Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 3, 2010 17:01:26 GMT -5
First off, I know this can be a very touchy subject for some people, while others could care less. This thread is not here for you to convert other people to your religion, it's here for you to explain and / or validate your views. Pretty much, I want to know what you think about religion. If you're unsure of how to answer, here are a few examples of what I mean: - Are you religious?
- Which religion are you?
- Do you think religion is a necessary part of society?
- Why do we have religion? Or, if you are religious, what purpose does it serve in your life?
Discuss away. :]
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 3, 2010 17:10:08 GMT -5
I am religious, but I don't affiliate myself with any particular organized religion, mostly because I find none of them believable.
Religion, to me, is a necessary part of society. However, the extremist views cause massive problems in the world. Basically, if your religion tells you to hurt other people, then it's not a good religion to believe in. My religion is one of peace rather than conflict. At the same time, it does not threaten other people with eternal, or even limited torture if they don't follow the belief. Basically, there is no afterlife, so live this life to its full potential without purposely impeding upon other people's lives or happiness.
I have a lot of atheists telling me that I'm "on the road to agnosticism, then later he'll become an atheist". I don't think they understand that I went through that same process already, except backwards. Just because I don't take part in an organized religion, or because I was raised in an atheist/agnostic household doesn't mean that I have to be an atheist.
As a final remark, just as the extremist ends of the religious spectrum are often referred to as being ridiculous, narrow-minded and bigoted, I find that there are a large number (not all of them) of atheists that seem to find themselves superior to anyone of faith just because they lack it. It's just about as pompous and arrogant as the religious folks who think they have all the answers because of whatever Holy book they have that has been translated several times with different interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by hey light on Mar 3, 2010 17:11:52 GMT -5
I'm an Atheist.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 3, 2010 17:15:13 GMT -5
Alex, I disagree that religion is necessary, but I definitely like everything else you said.
Personally, I think established religion as we know it is just the result of human nature. We need to know what we can't know (such as why we are here, where we came from, etc), and we need to have a purpose in our life. Many religions answer these questions.
Of course, I believe we can have a purpose without religion. However, it is an easy way to find that purpose. I'm not calling it the easy way out, I'm just saying it's harder to find a purpose or meaning for your life if you have no religion.
I'm Agnostic, just fyi. d:
|
|
|
Post by uselessTies on Mar 3, 2010 18:58:59 GMT -5
I am agnostic. I don't pretend to know if there is a deity or not, and if there is, which religion is right. There are some great things which could be taken from religion, like many of our moral values in society. However, I don't really see the point in fighting about which belief is correct. No matter who's right, there is nothing that can be done about it. I'll find out when it's time.
I do, however, feel that there shouldn't be this war between science and religion. I think both are out to answer the same questions, and I think it should be noted that both Newton were both religious men.
That's just what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 3, 2010 19:02:07 GMT -5
There is no war between science and religion. They can coexist. The war is between extremists and rational thinkers.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 3, 2010 19:30:16 GMT -5
There is nothing that prevents religion and science from coexisting, but I don't think they can be compared. Religion is metaphysical and science is physical: they just don't mix.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 3, 2010 19:57:18 GMT -5
To answer questions from the OP:
# Are you religious? # Which religion are you?
Short answer, no lol.
# Do you think religion is a necessary part of society?
No. At least, not now. When we were a younger race and didn't know much scientifically it served to explain things we didn't understand, even if only with stories and fiction. The stories of religion allayed fears, while putting the 'appropriate' fears into people that the rulers or churches needed controlled. (For instance, in a time without birth control, fear of punishment from god for intimate relations outside wedlock kept children conceived out of wedlock to a minimum.) Whether that was necessary or was simply the one solution our minds went with at the time is debatable.
Today, however, with the advancements not only in knowledge, but also in law and crime fighting, a religion to allay fears of the unknown and instill fears of doing the unwelcome is unnecessary.
# Why do we have religion? Or, if you are religious, what purpose does it serve in your life?
The reasons we have religion are plentiful, and I touched on them above. It started because there were things people didn't know or understand about life. They needed some explanation for existing. People were and are also scared of death. The concept of gods was used to fill gaps in our knowledge, and make the universe a little less scary. When we didn't know what fire was, or the sun or the stars, we called them gods. Today, not knowing what caused the Big Bang that started the universe, people insert their various gods (or other deities) there. Later, when we know what really did cause the big bang, people will surely claim their gods were the cause of whatever that was and so forth. In short, god fills in the unknowns in human knowledge, so we don't have to worry over questions like "why are we here?" -- it makes a neat, short answer.
