"Religion" in a science forum

[Sarkus]

I have often wondered - why have a "Religion" forum in a science forum?
Now I do enjoy these threads, and have genuine interest in quite a bit of what is said, either the historical stuff or just working out why people believe certain things.

But there is no scientific evidence for God - I think everyone is in agreement on that, nor for any of the spiritual religions.
It is all a matter of faith.


So why have "Religion" as a thread?

Is it for religious people to swap ideas of their religions?
- If so, should it not be a non-atheist-only forum?

Is it for the atheists among us to try to explain why we don't (simple: - no evidence), and for the religious to explain why they do (simple: - faith)?
- If so, isn't "it's a matter of faith vs evidence" be enough? Afterall, this is what it all boils down to.


Ultimately, is there any point in debating the atheist-v-religion debate, when both sides acknowledge that it is purely a matter of faith?


Just curious.
I'm sure it's been asked before - but can't find it if it has.

 

[spidergoat]

Isn't it also a matter of faith to believe that the universe sprang from nothing at a single point for no reason (the Big Bang Theory)?

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

It's interesting that I should find this posted here and now. Just a few minutes ago I ran across an interesting article that claimed scientific evidence for God. Of course, it isn't evidence for a God in the sense that we would think. So I wouldn't really call it God as such, but it's what they claim. Interesting article though, but a bit long winded when it claims that the conclusion is an explanation of God, IMO. It has more to do with psychology than anything. Maybe some of you are already familiar with it, by George Hammond. For an quick version,

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/

if you're interested.

 

[scorpius]

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/

I got as far as the oxymoronic headlline "Christian science"...
no need to read more..

 

[scorpius]

Isn't it also a matter of faith to believe that the universe sprang from nothing at a single point for no reason (the Big Bang Theory)?

not really
isnt there some kind of evidence for the BB?
I dont think the universe sprang up from nothing,since its not possible to create something out of nothing,
and theres helluva lots of something out there!
my guess would be the universe always existed in some kind of shape or form and the big bang was just a part of continuous process of change,
big crunch then big bang ...maybe?

 

[duendy]

Religion has origins as well; just like anything else - therefore it is a topic for discovery. . .

Archeology/Historical Studies
Anthropology
Psychology
Humanist interest
Claims that contradict Science
Science that contradicts mythology or belief
De-bunking pseudo science.
Etc.

Damn right!...but what many scientists, wannabe scientists, athiest scientists, lovers of science DO is not take looking AY mythology--analytically and intuitively--seriously, as though they can just push it off the table, which to me is needing looking at itself. You see if you discount mythology, then you discount a huge part of yourself, and your behaviour unconsciously will reflect what you haven't resolved
You have to dig what mythology is.....It is a way of exploring paradox and ambiguity.
And you can also see how the patriarchy works by subverting a deep er understanding of reality, where there's is no divisive conflict between 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity'

what i see a lot of the science people do at these forums is presuppose only the patriarchal version of myth which they equate with 'religion'. this reminds me of the actual transition that happened with the birth of modern science ala Galileo. Wheere they split with a church that had (NOTE!) al READY psychologically split 'matter' from 'spirit'. Had already persecuted people who did not believe in this split. Are you with me? can you see the irony?
All this is important cause you can see science as -not some separate entity--but as emerging FROM such a mindset, and then going on to create its OWN 'religion' of 'mechancial reality'. which is where its at now--materialistic-mechansitic science. a myth which is creating complete havoc all over the world!

 

[James R]

sciforums is more than just a science forum. It hasn't been a dedicated science forum for quite some time now.

 

[ellion]

But there is no scientific evidence for God - I think everyone is in agreement on that, nor for any of the spiritual religions.
It is all a matter of faith.

as religious scriptures are mostly accounts of subjective experience, i wondered if there is any 'scientific evidence' for other subjective experiences that are not considered to be a matter of faith such as dreams, the unconcious mind, hallucinations. can or have such things been 'scientifically proven'

even something as ordinary and everyday as emotion how do you provide scientific evidence that you feel angry, or sad. a person may tell another that they are angry/sad, a person may recognize the outward expression that anger/sadness takes. but can a person provide 'scientific evidence' for those emotions?

 

[water]

Sarkus,


Why are you asking those questions?

 

[duendy]

Just asking that question shows to me that science--mechanistic-materialistic science is even MORe of an insidious dogma that fundamental religion.
Whereas it was the 'middle men' priests -in Medieval religion-that were the wall in between the individual and spiritual experience, in that only their say so could authenticate any sense of spiritual feeling as being 'sanctioned' by the Church, NOW you devotees of 'science' even question a person's EMOTIONAL FEELING unless 'sanctioned' by you 'scientific method's' demand for 'evidence'

You asking th question also reveals that you don't TRUST yourself. you don't trust your actual feeling.
This is the same divide and control strategy that is riddled throughout the patriarchal linear pattern throughout the centuries--now manifesting as mechansitic-materialstic science. Where the dogma separates you from yourself. This way IT can keep its authoritarian power over you. Because you have to go to it to ask what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. They thus become your sole authority as to what is 'supposed' to be authentic!

