Faith vs Reason

[jayleew]

I think science and religion or sprituality are basicly opposite ends of the same string. Both attempt to look into the face of God.

I don't agree with this at all. First off, religion and spirituality are two different things. Any and all three of these things can coexist on any end of the same string (the truth). Honestly, I don't think science or religion have the complete picture, but religion is becoming out-dated.

I still have hope for spirituality. We all want answers for the questions that science has not answered, or not completely tested (or perhaps can't be fully tested).

However, it is easy to reasonably dismiss spirituality for a bad piece of meat in the stomach because of science.

I am curious about if there is an afterlife and things like souls. I hope science can prove a case someday. It is difficult for me...this faith vs reason, because reason always wins.

 

[joepistole]

I don't agree with this at all. First off, religion and spirituality are two different things. Any and all three of these things can coexist on any end of the same string (the truth). Honestly, I don't think science or religion have the complete picture, but religion is becoming out-dated.

I still have hope for spirituality. We all want answers for the questions that science has not answered, or not completely tested (or perhaps can't be fully tested).

However, it is easy to reasonably dismiss spirituality for a bad piece of meat in the stomach because of science.

I am curious about if there is an afterlife and things like souls. I hope science can prove a case someday. It is difficult for me...this faith vs reason, because reason always wins.

I would argue, religion is man's version of a how to guide to sprituality. Since it is man's intrepretation and device, it is failable and subject to coruption.

I would also agree that our science is very limited. We have a very limited knowledge of the universe. And since we are so very limited, we cannot rule out the existence of God. For a truely rational skeptic, the best he can ever do is agnostism.

 

[Myles]

Both science and spirtuality seek knowledge of truth. Early in our history, religion and science were the same. Only in recent years have the two diverged...history 101. Who were the first astronomers, priests. Who were the first scientists, priests. Who were the keepers of knowledge in the Dark Ages, priests. Who were the first medical experts, priests.

Why do you think they have diverged ? I'd say it's because superstition has been superseded by science.

We also had ans still have wirch doctors, shamans and so on. Are they all right too ?

 

[Myles]

Go to hell.

Don't encourage him; you know there is no such place. You could say " Go to the dogs" and he might do that in light of what he says in his hysterical post.

 

[stretched]

I know for a fact that if atheism-Bolshevism got the upper hand in america,’
, ‘I should either be hanging from the nearest lamppost or locked up in
some cellar or other. So the question for me is not whether or not I want to
undertake this or that, but whether or not we succeed in preventing a atheism -Bolshevik
take-over. I myself have the blind faith that our CRISTIAN movement will win
through. We began2000 years ago with 12 men,’Today
I can say with confidence that our cause will prevail.’

believed that the AMERICAN people needed ‘a monarch-like idol’ – but not
some mild-mannered king, so much as a ‘full-blooded and ruthless ruler,’ a
dictator who would rule with an iron hand, like Oliver Cromwell.It is something
like training a dog: first it is given to a tough handler, and then, when
it has been put through the hoops, it is turned over to a friendly owner
whom it will serve with all the greater loyalty and devotion.’


I always used to regard antiATHEISM as inhumane, but now my own experiences
have converted me into the most fanatical enemy of ATHEISM:

ATHEISTS as born destroyers, not rulers at all; they had neither culture, nor art,nor architecture of their own, ‘the surest expression of a people’s culture.’

They are just
calculators. That explains why only ATHEITS could have founded Marxism, which
negates and destroys the very basis of all culture. With their Marxism, the
ATHEITS hoped to create a broad mindless mass of plebs without any real intelligence,
a gormless instrument in their hands.’

Now theres something you don`t see every day.

 

[stretched]

The dangers, oh the dangers of Faith vs Reason...

[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]

This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god

if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state

Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this

god tests every one of us [emphasis added]

theSAVED, Penny Arcade [Comments (239)] [2007-Jan-14]

(from: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1)

from another true Christian Scary innit?

 

[Myles]

The dangers, oh the dangers of Faith vs Reason...



(from: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1)

from another true Christian Scary innit?

That reminds me of something I read in a railway station waiting room. It wa an article in the Christian Science Monitor, To cut to the chase.

