The Religion Debate Thread

[Der Zauberer]

With that said I know there is a name for this, but I'll be damned if I know what it is . . .

It's called deism.

The germane dictionary-definition of science is: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." So, science provides the most probably true explanation for things only to the extent that that process necessarily reveals Truth. There is nothing in Science that purports to explain everything, or that it can explain everything. Science merely ignores that which it cannot prove, or that which is not relevant to its observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation. Therefore, no matter how advanced our version of science may be, it is not necessarily a valid assumption that there could be any science capable of proving everything.

Now, I very much agree that nothing we posess can prove religion. There is no use arguing it, and doing so would undermine the concept of faith as well as waste time. What I was saying, however, was not that my beliefs are true (it goes without saying that I believe they are), but that science is not an adequete paradigm for modeling "optimal" behavior. Sure, religion can be a bad paradigm, but sometimes it is an excellent one. Science alone is surely a terrible one. So, somewhere, something else has to come into play, unless you are going to be like Mr. Frankinstein or that dude in the Waterworks who takes children off the streets and does experiments on them to satisfy scientific curiosity.

[rklenseth]

Science is also a bad paradigm, because it ignores love and the protection of the weak and innocent.

If you believe that science fails to explain everything then you fail to understand what science is. Science is the process of finding the most probable explanation of the universe around you. Therefore by definition the scientific explanation is the one that's most probably true and best explains things. Any scienctific model which fails to explain certain things (such as our current one) is simply incomplete or containing errors.

Now we get to truth. There are many (nearly infinite) explanations for the universe many of which are plausible. The existence of a god is one of these possible configurations. unfortunately, there is only one correct explanation, one that is true. but by the very nature of the problem, it's impossible to know which one this is. now by believing uncompromisingly in a god is to accept this one possibility as truth. in doing so, you deny every other possibility. now of course this sets you up to probably be wrong.
now all of that was just talking about religious beliefs which do not contradict science. religious beliefs do have even a much smaller chance of being true, simply by merit of that fact that science is by definition the most probable explanation.

to clarify what you said, no i don't think that our scientific model is perfect, no i don't think that the existence of god is impossible, and no i don't claim that the truth knowable. my arguement doesn't rest on any of these points, simply on the fact that religion is a load of assumptions that's going to get you in trouble.

You fail to see his point, Kroner. As religion, which is created by humans, science will never be perfect because it is created by humans. Humans can never be perfect. And even if you were to claim perfection then you would have to define what perfection is and everyone has their own definition of what perfection so in other words perfection within itself is not perfect because their would be so many ideas of what it is.

Isn't science just oberservations interpreted by humans? Isn't that what some would claim religion is? Observations made by humans and then interpreted?

You can have twenty people stand at the same place and witness the same event then you can have them sit down right afterwards and have them write down exactly what they saw. In the end, you will have twenty completely different observations and interpretations of that same event that all twenty witnessed. Who is right? All of them from their own perspective correct? But how can there be twenty different correct observations and interpretations of the same event?

You also claim that people who believe in a God or some other higher power than themselves deny in any other possibility but doesn't science on the other end do the same thing? They deny the possibility of a God or higher being, do they not? So in essence isn't science doing the same thing that religion does? (I do know there are some cases that don't but these are the extremes I am talking about)

And science has as many assumptions as religion does. Just because it claims that this experiment or these facts interpreted by a certain person or persons proves their assumptions doesn't make it true. It is just the observation and interpretation of said person and persons which I'm sure there are 19 other observations and interpretations of said experiment and facts. So who is right? Then you have to count all the observations and interpretations of the thousand and then millions of others of the observations and interpretations of those people. So is who is right?

So I don't think there is a absolute truth. The only absolute truth is the one you believe in through your own observations and interpretations. That is why I don't believe in objectivity and unbiasness (not sure if that is a word but don't really care as I'm pretty tired right now) because there isn't an absolute truth but your own and to someone else that is a lie and a falsehood. So who is right?:wink:

[rklenseth]

My personal opinion on religion. It's just a way to control ignorant masses.

With that said I know there is a name for this, but I'll be damned if I know what it is. I believe god created the universe than sat back and laughed as things folded out. God just wanted a really big reality TV show. Can't blame him immortality has to get pretty boring after awhile you need things to spice it up.

As for the bible I would never trust a damned thing in there. It is impossible to disipher the bible because it completely contradicts itself. You can interpret it in any way depending on what line you read. I'm sure if I looked har denough I could prove that penguins came to earth from a bowl of soup and sheep could fly.

Hasn't scientific fact been deciphered over and over again and hasn't it also contradicted itself many times?

