I’m not quite sure I get what you are saying, but I’ll clarify and I hope that this clears it up.
Science and religion are both epistemologies it seems to me, that is they are two different ways of knowing about the world. Science is a method that uses empiricism and skepticism as it’s chief way of ascertaining facts about the world (through experiments, chiefly). Religion uses revelation as a method to ascertain facts about the world. There is another epistemology out there (probably several), being rationalism IIRC.
The situation as I see it is that both could be valid, neither could be valid, or one could be valid while the other is not.
So they are not so much at odds with each other or complimentary, they are different. My preference would be science, as their is an error correcting system in place and because it’s far less subjective.
I disagree. Oh, there’s probably the occasional over-pedantic scientist who gets in a huff over how people shouldn’t use “proof” the way I was using. But almost always, when I hear proof defined the way ashman165 was using, it’s by someone trying to defend religion or some other equally irrational belief. It’s used to pretend that science and religion have equal plausibility more than anything else.
Religion has essentially no chance of being correct. It’s all about being wrong, and insisting that everyone else go along with your delusion. It’s not a “means of knowing the world”; it’s a means of NOT knowing the world; of asserting fantasy over reality.
Wrong. Religion is the enemy of science, or any other technique designed to discover fact. Religion is the assertion of unreality. Trial and error is the enemy of religion, much less science.
Dude, as one atheist to another, just stop. It is a certainly true fact that science, itself, does not claim to prove anything. Denying this is a denial of reality as surely as claiming God cooked you breakfast this morning is. So when you do so, it doesn’t help matters at all.
Here are the facts:
Science doesn’t claim to have proved anything, becuase it uses the scientific definition of the word proof - where it can only be done in abstract systems which aren’t based on experimental or observed evidence.
By the layman’s definition of the word proof, science proves a hell of a lot of things.
Religion doesn’t prove squat by any definition of proof - unless you accept a whole passell of premises and assumptions that nobody who’s not a believer is likely to.
When religion (or rather, a religious person) claims science hasn’t proved things, generally one of two things is happening - a) it’s using the scientific definition but trying to deceptively sell it as a failure of proof by the layman’s definition, or b) it’s claiming that the science hasn’t proved things to a degree that would qualify as proof by the layman’s definition - and usually is mistaken or lying about it.
You don’t like 4. We get that. But denying 1 isn’t going to accomplish anything but make you, and other people who may tangentially agree with you about things, look like fools.
True - though it’s only fair to admit that a stopped clock is right twice a day. A religion may say it’s good to help the poor, to be polite to your neighbor, etc - and though its reasons for it are bunk, the result advice may be correct. (In fact it’s fair to say that any really large and long-lived religion can’t be completely destructive to the society, as it hasn’t killed itself or all its adherents off. Though it may be trying to kill everyone else off…)
Of course, just because it’s right sometimes is no reason to buy a stopped watch.
Religion isn’t the opposite or inverse of science, though - religion is just one of several ways of doing things that aren’t scientific; there are various others. (Flipping a coin all the time, for example.)
I’d even say that religion isn’t the assertion of unreality - it’s an assertion of unreality. (Or rather a broad set of variously differing assertions of unreality.) There are various others unrealities; it’s just not as common for anybody to actually believe in them, and a number of them will get you put under observation by people wearing white.
The difference is that flipping a coin is random, while religion is actively hostile to any attempt to understand the world. Religion is worse than flipping a coin when it comes to understanding reality. Religion is actively, systematically, innately hostile to any attempt to understand objective reality; it’s anti-scientific, not just non-scientific.
Details - flipping a coin was just one example of a non-religious non-scientific system. Here’s another - be completely, flipping, barking mad - wildly hallucinatory, lacking short-term memory, incapable of stringing together coherent thought; the works. Assuming you survive to the age of four, whatever you’re doing, it sure ain’t science, but it also ain’t religion.
So a mental illness isn’t a system by which people make decisions? What then, pray tell, do these mentally ill people use as a system by which to make decisions? Coin tosses?
His point is that religion is merely one among many alternative ways of approaching things that aren’t science. Calling Miss Cleo, were she still in business, would be yet another.
Using a magic eight ball is yet another.
Reading tea leaves, or runes are yet two other options.
Really, there are more ways of approaching something that aren’t scientific than there are ways of doing it scientifically.
Interestingly enough, I agree with your position. Sadly for you though, you’re tearing asunder an argument he hasn’t made. He didn’t say that religion isn’t antithetical to science. He said that it isn’t "THE antithesis of science. It’s merely one among many ways of doing something that flies in the face of science. At least that’s what I’m understanding his point to be.
Further, I think, he’s arguing that science and religion aren’t two complete opposites. Maybe, in this view, they’re orthogonal. Maybe they aren’t. But his point, and it’s surely not a bad one, is that science and religion don’t exist at opposing ends of some spectrum. They’re merely different.
I would think that the opposite of science would be following the scientific method and then choosing precisely the alternative that science says isn’t the right answer. Either that or picking a conclusion, and then seeing how much data one can mangle to get it to fall into line with the determined conclusion. Some call that bad science; to the initiated, it’s known as Christian Science. And more recently “intelligent” design.
