U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-02-2011, 01:07 PM
 
35,445 posts, read 9,203,088 times
Reputation: 4855

Advertisements

I think you hit the nail on the head. As Tiggie pointed out to Orestes, above, 'Religion' was being used apparently to denote 'Faith'. That's ok if you explain that you mean (say) belief in a god- claim rather than the procedures and requirements of religion (though those things often go together).

Similarly, the rational worldview which doesn't deny the stuff that isn't validated as fact, but doesn't take it as factual until proved is not actually science nor actually logic, but science and logic belong to that worldview rather than a worldview of faith - based beliefs where suppositions and guess work is selectively (the rest being dismissed as 'false') taken to be fact simply because one believes it. That is not only unscientific and illogical but strikes me as totally loopy.

 
Old 09-02-2011, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, LA
245 posts, read 393,799 times
Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
It's hard for me to know just precisely what it is that you mean when you use the term 'religion' within the context of this post. Yes, there is of course the text book definition - which can be rather broad based in scope. Would the term "faith" perhaps be more accurate?
Faith wouldn't be a better term. It's quite reasonable to question my use of that word; I'm happy to oblige. The best way I can define the word 'religion' as I use it; a belief structure ascribing intent to a supernatural prime mover with the capacity to affect the natural world. For instance, Christianity, in its many forms, includes beliefs about their god's intent toward an array of issues. The intent of their god is born out of unsubstantiated speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
'Faith' goes to that which lies beyond the scope of what science is currently able to empirically understand/answer. Basically, we would at this point be entering the realm of philosophy. People like Friedrich Nietzsche have philosophical views (views which extend beyond the realm of empirical investigation) that do not include theism. Other philosophers have philosophical views which happen to include theism. What, pray tell, would be the difference between these two opposing world view philosophies which both employ science, logic/rationality (debatable to some extent with respect to atheism) and faith?
"happen to include theism" ... That's the problem. One camp waxes philosophical about things beyond those limits, based on knowledge and processes born within those limits. The other does the same but injects speculation about a supernatural guy in the sky. Make no mistake, my problem lies not with those who are willing to consider the possibility of the supernatural. It lies with the belief structures that define what has not been substantiated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Yes. Well, that would be another debate wouldn't it? I personally happen to view theism as much more logical and rational.
I obviously disagree, but am happy to save that for now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
A few days ago I had an anti-God type assert spontaneous generation as a logical explanation as to why anything exists rather than nothing. Another one asserted that, in essence (I'm paraphrasing here) everything is actually 'nothing.' Therefore, we need not address the question as to why anything exists rather than nothing. While making these obviously absurdly irrational assertions both were at the same time impugning the God view as absurd.
Sorry, I can't speak for those people. Again, I point out, the idea of a god isn't what I take issue with. I take issue with any belief structure about the character, intent, capacity, desire, etc. of that god (religion) based on unsubstantiated speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Again, it's hard to know what you mean by 'religion.' I perceive that "religion" isn't the only "product" being sold in the market of world view concepts.
I agree. I'll line up side-by-side with you to condemn people who use scientific knowledge to accomplish the same ends, for which, religion uses 'faith' in their speculations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
I don't see science as "dangerous." Does this make me irreligious?
I don't know enough about you to speculate. Are you religious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
If faith lies beyond that which can be scientifically and empirically known, how is the philosophy of naturalism justified? To say that the universe is all there is, all that was and all that will ever be, is to make a philosophical statement. In other words, at this level, both the theist and atheist would appear to be facing the same 'faith' dilemma.
It doesn't appear that way to me. I think the naturalist philosophizes on the unknown based on what is known. The theist includes unsubstantiated speculation about a supernatural man upstairs into their philosophy. To me, they're quite different.
 
