29 Apr 07
Originally posted by VarqaOf course I believe electrons exist; even if they are not detectable by the naked eye. They are still observable, even if I have not seen them myself.
Do you believe electrons exist?
Have you seen one?
Yet there are some entities that are not observable, but very many people still believe in their existence.
I ask the questions above as beliefs have consequences, favorable and unfavorable. For instance, there is a price paid for "unjustified belief." Consider the suicide bombings in the Middle East; here is an interesting video regarding the necessity for "rationality" behind one's thinking.
Bill O'Reilly vs. Sam Harris 2004
29 Apr 07
Originally posted by YugaI agree that dogmatic and blind belief is very dangerous. Unfortunately A lot of that kind of belief is being sold as religion these days. I believe religion is like medication. Taken at the right time and as prescribed, it can save lives. But when the expiration date is passed or when instructions are not followed, it can kill. But should we blame the doctor or the medication? We must be intelligent enough to follow directions. The enemy is "ignorance" not God and religion.
Of course I believe electrons exist; even if they are not detectable by the naked eye. They are still observable, even if I have not seen them myself.
Yet there are some entities that are not observable, but very many people still believe in their existence.
I ask the questions above as beliefs have consequences, favorable and unfavorable. For instance ...[text shortened]... thinking.
Bill O'Reilly vs. Sam Harris 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GExMLKOuySA
Science and religion can and must go hand in hand. Without science, religion will end up becoming a mere set of rituals and superstitions. Science is good at answering the question "how." But it needs true religion so it can also contemplate the "why." Religion can give meaning to science so it does not become so cold, impersonal, and inhumane.
29 Apr 07
Originally posted by VarqaWhat makes you think religion can answer the "why" questions?
I agree that dogmatic and blind belief is very dangerous. Unfortunately A lot of that kind of belief is being sold as religion these days. I believe religion is like medication. Taken at the right time and as prescribed, it can save lives. But when the expiration date is passed or when instructions are not followed, it can kill. But should we blame the doctor ...[text shortened]... igion can give meaning to science so it does not become so cold, impersonal, and inhumane.
29 Apr 07
3 edits
Originally posted by YugaThe overwhelming majority act the way they act and believe what they believe because they like to 'feel good'. They are unwilling to mature beyond an egocentric point of view.
Why do you act the way you act?
Why do you believe what you believe?
Why have faith and reason when there is science and knowledge?
Science and knowledge are extremely limited.
29 Apr 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat's wrong with feeling good? Why should we adopt religion and 'feel bad'?
The overwhelming majority act the way they act and believe what they believe because they like to 'feel good'. They can't mature beyond an egocentric point of view.
Science and knowledge are extremely limited.
29 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettThis has nothing to do with 'religion', per se. Neither does it have anything to do with 'feeling bad'. It has to do with maturing beyond an egocentric mindset.
What's wrong with feeling good? Why should we adopt religion and 'feel bad'?
Think of all the transgressions of man against man. What is the underlying motivation?
29 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by VarqaFurthering what you have written regarding what questions science and religion answer:
We must be intelligent enough to follow directions. The enemy is "ignorance" not God and religion. Science and religion can and must go hand in hand. Without science, religion will end up becoming a mere set of rituals and superstitions. Science is good at answering the question "how." But it needs true religion so it can also contemplate the "why." Religion can give meaning to science so it does not become so cold, impersonal, and inhumane.
Science = a prediction, if this, then that and then testing that prediction. (1)
Science asks "What can I know?" and How can I know it?" Science can answer how something occurs, but not why something occurs. "Religion, and to some extent philosophy, believes it can know, or at least address, the question, "Why?"" (2)
“Without science, religion will end up becoming a mere set of rituals and superstitions.” (Varqa)
I disagree with this statement. With religious moderation, religion will become ceremonial in nature, or as you eloquently put it, “a mere set of rituals and superstitions.” Religion may still thrive in the absence of scientific reasoning.
Science and religion can be reconciled, but that does not imply scientific evidence to believe in God. I’m curious in the rationale in one’s beliefs because problems arise with irrationality; people must strive towards integral consciousness to ensure world stability.
“Religion can give meaning to science so it does not become so cold, impersonal, and inhumane.” (Varqa)
Yes. But consider the monotheistic religions in regard to atheism. Below is a video clip that does not by any means defend atheism, only atheists.
Atheists (5:20)
The video brings up a few passages from the Bible which condemns atheists as “fools, corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.” (Psalms 14:1) And the video shows many prominent people that have done much good. Thus belief in God is not necessary to have moral values.
Ironically, Christians understand how it is to be an atheist in respect to Islam. Yet people do not apply the same rationale that they use to criticize the beliefs of others when contemplating their own. Sure, people may find meaning in religion, but the effects of unjustified belief may be good or bad, depending how people interpret their religion, and more importantly, how they act upon their beliefs.
But to be a true believer in a religion, one has to be a fundamentalist. Any religious moderation indicates that one is not a true believer, or else one would be admitting flaws in one’s religion.
“Fundamentalism is often, but not always, associated with Biblical literalism, the view that the traditional religious scripture in question is absolutely inerrant, and epistemologically an emphasis on Divine Revelation as the only ultimately reliable source of knowledge.” (3)
Let us consider the Bible then. Read Deuteronomy 20:10-14. 2 Samuel 12:11-14. Leviticus 21:9. Deuteronomy 22:20-21. Leviticus 25:44-46. Exodus 13-2. And with regards to freedom of belief, especially Deuteronomy 13:7-19.
What is the Bible, and implicitly God, condoning? It’s your choice to believe whatever you want to believe. Notably the Bible is written and read by humans and one may interpret what the Bible is saying in anyway one wishes. For me, it would not be reasonable to accept everything in the Bible literally. In fact, there are many outright contradictions and inconsistencies, and naturally there is always a way to find an eloquent explanation for inconsistencies that may appear reasonable.
Countering Bible Contradictions
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#141
Now if you were to would act as a fundamentalist, or a true believer in your faith, it is for you to decide what that means, and whether the consequences of doing so are good or bad.
(1) (Barry, John M.; "The Great Influenza", p.17)
(2) (Barry, John M.; "The Great Influenza", p.14-5)
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
If you perceive this as an argument against any religion that you may subscribe to, you are mistaken. But perhaps you may see how beliefs, based on one’s religion, can have detrimental effects. I am simply opposed to the bad things that happen in the world, which result from irrational thinking. And, despite this very long tangent, I am interested in how one chooses to believe because it is not so easy for me to relate with the beliefs of some people.
29 Apr 07
Originally posted by YugaI'm not acting.
Why do you act the way you act?
Why do you believe what you believe?
Why have faith and reason when there is science and knowledge?
For the most part, it's either true... or I want to believe it.
Why not have a bit of faith, mix it in with your sciences.
P-
30 Apr 07
Originally posted by YugaThe Bible is a spiritual book. It is not a history book nor is it a scientific book. Spiritual concepts are hard to comprehend. For this reason parables, stories, and analogies are used to describe these concepts. If we go by the inerrant, literal meaning, we are bound to go down the wrong path. The Book must also not be used to disprove the theory of evolution or the Big Bang. Adam and Eve, heaven and hell, life, death, resurrection, blindness, rapture... they are all spiritual concepts.
Furthering what you have written regarding what questions science and religion answer:
Science = a prediction, if this, then that and then testing that prediction. (1)
Science asks "What can I know?" and How can I know it?" Science can answer how something occurs, but not why something occurs. "Religion, and to some extent philosophy, believes i ...[text shortened]... o believe because it is not so easy for me to relate with the beliefs of some people.
I believe that there is only one God. We may think otherwise but the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Jew, Christian, Muslim and Baha'i all believe in the same God, even if they don't think so. When the Bible speaks of other gods, it is talking about praying to wooden or stone objects. It is talking about things like Racism, Nationalism, money and power, and other gods that we follow.
I know I am not addressing the bulk of your questions, but some of your writing is a bit over my head. 🙂
30 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI feel that the most compelling argument against reason is that pure reason is the ultimate enemy of science. Consider that scientific progress was inhibited by Aristotelian and Hippocratic schools of thought for 2000 years.
Reason is somehow incompatible with science and knowledge? I take it you are a senile Elder God.
Just because something seems reasonable doesn't make it scientific. Believing in Santa Claus seemed reasonable to me when I was very young because my family, peers, teachers and media said that Santa Claus existed. Additonally I had nice presents under the Christmas tree from Santa. So in my young world, believing in Santa was very reasonable to me. Reason has to be backed by scientific or concrete historical evidence in order to obtain truth.
I have no idea what you meant by that last statement, but it made me laugh. 🙂