Just for the sake novelty then, assume the conditions he set out: barking mad, hallucinatory, and all that jazz. You know, just for novelty’s sake. Or, barring that, let’s assume the condition in question has some kind of mechanism that prevents rational decisions. So, if these people are incapable of making rational decisions, what mechanism is it by which they make decisions? /yawn
“Barking mad, hallucinatory” doesn’t tell you much about what portions of the brain are malfunctioning, or in exactly what way they are malfunctioning.
And by the way; lumping religion and raving lunacy together as “alternative decision making mechanism” to science is not exactly a shining defense of the validity of religion for that purpose.
It’s cute how you glossed over: “Or, barring that, let’s assume the condition in question has some kind of mechanism that prevents rational decisions.”
Still, you haven’t answered the question. I’ve noticed this before in you. So, until you answer the question I specifically asked, several times, I really haven’t anything else to say as the conversation can’t progress so long as you intentionally retard its progression.
:rolleyes: As I said, that question can’t possibly be answered without much more information. Information that’s impossible to get because the "barking mad " person in question is only hypothetical.
Just as an anecdote, in the multiple forums I’ve been a part of, whenever the issue of science and proof comes up it is usually brought up by those advocating science.
When religionists seek to disparage science, in my experience, they typically try to point to ‘how often science is wrong’ and then they try to equivocate the term ‘theory’, equating it with the public’s use of the term instead of the scientists; the public uses theory in a similar manner to a hypothesis, while scientists use the term to denote a comprehensive explanation of facts and phenomenon.
It is not mere pedantry that scientists are engaged in when they question the issue of proofs. Look up your Kuhn, your Popper - the great philosophers of science.
While I agree that it has little chance of being correct, it is an epistemology - revelation. You seem to be mistaking my words for indicating that religion actually tells us about the world. This is incorrect. My intent was to suggest that it was a way or method of knowing the world (a bad one).
I’m not sure why I’m bothering here - you apparently don’t get what I’m telling you. You seem to be thinking that my suggestion that religion is an epistemic source means that it has some validity.
Let me clear this up for you, it does not.
However, that does not mean it’s not an epistemic source, it’s just not a valid or sound epistemic source.
The physical world is a guide for the spiritual world. If we have one earthly daddy, why should we expect many heavenly ones. While we are disconnected to God here on earth, God does give us a family unit of connectivity as a pattern.
The confusion is suppose to be there part of the learning is that we can’t figure it out on our own, and God wants us to accept that truth, once we do He will start helping us as we let Him.
Being a unbeliever, you are choosing not to connect or depend on God, as such God allows you to do that. By all rights He could say OK then get out of my universe and go start your own (well He will have you thrown out, as you can’t get there). This is what I believe is outer darkness, a place you never want to go. That would not be a God of Love, but it would be exactly what you are asking by not believing.
But God slowly causes you to fall away, hoping and waiting for you to realize where you are heading and come back. If it takes falling into Hell then crying out, that is what He will do. But it is you that must turn back, He will not force you. The worsening circumstances is a result of your belief that there is no God and you traveling towards the ultimate fate of your belief, God just allows your journey and does provide comfort along the way.
With omnipotent things are a bit different. But it’s normally not God who beats us down, it is ourselves. A fundamental law of creation is we reap what we sow, you can call it karma also but that misses the amplification effect. It is a law that God wants us to know. The plan of creation seemed to be that A&E and their children would put out love, and as such more love will return, this love would continue to build forever, ever increasing. The seeds that the serpent sowed is that of hate, this also goes along that same pattern, ever amplifying and canceling/counteracting out love, which is our world today.
I believe this is one reason that God gives us perishable bodies, while here He knows it will be abused, which is OK, as He has eternal ones waiting for us once we realize it. Did your daughter ever tell you she was going to do something you knew would cause her some harm, but you also knew she had to learn it for herself and let her? This is one of the methods that the Father uses.
And yes empathizing is a very beneficial thing for you to do for her IMHO.
God does speak about grafting discarded branched back in also, so it is possible, but once removed unless grafted back in you will die, and then be burned with fire (Hell), then discarded like chaff (outer darkness)
Death caused by knowledge outside the knowledge revealed by God. Man’s knowledge of science, medicine, etc. will lead to your death eventually. IMHO A&E violated be fruitful and multiply which is the knowledge of the fruit of the tree. Eve was not really cited by God as responsible, but deceived and she was not given the death sentence by God, just some rules on basically reproduction to keep her from getting to far off the path. Adam OTOH knowingly disobeyed and got the death sentence. This is also evident in the NT where women to be saved have to continue in faith and childbearing, men are charged to overcome.
ultimately I believe it is not, but it’s just how much suffering do you want to endure at your own hands before you want Him to be your God and provider. Though for some I believe they will not be saved directly, those who commit the unpardonable sin, these are IMHO devils, like black holes will slowly evaporate away through their children being saved.
The physical world is a guide for the spiritual world? So we should expect no interaction with god in spiritual world?
