Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
45 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, PaulK, Stile, Theodoric, vimesey, xongsmith (9 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,050 Year: 19,086/19,786 Month: 1,506/1,705 Week: 312/446 Day: 51/59 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Balancing Faith and Science
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 137 (222397)
07-07-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Lammy
07-06-2005 1:23 PM


Re: Science and Faith in Harmony
quote:
You will disagree, but I believe that from God we have in us the concept of right and wrong, altruism, generosity, love etc and that we have also been given free will so that we can accept or reject those attributes. Christianity and other religions suggest that we should choose the positive attributes and reject the negatives.

And how are the things you listed above scientific?

Its these things that exist that are out of the reach of science that have lead me to believe that science cannot detect everything. So, because something has not been detected by science is no reason to assume that it doesn't exist. The existance of the things that cannot be detected by science are some of the reasons why I have made a rational decision to believe in god.

I think that believing in god can be rational. What is irrational is when I take it one step further and choose a specific religion, say christianity. I also believe that Jesus is god. This belief is irrational and based on faith and what I've read about him in the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Lammy, posted 07-06-2005 1:23 PM Lammy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 07-07-2005 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 77 of 137 (222398)
07-07-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by tsig
07-07-2005 8:52 AM


Re: leaping into the abyss
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It is more accurate and rational to say that you don't know.

quote:
So it's more rational to say that invisible beings exist?

No.

We aren't comparing belief in the unseen to what you believe.

The fact is that you cannot get away from the logic; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is reasonable and rational to conclude that there is no evidence for unseen beings, so they probably do not exist.

You are not all-knowing, however, so you cannot make a positive statement about something's non-existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 8:52 AM tsig has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 5:22 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 137 (222399)
07-07-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by tsig
07-07-2005 9:00 AM


Re: leaping into the abyss
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

quote:
So because we don't have a motive or a murder weapon we should convict Mr. Brown? Just because we don't have evidence does not mean he's not guilty.

Uh.

What?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 9:00 AM tsig has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 137 (222400)
07-07-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
07-07-2005 4:41 PM


Re: Science and Faith in Harmony
quote:
Its these things that exist that are out of the reach of science that have lead me to believe that science cannot detect everything. So, because something has not been detected by science is no reason to assume that it doesn't exist. The existance of the things that cannot be detected by science are some of the reasons why I have made a rational decision to believe in god.

No, that's not rational.

What would be rational would be to say "We do not currently understand X" and leave it at that.

To fill in the gap in knowledge with what essentioally works out to be magic is not rational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 4:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 6:16 PM nator has responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1200 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 80 of 137 (222405)
07-07-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by nator
07-07-2005 4:54 PM


no evidence
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So you require evidence there is no bigfoot, ufos or orgonians?

This message has been edited by DHA, 07-07-2005 05:23 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nator, posted 07-07-2005 4:54 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 6:20 PM tsig has responded
 Message 90 by nator, posted 07-07-2005 8:10 PM tsig has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 137 (222413)
07-07-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nator
07-07-2005 4:59 PM


Re: Science and Faith in Harmony
To fill in the gap in knowledge with what essentioally works out to be magic is not rational.

I filled in the gap in knowledge with my own personal subjective feelings and interpretations of those feelings to make a rational decision about the world we live in. That decision includes the existance of a god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 07-07-2005 4:59 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 6:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 91 by nator, posted 07-07-2005 8:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 137 (222415)
07-07-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by tsig
07-07-2005 5:22 PM


Re: no evidence
So you require evidence there is no bigfoot, ufos or orgonians?

Despite the impossibility of evidence of non-existance....yes.

You cannot know that orgonians don't exist just because there is no evidence of them. You can assume that they don't for all practical purposes, but you can't know that they don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 5:22 PM tsig has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

tsig
Member (Idle past 1200 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 83 of 137 (222430)
07-07-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by New Cat's Eye
07-07-2005 6:16 PM


Re: Science and Faith in Harmony
I filled in the gap in knowledge with my own personal subjective feelings and interpretations of those feelings to make a rational decision about the world we live in. That decision includes the existance of a god.

Once again personal experience parading as truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 6:16 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 7:08 PM tsig has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 137 (222436)
07-07-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by tsig
07-07-2005 6:58 PM


Re: Science and Faith in Harmony
Once again personal experience parading as truth.

whoa, whoa, whoa.....Slow down, Turbo.

I'm not claiming my position is truth, I claiming its rational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 6:58 PM tsig has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 7:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

tsig
Member (Idle past 1200 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 85 of 137 (222437)
07-07-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
07-07-2005 6:20 PM


Re: no evidence
You cannot know that orgonians don't exist just because there is no evidence of them. You can assume that they don't for all practical purposes, but you can't know that they don't.

Yes I can, what I know is not your opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 6:20 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 7:33 PM tsig has not yet responded
 Message 92 by nator, posted 07-07-2005 8:14 PM tsig has not yet responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1200 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 86 of 137 (222439)
07-07-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by New Cat's Eye
07-07-2005 7:08 PM


Trying for calm
I'm not claiming my position is truth, I claiming its rational.

Okay, (stops, takes deep breath) give me the rational reasons to believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 7:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2005 7:32 PM tsig has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 137 (222441)
07-07-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by tsig
07-07-2005 7:22 PM


Re: Trying for calm
you mean re-write the posts that I just posted today?

no.

Read what I've already posted and reply to those.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 7:22 PM tsig has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 137 (222442)
07-07-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by tsig
07-07-2005 7:13 PM


Re: no evidence
now THATS irrational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 7:13 PM tsig has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 89 of 137 (222446)
07-07-2005 8:01 PM


A belief in God is not rational, by definition. It is faith.

The pure truth is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence for the existance of God or anything spiritual. The only "evidence" that does exist is the Bible, and if validity is given to the Bible simply because it is a really old book, then the ancient religions of any number of civilizations (both those that remain today and those that have faded into history) have equal credibility. Giving the Biblical God validity because of the number of historical followers is similarly a logical "appeal to tradition" fallacy - just because it's always been done doesn't make it true.

There IS no evidence for God. Belief in Him, faith, is a choice that only an idividual can make, and is irrelevant to science.

You will disagree, but I believe that from God we have in us the concept of right and wrong, altruism, generosity, love etc and that we have also been given free will so that we can accept or reject those attributes. Christianity and other religions suggest that we should choose the positive attributes and reject the negatives.

To say that "the concept of right and wrong, altruism, generosity, love" etc. are beyond science is also false. Science is simply the observation of what is, and the use of those observations to describe natural processes. The concepts mentioned are easily described inscientific terms, though they lose some of their wonder in the explanation, just as a magicians tricks are not so wonderous after being revealed. Love (in the romantic sense) is an emotional factor of reproduction, nothing more. Altruism and generosity are traits beneficial to civilization and thus the species as a whole, and have passed through natural selection whereas individuals with a marked lack of these traits (extreme examples would be serial killers) are removed from society. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," after all, is purely logical. These things exist independant of God. People of non-Judeo-Christian faiths and atheists feel the same emotions, have the same basic moral compass of logic. God simply represents the concept of good and all it entails.

Right and wrong exist independantly of God. God points out the way to be good, and encourages us to be good rather than evil.

Similarly, science exists independantly of religion. The two do not mix - religion is static and unchanging, with preconceived notions. In other words, it has made conclusions without examining evidence first. Science does the opposite - scientists gather evidence, and draw an impartial and unbiased theory attempting to explain how those observations came to be. Science cannot begin from the position that "the universe was created in six days, and several thousand years ago a great flood destroyed all life except for the organisms preserved on a large boat," and then attempt to prove it. Science begins with examining the geological record, plate tectonics, and the amount of water on the earth. Since no observable evidence points to a flood or six-day creation, such an idea never enters the mind of scientists.

With God, the only rational decision is to say "he might exist, it cannot be proven that he doesn't, but I just don't see any reson to believe he does."

A person can choose to believe in God with no evidence out of faith. This is not rational, it is a personal choice to have faith. This decision may be based on various personal experiences (I believe in God because of experiences and feelings I have had, for instance), but these experiences are not able to be reproduced or provable to others. These experiences cannot pass a peer-review or be tested. Therefore the decision to have faith is not a rational one.


nator
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 90 of 137 (222450)
07-07-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by tsig
07-07-2005 5:22 PM


Re: no evidence
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

quote:
So you require evidence there is no bigfoot, ufos or orgonians?

It is impossible to prove a negative.

There is currently no reliable evidence for any of the phenomena you listed, except the UFO's (we do, indeed, have evidence for unidentified flying objects, just not that they are alien spacehips or whatever).

The scientific conclusion we must reach is that there is no evidence for such things, not that they do not exist.

Since we are not omnicient, we cannot know if they do not exist.

We just don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 5:22 PM tsig has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by tsig, posted 07-07-2005 8:34 PM nator has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019