|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Great religious falsehoods | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jag Member (Idle past 5753 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
nemesis writes: I guess I have to ask what laws you are referring to. One example, restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. For the sake of clarity, allow me to speak from the perspective of an involved doctor/scientist/researcher, which I am not. When I combine a human egg cell and a sperm cell in a Petri dish, the fertilized egg is now considered, by many, a human life. I am restricted from growing them, cultivating them, attempting to grow stem cells and possibly make significant medical advances. The government is a primary financer of these studies and to prevent the government forbidden from providing grants in this field is the direct result of the behavior of religious fanatics. I have a project I want to work and need to back off here for a bit. This has been a good conversation and I will continiue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Nemesis writes: Since everyone employs faith, even scientists utilizing hypotheses, it answers questions in the exact same way as any inductive reasoning process. Again, I distinguish between blind faith and informed faith. The word faith can be about a number of things, but this thread is specifically about religious faith and the claim that it is immune to scientific scrutiny. Considering that, did I need to use the word "religious" in the question I was asking? From the O.P., entitled "Great religious falsehoods."
quote: So, my question to you was: How does (religious) faith answer questions? Don't just make the claim, describe the process.
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: Do you have any empirical way of knowing whether or not your wife loves you?
bluegenes writes: Yes. Loads of empirical evidence. Okay, then tell me a few. Bloody hell. Hundreds of intimate physical expressions of affection + she's said so hundreds of times, etc.! You do know that empirical evidence includes observation by the human senses, don't you? It could all be an illusion, in the sense that it could be an illusion that she's got grey eyes.
A religious faith would have little to do with that. The problem, as I see it, is that most people equate faith with religion. That's isn't the case at all. Only when the subject is religious faith, and on this thread, it is.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that she loves me. A woman was just arrested after her fifth husband kicked the bucket. Suspicion arose which led police to a grisly discovery. She had killed all five. I'm pretty sure her affection, however genuine she portrayed it, was not the truth. {ABE} Mine wife's financially independent, and I don't have life insurance.
In the final analysis, it requires faith to believe another persons sincerity. You're using the word "faith" in the sense of trust. We have to trust our senses is all you need to say. This trust in itself does not give us knowledge, as illustrated by your murdered man. But the subject is religious faith.
Nemesis writes: bluegenes writes: The O.P. is about religious faith, Nemesis. How does having faith that the Koran is the word of God tell anyone anything? It tells you about their thought process. I mean, what does your reading of Sarte tell me? It tells me that you read Sarte. What you gleaned from it or discarded is another story. Eh! Incidentally, in relation to something that seems to be a belief of yours, that science cannot examine love, here's some reading material for you. Human love is a phenomenon for which we all have plenty of empirical evidence.
Some science And in relation to the O.P., some more. Edited by bluegenes, : Marked sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Alasdair writes: See, now that you're dealing with abstract concepts with love, you can't really say that you're doing science anymore. Love isn't something that we could reasonably come up with an objective workable definition with. You can still use logic and reasoning, but now you're doing philosophy and not science. Please! When there's empirical evidence for things, like the various kinds of human love for example, they can certainly be examined by science. It's also worth noting that the O.P. is really about whether or not religious faith is exempt from scientific scrutiny, and like love, I argue that we have plenty of empirical evidence that religious faith exists, so it can be (and certainly is being) examined scientifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jag writes: I would like to respond to several points in your post, but I am striving to kept things as simple as I can. Fair enough. The point you choose to respond to was this
jag's OP writes: The result: there is no evidence that there is any god like entity imposing any effect upon this world or universe.
iano writes: No evidence acceptable to Science you can only mean. You then go on to request, in so many words, that I present evidence acceptable to Science.
quote: This isn't responding to the point. It's sidestepping a conclusion that places boundaries on the extent of reach of your OP's statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: But just because someone self-identifies with the Christian faith doesn't mean they are a Christian as defined by God.