As for the multiple daddies - my point was not that there would be multiple ones, but that there are false ones.
This seems entirely ad hoc to me. It seems to me two things:
God doesn’t have a problem necessarily with providing people with exactly the evidence they need to believe he exists. After all, most Christians would not profess to be fideists. Also, there are numerous stories in the bible where god does offer evidence of his existence.
Even if I accepted that god existed that doesn’t mean I would worship him - this is supported biblically.
So it seems to be a non sequitur to say that the reason we don’t have evidence that he exists is so that we would worship him.
I’m sorry but this is nonsense. Again, it is not a choice to ‘not connect’. You can’t be said to have a choice if one of the options isn’t even on the table. If mayo and mustard are the only condiments on a table, you can’t say that ketchup was an option.
This, again, is nonsense. If god actually cared about his creation, he would give them a hand or help them out. If my daughter was moving towards a fire, I wouldn’t express my love by waiting for her to get horribly burned before I did anything.
What comfort does god provide along the way?
They are a bit different because of special pleading. God does beat us down, both metaphorically and physically (see the book of Joshua).
Erm, are you trying to tell me this law actually exists?
I’m sorry but you must be reading a different bible then I. The serpent tempted A&E with fruit from the tree of knowledge - not evil. The tree didn’t have to be there. Further, God could have given A&E at least some rudimentary knowlege on what evil/wrong/etc was so that they would have realized that disobeying god and eating from the tree of knowledge was actually** the wrong thing to do**.
My daughter has expressed interest in sticking her finger in a light socket. Are you suggesting I would be a godly person to allow her to learn this lesson for herself?
But it is irrelevant for god.
And you call this a ‘loving act’.
I’m sorry that I have to godwin this thread by quoting something from another board, but it must be done:
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank for being Jewish. For that, we call him evil. God burns Anne Frank for being Jewish, forever. For that, Christians call him “good” "
So we should cease with trying to better our lives through science and medicine? :dubious:
I could swear the tree was the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God punishes both A&E for eating from the tree - and not ‘just some rules’.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly** multiply thy sorrow and thy conception**; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Also, God doesn’t give a death sentence to Adam, per say, he simply prevents Adam from eating from the tree of life. In otherwords, Adam would have eventually died even if he hadn’t eating from the tree of knowledge (presuming he didn’t eat from the tree of life, of course).
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So then what choice do we have? If God created us to go according to his plan and you still believe we have free will (or that free will is somehow important), then why not create only those who would free choose to worship him? Also, this doesn’t sound very loving to me.
It’s not a very intelligent thing to create those individuals, is it?
Is that a reference to the “saved through childbirth” line from (IIRC) one of the letters to Timothy?
If these guys evaporate because of their children’s salvation, what about others who have children? Why doesn’t their children’s salvation cause them to evaporate as well?
With omnipotence there is only one fundmental law: “All other so-called fundamental laws exist or don’t at My whim.” If bad things we do whip back and torture us disproportionately like a vindictive boomerang of doom, that doesn’t happen because it’s a rule. It happens because God derives pleasure from watching people who have crossed him writhe in disproportionate agony. You know, like a Bond villian. And yes, that’s the only possible reason, because if there was anything God would rather see happen than torture, that would be happening instead. With omnipotence and all.
Hey, God had a child: Jesus. Perhaps that explains the sudden sharp drop-off of miracles since biblical times.
I’m not that big on bubble-bursting, except on those rainy days when I feel the schaudenfreude compulsion coming on, so I’ll refrain on picking apart your personal theology too much… Oh look a storm is moving in. Anyway, your opening statement describes exactly what I was talking about when I said that just like a plant striving to reach it’s ultimate potential, we as humans strive as well. “Spiritual world” Is that just a reference to something unexplainable or incomprehensable. If so, might I suggest a scientific approach to help find the answers you seek. In my experience, religion has only proved that people can be as naive as they want to be, yet science has revealed and proved mind-boggling, truly astonishing facts about life and the universe. Religion and ignorance dominated in a time when humans thought the earth was flat, everything possible revolved around us, and prayer and repenting alone could heal your physical sickness. My how the tide has turned. You wouldn’t go to your pastor, priest, or rabbi to receive treatment for ED would you? You would go to them for “spiritual” advice though; for help dealing with emotional or family problems. Well that’s just like talking to a good friend or confidant. For me, a decent psychologist could offer more insight.
Who HIM? The great I AM? Who once was or shall be? I agree that it’s very hard to figure it out on our own, but I’m not a defeatist so I won’t pawn off unexplainable facets of our existence on a storybook character to make myself feel better about being ignorant of THE answer.
Who is this GOD “HE”? You’ve heard this before but if GOD is an anthropomorphic kind of being and “perfect”, why take on the gender qualities? Might as well have been a SHE. That probably wouldn’t have went over too well with ancient society though. Does GOD still have a say in matters if you threw GOD out first? Oh GOD, if you were to throw GOD out, then could GOD find it’s way back… breadcrumbs, perhaps hand GOD a child locator device before sending HE/SHE on it’s way?