Peggy goes for a ride on her new bike, She falls off and cuts her knee which bleeds badly. She runs home , crying all the way. Mummy explains that there is no illness , only the absence of good. Mummy fetches Bible and reads to Peggy. They pray together and lo and behold when she looks at her kne the cut has vanished.

 

[joepistole]

Why do you think they have diverged ? I'd say it's because superstition has been superseded by science.

We also had ans still have wirch doctors, shamans and so on. Are they all right too ?

Myles, this is not my point. My point is religion and science have the same objective, to know the truth of our existence. Religion and science have different methodologies, but both seek truth. That is my point. They shared the same orgin and serve the same end.

It was not superstition that put together the calendar. It was not supersitition that allowed priests to successfully perform brain surgery. It was not supersitition that allowed priests to predict future astronomical events. IT was not superstition that told the priests when to tell the farmers to plant their crops.

I think you are getting lost, where a lot of religious people get lost. They get lost in the details of the quest. There are many religious and atheists who get lost in the words and in the details. They loose site of the quest.

Your comment about witch doctors and shamman misses the point. There is no right or wrong in this respect, there is knowledge. We can only see less than 5 percent of our universe and some of us act as if we know it all. We know almost nothing! I suspect, the universe is far more wonderous than anything we can even conceive.

As I tried to point out, if you are an atheist, you are guilty of the same passions and illogical reasoning you accuse of people of religion. At best, an honest rational skeptic can only be agnostic.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Before looking into anyone's face you have to be satisfied he exists. So, how do you support your statement ?

just because something exists it doesn't make it real.
If God(or the ethic's of God) did not exist then you would not be writting about it on this thread because the thread would not exist. the fact that you are arguing about it means it has to exist for you to argue about it.

SO GOD EXISTS, BUT HE IS NOT REAL

An athiest cannot say God does not exist because it does (in the form of belief).
A christian cannot say God is real because it is a concept it is not possible for it to be real (this has been proven in history).

again you use the word exist??????
existence has nothing to do with reality, Wilma Flintstone exists but I can't take her out for a drink can you not see the difference between reality and existence?????????????????????????????????????????:shrug:

 

[Myles]

Myles, this is not my point. My point is religion and science have the same objective, to know the truth of our existence. Religion and science have different methodologies, but both seek truth. That is my point. They shared the same orgin and serve the same end.

It was not superstition that put together the calendar. It was not supersitition that allowed priests to successfully perform brain surgery. It was not supersitition that allowed priests to predict future astronomical events. IT was not superstition that told the priests when to tell the farmers to plant their crops.

I think you are getting lost, where a lot of religious people get lost. They get lost in the details of the quest. There are many religious and atheists who get lost in the words and in the details. They loose site of the quest.

Your comment about witch doctors and shamman misses the point. There is no right or wrong in this respect, there is knowledge. We can only see less than 5 percent of our universe and some of us act as if we know it all. We know almost nothing! I suspect, the universe is far more wonderous than anything we can even conceive.

As I tried to point out, if you are an atheist, you are guilty of the same passions and illogical reasoning you accuse of people of religion. At best, an honest rational skeptic can only be agnostic.

The calendar was put together as a result of observation and reasoning, which is part of the scientific process. In that sense you could regard it as early science which has developed and is now more sophisticated.

So as far as early activities of a similar nature are concerned, it is fair to say they were using elementary science which had nothing to do with superstition.

As far as religion is concerned, it attempts to gain knowledge but its claims are not open to empirical verification. Thus, I regard it as an advanced form of superstition, if such a thing is possible. If someone else choose to take a religious view, that is entirely up to them. It all boils down to whether one demands empirical evidence or is satisfied with explanations based on speculation.

I suggest, therfore that we are not talking about divergence; its a matter of two methodologies operating in parallel.

Finally, we are all aware that our knowledge is limited but that does not mean that we should fill the gaps with gods, so to speak. You are not making allowance for progress, something which is clearly evident from the history of science. Gods are being ousted from the gaps as we continue to make progress.

 

[Myles]

just because something exists it doesn't make it real.
If God(or the ethic's of God) did not exist then you would not be writting about it on this thread because the thread would not exist. the fact that you are arguing about it means it has to exist for you to argue about it.