As for the desire not to die, it's understandable (to say the least!). But there is a difference between wishing that we have eternal souls that live on after death and that actually being true. People will have a tendency to believe anything so long as they sufficiently desire it to be true (a gambler who so badly wants to win the jackpot, becomes convinced he will even to his last dollar) or sufficiently fear it to be true (a boy, so scared of being rejected when he asks a girl out, becomes certain that she will and refuses to try). Religion plays on those fears (do not pray to our god and you will live an afterlife of eternal torment) and desires (pray to our god and you will live an eternity of bliss), and that is why it is so plentiful in our world today, and even more so in the past.
Regarding science & religion meshing: People are capable of believing both, but it is worth bearing in mind that theism is a blind faith -- a view that from a purely scientific perspective is irrational, as it doesn't base itself on evidence nor observations.
|
|
|
Post by uselessTies on Mar 3, 2010 20:18:26 GMT -5
Fair points. I'll change that statement to:
I hate when people like Richard Dawkins try to create this brick wall dividing the two and trying to claim that you may only believe in one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by americanarchon on Mar 3, 2010 21:08:38 GMT -5
1) Are you religious? Yes. 2) Which religion are you?I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church. 3)Do you think religion is part of a necessary society? Actually, no. Although I do believe there is an inclination towards spirituality and religious ideas in many people, perhaps even most, there are some people who do not share such views. Hence, a society without religion is possible. However, it is not a society I would wish to be a part of. 4)Why do we have religion? Or, if you are religious, what purpose does it serve in your life? I personally subscribe to Roman Catholicism because I believe it provides a powerful check to human ego. Although we are intelligent, autonomous beings, sometimes we go to far. I believe God serves as our protector, and that as our Creator, He is aware of what is appropriate for His creation. Furthermore, I believe that the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret the Word of God, based on Biblical and non-Biblical data. At the same time, my God implores kindness to the outcast and the lowly, to the point of actively taking their side.
On the note of science and religion, I agree with Alex Christopher, Courtney, and uselessTies. Science is the field of study concerning the physical world; religion and philosophy concern the metaphysical world. Hence, a religious statement on the physical world must comply with science. If it does not, it is wrong. Likewise, an attempt to look at the spiritual dimension of sentient life with a scientific method is also flawed.
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 3, 2010 21:17:57 GMT -5
I think science requires more faith then most people realize. In the strictest sense, nothing is ever proved, not even gravity. All science ever does is put forward theories that are supported by evidence, but just because evidence supports a theory, that does not mean the theory has been proved. In this sense even science requires faith, since in order to believe in a scientific theory you need to assume that the evidence is true. I think that most scientists would acknowledge this, and I should clarify that I am not saying science is useless or anything of that sort (I think science is vital), but what I am saying is that ultimately neither really proves anything.
It all comes down to how much evidence you feel is necessary for belief, since there is a limit to human understanding. I also don't think it's necessarily fair to say that one side is more rational than the other. And I do agree that it is possible for the two to co-exist, but often they are pitted against each other. And for the record I am an atheist.
|
|
ElfLady
Planet
I'm a crazy!
Posts: 409
|
Post by ElfLady on Mar 3, 2010 21:18:26 GMT -5
I have gone through a lot of religious... what's the word... turmoil? quests? research? Whatever the word I mean is, my spiritual journey has been a difficult and long one, in my few 14 years of life.
My parents raised me to be open to all religions and spiritual ideas, and to look for the one that I believe in, not the one that the most people told me to believe (they are both agnostics coming from Christian backgrounds).
My grandparents were all Christians, and they all (except one, who is all for religious harmony and freedom) tried to convert me to their own ways of thinking. I definitely felt some sort of connection to their God, but deep down, a lot of things felt wrong, but I was too young to realize this, so I basically became Christian.
However, I didn't feel that associating with any particular school of thought would prove useful, so for the first 9 or so years of my life, my spirituality was gained from biannual Sunday School visits with my G-parents, and late nights spent reading my Bible.
Throughout my life, I read about all sorts of religions, because I found them absolutely fascinating. From Jewish prayer books to the teachings of Buddha to Wiccans for Dummies, I read it all. I feel that it is extremely important to explore all options, as to choose a religion based on yourself, not what is told to you. I gradually began to understand other people's religions better than they understood them themselves.
A couple of months ago, I met a guy who practiced Islam. I knew some about Islam, but for some reason I'd never really looked that in depth into it. He was so passionate about his religion, I felt compelled to look at how a religion could mean so much to a normal 14 year old guy. So I started researching.
I read the Qu'ran, and that really changed my perspective. I felt like Islam was Christianity without all of the things that I didn't believe. I really connected with Islam, and I thought seriously about becoming a Muslim. Even though I loved the religion, something didn't feel quite right. I was plagued by the need to associate with something.