Old 09-02-2011, 01:26 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,402,082 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
It isn't just science, but no world view (religion) can address ultimate questions either.
All world views MUST address ultimate questions in order to qualify as a world view. In other words, a world view either acknowledges or rejects the existence of God. It accepts or rejects the possibility of the supernatural. It accepts or rejects the existence of objective moral absolutes etc...
The notion that one can ponder their way through life without regard to such questions is clearly and utterly absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
The difference between the two, however, is that Science doesn't stop with guess or blind faith. It tries to investigate. Do you not see this fundamental difference?
Inferring that my world view supposedly "stops with guess or blind faith?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
If Science is investigating abiogenesis (for example), it is not surprising that people holding their little world view feel threatened by it. Being slaves to a world view requires that they stay away from analysis and questioning. It isn't Science's fault that these people get their panties twisted in a wad. Science is about questioning EVERYTHING, including scientifically drawn conclusions. Whereas a world view dictates based on blind faith.
Not quite sure what the "panties twisted in a wad" thing is all about.

I'm not at all threatened by scientific investigation whether it be into "abiogenesis" or evolutionary biology, or, or, or.

...after all is said and done and certain scientists arrive at certain conclusions, these conclusions must be based in logic and/or be empirically proved.

As an aside, so called "abiogenesis" meets neither criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I am not aware of or have investigated "naturalism". But if naturalism is about a tunnel vision without regard to evidence and continual progression on it, then it is just another religion.
My understanding is that the philosophy of naturalism is primarily based upon that which can be scientifically and empirically experienced. It basically rejects the notion that it is possible for anything to exist "outside the box."

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Sure. My Scientific method will...
You stated that "Goddunit is nothing but a copout." Implying that God in fact does not exist.

I'm asking you to use THE (as opposed to YOUR) scientific method in order to illustrate why this is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
...involve a series of questions (and numbered sequentially), expecting your responses. I will eventually provide a conclusion which will illustrate my point. Are you ready for that? Let us begin with a very basic one:
I'm fine with answering your questions. That's all part of what a discussion is all about. Will you be okay with answering my questions as well as we progress through your interrogation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
1- Do you believe in the Biblical story of creation?
Yes. I believe it to be the most logical and reasonable explanation as to why anything exists rather than nothing.

What is your logical alternative?
 
Old 09-02-2011, 01:40 PM
 
3,229 posts, read 2,305,372 times
Reputation: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theophane View Post
Scientism and Anti-Theism are the same thing. They refer to the same worldview. Science and Theism sometimes go together.
No it's not. They both share a none belief in a higher power and that's about it. The anti-theist will not rest untill every theist is silenced or eliminated-that's their sole life's purpose and scientism is the belief that science(mankind) absolutely explains all. Of course one person can hold both of these worldviews.
 
Old 09-02-2011, 01:40 PM
 
1,745 posts, read 1,836,135 times
Reputation: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
The fact that there has been so many great scientists who were aso great men and women of God makes your post into nothing more than an ignorant rant.
Well, they may have pretended to be "men of God", but then, that's a given when you are a one of the few gems of rationality in a sea of nutjobs who would remove your head or burn you at the stake for questioning or contradicting their delusions.
 
Old 09-02-2011, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, LA
245 posts, read 393,799 times
Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest View Post
No it's not. They both share a none belief in a higher power and that's about it. The anti-theist will not rest untill every theist is silenced or eliminated-that's their sole life's purpose. Scientism is the belief that science absolutely explains all.
Come on. Seriously?
 
Old 09-02-2011, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,175,361 times
Reputation: 12116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
All world views MUST address ultimate questions in order to qualify as a world view. In other words, a world view either acknowledges or rejects the existence of God. It accepts or rejects the possibility of the supernatural. It accepts or rejects the existence of objective moral absolutes etc...
How do you fit Science into this definition then?

Quote:
Inferring that my world view supposedly "stops with guess or blind faith?"
I would be wrong if I learn about you questioning everything you believe in, having investigated it without fear of being punished for it. Have you?

Quote:
I'm not at all threatened by scientific investigation whether it be into "abiogenesis" or evolutionary biology, or, or, or.

...after all is said and done and certain scientists arrive at certain conclusions, these conclusions must be based in logic and/or be empirically proved.

As an aside, so called "abiogenesis" meets neither criteria.
Not yet, yes. But a world view would call for surrender. Science doesn't work that way.

