Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
That's good news.
Hope it gets much lower much faster.
Hope it gets much lower much faster.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
80% in America believe in God
- Thread starter Amiga
- Start date
- Status
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Nature doesn't need or have a "mind" or "design". It just is. The metals are metals. We can observe it, define parts of it given our knowledge, and perform replicable tests against it.
Religion, on the other hand, is all just speculation. I find myself in the same camp as the great Carl Sagan, in that there should not be some need to combine the two - doing so is a disfavor to both. We have the reality of science, and then the various beliefs of the many religions out there. Let them be seperate, as they should be. They both serve their own purposes.
I think my focus on the teachings of Jesus while I was a Catholic helped me be a better person to others (it's definitely a major reason why I give thousands to charity a year and do my best to work the homeless shelter near my old alma mater in the winter), while my awareness of various things that science wrought made me a better citizen and more compassionate and worldly person. Like, you know, acknowledging man-driven climate change and how it will continue wrecking the lives of millions in affected third world areas (one of the reasons I give so much to Heifer International, as they have some focus on these populations).
Religion, on the other hand, is all just speculation. I find myself in the same camp as the great Carl Sagan, in that there should not be some need to combine the two - doing so is a disfavor to both. We have the reality of science, and then the various beliefs of the many religions out there. Let them be seperate, as they should be. They both serve their own purposes.
I think my focus on the teachings of Jesus while I was a Catholic helped me be a better person to others (it's definitely a major reason why I give thousands to charity a year and do my best to work the homeless shelter near my old alma mater in the winter), while my awareness of various things that science wrought made me a better citizen and more compassionate and worldly person. Like, you know, acknowledging man-driven climate change and how it will continue wrecking the lives of millions in affected third world areas (one of the reasons I give so much to Heifer International, as they have some focus on these populations).
Doczu
Member
Ah yes, one of mine favorite passages i threw around in religion classes calling out incest in the Bible - a classic. I thought i was smart using it, found it on a lot of "rationality" pages in the early days of the internet.
Taking anything written at face value (not just the Bible self) and not digging into it makes you lose sight of the bigger picture:
- Lot is a victim of (incest) rape
- Lot's daughters are a product of Sodom and Gommorah, their morality hasn't changed even after they were spared by God in the destruction of their homes and they feared no one else would want them.
- check up on the names of their sons and which historical people they represent and what kind relations they had with the Izraelites of the time
- God in his love and compassion didn't off them after their sin, even though it was (and to this day is) one of the worst things thst you can do.
Last point is quite important to look at as God in the Old Testament wasn't anyone to fuck with. Many other stories in the Bible show that even if the people sinned they were still in his grace after they shown remorse and corrected their way.
Anyway, i could go on and on, but i will stand to my beliefs. The Bible is still a valid read today even for those that don't believe per se. Even if it is "for fun" or to analyze it as a work of art.
That said, the New Testament is more important to Christians - it changes the perception of God and how he views humanity. It even shows how Jesus changed Gods heart after bring nailed to a cross and asking him to forgive humanity their sins. I mean he brought plagues, death and floods for lesser things, one would think that killing his son would bring apocalypse. Compassion plays a big role in the second half as religion evolved with humanity when they formed enormous (for the time) countries and cities. No more eye for an eye, less killing in general.
I will look into it when i have some more time and get back on it. Really don't have a lot of time, but i don't want to leave it without an answer. I hope the topic remains open till then!
I'd love to throw my 2c regarding christian scientists: FFS one of the creators (lol) of the Big Bang theory was a belgian catholic priest, guy smart as fuck. When he proposed his idea of how the universe got created he was ridiculed for the fact it reminded people the Book of Genesis. And look where we are right now
kurisu_1974
Member
I'd love to throw my 2c regarding christian scientists: FFS one of the creators (lol) of the Big Bang theory was a belgian catholic priest, guy smart as fuck. When he proposed his idea of how the universe got created he was ridiculed for the fact it reminded people the Book of Genesis. And look where we are right now
First of all it was 1951, Belgium was Christian and conservative as fuck back then, but even then George Lemaître insisted than science and religion had no overlap and should never be conflated. I'm sure he was so smart that he knew religious mythology is allegorical rather than fact based.
Doczu
Member
First of all, it was 1927 when he came up with the expanding universe theory and 1931 when he claimed everything came from a primeval atom (the Big Bang). Sadly, his work was overshadowed by Hubble and others and he wasn't even mad he got no credit for it.
And i am happy he draws a hard line between religion and science, for bias reasons. Nevertheless, i like to think the Book of Genesis is an interpretation of the creation of the universe, even on a methaphorical level.