After a lot of long nights twisting and turning, fearing the thought of being alone, I was caught off guard by a PogoTriber I was talking to. It was then I realized that I didn't have to associate with anyone's beliefs. I was struggling to find something that I could fit my own beliefs into, instead of just believing what I did. I realized that we all have different perspectives, and so even if we are all presented the same information, everyone will come out with a different conclusion. And if there is a God, I think that he knows that, and if there isn't a God, then it doesn't really matter.
I am now completely happy believing what my soul tells me, and I best describe my spirituality as a mish-mash of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Taoism, and a bunch of other religions. I am completely happy with myself, and I totally respect all other people's beliefs. I acknowledge the fact that I may not be right, and I am probably wrong about something or another. But I don't think that really matters.
|
|
|
Post by americanarchon on Mar 3, 2010 21:28:50 GMT -5
@swan: An interesting idea, but gravity? We can see it plain as day. Theoretically speaking, how could someone have so much doubt that they can see something drop and say that there is no force pulling it down?
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Mar 3, 2010 21:37:46 GMT -5
Are you religious? Yes
Which religion are you? Roman Catholic Do you think religion is a necessary part of society? Yes and No. If its asking that I think that you need to have religion to be a good person than no. If you have never heard of God, which I dont know why not, it is not a necessary part of society. But yes it is for established society's, like the USA and other major countries. It is naturall to have humans form a belief, and so it is natural to have religions. it isnt necessary but it will always happen if there is an established society. Why do we have religion? Or, if you are religious, what purpose does it serve in your life?
Religion in my life serves the purpose it does for most people. It tells me things I cannot understand with the human mind, and I choose to believe it. I have been brought up being Catholic and I have had the option to choose my faith. I firmly believe that I chose the right thing when I stayed Catholic. I believe that there is a God. I disagree with some of the church's teachings, but very few of them. You will not find one Catholic person that believes every single thing. I believe in an afterlife, and that there is a Hell. I dont know by what standards you go to either place because thats up to God.
I agree with all of you. Religion and Science can coexist, but it is when they mix that they dont.
PS I am open to discussion, but dont blatantly state I am wrong. Tell me why you think I am.
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 3, 2010 22:28:49 GMT -5
americanarchon: I'm speaking in a purely technical sense, and the outcome of previous events can't truly determine the future, so technically gravity can't be proven. Basically there have only been a finite number of observations supporting gravity, and because of this that there is always the possibility that tomorrow objects will float instead of fall (very unlikely but it's possible) which would disprove our understanding of gravity. Nothing can truly be proven but science never really tries to prove anything anyway, it just tries to build a level of understanding, which (naturally) is constantly changing as new observations are made. My point is that science is not absolute and should not be viewed as such. However I would not advise jumping off any cliffs anytime soon ;D.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 3, 2010 22:29:18 GMT -5
@swan: Science requires the same kind of faith that I have in my chair supporting my weight; faith with a basis on observations, experience and evidence. Science does not attempt to prove anything, but does make consensuses about the likelihood of things being true, that often being so close to 100% that the difference is negligible (such as with gravity).
Religion requires blind faith -- a faith in something for which there is neither evidence nor a logical basis to believe exists. The kind of faith you state science uses would never trust religion, which is irrational by any scientific standard.
It's important in discussions like this to keep in mind the difference between how religion uses the word faith, and how it applies to life outside religion.
|
|
|
Post by cynicallint on Mar 3, 2010 23:36:17 GMT -5
I used to be somewhat religious. Raised in a Christian family and all that.
But one day I realized, that none of the stuff I was raised to believe made sense. And I realized this in Church surprisingly enough.
But by no means am I an Atheist. Nor am I really an agnostic either. Or maybe not JUST Agnostic would be the correct term. I'm somewhat of a Freethinker/Agnostic/Theist While being an existentialist at the same time.
For the most part, I think religion is a necessity in society. People depend on the thought that there is a reason why they are here on earth, and religion often gives people that reason. Or it gives them hope of a better life later on. It helps people from thinking that there is only this life, rather then nothing. I remember when I walked away from religion. I had a period of hopelessness where I didn't really care about anything anymore. Suicidal perhaps? But I was able to overcome it. Some people can't overcome that thought. So false hope (or maybe true hope) is what allows most people to keep on living.
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 3, 2010 23:37:51 GMT -5
I'm not using the religious definition of faith, I am using the kind that requires belief in something without proof and evidence ≠ proof. I never meant to imply that they both require the same amount of faith, but they both require faith nonetheless. I understand science uses significantly more evidence then religion, but that doesn't mean religion is invalid. Consensus may work fine for practical purposes, but true understanding requires more then consensus (true understanding can't really be achieved in a practical sense). I am not trying to say that evidence isn't practical and in everyday science it is necessary, my point is that just because there is evidence that supports a theory doesn't mean the theory is true, and therefore to believe that theory is true is a type of faith.