bluegenes writes: How do you know? You're defining your God and your faith the more you say about them, and the more you do that, the more a good psychologist or cultural anthropologist would have to work on. The pertinant point is how do you know? You're suggesting it's possible to study Christian faith scientifically but if you don't know what Christian faith actually is (or are assuming, for example, that self-identification renders a person Christian) then you aren't all that far down the track. It is possible to study what you define to be Christian faith. That's a completely different matter though. -
Is your faith unpredictable? You make a lot of comments about your God, what he does and doesn't want/do etc., so someone should be able to get a pretty good fix on the iano faith. On the iano faith. But is it Christian faith or just some Christian Religion that iano has going? There are plenty about .. -
Certainly, this is usually something for study by the "soft" rather than the hard sciences, except where they overlap (as in psychiatry/neurology) for example. Religious faith can certainly be studied scientifically, I maintain. I dunno. Religious adherance (call it: false god) and Christian faith (call it: true God) are so intertwined I find it hard to imagine how they could be separated, - in order that they be examined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
iano writes: The pertinant point is how do you know? You're suggesting it's possible to study Christian faith scientifically but if you don't know what Christian faith actually is (or are assuming, for example, that self-identification renders a person Christian) then you aren't all that far down the track. I think I said "your faith" rather than the Christian faith in general, but both can be studied, certainly. Any phenomena for which there is empirical evidence can be studied scientifically, and we have evidence of the existence of iano's faith, and the Christian faith. As for not knowing what the Christian faith is, of course we don't, nor do we know what religious faith in general is. That's the reason for studying them, isn't it?
iano writes: I dunno. Religious adherance (call it: false god) and Christian faith (call it: true God) are so intertwined I find it hard to imagine how they could be separated, - in order that they be examined. Intertwined, or one and the same, but matters of degree? Our studies haven't shown a clear difference yet, so far as I know. I may be straying a bit off topic here, iano, but what would you do if you caught a burglar in your house? The average American conservative creationist that we get here would probably support the idea of shooting him, either to wound or kill. What about you? Are those Americans with that view Christian, in your view? To clarify my angle on this topic. I know that religious faith is a real thing, and like all real things, it can be studied scientifically. Don't you agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jag Member (Idle past 5753 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
Re: iano: et al.
I am getting the impression that you feel religion and a person’s faith are not subject to science. My position is obvious. I request that you go on record with your position, per the following paragraphs. Obviously, this request is extended to all readers that care to respond. Keeping things simple, and starting with the concept of god,Do you believe that god and his characteristics and behaviors are subject to science? I request you answer that with a simple yes or no. Obviously, you may expand on your answer, but I ask for a simple declaration from you. If yes, we are in agreement and the next section is not intended for you. If not, then consider this. Prayer is a request to god to hear what I say. It is a request that something be considered and done. For example, “Dear lord, please help my child to overcome this disease.” The result of these prayers can be tested in a scientific manner. This has been done repeatedly. The results are that there has never been evidence that any prayer has been acted upon by any being or entity that belongs in the general classification of deity or god. That a test like this can be generated and performed verifies, and indeed proves, that god can be tested. Some may argue that point. I counter with this: I can test if this piece of glass can be broken with this hammer. I swing the hammer, and break the glass. I have proven that a test can be derived to determine if the glass can be tested with the hammer. I have also proven that the glass can be broken with the hammer. In the same manner, a test on prayer is valid. If anyone claims that god is above and beyond testing, then that person has the obligation to support their claim. If they do not support the claim, then to continue to make that claim is not only incorrect, but also dishonest. If you wish to disagree, support, or refine my position, I respectfully request that we separate the discussion into two concepts.1. Can prayer be tested? 