Hi, in my first post, I will glean over my basic prespective on religion. First of all, I think: Logic has no room in religion; Faith has none in Science. What I see religion deconstructed as: God's existence is not a matter of debate, but of faith and is not open to proving or disproving. A religion takes this faith [all religions agree God exists] and embodies it in a character or characters, which are now, by association, divine. These are the heroes in the story that will be the sacred text and its sequels/rebots will constitute a canon. The purpose of the story/s is to impose guidelines which ensure smooth existence of humanity, hence the absolutism of every religon; since questioning these guidelines means room for miscreants which would disrupt the very purpose for which the religion is made. Note here that the religion isn't divine by any means but a human construct. I do not, however, question the divinity of god himself. Now that the basis for a religion is contrived, followers are gathered. These followers are first exposed to a central belief system which they submit to and are indoctrined by religious pratices. Taboos are laid on those things which harm society and are labeled sins - open to punishment. Good deads are those which further the aims of the religion [which along with smooth functioning of society, also may carry philosphical or political corollaries], these are to be done so that the moral aim of salvation be achieved. Again, belief in God and in religion is not bad - its actually good. Whats bad is thinking that the belief is a truth and not a construct. From a practical point of view, of course religion and divinity are inseprable in human civilization; but for a teen who has only the experience of high school and diploma academy, not having to work with money and family and 'public' issues, my perspective seems highly satisfactory. My simple arguement is this- People can believe in any religion, but they must realise: 1. Existence of God is not a matter of debate. 2. Religion, per se, is not divine and should be worked with like ay other 'information' with which society works. Just so u know, my core philosphy is centred around : Scientific skeptisim, Existentialism, ABSURDISM, materialism, utilitarianism, ECLECTICISM and objectivism. Psuedoscience and related crap is the result of people simply not reaching the amount of sofistication required - for ex. quantum mystics are lame spirtualists and lamer scientists. Fundamentalists are blown up shallow viewed religious guys with the logical reasioning of a snail. And alien abductees, well, they are not even human by normal standards! I saw this on P n T's BS - A woman had marriage, sex and kids with and alien replian things thats very much like a 1980's movie aliens. And what's more, no probes ever found! {She would have more luck bearing a child to a squid - at least it has a common biology and evolutionary history, a squid is, after all, your cousin, removed a trillion times, but a REAL brother nonetheless}. Ps. I am a pantheist. In conclusion, I am trying, in a broad stroke to establish my worldview and get some opinions on it. Nexy post will be on self indentity on the individual, local, social and national scale and its effects on the people involved.
Some constructive criticism: -Not all religions are based on a God or deity. Buddhism, for example, does not require it. -God's existence is indeed an important matter for debate. One would think such an important thing would be accompanied by evidence. Although absolute proof may not be possible, this is a poor standard. Many things in our life like science, do not depend on absolute proof. There can be degrees of confidence in a proposition. - Your timeline for the origin of religions may not be correct. I think they grow organically, not step by step. In other words, they evolve, and the purposes may be varied, or unconscious.
You make the common mistake of failing to distinguish between rational faith and irrational faith. Science is, in fact, built upon faith: the faith that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. This assertion has been tested exhaustively (and often hostilely) for half a millennium, and it has never been disproved. Therefore it is rational for us to have faith that it will continue to hold up, and that science will continue to be the best tool for understanding the natural universe. This faith is as rational as my faith that my wife will continue to be kind, loyal and supportive, which is based on the evidence that she has been so for 34 years despite having had plenty of good reasons not to be. Religion, on the other hand, is built upon the faith that an illogical, invisible supernatural universe exists, from which creatures and other forces capriciously (and often peevishly) exert influence on the natural universe so as to explicitly surprise us by making it not behave in accordance with predictions based on its past behavior. There is no evidence of the natural universe ever actually behaving this way. The best that the supernaturalists can give us is a set of legends that have been repeated since the Bronze Age, and an occasional tortilla (one out of billions made every year) with a scorch mark that is said to resemble a biblical figure of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it. To sum up, what religion offers us is an extraordinary, counterintuitive claim which, if true, would falsify science itself. Yet it offers no serious, respectable evidence to support this claim. Therefore, faith in this premise is an irrational faith. That is an enormous difference. Rational faith is for adults. Irrational faith is for children--and in fact it's not even a very good idea to teach it to children! You're correct that there's no room for logic in religion. But you're dead wrong that there's no room for faith in science. It's just rational faith, the only kind worth having.
the detail is however that the extent and nature of this "closed system" change radically every 50 or so years sure merely "updated" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Its hardly rational to call upon a metonymic tool to delineate a closed system To believe that we would have to hear your evidence for her being a "closed system" /grabs popcorn On the contrary, religion is built upon the claim that our consciousness (including such contingent apparatus as the senses etc) are contextualized by a greater consciousness - this is why any empirical claim of knowledge is always sidelined with an element of ignorance (IOW any sense based claim is subject to fault since the "natural universe" contextualizes the very tools making a claim) What to speak of evidence for the ins and outs of a closed system for the natural universe, there isn't even a philosophy for how one can use the senses to approach the subject. The best gross materialists can give us is a set of institutionalized hot air stereotypes repeated in star trek episodes about how "one day in the future we will be able to prove this", and an occasional (constantly updated) stab in the dark about how things started many millions ago or how they will finish some millions of year in the future to which there is no working model or accompanying "doable" claims to rest on the case To sum up, what radical gross materialism offers is an extraordinary counterproductive claim (life is a consequence of material combinations etc) which undermines the very authority that establishes the credibility of science (ie claims backed up by doable practices as opposed to hot air waffle or post dated rain cheques) Anyone who tries to borrow from the authority of science to undermine the basic format of theistic claims either doesn't know science or doesn't know philosophy or doesn't know theism :shrug:
What I meant was that Science is independent of the people who do it. Without Constantine, most of the west wouldnt be Christain. But without Darwin or Einstein, someone else would have done their work anyway. And the reason the poll on the acceptance, rather than the beilef in evolution because belief and faith dont matter. If the evidence supports it, a theory is the best and most correct model to explain the world. The only rational reason the not support such a theory would be if u had a theory urself that falsifies the existing one, and explains the parts the previous one doesnt. Thus, creationism is more Evolution denial and less of fundamentalism when viewed from a perspective of a scientist. My next post is on creationsim [written yesterday], check it out if u wish. Science is the best and the most powerful of all human endeavours. Its the one that built airplanes and flew em, supersonic, in 50 yrs while religion was busy burning little girls.
Fraggle Rocker, that was a good idea about religion and science. I will post on that issue sometime. Btw, I like how, this being Sciforums afterall, no1 was uncertain or in denial of evolution.
Your poll options are unsatisfactory. Which do you mean: 1) the fact of evolution 2) evolutionary theory 3) some specific theory, or set of theories, of evolution?
I mean the Idea that evolution is a fact, that natural selection is a adequate theory explaining it [involes predatory selection and sexual selection] and that its a well susbstaintiated truth as any.
Indeed. Always based on new evidence. Never because of the election of a new pope. Always based on new evidence. Scientific theories are rarely overturned, simply refined with new details. There's nothing wrong with Newton's Laws of Motion for anyone who intends to spend the rest of his life in a gravity well, never moving faster than a few millionths of the speed of light. I don't understand which part of science you're referring to as metonymy. I'm not asking anyone else to share my faith in my wife, I'm just asking you to understand why it is a rational faith for me. But supernaturalists, often aggressively and at times upon pain of death, demand that we all share their faith in the existence of the supernatural, without giving us any evidence that would elevate it to the category of rational faith even among themselves, much less for us. A "greater consciousness"??? Could you translate that into American English please? Are you maybe talking about the consciousness of a whale? That may be an illusion since, to avoid drowning, their brain hemispheres take turns sleeping so they're always operating with only half a brain. Very much like human supernaturalists. Fortunately we now have instruments that go far beyond the powers of our own senses. Again I humbly request a translation into any standard dialect of my native language. So we build instruments. Are you really holding science responsible for Gene Roddenberry's imagination? The Star Trek franchise has run itself ragged trying to keep apace with advances in real-world science and frequently gives up and resorts to flagrant mumbo-jumbo. ("Ancient scientists in a lost civilization accidentally sent bits of DNA flying through the galaxy in a laboratory accident, which explains why all intelligent species look like a lot like humans and can even interbreed with us.") Or if you're casting aspersions on the Big Bang hypothesis, welcome to the club. That hardly puts you on the outside of science. I have repeatedly asserted that both macro- and microcosmology appear to have emerged as an awkward collision of mathematics, philosophy and theoretical physics. You're either misquoting scientists or quoting the scientists who try to popularize science on TV. No self-respecting scientist ever expects to prove a hypothesis. The essence of science is that nothing is for sure until it's been proven, and even then it's only proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, because we can't predict the future and be sure that new evidence won't arise next year or a thousand years from now that falsifies, or more commonly revises, a proven theory. He may be confident that it will be proven since optimism is one of the major forces that drives us, but that's not the same as being certain. Scientists are as prone to speculation as anyone else. Some of their speculations can be made into hypotheses, which can then be tested. Others remain speculations, which nonetheless can surprise us by turning into hypotheses at a later time. A surprising volume of evidence keeps turning up that supports the Big Bang hypothesis, at least a malleable version of it that is constantly fleshed out with new details. But it's still not enough to turn that hypothesis into a true theory, leaving us linguists gnashing our teeth over the lack of discipline among scientists who refuse to be consistent in their use of their own terminology, practically inviting laymen to put the Theory of Evolution, which is an integral part of the canon of science, in the same category as String Theory, which is barely more than a clever story. You sound like one of today's fashionably angry skeptics who doubt everything because science developed nuclear weapons before it got around to breeding nutritious food crops that can flourish in a Third World trash dump without water or fertilizer. Just get over it, okay? You guys who sit on the sidelines "occupying" space and shouting insults do nothing to save civilization, much less advance it. In case you missed the real news while you were glued to Fox, we have been relentlessly chipping away at the mystery of the origin of life. No evidence has been found that requires us to throw up our hands and say, "We're wrong guys, life is solid proof of supernatural phenomena," and in fact little bits keep falling into place to take us a little deeper into the investigation. As the 19th was the Century of Chemistry and the 20th was the Century of Physics, this may turn out to be the Century of Biology. You seem too old and cynical to be around at the end of this century (I won't even make the halfway point), but those who do may very well see abiogenesis explained. If not, they'll keep looking. But we still have absolutely no reason to discard science and presume that it will not continue to answer our questions. As for "extraordinary counterproductive claims," how about the one that an obviously living creature created all life (or the even sillier one that a creature that obviously exists created the universe, which by definition includes "everything that exists"), a flagrant, bumbling example of the Fallacy of Recursion, which we all were supposed to learn to spot and throw erasers at, in our Logic 101A course? I'm not trying to undermine the format of theistic claims, merely to make it clear that those claims are sheer poppycock, and to root out the educated people who attempt to lead the less educated people into believing them They are all a manifestation of human hubris, an anthropocentric model of the universe. Everything has to work out to prove that we are really important, that the universe was carefully crafted to nurture, challenge, enlighten and enrich us, that it could not exist without philosophy, and therefore not without humans to develop philosophy.