 

[Sarkus]

as religious scriptures are mostly accounts of subjective experience, i wondered if there is any 'scientific evidence' for other subjective experiences that are not considered to be a matter of faith such as dreams, the unconcious mind, hallucinations. can or have such things been 'scientifically proven'

even something as ordinary and everyday as emotion how do you provide scientific evidence that you feel angry, or sad. a person may tell another that they are angry/sad, a person may recognize the outward expression that anger/sadness takes. but can a person provide 'scientific evidence' for those emotions?

Scientific evidence for emotions - you mean like increased brainwave activity, change in body chemistry etc - yes, there is scientific evidence of the outward effect of emotions.
But emotions aren't subject to faith - they are merely words to describe the outward expression of those spontaneous chemical and mental changes.
Dreams? Yes - we have scientific evidence - REM, brain activity etc.
Hallucinations? I don't know - but I guess you would have to examine the visual cortex of the person experiencing the hallucinations. There is certainly something physical going on - it is certainly not a matter of faith.

But theist religion is a matter of pure faith.
As is belief in an invisible, undetectable, monkey sitting on my shoulder.

Why are you asking those questions?

Mere curiosity. I'm relatively new here, and was surprised by it. That's all.

But James R has summed it up nicely for me...
"sciforums is more than just a science forum. It hasn't been a dedicated science forum for quite some time now."

You asking th question also reveals that you don't TRUST yourself. you don't trust your actual feeling.

You read far too much into simple questions.
I trust myself and I trust my feelings, certainly in respect to religion.
And with regard to science... you have very odd ideas about it, if you don't mind me saying.
As I have said in other threads, science can certainly provide the physical and chemical explanations behind such things as emotions - and one day it will identify exactly what all areas of the brain do, and where these physical and chemical changes are driven from - but it certainly doesn't negate the experience of those emotions.

Science does not negate the effect, whatever it is. It just searches for a provable cause. To paraphrase, "When all provable causes are eliminated, only the unprovable remains."

 

[ellion]

Just asking that question shows to me that science--mechanistic-materialistic science is even MORe of an insidious dogma that fundamental religion.
Whereas it was the 'middle men' priests -in Medieval religion-that were the wall in between the individual and spiritual experience, in that only their say so could authenticate any sense of spiritual feeling as being 'sanctioned' by the Church, NOW you devotees of 'science' even question a person's EMOTIONAL FEELING unless 'sanctioned' by you 'scientific method's' demand for 'evidence'

as it was my questions which involved the experience of emotion, i feel i need to point out a couple of things about the questions that i made. i wasnt asking for proof, i was asking if it could be proved, not to invalidate the experience of emotion and demand a it be intellectualised for comprehension but to highlight the comaprisons between subjective experiences, which like i said was the basis for a lot of ancient scripture.

You asking th question also reveals that you don't TRUST yourself. you don't trust your actual feeling.
This is the same divide and control strategy that is riddled throughout the patriarchal linear pattern throughout the centuries--now manifesting as mechansitic-materialstic science. Where the dogma separates you from yourself. This way IT can keep its authoritarian power over you. Because you have to go to it to ask what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. They thus become your sole authority as to what is 'supposed' to be authentic!

that was a very hasty presumption,

there is no dogma that seperates me from myself.

I AM the soul authority and the judge of what is right and wrong for me.

i know myself, i trust msyself, i know my feelings, i trust my feelings, i dont need any one to validate them for me.

i agree with a lot of things that you say but this was a poor evalutation of my post.

 

[duendy]

sorry to have misunderstood you. it is good you trust what you feel. that is all we can do. otherwise others will tell us WHAt to feel

 

[ellion]

Scientific evidence for emotions - you mean like increased brainwave activity, change in body chemistry etc - yes, there is scientific evidence of the outward effect of emotions.
But emotions aren't subject to faith - they are merely words to describe the outward expression of those spontaneous chemical and mental changes.
Dreams? Yes - we have scientific evidence - REM, brain activity etc.
Hallucinations? I don't know - but I guess you would have to examine the visual cortex of the person experiencing the hallucinations. There is certainly something physical going on - it is certainly not a matter of faith.

yes this is what i mean, so certain subjective experiences of self can provide some scientific evidence that says something physical happens during non physical experience.

experience of the gods has always been a subjective phenomena happening inside the soul of the being.

But theist religion is a matter of pure faith.

was your post about scientific proof of god or scientific proof of 'theist religion'.

for proof of theistic religion is self evident and god is not a matter of pure faith.

As is belief in an invisible, undetectable, monkey sitting on my shoulder.

is this where your ideas come from?

 

[Sarkus]

yes this is what i mean, so certain subjective experiences of self can provide some scientific evidence that says something physical happens during non physical experience.

Dreaming, hallucinations and emotion ARE physical experiences.
They all relate to physical events occurring within our brains.
We don't have it fully identified as to what is going on, but everything that does happen does so within the confines of our physical body.
But then you probably think our consciousness is more than just the by-product of the vast neural network in our heads?

experience of the gods has always been a subjective phenomena happening inside the soul of the being.