Chaplain
Member
Your definition of faith is not the Biblical definition of faith:
This is unpacked further in the following discussion:
FunkMiller
Member
I'd love to throw my 2c regarding christian scientists: FFS one of the creators (lol) of the Big Bang theory was a belgian catholic priest, guy smart as fuck. When he proposed his idea of how the universe got created he was ridiculed for the fact it reminded people the Book of Genesis. And look where we are right now
Lamaitre was indeed a genius, and also, it should be noted, if he had been born in the last fifty years, would have been most assuredly atheist. I can extrapolate this opinion because more or less every single scientist alive today and working in the fields of cosmology and astrophysics… is really really atheist.
The fact he was able to compartmentalise his scientific rigour from the religious indoctrination he received from childhood is testament to the man’s cognitive ability.
The fact he remained a catholic priest is also testament to the paychological power that religiosity had at that time, and still does in many places.
Last edited:
kurisu_1974
Member
Right, I was referring to the year when the pope tried to co-opt his theories and he said no thanks.
What else would it be... but it was not really thought up by Christians (probably some mash-up from Mesopotamian or Babylonian myth, Christians love repurposing other faiths and customs), nor does it teaches us anything scientific, so its relevance here is a bit lost on me.
Last edited:
I don't think a lot religious people would say that atheists believe the same way they do.
Believing that the only right way to attain knowledge is through evidence is in itself a metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe, so how can it be an absence of belief?
kurisu_1974
Member
Because as soon as there is evidence, belief becomes unnecessary. Give me proof of your god, and I will just know he exists, no belief and no faith necessary.
Last edited:
Evidence makes a good case to believe in something, but it's not a prerequisite for it to be real. Besides, you would have to believe that the proof or evidence given to you is in fact real and not doctored or fabricated in any way, so it's pretty hard if not impossible to transcend the fundamentals of belief. It is a problem of epistemology more than it is a problem of fine tuning the scientific method.
winjer
Member
So much non-sense. If something is real, then providing evidence for it is feasible.
And to verify if some evidence is fabricated or not, all it takes is one of the most important steps in the scientific method: verification by peers.
kurisu_1974
Member
I guess that is what we call science right? The scientific method? And what we know can change over time.
Unless what you just said is an assumption then prove it.
winjer
Member
That is the whole goal of the scientific process.
If you had any knowledge about science and if you weren't so far deep into esoteric crap, you would understand it.
Sure, I'm just arguing that science or the scientific method doesn't completely transcend belief.
kurisu_1974
Member
You are saying that, but not really arguing tho.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Isn't Hebrews 11 the Biblical definition of faith?
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Hebrews#11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Ok but I asked you to prove this statement: 'If something is real, then providing evidence for it is feasible' - it being the goal of the scientific method doesn't automatically validate it's basic assumption.
And what's with the strawman? This is basic epistemology and I have had yet to argue with anyone on this forum about the scientific method without being accused of esotericism or being religious.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I'll take belief in old religions over the new religion that's popping up in their place.
You are right, I asked the question: 'Believing that the only right way to attain knowledge is through evidence is in itself a metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe, so how can it be an absence of belief?'
winjer
Member
Is something is real it can be observed and measured. Science has been doing it for a few centuries with great success.
With each passing year science progresses and finds new ways to observe and explain reality.
Epistemology has nothing to do with reality nor the scientific method. It's just dialect to justify delusion.
That's why it uses faith, not logic, not analysis of reality.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Are those the only options available to you?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
What are some widely accepted examples of this? What things in life are universally accepted to be real, but have no evidence that acknowledge its existence?
I know what science is. I'm asking you to prove your statement, which according to you should be easy.
Dude wat
kurisu_1974
Member
Right and I explained but it but alas to no avail. Which is usual in discussions with religious types who prefer a faith based reality.
Do you want to discuss burden of proof next? Or what the point of faith is when you can't even define what you belief in?
Last edited:
Rran
Member
I suggest checking out in detail the Kalam cosmological argument as well as the argument from fine-tuning. I feel that these are consistent and logically sound positions to take. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree on them, or that they're indisputable fact. It's important not to conflate proof with evidence.
About your comments on faith, as pointed out, many religions disagree with that definition. I mentioned it earlier, but "fideism" (blind faith) is a heresy in Catholicism.
Because that one singular argument isn't the sole thing we use to understand the nature of God. Explaining one's belief systems is a multi-tiered process, starting with 1) belief in a grand designer, 2) belief that this deity is the Abrahamic God, 3) belief that Jesus is God's son, 4) belief in whatever sect of Christianity one believes in. My posts in this thread have only been focused on the first point. Mainly since the topic (and survey) seems to be about theism on a broader sense rather than something like Christianity.
kurisu_1974
Member
Sounds like God of the gaps to me tbh.
Edit: not even God, just some unidentified prime mover with some premises based on a beginning that we know nothing about and a cause that we know even less about. It's a good thought experiment I guess, but you'll have to do better. Because who says there was a beginning, who says there was cause, and why call the alleged prime mover a god?
