What is your religion / faith?

[Echowitch]

"Science" has been wrong countless times, caused millions of deaths, and yet its principles are still recognised. Science is as close to a religion as you'll get (faith in progress!).

I don't think its fair to make that comment. As NSKlad said Science is just the means and not the justification. No one has gone to war over science, although science has stopped a few wars, albeit in the most obvious case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at large loss of life.

Science is always open to being challenged, in fact the first thing Scientists do after making their discovery/claim is put the details out there for people to check, double-check, and refute. Religion is set in stone, and refuses to be budged or challenged. Kind of like Pepsi VS Coke. Love or Hate Marmite. They are absolutes, there is no reasoning with them.

Skeet, Wicca is a religion that incorporates a belief in Spiritualism. Spiritualism is a belief in spirits and an afterlife. Its a bit more complex than that but thats the simplest way to put it.

 

[Skeet]

Skeet, Wicca is a religion that incorporates a belief in Spiritualism. Spiritualism is a belief in spirits and an afterlife. Its a bit more complex than that but thats the simplest way to put it.

Thanks mate, but I actually meant "not sure" as in, generally.
I am quite nicely aware of the Old Religion

 

[Echowitch]

Thanks mate, but I actually meant "not sure" as in, generally.
I am quite nicely aware of the Old Religion

Ah ok, no problem

 

[Robbo]

I'd like to hear some educated opinions on non-religious faith/belief/spirituality, seeing as most people on here seem to reject it based on the myriad faults of religion. "Science" has been wrong countless times, caused millions of deaths, and yet its principles are still recognised. Science is as close to a religion as you'll get (faith in progress!). I think there's a bias here. I'm not arguing for religion, I don't follow that particular path personally, but I think a lot of people tar faith/belief/spirituality with religion's brush simply out of faith in another societal norm.

Just because people believe in the principles of science, and other people believe in religion, doesn't make them close at all Dev, they are as far apart as they could ever be mate in terms of ideology.

Science hasn't been wrong countless of times, people have.
Science hasn't caused millions of deaths, people have.

And yeah, there is a bias here, it's a bias toward the acquisition of the truth based upon rigorous lines of thought and experiment instead of a tacit acceptance of 'truth' out of some emotional need or ignorance, or just plain stupidity.

On that note, you can call me biased all you like mate.

 

[BigKris]

I am gonna take a deep breath here and dive into the quagmire that is your synopsis and hope I bring clarity to the subject matter, if not, then I have been derelict in my duty as owner of this site in bringing order to chaos.





The word 'simple' and your posts are at the moment mutually exclusive in my head but I live in hope .....




'Man's connection with the ineffable' ????
To be honest Chris, I am not sure what you mean here; I don't think we have a connection as such, all we can do is try to understand the universe we live in and there are tools for this.
One is language and the other is mathematics, which of course, is merely another language.
The characters being numbers and symbols, the grammar merely the rearrangement of these in what are called functions.

To suggest 'there are no rights and wrongs past the elementary' is not correct, leastwise in my head it ain't.
We can of course attempt to choose to go down the reductionist road in scientific investigation, which of course most science attempts to do anyway, and we can get a pretty good handle on some of the phenomena we encounter.
If we take a look at biochemistry, and more specifically, the Krebs Cycle, it is an extremely complex set of chemical reactions, and could hardly be described as elementary, far from it.
Now, even though it is hugely complex, and involves a myriad of catalysed chemical reactions, we can understand it perfectly, every single step down to the very last adenosine triphosphate molecule that is liberated.
Your suggestion is wrong mate, nice try tho




Chris, let me explain something mate, I only need to show you one black swan to refute the belief (faith) that 'All swans are white'.
My examples may be narrow mate but they blow your suggestion out the water.
Science only needs one contra-example to destroy any theory, that's how it's always worked, that's how theories are refined.



Science tries to be absolutist, it has to be otherwise it cannot uphold the tenets it does.
Science must always strive to make 100% sure there is absolutely no room for speculation or doubt otherwise, scientific truth is always gonna be prone to its arch rival, the skeptic.



I don't know how you can say this mate, certainly not as a conclusion from anything I have written mate. Quantum mechanics is poorly understood but I don't deny its existence.
And you then go on to say (from that false premise) 'science goes on to negate all religious ideas' etc, well since it was a false premise, i don't really have to answer this now do I?



You are repeating yourself here and my example above of quantum mechanics refutes this entirely.




Well, my position is different, I love the truth, science is merely the tool I elect to use to try and understand it.
Others, the religious mob, tend to use faith but as I mentioned before somewhere, 'faith begins where knowledge ceases'.



It seems you have quote marks around this for some reason, anyways, I will answer anyway, Chris, just because science takes a back seat with intangibles such as love, hate, beauty and so on, this does not negate science, it merely gives it limitations AT THIS TIME.
And i have no problem conceding they do run parallel but that doesn't mean they have acquired equal status; to me, it just means, the intangibles are not understood yet, with 'yet' being the most important word.




If I look at a bunch of people who believe the earth is no more than 6000 years old (and there are hundreds of millions of these people around), I can quite easily state, they are a bunch of idiots who have allowed faith to completely undermine their quest for truth, coz lets face it here, all religions profess to be the sole guardians of the truth.
Science proves beyond reasonable doubt, we live on a lump of rock that is billion years old not thousands.
Bejeepers, I would be ashamed to align myself with any organization that thought we lived on a planet 6000 years old, it's plainly ludicrous and an insult to man's intelligence.
God gave us a brain, we use it, we unlock god's secrets and it yields certain truths.

Where the fcuk do these religions come from?
They don't come from God, they come from man, and ya know what Chris, I trust god's gift to me, in the form of curiosity and the ability he gave us to prize the truth away from nature (scientific reasoning) over man's creation of religion any day, it's a no-brainer for me, and anybody who believes otherwise, is equally a no-brainer !!!





Chris, of course they were, anything unknown can be described as mysitcal and it is the unknown that drives science, if we knew everything, there would be no science, so I don't know why you bother to mention this.




You seem to be confusing something here Chris and I had answered this before, just because those guys believed in a creator did not make them religious, religion and god are two different things.
You have once again packaged me up in a convenient position, a position I was never in.
Even so, your suggestion is skewed because as I said, you confuse the scientist's' belief in a creator, with people who believe in a religion.
Religion cannot exist in harmony, Christian or otherwise, all the time its basic tenets contradict what we know to be scientific truth.
In other words, if you wanna believe in a religion that subscribes to the notion the earth is but 6000 years old, good luck to ya mate, but don't ever try to tell me you are in harmony with science, you ain't, you are in harmony with a dollop of bullsh!t.





You have misunderstood me entirely here, I never inferred this in the meaning of the word mystical as I used it.
Mystical can certainly describe those things scientists do not understand yet, I have used the word mystical in the context of things unknown, and this is exactly what drives science as I have said previously.

For you to the suggest I am saying, 'belief in the unknown is for weak minded individuals' is ludicrous mate. I am saying, anybody who believes in a religion that contradicts basic science is weak-minded and ignorant.
People do not embrace religion for scientific reasons, they believe it can give them the truth, they need it, they need something to believe in, we all do.

But when the quest for that truth and meaning takes you down a road that jettisons science and commonsense as if it were an apple core, and the people still hang on in there, that is when I will condemn them, and rightly so.

Accepting the religious/ science contradiction isn't a matter of opinion, it never has been, it is a matter of religious bigotry and a need for man to belong and believe in something.

Ignorance and intelligence (lack of) can obviously bolster their position but a lot of the contradictions ain't rocket science, but they might as well be for the bigots.




I'm not sure how you could possibly frame Einstein's (and others) assertions concerning the nature of the universe in anything other than scientific curiosity, to suggest Einstein postulated time itself was a flexible concept whereas the speed of light wasn't, was never a spiritual position, it was a scientific one and as such, was proved (forgive my intended pun) in time.

