge in general. I'll wait for your definition of religion for the rest (Not being pedantic but people mean different things by it.)

 

[Cris]

Canute,

.. can you make clear what you mean by 'religion'.

Any system of beliefs that assert that an alleged supernatural realm is true and that that might include the concept of a god or gods, or spirits/souls, or an ability to survive death through a non-physical mechanism.

Your last sentence suggests that there is a type of faith that does include reason and which is therefore more acceptable.

I might say that I have faith in my doctor, but such a type of faith is based on the evidence that he has given me past good advice. I.e. it is not blind faith.

Abiogenesis comes late in the day.

Why would that matter?

Don't know Linde but Hawking hasn't any better idea about how it started than you and I do.

Linde is playing a major role in the formulation of Inflationary theory, i.e. the origins of big bangs. But all are capable of and have expressed imaginative speculation about our origins which I would describe as ideas based on state of the art physics and science.

Which religions?

I tend to think of the major influences of Christianity and Islam since they allegedly include approximately 4 billion people or 66% of the world population.

I feel that the misunderstanding may be yours. Science is a way of gaining scientific knowledge, no more and no less.

I think you are erroneously limiting science.

From Webster: Science –

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know;
Date:14th century.

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study.

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

Science is effectively a formalized mechanism for the establishment of knowledge. There is no limit to the scope of science. Some claim that science is limited to the physical realm but then no one has ever established that there is anything else. If a supernatural realm was ever detected then it would become a valid object for science to investigate.

However there is no evidence that scientific knowledge is all that there is.

Science has no limit so how can there be anything else? I believe your statement is necessarily false.

To say that science isn't interested in philosophy is profoundly incorrect.

Science is a subset of philosophy and a tool to be used by philosophy. But science doesn’t have the capability of being interested in philosophy. It is a system for establishing knowledge.

I think that you're confusing scientific knowledge with knowledge in general.

I would assert that the scientific method can be applied by anyone and in any aspect of life in order to establish truth and knowledge. What do you mean by knowledge in general?

 

[Cris]

Canute,

Note also that mathematics and logic are branches of science.

 

[Canute]

Mistaken post

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
Canute, Any system of beliefs that assert that an alleged supernatural realm is true and that that might include the concept of a god or gods, or spirits/souls, or an ability to survive death through a non-physical mechanism.

Fair enough. Science's number one axiom is that none of these things exist. Axioms are assumptions. You're entitled to yours.

[I might say that I have faith in my doctor, but such a type of faith is based on the evidence that he has given me past good advice. I.e. it is not blind faith.[/B]

Neither are religious beliefs necessarily blind (although of course some are).

[Linde is playing a major role in the formulation of Inflationary theory, i.e. the origins of big bangs. But all are capable of and have expressed imaginative speculation about our origins which I would describe as ideas based on state of the art physics and science.[/B]

None of them have yet attempted to approach the real issue, prefering to stick with what happened just after it started. The story of the creation of this Universe seems to be beyond science. (You might like Hawkings piece at www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strtst/dirac/hawking. It's slightly relevant.)

[I tend to think of the major influences of Christianity and Islam since they allegedly include approximately 4 billion people or 66% of the world population. .[/B]

I agree that modern Christianity is simpleminded. However so is popular science. You have to go a long way under the surface of both of them and 'unpopularise' them to see what they're really about. I wonder if you've been fair and spent as much time considering metaphysics as you have science.

[I think you are erroneously limiting science..[/B]

Science is intentionally and carefully limited by its own definitions and methods.

[Science is effectively a formalized mechanism for the establishment of knowledge. There is no limit to the scope of science. Some claim that science is limited to the physical realm but then no one has ever established that there is anything else. If a supernatural realm was ever detected then it would become a valid object for science to investigate. [/B]

IMO this is muddled. You are probably alone in thinking that there is no limit to the scope of science, and your defintion of 'knowledge' leaves out anything non-scientific (ie all subjective knowledge).

The supernatural is beyond science. This is because the moment science accepts something as scientific it ceases to be supernatural. Personally I don't believe in the supernatural, since I can't see how something be beyond nature. However that is not to say that things can't be beyond science.

[Science has no limit so how can there be anything else? I believe your statement is necessarily false. [/B]

On what basis do you assert that science has no limit?

[Science is a subset of philosophy and a tool to be used by philosophy. But science doesn’t have the capability of being interested in philosophy. It is a system for establishing knowledge. [/B]

I'd rather not divide up knowledge in this way. Knowledge is knowledge, who cares what discipline it belongs to? I prefer the older idea of philosophy as the search for wisdom.

[I would assert that the scientific method can be applied by anyone and in any aspect of life in order to establish truth and knowledge. What do you mean by knowledge in general? [/B]

I agree that the scientific method is indispensible to getting through the day. However it does not establish truth, and it only creates scientific knowledge, which on the whole is profoundly trivial (although handy if you want to fly to Mars).

The fact is that at the moment there is no scientific evidence that you are conscious. Neither is there any acceptable outline hypothesis of how something came from nothing. I feel that these are the weakness in the scientific view that will undo its whole ball of string in the end.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=
Canute, "There are perfectly rational versions. "
Would you please give examples?

Depends on your definition of religion. The Buddhist view is often described as 'enlightened common sense'. I would agree with that.

...science is the ONLY way we can ever have a valid view of the universe. [/B]

Science obviously contains some of the truth so must be included in any 'valid view'. However that isn't to say it produces the only valid view. It's certainly a long way from being one at the moment.

"Blind faith refers to a belief where facts are absent. Hence religious faith = blind faith" - Cris
Why is it so hard for me to explain the obvious? Thanks Cris, spot on again.[/B]

The obvious is always the hardest thing to explain, that's not your fault. It's the scientific stuff that is easier to get across. Presumably you have only a blind faith in your own self-awareness, as it isn't a scientific fact.

["Are you therefore suggesting that religion has a superior mechanism for determining knowledge, and if so, how? ". [/B]

No. I'm suggesting that religion is in the same boat as science when it comes to determining knowledge

 

[Balerion]

Fair enough. Science's number one axiom is that none of these things exist. Axioms are assumptions. You're entitled to yours.

But the difference is that religious people see the absence of evidence and choose to believe in spite of it. Science sees the abscene of evidence and concludes that there is nothing there to believe in, which is the only reasonable conclusion.

Think about it this way: I can tell you right now that a big, yellow glob of mucus in hovering above your left shoulder right this very moment, but you can't see it. Despite the fact that you can't see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, smell it, I'm asking you to believe. Now, science would tell you that the glob of mucus doesn't exists, due to the complete and total lack of evidence for it. It isn't based on my mental state, or lack thereof; it's not making assumptions. It is concluding based on the fact that there is no proof provided to give one reason to beleive.

Relgion, on the other hand, tells you to believe that the glob is hovering over your left shoulder despite there being zero evidence for it. Religion tells you to blindly believe.

Do you believe in the mucus? If not, then what makes the bible any more credible than me?

Science obviously contains some of the truth so must be included in any 'valid view'.

Of course. But I think I see where you're going with this, and I think you're missing the boat.

However that isn't to say it produces the only valid view.

See, you're failing to understand what science is. There is no other way to produce what you call a "valid view" than science. Science is the tool that produces answers from the sum of the information gathered. This, no matter what you want to call it (Like common sense, for as a very basic example) science is the only method of determining what is true and what isn't.

Even if a supernatural gateway to Ford Prefect's summer home on Gamma 22C were to open right now, it would be scientific method would determine if the validity of the event. Even the common man could use it by realizing "Hey, why am I the only one who sees this?" and deduce that he must be losing his mind. And if the phenominon turned out to be an actual supernatural gateway, it would only be through science that we could determine it.

It's certainly a long way from being one at the moment.

And on what facts do you base this assumption on?

The obvious is always the hardest thing to explain, that's not your fault.

Pure nonsense.

Presumably you have only a blind faith in your own self-awareness, as it isn't a scientific fact.

Somebody help me here, but is there no scientific evidence that we are self-aware?

No. I'm suggesting that religion is in the same boat as science when it comes to determining knowledge

More nonsense. Ok, let's break this down...science has discovered things, and determined things to be factual or non-factual through examination of evidence/lack of/absence of evidence. And religion has.....? Religion does not gather knowledge, nor is it a tool in which you can examine the evidence. All you can do with religion is compare the scientific world through dogmatic eyes, determining the truth of the information based on writings which have no evidence to back up their validity.

In no way are science and religion in the same boat. In no way. Dude...how can you even consider for a moment that religion has anything to do with gaining knowledge?

JD