Take lack of empirical evidence for God creating Adam, and Eve out of Adam's ribs. A world view dictates that you believe it, verbatim. Do you believe it? Do you believe in virgin birth of Jesus for which there is no empirical evidence? Science, would dismiss it on a few facts that the earth is a lot older than it would be with Bible derived timeline. Do you call THAT a world view?

Quote:
My understanding is that the philosophy of naturalism is primarily based upon that which can be scientifically and empirically experienced. It basically rejects the notion that it is possible for anything to exist "outside the box."
The first part bodes well with science. The second part (only considering the way you've chosen to word), not so much. Things can be very much inside the box, or outside. The key to a view is evidence. A world view doesn't require it and stops with it, Science does and goes looking for it.

Quote:
Yes. I believe it to be the most logical and reasonable explanation as to why anything exists rather than nothing.
2- Then you believe in earth being no older than 6000 years old. Is this a belief or do you have empirical evidence for it?

Quote:
What is your logical alternative?
I separated your question from above because you've asked for a Scientific approach, and I would prefer to keep it simply and to the point. But since you ask, my logic dictates in the Biblical story being no more or less credible than other creationist stories, sometimes less so than many others. Logic demands details and the Bible does not provide that. Bible doesn't tell us where the other tribes in the neighborhood came from. Its timeline is ridiculous at best.

Do I believe many of the stories mentioned in the Bible happened? You bet I do. In fact, I would say that Noah did deal with a massive flood, albeit a local one. He didn't really save the entire planet's creature, but his livestock. It is logical to believe that, illogical to believe the way the story ended up in the Bible.

My logical alternative to creation is, right now, around the M-theory. That we live in a universe that is one of many that came around into existence about 14 billion years ago.
 
Old 09-02-2011, 01:48 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,596,033 times
Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest View Post
The anti-theist will not rest untill every theist is silenced or eliminated-that's their sole life's purpose.
Then no one, not one.single.person, is an anti-theist.

Because as much as I am against theism, that would require way too much energy.

I demand to rest (quite a bit actually) even before the theist are silenced or eliminated.

Besides, I have two or three life purposes outside of eliminating theist. For example, I live to trivialize the importance of daily flossing.
 
Old 09-02-2011, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,114,139 times
Reputation: 3719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes View Post
Of course science has limitations. However, religion has the same limitations that science has, don't fool yourself. The difference? Science employs a methodology to remain within it's limitations. Religion feels free to speculate, rather freely, outside it's limitations. And, I would add as politely as I can, much of religion's speculations move beyond abstract and/or absurd when you give them an honest review.

Religion is a product sold to explain that which seems to be inexplicable. People who buy the product end up with a worldview manufactured by men with intent. That intent is apparent to anyone who digs into religious history.

Science is quite dangerous to religion. Rather than relying on explanations provided by ancient desert dwellers, the scientific method offers a way for individuals to gain and share knowledge about the things we are capable of understanding. As humanity progresses, through science, so too does our capacity for understanding, based on accumulated knowledge. If something can't be analyzed through the scientific method, then science simply acquires no knowledge of it.

Science is dangerous to religion because it disassembles those explanations of our desert dwelling ancestry and discovers that there are real, natural, detectable mechanisms to explain our world. Science never reinforces the abstract supernatural speculations of religion.

But, to give credit where it's due... the big business of religion has figured out how to make the "line in the sand" quite dynamic, the "Religic Method"; simply maintain the stance that their supernatural buddy is always responsible for whatever happens to be just beyond human understanding. As science is used to actually understand our world, ancient explanations and stories are turned into "metaphors". Brilliant adaptation, the evolution of religion. The inflexible 'literalists' survive only because they are bolstered by the flexible, who need them for contrast in order to maintain an air of reason.
Very well summarized. Intelligently composed and to the point; it summarizes the usual suspects here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
It's hard for me to know just precisely what it is that you mean when you use the term 'religion' within the context of this post. Yes, there is of course the text book definition - which can be rather broad based in scope. Would the term "faith" perhaps be more accurate?