SO GOD EXISTS, BUT HE IS NOT REAL

An athiest cannot say God does not exist because it does (in the form of belief).
A christian cannot say God is real because it is a concept it is not possible for it to be real (this has been proven in history).

again you use the word exist??????
existence has nothing to do with reality, Wilma Flintstone exists but I can't take her out for a drink can you not see the difference between reality and existence?????????????????????????????????????????:shrug:

What you say is obviously true, but would you pray to Wilma Flintsone. claim miricales on her behalf, explain what she expects of us in terms of our behaviour ? I don't think so. But the majority of people who believe in god are not thinking of existence in the sense of Wilma; they believe god exists and that he will literally reward and punish us and so on. In this sense there is a lot to argue about.

Try persuading a few Christians to accept that god is no more than a mental construct and see how they respond ! I think you know what will happen. So, in terms of the debate about god , your distinction between existence as a reality and a mental is irrelevant.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

What you say is obviously true, but would you pray to Wilma Flintsone. claim miricales on her behalf, explain what she expects of us in terms of our behaviour ? I don't think so. But the majority of people who believe in god are not thinking of existence in the sense of Wilma; they believe god exists and that he will literally reward and punish us and so on. In this sense there is a lot to argue about.

In using wilma it was supposed to be reasoning that the same problem why God cannont show itself is the same reason why wilma cannot go for a drink with me.

Try persuading a few Christians to accept that god is no more than a mental construct and see how they respond ! I think you know what will happen. So, in terms of the debate about god , your distinction between existence as a reality and a mental is irrelevant.

.
I agree with this, the shame is that it is an excellent contstruct if it is seen in the light but the distinction betweeen existence in the physial and existance in the mental is where the problem lies and it is the two sides the argument stands.
if i didn't exist then we wouldn't be writing on this thread as it would not exist

 

[Myles]

In using wilma it was supposed to be reasoning that the same problem why God cannont show itself is the same reason why wilma cannot go for a drink with me.
.
I agree with this, the shame is that it is an excellent contstruct if it is seen in the light but the distinction betweeen existence in the physial and existance in the mental is where the problem lies and it is the two sides the argument stands.
if i didn't exist then we wouldn't be writing on this thread as it would not exist

I suggest your reasoning is wrong here. Both parties woul agree that they have a mental concept of god. A theist insists that he knows his concept is an idea of a real, living entity who will answer prayer, perform miracles and so on. It's this idea og god that is argued about, not the mental consteucy.

So, in your terms I can say I have one god and that he exists as a mental construct ONLY. A theist will disagrre because he believes his mental consteuct is a reflerction a reality. In that swnse he can be said to have ywo gods.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

I suggest your reasoning is wrong here. Both parties woul agree that they have a mental concept of god. A theist insists that he knows his concept is an idea of a real, living entity who will answer prayer, perform miracles and so on. It's this idea og god that is argued about, not the mental consteucy.

So, in your terms I can say I have one god and that he exists as a mental construct ONLY. A theist will disagrre because he believes his mental consteuct is a reflerction a reality. In that swnse he can be said to have ywo gods.

O.K.
Just looked up theism and it seems like fanatical christianism to me.
To me these people who still take the literal word for word meaning of the bible, biblical evolution e.t.c. are just fearful, just as belief in God was forced under pain of death (but as you were killed in the name of God it cleansed your soul),people who believe in God are probably just as scared now more than ever to come out of their bubble of belief and enter the future world. In the same way a child lost in the mall would be scared, frightened with the realisation their parent is not there to protect them.
I see how my reasoning may have seemed off now.
But I say to all belivers in God to ask what has it done for mankind which could be deemed as an unselfish act or an act with out attrocities, i've looked and found none???

 

[jayleew]

As far as religion is concerned, it attempts to gain knowledge but its claims are not open to empirical verification.