Edit: not even God, just some unidentified prime mover with some premises based on a beginning that we know nothing about and a cause that we know even less about. It's a good thought experiment I guess, but you'll have to do better. Because who says there was a beginning, who says there was cause, and why call the alleged prime mover a god?
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Thanks again for posting a detailed response. I'll get to it, but work's been pretty busy. The short version, however, is that while what you wrote of that Kalam argument is logically valid, as in, the premise (if true) would lead to the conclusion, it's not sound because the premise is not true or at the least not proven to be true to a sufficient degree of confidence.
How about every scientific discovery ever made? Unless you would argue that scientifically proving something only makes it real from that point on. Or maybe we are talking past each other...
Rran
Member
To be honest, this thread's been a bit exhausting for me as well between work and family stuff! I'm okay with us saying our own pieces, agreeing to disagree, and being able to get back to (real) work if you are, haha.
Then perhaps I have failed to adequately explain the position.
winjer
Member
Do you know of any event in reality that science won't be able to observe, measure and explain?
You 'explained' that when you have proof belief becomes unnecessary, which doesn't answer my question in any way, shape or form. So, what, you don't think you need to believe that the method you used is the correct one? if so, how come? Again, why is it that you accuse me of being a 'religious type' when I'm just asking more or less standard questions about the scientific method.
I do not, because it makes no sense to what I'm arguing.
EruditeHobo
Member
You're presuming facts not in evidence -- you have no way of knowing how or if the laws of our local presentation of the universe apply to something outside of that, and no one knows for sure what the "beginning" of the universe even means. What the experts know, generally, is that we only know things up to a certain point, and we can't look beyond that.
We certainly cannot make claims about what happened or what kinds of laws exist outside what we call our universe.
It is not an argument for the existence of god, it is a logical argument which might not apply to our universe which doesn't mention god at all, one which is used by apologists to make a leap to an argument for god... but without the word "god" in any premise or the conclusion, it cannot by definition be an argument for a "god".
kurisu_1974
Member
I don't think you want to understand the difference between knowledge and belief and that makes it hard to have this conversation. You're just coming off as deliberately obtuse at this point. I mean, the answers to these so called questions you have seem quite clear to me, but you are stuck with the idea that everything is faith based or needs belief.
Last edited:
I do not know of any observable recorded event that science does not have an explanation for. It's also not at all what I'm talking about. I'm asking you to prove that observing, measuring and explaining within a scientific framework is the only right way to gain knowledge.
EruditeHobo
Member
So it is your claim that there is no evidence for every scientific claim... ever made?
EruditeHobo
Member
You seem to be the one proposing another way to go... so we should probably start there -- what is this other paradigm through which we can gain knowledge that we know to be "true", and please give an example of such a lesson.
Last edited:
Right. Let's end it here then.
winjer
Member
In the whole of human history, the scientific method is the only one that has consistently proved to describe reality with any level of accuracy.
I know of no event where religion has been able to describe reality in a better, more accurate and precise way than the scientific method.
kurisu_1974
Member
If your questions about the scientific method are so standard, I'm sure Wikipedia or any other online resource can explain it better than me, so I agree. I have heard enough circular faith based reasoning anyways.
Last edited:
SoulChamber
Member
I totally agree. Back when I was in my mid-30's, I started having doubts & started feeling uneasy about going to church. Then about three years later, I started doing research about
- The Bible,
- Christianity,
- Religion in general,
- Religion's awful past history of violence of wars, genocide, etc. & physically abusing, molesting & raping children,
- Learning & studying about the Big Bang, Science & Evolution,
- Praying before I eat meals,
- Stopped reading the Bible,
- Stopped attending churches,
- Stopped listening to Christian &/or Gospel music (which is emotionally manipulative in itself), &
- Refused to take part in Bible Studies in which my mother & aunt does whenever my 1st cousin & her husband has it every Tuesday night.
Churches are nothing more than businesses. Church leaders, youth leaders & televangelists don't give a damn about anyone but two things: Children & money.
I say that the only "good" churches are something like Unitarian Universalist churches, & communities like Sunday Assembly, where all Atheists gather.
Last edited:
kurisu_1974
Member
Even the more traditional denominations like Dutch Protestantism can go that way.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14417362
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
According to our culture right now, it seems to be so.
Not at all. I'm saying that evidence doesn't spawn a given phenomenon into existence. I think most would accept the premise that gravity was real before any discourse about its viability as something provable.
I have no idea. I'm a firm believer in the scientific method, for what it is intended for anyways, and I'm only here arguing because some people are claiming that trust in the scientific method somehow transcends any form of belief... And that apparently makes me religious and an esotericist.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked