Originally posted by lucifershammerPerhaps my English is not good enough to be crystal clear, it is not my maternal tounge. I haven't master the small nuances yet, perhaps never I will. I'm grateful to you (and others) not to hold this against me.
First you say that religion does not equal logic; therefore the laws of logic do not apply to religion.
When I point out that this can equally apply to physics, you change track and argue that since different religions have contradictory theses, therefore the laws of logic do not apply to religion.
When I point that this can still equally apply ...[text shortened]... point was in that post.
Laws or rules of logic apply to any system of propositions.
Well, if I may start from the beginning:
(1) There are as many different religions as there are people on this earth. About 6 billion different views of religious matters.
(2) If we want to talk about religion we can (a) talk about any specific religion, (b) any grouping of religions of some grouping (like Christianity, astrology, Shamanism etc) or (c) religion as a whole, generally speaking, trying to find the very essence of all possible religions. What we choose, (a, b or ,c) change the discussion completely. I prefer talking of (c) in firsthand.
(3) Every religion is as good as any other. Every religion have the same right to be dealt with with respect, even if it contradicts ones own religion. Every one has the right to have any religion he chooses to have.
The exception is those who don't respect others right to have their own religion. This is disrespect.
(4) Religion cannot use Logic in its mathematical form because religion is not logical. This is not a value. A religion without logic (like afterlife and such) is worth every respect of its own.
(5) Religion have not to rely of the Laws of Nature. If Jesus could walk on water it is totally correct, because it is a miracle of religious kind. Science (like physics and chemistry), on the other hand, has to rely on the Laws of Nature.
Now, times fly, and perhaps i should continue with (6), (7) and further but this has to wait.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThank you for your patience.
Perhaps my English is not good enough to be crystal clear, it is not my maternal tounge. I haven't master the small nuances yet, perhaps never I will. I'm grateful to you (and others) not to hold this against me.
Well, if I may start from the beginning:
(1) There are as many different religions as there are people on this earth. About 6 billion diff ...[text shortened]... Now, times fly, and perhaps i should continue with (6), (7) and further but this has to wait.
Regarding your points:
1. I'm not sure there are that many different views on religion (after all, quite a few of them are infants who don't have views on anything at all). Also, one could equally say the same about mathematics. Some might view it as a thing of beauty, others might see it as a necessary evil (particularly students). The statement "2+2=4" could mean different things to a second-grader and a mathematics PhD student.
But I get your point -- there are a lot of religions.
2. I normally talk only of (a) or (b). (c) is too vague. Apparently there are some jurisdictions that view secular humanism as a religion. There are some posters here who consider Communism and Nazism religions.
Further, attempts to "distill" the essence of all religions ignore the fact that religions aren't meant to be combined. Each religion (in the traditional sense) has its own set of worldview assumptions and values that follow from those assumptions; in attempting to find common ground (say, in specific moral teachings) you will often ignore the foundations on which such propositions are built in different religions.
3. I don't know what you mean by "every religion is as good as any other". First, because what "good" means in this context is not clear. Second, because clearly not all religions can be simultaneously correct.
4. What do you mean by "religion cannot use logic in its mathematical form"? Every system of propositions starts with certain assumptions or axioms and derives logical conclusions from those using the rules of mathematical or philosophical logic. This is as true of religion as it is of physics or, indeed, mathematics itself.
Non-mathematical domains may use rules of inference that differ from strict logical deduction (history, for instance), but that doesn't mean they ignore logic in doing so.
And why do you keep saying "religion is not logical" (despite being proven wrong over and over on this point)? Say clearly once and for all what you mean by that and stick to it.
5. So?
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedI rather think it would be the other way 'round. Science advances, maybe enough to find out there is a god AND we can talk directly to it as opposed to the human hierarchy sort of thing we have now, which I roundly oppose. Then we won't NEED faith. We have something infinitely better.
Is there not a certain point where science must die and true faith must come alive...
sorry if this goes against anyone. its just a question id like to know the answer to.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYour English is better than many of those who speak it as their native tongue.
Perhaps my English is not good enough to be crystal clear, it is not my maternal tounge. I haven't master the small nuances yet, perhaps never I will. I'm grateful to you (and others) not to hold this against me.
Well, if I may start from the beginning:
(1) There are as many different religions as there are people on this earth. About 6 billion diff ...[text shortened]... Now, times fly, and perhaps i should continue with (6), (7) and further but this has to wait.
