Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 2,314 - 2,325 of 6,170
Posts 2,314 - 2,325 of 6,170
"the most logical solution is agnosticism. agnostics believe that since they cannot prove or disprove god, they will forget about religion alltogether, and live their lives otherwise."
Why is atheism the default?
Why is atheism the default?
Agnosticism isn't atheism.
Atheists say 'There is no God'
Agnostics say 'We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God'
Atheists say 'There is no God'
Agnostics say 'We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God'
if those who belive in god do it for a hope of something more meaningful than a material life after death, then what is the point of all of the restrictions and isolationism that religious sects indulge in?
whatever we manage to fulfill in life is a direct descendant of the observations that our self aware consciousness has made, and the associations that result from them. when it comes to god, no one can make associations connected to any observations, unless you personally witness a heavenly mirracle, and since the human mind is limited to learning about its surronundings based on obsevations, how can we expect ourselves to dedicate entire lifetimes toward the servitude of someting that is beyond our nature to understand? i don't see people trying to create worlds on a daily basis.
also, in scientific reaserch, people are always correcting the mistakes of their predecessors. in Judaism, a major monotheistic religion, the earlier you lived the more authority you had over the subjectmatter, because they were supposedly "closer to the source". later scholars were unable to attack the theories of the earlier scholars, so if at any time someone goes off course, the entire field of study is screwed forever... in science, if we go off course, we are more than welcome to correct ourselves and get back on track. for me, science is my relgion.
whatever we manage to fulfill in life is a direct descendant of the observations that our self aware consciousness has made, and the associations that result from them. when it comes to god, no one can make associations connected to any observations, unless you personally witness a heavenly mirracle, and since the human mind is limited to learning about its surronundings based on obsevations, how can we expect ourselves to dedicate entire lifetimes toward the servitude of someting that is beyond our nature to understand? i don't see people trying to create worlds on a daily basis.
also, in scientific reaserch, people are always correcting the mistakes of their predecessors. in Judaism, a major monotheistic religion, the earlier you lived the more authority you had over the subjectmatter, because they were supposedly "closer to the source". later scholars were unable to attack the theories of the earlier scholars, so if at any time someone goes off course, the entire field of study is screwed forever... in science, if we go off course, we are more than welcome to correct ourselves and get back on track. for me, science is my relgion.
You sound like me as a teenager...
Science provides answers for this life, but has nothing to say about any other. Some would argue that this is the only life, and so only science matters. I've experienced things that cannot be explained by conventional science, and thus I am convinced there is more.
Here's a fun exercise: close your eyes and try to feel where your body ends and the rest of the world begins. You may be surprised.
Science provides answers for this life, but has nothing to say about any other. Some would argue that this is the only life, and so only science matters. I've experienced things that cannot be explained by conventional science, and thus I am convinced there is more.
Here's a fun exercise: close your eyes and try to feel where your body ends and the rest of the world begins. You may be surprised.
A friend of mine put her father in hospice last weekend. In his final days, he makes little sense, and she is there with him to be there, for what ever good she can do. She is very worried because he is a Buddhist and she is a Lutheran. She has been taught that he will suffer eternal torment because he has not accepted Jesus as his lord and savior. She is very upset--she asks what about his wisdom and compassion and all the good he did? She mourns not only his death, but his damnation.
I cannot say much except that if the Christian church is correct on this point, I'll be in hell with him. Maybe hell be be full of Buddhists trying to teach the damned how to let go of suffering. Maybe the pagans will take hell over and turn it into a day spa. I don't know.
This may not go to the original question of logic verses faith, but to me, it is the heart of the issue. If faith is dogmatic, it requires the acceptance of a cruel and crazy god (not to belittle anyones personal transformation or belief). If Science is dogmatic, it is worse than that--it is not even science.
Yes, it is an amazing and complex world. It is tricky to try to simplify it in terms of what is most logical, and it is a trap to rule out possiblities just because they seem unlikely. I remember some sort of quote about once you've ruled out the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.
I have great respect for science, but I think it has its limits--because we have limits as humans, and we created science. Like Ulrike, I have experienced things that can not be explained by science. I would like to think of this as coming from a personal god, but that may be only the limits of my human mind trying to impose a form on that which is beyond my understanding. I guess that is why I like stories and metaphors--to me, they get at what cannot be put into words.
In the end, science and logic are powerful tools, but they are only tools. Too a child with a hammer, all the world is a nail.
I cannot say much except that if the Christian church is correct on this point, I'll be in hell with him. Maybe hell be be full of Buddhists trying to teach the damned how to let go of suffering. Maybe the pagans will take hell over and turn it into a day spa. I don't know.
This may not go to the original question of logic verses faith, but to me, it is the heart of the issue. If faith is dogmatic, it requires the acceptance of a cruel and crazy god (not to belittle anyones personal transformation or belief). If Science is dogmatic, it is worse than that--it is not even science.
Yes, it is an amazing and complex world. It is tricky to try to simplify it in terms of what is most logical, and it is a trap to rule out possiblities just because they seem unlikely. I remember some sort of quote about once you've ruled out the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.
I have great respect for science, but I think it has its limits--because we have limits as humans, and we created science. Like Ulrike, I have experienced things that can not be explained by science. I would like to think of this as coming from a personal god, but that may be only the limits of my human mind trying to impose a form on that which is beyond my understanding. I guess that is why I like stories and metaphors--to me, they get at what cannot be put into words.