Logic and rationality are tricky subjects since they are subject to the flaws associated with human thought. Just because something is logical does not mean it's true, and vise versa. There have been plenty of rational theists and irrational atheists and I wouldn't be so quick to accuse theists of blind faith. The bottom line I'm trying to make is that no amount of evidence proves anything, so religious views (and all views for that matter) are subjective and no one view is better then the other.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 4, 2010 0:35:19 GMT -5
I find your wording to be highly misleading. You seem to assume that even if the tiniest amount of faith is necessary to believe in something scientifically, then any amount of faith is reasonable for everything. You seem to assume that because we have faith in things that are 99.9999~% likely to be true, it follows that it's reasonable to believe in things with no evidence whatsoever -- things that from a scientific perspective are incredibly improbable.
"Just because something is logical does not mean it's true, and vise versa."
Logic is merely something that is applied to premises we have already established. If the premises that go into the logic are all true, and the logic itself is valid, then the resulting premise is also true. Think of it like an equation -- premises are the numbers, and logic is the operator. Generally statements of logic are referred to as either "valid" or "invalid", not as true or false. It is the premises that go into the logic, and the result of the logic, that are labelled as true or false. (And just for completion, an argument is considered "sound" if all its premises are true and all its logic is valid. Otherwise it is "unsound", even if it somehow arrived at the correct conclusion.)
"There have been plenty of rational theists and irrational atheists and I wouldn't be so quick to accuse theists of blind faith."
The fact that theists are not the only ones with blind faith (I've already mentioned addicted gamblers' blind faith before) does not mean that it is not blind faith. Similarly, just because someone does most things in their life rationally does not mean that their theism is, in and of itself, irrational. Irrational means "not consistent with or using reason," where reason refers to the logical sort (not motivation).
Faith in something with no evidence is by definition blind faith. It's up to you if you're okay with having that blind faith, but that doesn't change the fact that that's what it is.
In short, the scientific method determines the odds of a thing being true based on the evidence for and against. When the odds are incredibly likely, it's accepted that the premise is true, unless and until future research contradicts that. All the faith scientists have are that things that are highly likely (99.999% or better in most cases) are probably true. The religious do not bother with evidence. The concept of god is difficult if not impossible to show proof for or against. If you take any random concept with no evidence for or against it (let's say... unicorns that fart rainbows live on some distant planet) the odds that such a thing is true are so minimal as to be insignificant.
So yes, scientists believe in things that are not 100% proven... just 99.999% likely. The religious believe in things without that 99.999% -- I would venture to say that the odds theism is correct are the same as the odds of anything else that has neither proof for nor against (like the rainbow farting unicorns), and that the odds of any concept being true, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, is significantly lower than 1%.
If you want to believe in something spiritual or such, despite the absence of evidence, that's up to you. But please don't try to rationalize it by claiming that such religious faith is the same sort of faith that science uses. It is not the same kind of faith. Not remotely.
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 4, 2010 1:56:46 GMT -5
Faith is faith, I'm not saying that the amount of faith in science is the same as the amount needed by theists, in fact I will agree they theists need much more faith to make up for the lack of evidence, but it is the same faith. I admit that perhaps faith may not have been the most appropriate word, so from here on I will try to be as clear as possible. When I say faith I mean assuming something to be true without proof. And again to be absolutely clear theists require more faith then atheists Logic is merely something that is applied to premises we have already established. If the premises that go into the logic are all true, and the logic itself is valid, then the resulting premise is also true. Certainly, I agree completely, but how do we know that these premises are true? If a new premise is the outcome of logic being applied to a previously established premise, then theoretically speaking, there must be one premise that is assumed to be truth that all other premises are based on. If this origin premise isn't true then it follows that all other premises based on the origin premise are false as well. For argument's sake lets assume that a scientific theory is supported 99.999%, what makes the 0.001% insignificant? Sure it is a remarkably small number but if we truly want to be rational or objective, can we really ignore it? Perhaps with modern objective thinking the number is insignificant, and I will acknowledge that without assuming this 0.001% is insignificant, there would probably be no scientific progress. However in order to be truly objective I do not believe any number (no matter how small) can be ignored, because doing so ignores the possibility of error which only establishes a premise which may or may not be true. So when I say that science requires faith, I mean Scientists need to have faith that A) What they are basing their research on is in fact true (The certainty of any truth is debatable) B) That what they deem as insignificant in their research is actually insignificant, and C) There is no other evidence that suggests otherwise. To sum everything up, what I am saying is that both religion and science require certain assumptions to be made, and I agree that the assumptions required by religion are much larger then the ones required by science. Nothing can really be proven regardless of how much evidence is involved, I will concede that religion is more irrational (although i never said otherwise) but rationality itself has flaws of its own. Furthermore not everything needs to be rational as humans aren't really objective beings, we are subjective by nature. Ultimately it doesn't matter what you believe, but how your beliefs affect your life.
|
|