However, whilst I agree that there are as many religions as there are believers, I cannot agree that they all deserve respect.
Many religions are destructive and oppressive, for example. Indeed, most are hypocritical and deserve little but contempt.
1 edit
Originally posted by sugiezdOh thank you (*blushing*) but I feel that we're now talking about nuances in words. I might mean one thing but express it in a way that it'd be read in another way as intended.
Your English is better than many of those who speak it as their native tongue.
However, whilst I agree that there are as many religions as there are believers, I cannot agree that they all deserve respect.
Many religions are destructive and oppressive, for example. Indeed, most are hypocritical and deserve little but contempt.
The religions that are destructive and oppressive to other people is not a religion worth any respect because they don't show respect to others.
A good friend of mine has a totally different view of religion, life, philosophy and we discuss it with joy.
Why? Because, each of us respect the others view and we can learn a lot from each other.
Is he right? I don't think so.
Does he think I'm right? No, certainly not.
Do we care? No.
The fun thin is the discussions, not who is to win.
But in the very moment he says 'You're dead wrong, and you will burn in hell when that time comes' the discussions are over.
This will not happen because we respect each other and each others views.
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedReligion starts where science ends.
Is there not a certain point where science must die and true faith must come alive...
sorry if this goes against anyone. its just a question id like to know the answer to.
Science starts where religion ends.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou are fortunate in having friends like that.
Oh thank you (*blushing*) but I feel that we're now talking about nuances in words. I might mean one thing but express it in a way that it'd be read in another way as intended.
The religions that are destructive and oppressive to other people is not a religion worth any respect because they don't show respect to others.
A good friend of mine has a t ...[text shortened]... ns are over.
This will not happen because we respect each other and each others views.
Unfortunately, religion, like politics, brings out the worst in most people.
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedThere is a limit to what science can explain.
Is there not a certain point where science must die and true faith must come alive...
sorry if this goes against anyone. its just a question id like to know the answer to.
However, that limit expands on a daily basis.
What is presently unknown gives the religious space in which to operate but eventually, that will be reduced to such a point where all but the insane and ill-educated will have to abandon it. It's not far away.
Of course, this depends to a large extent on the qualitiy of education received. For example, there are posters who pontificate on the validity of evolution without knowing the first thing about it.
I live in Switzerland and a recent survey showed that only 14% of Swiss believe in an afterlife - how many in Afghanistan or Iraq?
15 edits
hmm...so religion is logical Lucifer?. Ok, so you can make up some axioms that have no tangible basis and derive conclusions from it...wow!!! wish I could do that man!
Please tell me what steps I should take or what apparatus I would need to test the validity of your model for example:
One of Euclids axioms is that Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. To test this I can say that both 12 and 3x4 is equal to 2x6...from this I can deduce that 12 = 3x4. In fact I can test this by counting 4 apples, counting another four, and then yet another four apples. By collecting all these apples into one group I count count them all and find that I do indeed have 12 apples!..not only that but it still works if I swap apples for oranges!
Not all axioms are feasible however: heres one of mine: there exist some oranges that taste like spaghetti bologneise to all people that have tasted both spaghetti bologneise and oranges ..I could draw all sorts of inferences from this but how do I check that I was correct to state such an axiom in the first place? at this point I have found no oranges that even remotely taste like spaghetti bologneise and even if I did...It doesn't resolve the fact that for everyone else it might only have tasted like an orange
so lets take one of your axioms: There is one and *only one* god... how do I go about testing this?...what sort of tests can I perform such that the only logical inference I can reasonably draw is that there really must be 1 and *only 1* God?
or how about we all have an eternal spirit (soul)... How do I test this then?
Originally posted by sugiezdOn the other hand large numbers of Americans disbelieve science on the ground that an Iron Age folk tale is obviously a superior source of knowlege.
There is a limit to what science can explain.
However, that limit expands on a daily basis.
What is presently unknown gives the religious space in which to operate but eventually, that will be reduced to such a point where all but the insane and ill-educated will have to abandon it. It's not far away.
Of course, this depends to a large extent on the ...[text shortened]... survey showed that only 14% of Swiss believe in an afterlife - how many in Afghanistan or Iraq?
It makes me wonder where the USA has gone wrong for them to choose superstition and stupitity in such large numbers