2. What are the results of those tests? I ask that we begin with 1 and postpone 2 for some period of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I would say that theists are incapable of proving God, and atheists are incapable of disproving God. I hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you typed this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The result: there is no evidence that there is any god like entity imposing any effect upon this world or universe. No evidence acceptable to Science you can only mean. I guess so. Empirical evidence of some sort - Yes. If God is the cause of physical effects in the physical universe then the physical effects are themselves obviously empirically observable. How we could relate these effects back to actually being evidence for (or against) an immaterial God is a more difficult question.The usual method seems to be to invoke God where there is no material explanation available. But I think you would agree that this is a diminishing God and a poor method of investigating this question. Therefore it would seem to me that we are restricted to seeking evidence for God with reference to his physical effect on his favored creation (i.e. man) and our requests, needs and desires. If God genuinely has an effect on our physical lives then can we in any way link this back to God? So the questions then are - 1) Does God indeed have any direct physical effect on anyone (answering physical requestes in prayers, physically punishing evildoers, physically rewarding the faithful and righteaous etc. etc.)2) If God does have any such physical effect can we trace these effects back to God in any way at all? How would you answer those two questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I want to see religion taken out of our laws as specified in the constitution. What do you mean by this? What do you mean by having religion "taken out"? I suppose you're referring to this:
quote: What do you think it means to respect an establishment of religion? My understanding of the 1st Amendment seems to be very different from yours. I don't think it is saying that a law cannot be religious in nature nor that all laws must be secular. Is that what you think it means?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Duh! Of course our the founders of our country wanted to keep religion out of our laws. Have you read no historical writings? I find it hard to believe that you are actually an adult when I read your posts. You are a very naive adult if you are indeed of age!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jag Member (Idle past 5753 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
CS writes: My understanding of the 1st Amendment seems to be very different from yours. I don't think it is saying that a law cannot be religious in nature nor that all laws must be secular. Is that what you think it means? You bet your bippy I do. Have you followed any of the newspapers and magazines articles about the Supreme Court and the first amendment over the past 10 to 50 years on this? I further hold that that first phrase of the first amendment (and there is a reason it is the very first) is one the most important corner stones of this country. That phrase in our constitusion is one of the primary reasons this country has done as well as it has. I found a web page with the text or a letter that is in the National Archives from George Washington, first president, talking about the importance of the “separation of church and state.” We can indeed say this was the purpose of the authors of our constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jag writes: If not, then consider this. Prayer is a request to god to hear what I say. It is a request that something be considered and done. For example, “Dear lord, please help my child to overcome this disease.” A couple of flies in the ointment. If prayer is seen as conversation with God and something that can only occur once relationship with God is established, you then have the problem of establishing who has / has not that relationship with God in order to include / exclude them from your sample group. If God has no intention of having himself empirically evidenced then it can be expected that any prayer experiment will fail to evidence God due to Gods inactivity.
If anyone claims that god is above and beyond testing, then that person has the obligation to support their claim. If they do not support the claim, then to continue to make that claim is not only incorrect, but also dishonest. See above points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If God has no intention of having himself empirically evidenced then it can be expected that any prayer experiment will fail to evidence God due to Gods inactivity.
Why would God go out of his way (i.e. amend his actions) in order to evade empirical evidence of his existence? If he was going to answer a prayer to save a dying relative (or whetever) are you really suggesting that in certain circumstances God would think "Hold up, This could be used as evidence in favour of my existence. Better not answer that one after all. Next." He also seems to have been much less concerened with supplying (or not supplying) evidence for his existence in biblical times. Why the concern now and not then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Duh! Of course our the founders of our country wanted to keep religion out of our laws. What do you mean by "keeping it out" though? Religion can inspire laws, no problem. People can certainly vote for legislaters for religious reasons. Or is that not religion "in" the laws? It seems like it to me and I don't think the founder's were against that. I think they were against having a state sponsored religion like the Church of England. Not that they wanted no religious inspiriation for laws. Maybe not purely religious inspiration, but there's nothing wrong with having religion "in" the laws.
Have you read no historical writings? I find it hard to believe that you are actually an adult when I read your posts. You are a very naive adult if you are indeed of age! Hrm. That's very..... childish of you. .|.. ^.^ ..|.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024