[kroner]

You fail to see his point, Kroner. As religion, which is created by humans, science will never be perfect because it is created by humans. Humans can never be perfect. And even if you were to claim perfection then you would have to define what perfection is and everyone has their own definition of what perfection so in other words perfection within itself is not perfect because their would be so many ideas of what it is.

didn't i say it's impossbile to know the truth? i know i did, but just in case: it's impossbile to know the truth. and as i also said, science isn't and never will be perfect, because it is the best explanation put together by humans who (*sigh*) can never know the truth.

please don't ever confuse science and religion. science is a continuing process, combining logic and observation to find what is the probable explanation. religion is a blind acceptance of an explanation that "feels" right, but isn't backed.

science does not deny other possibilities because it does not claim to be absolute truth. science is and always has been a collection of probable theories. anything else is not sound science. but really when i was talking about possibilities, i was speaking more of meh's fmaous "WHY". this is the underlying cause, that into which we have no insight. here is where the possibilities really flourish.
in the realm of science, on the other hand, most explanations that fall far outside begin to have very low relative probabilites simply because observation after observation has shown them to be unlikely. for instance "god created the earth in 7 days". highly unlikely, though still not impossible.

as for this "absolute truth" you're talking about, there is truth, period. the universe is, therefore there are things that are so about it. you make quite a leap of faith to first assume that others exist, second that they percieve something different from each other and third that these differences in perception indicate that they are not just seeing the same thing from a different angle, but different universes. well, if all these happen to be true, then there's some sort of large set of univereses, which is possible, but there are still truths about this conglomerate of universes. it changes nothing about the nature of truth. finding truth is impossible but its existence is assured by definition.

[Der Zauberer]

I agree that science does not deny other cosmologies or explanations of physical phenomena, but it does deny things that are not relevant to science. Even "perfect" science, if there could be such a thing. For example, more specifically, if God for some reason is not to be observable (in a context pertinent to scientific experience), then science, by its own definition, could never explain him, or even want to try to explain him.
And that's why science is not adequete as a paradigm. Because there are things, or, there could be things, it cannot even attempt to explain, even were it pefect in its unltimate expression.

I also agree that there is truth. In fact, the very statement, "There is no absolute truth" contradicts itself, because it is stating what is intended to be a true state of the condition of the universe: a categorical lack of Truth.
Of course, there are different interpretations of the Truth, which, when the conception of it is too imperfect, but too strongly held, can have serious and negative consequences. Just as close interpretations of the Truth can have positive consequenses. And of course, it can work the other way around; there is the "right thing for the wrong reason," and the "wrong thing for the right reason". But I think a close enough belief in the Truth is pretty safe and pretty constructive.
Now, please do not take the preceeding paragraph to be attempt to convince you that my beliefs are the correct set; that is not the funciton of that particular argument.

I don't agree that the Truth cannot be known however. What evidence is there of that?

"God created the earth in 7 days" is a poor example: the Bible provides for this perfectly, as it says in 2 Peter, "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Which is obviously figurative, such to permit one day being as a billion years, or vice versa.

[west]

For my part, I don't really think the genesis creation account was supposed to be anything more than a metaphor.
Whether it was or not is irrelevent.

We shouldn't discount scientific inquiry because we're taking something figurative literally, as so many people do.

[sammigurl61190]

I don't even have to read through these 16 pages.

There is no such thing as religion.

God is an imaginary father figure used to scare little kids into not masturbating. A clever illusion designed by the mentally ill to keep human civilization from reaching the stars. An illusion created to prevent humans from accepting that they die and decay away like every other living being, and to effectively control the gullible, stupid majority of the human species. God is billions and billions of people sharing an imaginary friend.

God does not exist. In order for a god to exist, positive evidence would have to be given, becuase DISproving the existence of anything is impossible. When the religious zealots like Scuba Steve ask you to "prove god does not exist" this is a ludicrous statement because the person who makes the POSITIVE statement bears the burden of proof. The naysayer bears no burden other than that he must change his opinion if given hard positive evidence.

God is any number of imaginary beings created by primitive cultures to explain events they did not understand. Some of these fabricated beings have finally faded into obscurity when they were no longer needed to explain reality, while others still persist as a direct result of the social manipulations carried on by those who claimed the existance of the fabricated beings. Those who have come into power over the frightened masses by proporting to know the will of these imaginary beings are often seen to issue directions specifically aimed at controlling the population, claiming such directions came from the being that only they could hear. Anyone viewing these statements from a purely objective viewpoint would realize them for the brainwashing they are, but unfortunately for the majority of the population of the world, those brainwashed, can rarely look at the experience objectively. It is also worth noting that the brainwashing begins at as young an age as possible, indoctrining the offspring of the existing slaves at birth.

Yeah. My viewpoint there.

[swymir]

I'm not defending either science or religion. I just said I fall somewhere in the middle. Your right it is all about what you believe. However I'm still sticking with my notion that religion is instituted to control the masses. Maybe not in the early stages of it's existence when as I believe it has been said it was created to explain what they couldn't explain, but very often religion was used to get the means of a higher authority across. Just look at the Egyptians. The pharohs had their people believe they were gods so that controling the region would be easier. The same thing happened in China and Japan. Even Alexander the Great told his troops that he was a demigod. Stalin worked and-in-hand witht the church to control the working masses when he took control of Russia. However that doesn't mean religion is bad. I think that it is a useful tool to try to prevent chaos. Which is what many religions teach. The world isn't chaotic there is some order.