'Faith' goes to that which lies beyond the scope of what science is currently able to empirically understand/answer. Basically, we would at this point be entering the realm of philosophy. People like Friedrich Nietzsche have philosophical views (views which extend beyond the realm of empirical investigation) that do not include theism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
But by "Faith", theists and you seem to automatically mean an invisible God as an explanation for the (currently) inexplicable? Interesting, but a time-limited viewpoint, since in just the last 10 - 15 yars, the use of the SM to resolve unknowns has had a spectacularly successful track record. To wit: it has answered a huge set of previously unanswerable concerns. Imagine what the next 10 - 25 yrs will unveil? Esp. in light of the foot-stampingly absolute claims by theists that man will never create life in a test tu b environment, or that Evolution does not work, or that he world is only 6000 yrs old, a few.

And what if they unveil enough of the Big Questions (to the satisfstion of the rational and truly inquisitive at least) that the current "Goddunnit" version is forced out of existence. Can you please answer me that specific question and not go all evasive on me? Anyone? Anyone?
Other philosophers have philosophical views which happen to include theism. What, pray tell, would be the difference between these two opposing world view philosophies which both employ science, logic/rationality (debatable to some extent with respect to atheism) and faith?

I personally happen to view theism as much more logical and rational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Huh? Theism and faith is MORE LOGICAL and RATIONAL than what? The Scientific Method? Boy, you REALLY don't like those naggingly accuate answers that scientific investigation has produced, do you? It must be very disturbing to your once-intact worldview!

Wow. I would NOT want to be in your philodophical shoes, that part is an undeniable fact!
A few days ago I had an anti-God type assert spontaneous generation as a logical explanation as to why anything exists rather than nothing. Another one asserted that, in essence (I'm paraphrasing here) everything is actually 'nothing.' Therefore, we need not address the question as to why anything exists rather than nothing. While making these obviously absurdly irrational assertions both were at the same time impugning the God view as absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
There certainly are other more rational viewpoints. That doesn't mean you have to jump on the least rational one as being somehow representative of all the global trillions of well-educated, well thought-out scientific viewpoints. On the other hand her is a certain reliable, predictable continuity to the religious, faith-based view on all of this. I've heard so many of them right here on C-D to know from where they all seem to speak. Like the near-universal denial of Evolution, or of an ancient earth, and so on.
Again, it's hard to know what you mean by 'religion.' I perceive that "religion" isn't the only "product" being sold in the market of world view concepts.

ally known, how is the philosophy of naturalism justified? To say that the universe is all there is, all that was and all that will ever be, is to make a philosophical statement. In other words, at this level, both the theist and atheist would appear to be facing the same 'faith' dilemma.
NOTE: No self-respecting truly open-minded scientist would ever say that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest View Post
They both share a none belief in a higher power and that's about it. The anti-theist will not rest untill every theist is silenced or eliminated-that's their sole life's purpose and scientism is the belief that science(mankind) absolutely explains all. Of course one person can hold both of these worldviews.
[quote=rflmn]Perhaps some anti-theist, but your basic atheist simply does not require the inclusion of an invisible, untested and unavailable God figure to explain the world. (i.e.: one whose accomplishments are all of the old-fadhioned variety, and never in the context of the modern world. All of it using oil lamps, goats, stone buildings, herbs and potions, desert scenarios, and so on. Never a 4G phone, an i-Book, a flat screen TV, or a BMW or a 747.

No modern medicines, no magical zapping of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.... In other words, He appears to have abandoned us right about the time of the invention of the camera, or any other credible recording systems. Sort of curious and suspicious, no?)

Theists simply cannot let go of the absolute requirement of a Godly key element, while scientists in several disciplines have faith, based on what they have seen repeatedly over and over again, that there may be no God required. That when the so-called proofs of His Vast Holy Glory have been systematically explored, reviewed, tested and re-tested, they ALWAYS fail./QUOTE]
 
Old 09-02-2011, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,705 posts, read 2,520,145 times
Reputation: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
How so? An explanation, not a statement, would go a long way towards a meaningful discussion.
What's the difference between atheism and Atheism? I have seen both spellings used.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top