Myles, good post, but you give religion too much credit. If only that were true that religion seeks truth! Religion's teachings is that all things that are knowable have been presented in a book. Anything, outside the covers is heresy and difficult (next to impossible) to be assimilated. Christianity, for instance treats the Bible as the cornerstone of their faith. Now, that was unintended maybe, but over time people forgot that Jesus should be the cornerstone. So, they stopped seeking for truth anywhere except in the Bible. It's so narrow-minded, that I don't know why God would not be insulted. If I become a Christian again (or maybe I still am), it will be because God impacted my life undeniably, and my evidence would not come from a book. Just imagine if Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago and people tested his knowledge and he said, "The scriptures say ...." and stopped there. No, supposedly he came and said, "The scriptures say ... But, I say..."

Well, my point is that today all religion says is, "The scriptures say..." Not to say any man should put themselves in the place of a god, but they should be scientists.

 

[joepistole]

Religion's teachings is that all things that are knowable have been presented in a book. Anything, outside the covers is heresy and difficult (next to impossible) to be assimilated. Christianity, for instance treats the Bible as the cornerstone of their faith. Now, that was unintended maybe, but over time people forgot that Jesus should be the cornerstone. So, they stopped seeking for truth anywhere except in the Bible.."

First, the Bible does not say all things knowable are within its bindings. Jesus himself referred many times to the mysteries that were not for general consumption of the masses. And it is well known that Jesus frequently spoke in parables. This was done as part of a tradition in oral teaching...it encourages those to whom the message is being communicated to think about the message, and to look at things in different lights.

Please do not confuse the man's corruption with religion.

 

[jayleew]

First, the Bible does not say all things knowable are within its bindings. Jesus himself referred many times to the mysteries that were not for general consumption of the masses. And it is well known that Jesus frequently spoke in parables. This was done as part of a tradition in oral teaching...it encourages those to whom the message is being communicated to think about the message, and to look at things in different lights.

Please do not confuse the man's corruption with religion.

I said "religion's teachings is that all things are knowable" and Jesus is making my point.

Just as you say, religion is corrupted...it's broken. It is no longer the search for truth as it was in the past. Perhaps religion is backpeddling, but instead religion needs to break through.

But, my point was is that I disagree with your statement that both science and religion search for the truth.

 

[joepistole]

I said "religion's teachings is that all things are knowable" and Jesus is making my point.

Just as you say, religion is corrupted...it's broken. It is no longer the search for truth as it was in the past. Perhaps religion is backpeddling, but instead religion needs to break through.

But, my point was is that I disagree with your statement that both science and religion search for the truth.

I apologize for misunderstanding. However, I think there is religion as designed and intended and religion as practiced by some individuals. And I think that has always been the case. One needs to be careful of the latter, as religion becomes a tool for the pursuit of earthly power and not spritual enlightenment.

I might also caution against scientific arrogance...it too may impeed knowledge and rational thought.

 

[Myles]

O.K.
Just looked up theism and it seems like fanatical christianism to me.
To me these people who still take the literal word for word meaning of the bible, biblical evolution e.t.c. are just fearful, just as belief in God was forced under pain of death (but as you were killed in the name of God it cleansed your soul),people who believe in God are probably just as scared now more than ever to come out of their bubble of belief and enter the future world. In the same way a child lost in the mall would be scared, frightened with the realisation their parent is not there to protect them.
I see how my reasoning may have seemed off now.
But I say to all belivers in God to ask what has it done for mankind which could be deemed as an unselfish act or an act with out attrocities, i've looked and found none???

Can I suggest you could find a better use for you time, I can give you a short comprehensive answer but don't look for logic.

God is responsible for all the lovely things. Flowers, llittle birds praising him is song, sunshine and so on.

All the nasty things are due to man's sinful nature. We are born in sin because of what Adam and Eve got up to. Dont say it's unfair. God is love and god is righteous. You will be forgiven and avoid being thrown onto the lake of fire, if you repent and take esus as your saviour.



That's it.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

God is responsible for all the lovely things. Flowers, llittle birds praising him is song, sunshine and so on.

All the nasty things are due to man's sinful nature. We are born in sin because of what Adam and Eve got up to. Dont say it's unfair. God is love and god is righteous. You will be forgiven and avoid being thrown onto the lake of fire, if you repent and take esus as your saviour.

That's it.

O.K. dude on that river my boat don't float