In the end, science and logic are powerful tools, but they are only tools. Too a child with a hammer, all the world is a nail.
1000 years ago, if a person from that era got a glimpse at what our technologically advanced world is like today, they would have seen the phenomena of our every day life to be something unexplainable by their level of science, and therefore it must be divine. if a space craft takes off over a primitive south american tribe, the chances are they will bow down to their fire god and beg forgiveness (viewing the ship as a god in a fire chariot, which is the only thing that their primitive civilization can relate to after witnessing the phenomenon). today, we have explanations for things that seemed mirraculous for all of history. if you experience something that science currently cannot explain, its possible that in 200 years every 5th grade science text book will have a precise explanation to what today seems unexplainable, just as our predecessors saw the sun, moon, planets, and stars to be gods and today we know exactly what they are. the further our knowledge of the world increases, the less we turn to spirituality.
As for the point that science was created by human beings and is therefore limited just as we are, so did we create religion. even if god existed way before mankind, our perception of spirituality and our consequent reactions (religion) are also human made, and therefor must be limited too. so if I had to choose between human made science which operates on principles of logic, or human made religion which operates on our anticipation of the unknown, I would pick the science.
As for the point that science was created by human beings and is therefore limited just as we are, so did we create religion. even if god existed way before mankind, our perception of spirituality and our consequent reactions (religion) are also human made, and therefor must be limited too. so if I had to choose between human made science which operates on principles of logic, or human made religion which operates on our anticipation of the unknown, I would pick the science.
Well said colonel720. I think Religion is an explanation for things that can not be axplained. Also if there is an Allmighty, why would he sit back and let the world decay to such a point that we could wipe eachother out in a few hours?
Maybe, because this is not heaven. Perhaps it is done to make us appreciate the fact, that deep down, humans are not as smart as we think we are.
While I agree that "religions" are man made and therefore limited, I want to point out that faith and religion are not the same thing. There is no need for a personal god to have faith (or religion). Nor is it fair to say that all reigion operates in the anticipation of the unkown--it is simply a differant way of knowing.
Science is more than logic. It involves observation, systematic gathering or data, prediction, experimentation and adjustments of explainations based on new data. It says that under certain circumstances, we can expect certain results--until further notice. It assumes one objective knowable truth and that the natural word is all there is.
Religions, like philosophies, deal with the bigger "unexplainable" questions like "But where did it all come from?" and "What's it all for?" For most people, religion is about personal transformation as well as a connection to something greater than themselves.
Faith does not come from the dogmatic teachings of a particular religion, but from the experience of the individual who investigates and practices reigion or religious questions. Faith involves personal, subjective knowing rather than objective truths--and relies on practice rather than systematic gathering of data. You may find it simplistic, chilish or misguided. You may explain it all in terms of neurons and brain functions and evolution--but that is not the only way of looking at it.
What if, for example, Rev is correct and the creater may have made this up as a game, or diversion? We'd never know unless this creater let us know, and proved it to us all objectively, right? But what if we all knew this truth in the quietest part of our being that knew it was part of the creater, but we pushed that knowledge away because we are so caught up in our stories about ourselves that we can not face this truth that this complex, amazing, awful, and terrible existence is nothing more than a story and that we create our own suffering? And what else is there if that natural world and this life is just a story told to us by a neurons programmed by a bored and crazy creater? If this could be so, Science could be just another crutch that fools us into thinking that this story is real.
I'm not saying I know The One True Faith or any truth at all--though I live by such truths as are real in my experience. I am just saying that there are many possiblitities and putting on blinders in the name of science may not be the best way to go.
Science is more than logic. It involves observation, systematic gathering or data, prediction, experimentation and adjustments of explainations based on new data. It says that under certain circumstances, we can expect certain results--until further notice. It assumes one objective knowable truth and that the natural word is all there is.
Religions, like philosophies, deal with the bigger "unexplainable" questions like "But where did it all come from?" and "What's it all for?" For most people, religion is about personal transformation as well as a connection to something greater than themselves.
Faith does not come from the dogmatic teachings of a particular religion, but from the experience of the individual who investigates and practices reigion or religious questions. Faith involves personal, subjective knowing rather than objective truths--and relies on practice rather than systematic gathering of data. You may find it simplistic, chilish or misguided. You may explain it all in terms of neurons and brain functions and evolution--but that is not the only way of looking at it.
What if, for example, Rev is correct and the creater may have made this up as a game, or diversion? We'd never know unless this creater let us know, and proved it to us all objectively, right? But what if we all knew this truth in the quietest part of our being that knew it was part of the creater, but we pushed that knowledge away because we are so caught up in our stories about ourselves that we can not face this truth that this complex, amazing, awful, and terrible existence is nothing more than a story and that we create our own suffering? And what else is there if that natural world and this life is just a story told to us by a neurons programmed by a bored and crazy creater? If this could be so, Science could be just another crutch that fools us into thinking that this story is real.
I'm not saying I know The One True Faith or any truth at all--though I live by such truths as are real in my experience. I am just saying that there are many possiblitities and putting on blinders in the name of science may not be the best way to go.
Ulrike -- I know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. My point was that colonel720 basically said that agnostics live like atheists.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar