RE: Is belief......?

RE: Is belief......? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MzMia -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 9:42:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia Let me add a little caveat. Many of us believe in a Creator. The Creator we believe in created the universe and much more. Our Creator gave human beings a brain that allows them to make all these "scientific discoveries". For some of us, there is a MUCH Higher authority than any man/or any scientist/or scientific discovery, and that is the authority that concerns us the most. Well, one of the beauties of being a self-reflective sentient creature is our ability to decide for ourselves how we prioritize the value of things in our lives. That we can agree on! I happen to enjoy many aspects of science, the advancements that have been made in the last 100 years have been fascinating. I hope to live long enough to see many more achievements, and maybe enjoy a trip to another planet. But all the scientific discoveries, creations, and theories that have been created and will EVER be created in the future, will always pale in comparison to my Creator.[;)] Namaste

kdsub -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 10:00:58 PM)
Kim's response was a good one...I've also liked the saying "Science strives to measure reality while religion strives to explain it." Butch

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/1/2009 10:04:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 Science is a tool for finding answers, not the answer itself. I believe that science will eventually catch up, or become irrelevant. Kim Great response! Science will never "catch" up, though. [;)] Neither of these comments make sense...or at least, neither shows an adequate understanding of what science is and what it yields. The reason either of these comments could even be made and put into a viewable medium made up of pixels on a screen is because of scientific results. My point was, science is restricted by those who conduct the experiments. My own personal experiences lend to my reasoning that science could become irrelelavent. They are not experiences I expect others to believe, as a couple were deffinately 'you had to be there moments', but since I was there, I feel comfortable in my assessment. Kim

NorthernGent -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 1:08:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 My point was, science is restricted by those who conduct the experiments. Surely science is underpinned by the idea that someone else can come along and undertake the same test in order to verify the conclusion. Yeah of course we are relying on experts in many areas but then this plays a large part in how we learn. It is amazing that the age of reason/science superceded the age of magic/religion/superstition in the 16th/17th centuries and yet some people will attempt to pass off both science and religion as reasonable propositions even in this age. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - no questions asked here on that score - but it's honest to accept that although religion has its uses it certainly isn't in the same league as science when it comes to a body of knowledge.

beargonewild -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 1:53:52 PM)
Yet when it comes to superstition and science, you could say one evolved from the other. Specifically several branches of science grew from superstitious beliefs. From the alchemists came the basic foundation for chemistry. early forms of astrology gave rise to astronomy and offshoots of some mathematics. I am not saying that all science resulted from superstition yet we can't discount the fact that some areas of science resulted from a belief system which in this modern day and age we discount and scoff.

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 2:23:06 PM)
Perhaps I have simply chosen poor wording. I am not attempting to discredit science, in its purpose. The lines I was thinking along, are that we are limited to studying that which is accessible to us. As I mentioned before, I expect the two to match up (become relatable to each other), eventually. The only reason I would expect science to become irrelevant, is if suddenly, and simultaneously, all the ‘answers’ were known, to all. ... it could happen. Kim

sleazybutterfly -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 2:31:04 PM)
I for one have never thought that science and religion had to go against each other, or try to prove one another wrong. Could it be possible they actually give credence to one another in many ways? It's like so many things in life...all in how you look at it. SB

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 2:47:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazybutterfly I for one have never thought that science and religion had to go against each other, or try to prove one another wrong. Could it be possible they actually give credence to one another in many ways? It's like so many things in life...all in how you look at it. SB My thought is, they would have to, to hold truth. I am inclined to believe that a large part in the confusion has to do with difficulties in determining the metaphor from the facts. Another large part is that sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. Kim

aimjiel -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 2:52:01 PM)
Hey All, To my understanding, science and religion are more or less along the same lines, they both require belief. Some people do not believe in science, and both claim objectivity. Without descending into post-modernistic twaddle about the relativity of reality, both do require belief, because, as we see, the human brain is not so much concerned with what is true, only with what it likes. That is, if we are talking, strictly speaking, of the participants in either science, or religion, and since, we cannot really disconnect the observer, or participant, aren't we always talking about belief as it relates to the participants? These systems aren't really in opposition, so I concurr with sleazybutterfly; they are not diametrically opposed, nor are they exclusive in truth, the fact that one deals with transcendant ideas, and the other with reductionist ideas are simply opposite traveling idioms for understanding the world. Considering the long, illustrious history of the wrongness, and belief basis of science, re: Velikovsky or Beneviste, or more fringe like, even Reich, science is just as prone to error, bad judgemnet, and outright zealous totalitarianism as any religion, and science mirrors the religious variants and tolerances perfectly. Both have opposing factions, priestly casts, charismatic preachers and so on. In the end, could the fundamental question really be, not which one is more right, but which is more beneficial to the organism. Some scholars consider religion, of any variety, or be a form of beneficial dissociation, and so, which one is more beneficial. Both religion, and science are behind a great deal of wonderful, beautiful things, and terrible as well. In fact, Science is at the core of all suffering, because it is science that constructs the siege engines, swords, bombs, and such that are capitalized on by religions for war, or governments. At the same time, science has shown a profound ability to heal and help the world, and to add convenience and support for those in need, wheelchairs, prosthetic legs, medicines of all kinds, entertainment, travel, and communication. So in the end, why bother tallying it all up, or comparing them, why can't science and religion get along, or at least, why can't their adherrents. And why can't we admit, that in truth, they both fill a similar void within us, the search for answers, either through empiricism or transcendentalism, in the end, who cares, as long as the person is happy and healthy. Either religion, or science, gone pathological, is bad. Just a thought. /Jason

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 3:03:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aimjiel as we see, the human brain is not so much concerned with what is true, only with what it likes. I don't believe this is accurate. At least some, do seek truth. I'm more inclined to think the variance is in how much is sought, not whether, or not, it is sought. How would one know if they've found it, if they did not compare the two? Kim

NorthernGent -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 3:31:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild we can't discount the fact that some areas of science resulted from a belief system which in this modern day and age we discount and scoff. It's not a matter of scoffing at religion. Religion has been one of the great organising factors in human behaviour so there certainly has been a need. Were you to extrapolate the liberty line however it wouldn't look good for religion's survival chances: the last 500 years has seen an evolution from the advent of doubt to widespread disbelief (in the areas of the world that have been at the forefront of democracy in that time period). I suppose you could argue that ideas accumulate in a cause and effect manner but it doesn't really wash because science disproved a fair amount of religious doctrine and the church was forced to adapt accordingly. You only have to look at how we think to understand the departure caused by science: once upon a time it was widely argued that the chief purpose of intellectual life was to secure salvation in the world to come; this has been turned on its head as today it's widely held that the purpose of knowledge is to enable people to live more adequately/productively here on earth.

NorthernGent -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 3:35:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 I don't believe this is accurate. At least some, do seek truth. I'm more inclined to think the variance is in how much is sought, not whether, or not, it is sought. You could read every day for the rest of your life and you wouldn't arrive at the 'truth'. It can be a frightening idea to think that we will never nail down a reason for our existence. We're just knocking around throwing a few ideas out - we may think we seek and find the truth but the evidence suggests that that is an illusion.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Is belief...? (6/2/2009 3:45:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I've also liked the saying "Science strives to measure reality while religion strives to explain it." Religious types will no doubt cozy up to that mantra, but I'm afraid religion does more to confuse reality than explain it.

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 3:57:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You could read every day for the rest of your life and you wouldn't arrive at the 'truth'. It can be a frightening idea to think that we will never nail down a reason for our existence. No arguing that. Thankfully, I am not solely relying on the words of others to get me there. ; ) quote: We're just knocking around throwing a few ideas out - we may think we seek and find the truth but the evidence suggests that that is an illusion. I don't know what to think of the reality of my perception, when I read thoughts like the above. I can understand why some, those who have not had similar experiences to mine, would feel the same as you, but it is my experiences that caused the search. The only viable options I see for myself, is to either seek truth as something attainable, or…. Well, let’s just say, I’m going to keep trying. My best, Kim

NorthernGent -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 4:01:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 Well, let’s just say, I’m going to keep trying. Persistence is a virtue....

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief......? (6/2/2009 4:04:57 PM)
[;)]

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Is belief...? (6/2/2009 4:42:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 I don't believe this is accurate. At least some, do seek truth. I'm more inclined to think the variance is in how much is sought, not whether, or not, it is sought. You could read every day for the rest of your life and you wouldn't arrive at the 'truth'. It can be a frightening idea to think that we will never nail down a reason for our existence. We're just knocking around throwing a few ideas out - we may think we seek and find the truth but the evidence suggests that that is an illusion. On that basis, even the evidence we see that suggests it is all an illusion is illusory itself! What a devious loop that would be if we arrived upon such a conclusion—though I'm not certain how we would, given the above rules. Thus far reality has not proven to be so plastic and ephemeral. The collective sum of our knowledge amounts to tinkering, yes, but the molecules of what we do know thus far increasingly leans toward the notion that reality is constrained by quantifiable rules. Our lack of perceiving them all doesn't mean they're not there—nor should our lack of knowledge warrant explaining things away with cosmic hippie neo buddhist fatalism, deist mumbo jumbo and cool sounding intellectual laziness.

kdsub -> RE: Is belief...? (6/2/2009 6:57:38 PM)
Then in all your wisdom would you be so kind to explain it?

cpK69 -> RE: Is belief...? (6/2/2009 7:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 I don't believe this is accurate. At least some, do seek truth. I'm more inclined to think the variance is in how much is sought, not whether, or not, it is sought. You could read every day for the rest of your life and you wouldn't arrive at the 'truth'. It can be a frightening idea to think that we will never nail down a reason for our existence. We're just knocking around throwing a few ideas out - we may think we seek and find the truth but the evidence suggests that that is an illusion. On that basis, even the evidence we see that suggests it is all an illusion is illusory itself! What a devious loop that would be if we arrived upon such a conclusion—though I'm not certain how we would, given the above rules. Thus far reality has not proven to be so plastic and ephemeral. The collective sum of our knowledge amounts to tinkering, yes, but the molecules of what we do know thus far increasingly leans toward the notion that reality is constrained by quantifiable rules. Our lack of perceiving them all doesn't mean they're not there—nor should our lack of knowledge warrant explaining things away with cosmic hippie neo buddhist fatalism, deist mumbo jumbo and cool sounding intellectual laziness. How are the unknowledgable to know the difference? Kim

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Is belief...? (6/2/2009 10:38:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian Our lack of perceiving them all doesn't mean they're not there—nor should our lack of knowledge warrant explaining things away with cosmic hippie neo buddhist fatalism, deist mumbo jumbo and cool sounding intellectual laziness. How are the unknowledgable to know the difference? Perhaps by exploring current knowledge, even in a cursory sense? It would be a good place to start, I think.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875