[Tolomus]

DISproving the existence of anything is impossible.

Not really... I can disprove the existence of a triangle with 4 sides. By definition, a triangle has three sides, thus it is impossible for a 4 sided one to exist. Hence, I have just disproved the existence of something.

This reminds me of the falsification principle I studied in Philosophy, whereby a theory, to be meaningful, has to, in principle, be able to be proved false, etc etc. There have been so many arguments for God having to exist, the Cosmological argument, the Teleological argument the the Problem of Evil, the Ontological argument, etc. I have studied them all, and none of them are completely indisputable. Then again, there is no indisputable argument against God's existence either.

[Tolomus]

If my above post had been said or mentioned before, then sorry. I haven't read the rest of the topic.

Stalin worked and-in-hand witht the church to control the working masses when he took control of Russia.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I wouldn't say Stalin worked with the Church... he worked against it by killing many priests, etc, and encouraging the masses to attack the Church and take it's land and wealth, as the Church was rather linked to the Tsarist past, which Stalin was against. Amongst other things.

[swymir]

However all of mathematics has been invented by humans and really doesn't count. It was made to de indisputable although some people still manage to do it (these are our ultra arguers of society) I think what they were refering too is something we didn't create (I know religion is man created, but what it stands for was not so that still applies)

[swymir]

As for the stalin post who knows. I just go on bits I hear in school Half of what I say is not accurate, but if it sounds right I type it in. Not exactly the best way to work I guess, but google is like 10 key strokes to far in my opinion.

[Tolomus]

I don't see the difference if something is man made or not... things just can be falsified. *shrugs* Also, some could argue that mathematics are not really man 'made', but was instead just discovered or found by man.

And who needs Google? Philosophy, Stalin, etc, is too fresh in my mind.

[The Hunter]

Stalin's objective was to destroy the church. As long as religion exists, its priests had power, enough to overthrow governments and kings. Besides, the church represents the established powers, were schooled etc and generally stood in the way of changes. Therefore most dictators who want to change the status quo attacked the church sooner or later, same with Hitler and as maybe the earliest exapmle. Akenathon. The latter never succeeded and it was probably the clerical power that overthrew him if I remember correctly. He might have been the Pharaoh, a god himself, but the "church" proved to be stronger. (Never underestimate self interest).

As for Sam's statement: I agree.
Now, can't disprove heaven by simply not have been there, right? If something doesn't exist, you can't disprove it as there's no physical evidence (Duh) which is the ultimate proof. If someone say's: there's a ghost in front of you, he's not physical, you can walk right through him but I'm sure he's there". How are you going to disprove it? When using scientific equipment reveals no eveidence there's a ghost, it doesn't mean that there is no ghost.

There is no such thing as religion.

God is an imaginary father figure used to scare little kids into not masturbating. A clever illusion designed by the mentally ill to keep human civilization from reaching the stars. An illusion created to prevent humans from accepting that they die and decay away like every other living being, and to effectively control the gullible, stupid majority of the human species. God is billions and billions of people sharing an imaginary friend.

I can however prove that religion exists. *points to the nearest church, synagoge, mosque*

But... If I were religious I'd be heavily offended by that piece of text and I'd say that you'd burn in hell for your arrogance, narrow mindedness and herecy.

And even though I'm not religious, I do believe it serve's a purpose. Besides giving people hope in bad times, it's a nice set of moral guidelines. Do not kill, do not steal, etc. And especially in recent times the role of the church has changed. The church is not the rich, corrupt, power hungry moloch that it used to be. Bishops do not command entire armies anymore, no money-making companies, etc. It serves a ppurpose by helping the poor and the weak. Something they should have done all along but only now gotten to, alas. Now all we have to do is to wait for that -old lunatic ultra-conservative fart who calls himself pope- to die. "And they all rejoiced".

[kroner]

Like has been said, math is true because it takes certain postulates and says "if you assume these are ture, then all these other things are ture" using logic alone and the potulates. but anything that rests on observation, can't be proven. in other words, any absolute statement about the universe. if i say "this chair is green!" how do i know for sure? how do i know my sense aren't lying to me? how do i know the chair exists? what is green? this includes the existance of god and the absence of god. niether can be proven.
so you might say, "ha! you can't disprove my god." but that's not what i aim to do. all i've been saying all along is that the existence god is one possibility out of a nearly infinite number. that makes the chances pretty low that any one of those possiblilties is true. so why assume one of them when chances are you'll be wrong? highly illogical.

der zauberer, you said that any science which does not account for god, since god is not observable, is a flawed one. science doesn't ever say there is no god. science doesn't address the existence of god because there's no observable evidence. science leaves it open. that's only a flawed view point if you assume the existence of a god, but where are you getting that from? why do you assume that true? working from an assumption is very dangerous.