There is no evidence for a soul.
To experience something it must reach us via one of our senses.
Everything after that is pure interpretation by our mind and body.
The interpretation of experience is subjective - but the cause of the experience isn't.
One person may cry at a film when someone else laughs. The interpretation is different but the film is the same.

was your post about scientific proof of god or scientific proof of 'theist religion'.

I suppose I'm talking predominantly about the Christian version, but any theistic religion with an unprovable deity.

for proof of theistic religion is self evident and god is not a matter of pure faith.

Please can you explain this? I'm not looking for proof that there is a religion based on a god (or gods) but proof in the existence of those gods.
Unless you have defined "god" for yourself as merely being along the lines of "everything unexplainable" or some other abstract idea then god is unprovable. And if your definition is merely an abstract idea then why worship it? I'd be interested to hear.

is this where your ideas come from?

Yes. And his name's Bob.

 

[ellion]

Dreaming, hallucinations and emotion ARE physical experiences.

They all relate to physical events occurring within our brains.
We don't have it fully identified as to what is going on, but everything that does happen does so within the confines of our physical body.

There is no evidence for a soul.
To experience something it must reach us via one of our senses.
Everything after that is pure interpretation by our mind and body.
The interpretation of experience is subjective - but the cause of the experience isn't.

what sense is used to experience a dream, or an emotion?

One person may cry at a film when someone else laughs. The interpretation is different but the film is the same.

subjective experience?

I suppose I'm talking predominantly about the Christian version, but any theistic religion with an unprovable deity.

Please can you explain this? I'm not looking for proof that there is a religion based on a god (or gods) but proof in the existence of those gods.

if you dont need proof that theist religions exist then all i need to explain is that god is not a matter of pure faith. i think faith, in the context you are using is about believing something that cannot be experienced.

Unless you have defined "god" for yourself as merely being along the lines of "everything unexplainable" or some other abstract idea then god is unprovable.
And if your definition is merely an abstract idea then why worship it? I'd be interested to hear.

this whole statement has no relation to my beliefs.

Yes. And his name's Bob.

prove it!

 

[Tiassa]

I have often wondered - why have a "Religion" forum in a science forum?

Originally, Sciforums' predecessor, Exosci, had a front page with a news clipper divided into several subjects, including Archaeology and Anthropology, as well as the obvious Astronomy. From either of these came theological implications, so I never questioned the presence of a Religion forum. Shroud of Turin, or perhaps origins of the Universe?

By the time Exosci dropped the news clipper and transformed into Sciforums, the Religion forum was a center of gravity. As the site has grown, the subjective discussions--Religion, Pseudoscience, Ethics/Morality/Justice, and Politics--have acquired a large, interrelated following; large enough to dominate the landscape.

Curiously, this has created a bizarre reputation for this site. On the one hand, we're looked upon as a lunatic asylum, while to the other we're influential enough that people will make a point of going to other boards under the same user ID solely in order to trash us. A couple of members have even gone so far as to make their own web pages to trash Sciforums. And yet, our membership grows, and rational voices are certainly among the new names. Perhaps this place is beloved for its idiosyncrasies. For certainly our critics abroad have critics of their own. It's always weird to go out and look for this place on the web. Sciforums turns up in some odd places, and every once in a while you'll enter a Google term and see Sciforums high in the rankings.

But, yes, these nonscientific fora seem to get the site much attention, and draw new users. From historical curiosity to a driving force, the alternative is to entertain religious injections into otherwise-scientific discussions. A quick glance through Sciforums history will (I promise) suggest that there has almost always been some form of evolution/big-bang discussion going on, and those topics reveal in no unclear terms whatsoever that it would be best to have a place for the religious-political part of that discussion instead of leaving, say, the Biology or Astronomy et al. fora. "Abortion is wrong" is a social discussion, e.g. Religion forum. "D&C poses health risks" is a scientific discussion, of a sort. Science in support of any thesis leading to social and legal considerations generally fails the test, and is best left to Politics or Religion, according to the terminology. (Theoretically, such a discussion could survive in Science & Society, but that depends on how little or much theology gets shoved into the issue.)

Paradoxical, indeed. Perhaps a cyclical dependency. Perhaps symbiosis.

 

[§outh§tar]

A couple of members have even gone so far as to make their own web pages to trash Sciforums.

Any examples? I'm bored.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

"Should Canada join the missile-defence system? This was a very common issue discussed everywhere, from parliament to high-schools during January and early February. This topic remained controversial for Canadians who did not favour the topic but did not want to reject it as well because suspicions remained that it might have ruined any further relationships with the United States. "
Well scopius, the universe did start from nothing. Thats why there is matter and anti-matter. like u can have 1 and -1. Together they mean 0. So technically u can have things star from nothing.

 

[Tiassa]

Any examples? I'm bored.

We don't advertise them. But they can be found quite easily through a Google search ("sciforums").