I hope this finally puts to bed the problem of what I believe to be the truth of the matter when it comes to religious faith, god, belief, science and paintball
Have fun !

A taste of me own medicine,i groaned when i read that,so much to debate and so little time. Point taken on the multiple point posts. From now on i'm limiting my replies on anything to 500 words or less. Its so much work ! heheh.

I think perhaps Pete, "never the twain shall meet" in terms of me and you being
able to agree with each other on these points. This has to be my last post on this,i only posted back because i was invited to last time,so here goes.....

Lets face it these questions have been asked, and will no doubt be continued to ask for the whole of mans existence.

I think alot of what we've both been saying has been lost in interpretation,kind of frustrating,but i guess a hazard when trying to debate by the written word.

I think, misinterpretations aside,a large proportion of the debate as to whether science and religion are mutually exclusive of one another very much depends on
an individuals concept of rationality.

The poignant question is whether rationality ends at the point where scientific method has reached its limits, if an individual concurs with this proposition (yes i know you do!),then there is no place for theological or religious perspectives because they fall outside of science and therefore are automatically irrational.

Conversely,if one postulates that the limits of scientific method do not coincide with the limits of rationality then there is a place for theological, religious or philosophical perspectives and beliefs.


I know you love a bit of cause and effect,me too ! as its one of the fundamental underpinnings of scientific investigation.
The model of cause and effect basically states that for any physical process there is a sequence of states which can be elucidated through investigation which will determine a preceding causal state followed by a state which is its effect. In a scientific context,somewhere along the line a physical law can be developed which describes this sequence and how it ensues.

Once you get into the question about the first cause of the universe,then in a nutshell,what your really asking is,what is the cause of physical laws? and on a deeper level the cause of existence itself?


Then,i guess your back to religion and philosophy.which in my opinion are as they say in Trinidad "same khaki pants,different pocket".


Its been real.


Chris

 

[Robbo]

The poignant question is whether rationality ends at the point where scientific method has reached its limits, if an individual concurs with this proposition (yes i know you do!),then there is no place for theological or religious perspectives because they fall outside of science and therefore are automatically irrational.

Conversely,if one postulates that the limits of scientific method do not coincide with the limits of rationality then there is a place for theological, religious or philosophical perspectives and beliefs.


I know you love a bit of cause and effect,me too ! as its one of the fundamental underpinnings of scientific investigation.
The model of cause and effect basically states that for any physical process there is a sequence of states which can be elucidated through investigation which will determine a preceding causal state followed by a state which is its effect. In a scientific context,somewhere along the line a physical law can be developed which describes this sequence and how it ensues.

Once you get into the question about the first cause of the universe,then in a nutshell,what your really asking is,what is the cause of physical laws? and on a deeper level the cause of existence itself?


Then,i guess your back to religion and philosophy.which in my opinion are as they say in Trinidad "same khaki pants,different pocket".


Its been real.


Chris

I am hoping the brevity of your last post is symptomatic of us drawing to a close on this, albeit because you have seemingly reduced your position to the above; And in accordance with this new era of brevity, I'll follow suit and pray.

I honestly can't see why you are unable to grasp where I'm at on this next one.
I have not said, or inferred, that anything outside of the limits of scientific investigation is irrational in the context I used.
This is absurd Chris!
I will say this, anything outside of scientific method is unknown and in some cases could be described as mystical.
You then go on to suggest, religious beliefs that fall outside of scientific method automatically invalidate that theology, well yes they do if they contradict any results scientific method throws up but not if they just fall outside the grasp of science...a distinction needs to be drawn here between religions falling outside of scientific method and those contradicting it.

There is always a place for theological belief, we need it, but we cannot entertain it all the time it contradicts commonsense; because if it contradicts commonsense then it makes fools of everybody concerned.

As for once again putting questions into my mouth (I have no questions here Chris other than ones you keep putting into my mouth) - of course I believe in a prime mover, all agnostics do (as well as that array of scientists you previously lined up) but you tidy up the finale with a rather convenient device of introducing notions of religion and philosophy as an inevitable, and understandable consequence.
I don't condemn religion for subscribing to a prime mover, hey, if that were the only tenet of religion, I'd be the ayatollah; I condemn religion for believing everything that is written in whatever book they subcribe to, coz as I see it, there isn't one religion that I have ever come across that can uphold my need for commonsense and scientific rigour.
Phew, I'm off to bed for some shut eye.

 

[Devrij]

Just because people believe in the principles of science, and other people believe in religion, doesn't make them close at all Dev, they are as far apart as they could ever be mate in terms of ideology.

I'm speaking broadly, but if you compare Christianity and Wicca, for instance, you'll find that they have very different ideologies. I think of science as just another way of making sense of the world, with a lot of faithful followers. When you're searching for the truth, the questions you ask put a bias on it. You may find the truth, but only the bits you're looking for (eg, research on women's lives and experiences was grossly neglected for millennia). It's not really right to pigeonhole all of the sciences into one package, but researcher bias (whether to prove their pet theory or gain access to funding) informs many research projects. I agree with the principles, and I'm not touting religion as being better. As I said, before: it's not my cup of tea either. I'm just wondering if people believe as blindly in science as the people they criticise do in religion. I'm not attacking anyone or saying they're wrong, just trying to provide food for thought.

 

[Robbo]

I'm speaking broadly, but if you compare Christianity and Wicca, for instance, you'll find that they have very different ideologies. I think of science as just another way of making sense of the world, with a lot of faithful followers. When you're searching for the truth, the questions you ask put a bias on it. You may find the truth, but only the bits you're looking for (eg, research on women's lives and experiences was grossly neglected for millennia). It's not really right to pigeonhole all of the sciences into one package, but researcher bias (whether to prove their pet theory or gain access to funding) informs many research projects. I agree with the principles, and I'm not touting religion as being better. As I said, before: it's not my cup of tea either. I'm just wondering if people believe as blindly in science as the people they criticise do in religion. I'm not attacking anyone or saying they're wrong, just trying to provide food for thought.

Dev, I think when you compare science and religion from the viewpoint of both sets of adherents on a quest for the truth, there can only be one serious candidate mate.
The faith one has when religious tends to fill in the gaps, gaps that can never be reasonably reconciled with fact.
The faith one has when relying on scientific method is more robust because it relies on reproducible, rational operations that produce results either concordant or not, with whatever questions were being asked by the experiment.
Of course the questions are sometimes skewed, it is inevitable, but that doesn't invalidate any of the results of that enquiry; as long as the results that enquiry are a product of a rigorous scientific method.

It is by a process of (skewed or otherwise) enquiry that we home in on the truth, constantly re-evaluating our understanding of the world.

You catagorise science as 'just another way' of searching for the the truth, I am saying it is the only way because all the rest (religions) are all bullsh!t because they all require huge leaps of faith that inevitably demand of the follower, a dereliction of commonsense and reason.

 

[John C]

I'm speaking broadly, but if you compare Christianity and Wicca, for instance, you'll find that they have very different ideologies. I think of science as just another way of making sense of the world, with a lot of faithful followers. When you're searching for the truth, the questions you ask put a bias on it. You may find the truth, but only the bits you're looking for (eg, research on women's lives and experiences was grossly neglected for millennia). It's not really right to pigeonhole all of the sciences into one package, but researcher bias (whether to prove their pet theory or gain access to funding) informs many research projects. I agree with the principles, and I'm not touting religion as being better. As I said, before: it's not my cup of tea either. I'm just wondering if people believe as blindly in science as the people they criticise do in religion. I'm not attacking anyone or saying they're wrong, just trying to provide food for thought.

Science and religion are two very different schools of thought.

Religion says 'we know the truth, dont examine it to closely or it may fall apart under scrutiny'

Science says 'lets find the truth. Heres how we think this works, but if you can prove me wrong then we have an even better truth'



Really Science is to Religion, what Boxing is to mugging old ladies.

 

[Skeet]

Really Science is to Religion, what Boxing is to mugging old ladies.

Yeah, the cure! LOL!