Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.

[regular.joe]

Flint, what do you mean?

[Flint]

If you have intellectually outgrown the concept of operating on faith in invisible supernatural powers, then instead of spinning your wheels writing a definition of faith that includes the level of scientific rigor that you deem appropriate, maybe it's time to say "Hey, this faith stuff isn't for me anymore. I've outgrown it. Time to move on."

Now, to be clear, I don't care what you do or what you believe. But if you're going to tell me faith means something damn near the opposite of what the dictionary says, then yes, I'm going to call you on that.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

I get the feeling that when you say "what the voices tell you" you believe that someone with a spiritual experience is crazy.

Well, we only medicate or incarcerate the people who do bad things when the voices tell them to do so.

I'm not saying everyone hears an overt voice, although plenty do.

In general terms we're hardwired for any sort of gregarious behavior, which can only stand to reinforce the communal religious experience. We get a dopamine dump every time we stand around telling each other how wonderful the invisible guy in the sky is. As well as group athletic events and so on.

[smoothmoniker]

Oh, to be sure, I still believe in invisible supernatural powers. I take issue with your characterization of why.

[Flint]

I haven't speculated as to why.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Flint

Doesn't the Bible define faith as belief despite a total lack of evidence?

This new "rational faith" is so watered down it renders the conversation meaningless.

I took that as implying that the "why" of faith was incompatible with reason.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Oh, to be sure, I still believe in invisible supernatural powers.

And this statement brings us back to the heart of the faith and science.

For faith, it's "God did it." or the Virgin Mary in a dog's butt, or Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich.

For science, it's as yet to be explained phenomena.

In light of the diminishing realm of the supernatural it makes less and less sense to say "God did it."

Faith and science don't have to be contradictory because faith is by definition the suspension of the need for explanation.

[regular.joe]

Amigo,

Virgin Mary in a dog's butt, Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich. Are you trying to be insulting on purpose? Do you use the most extreme idea of what faith is for a tiny segment of the worlds population for a reason? If you continue to use only the most extreme, yes crazy examples of what faith can produce, you will loose credibility with me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Descriptions of faith, by people who don't have it, will always sound like the blind man describing the elephant. I guess it's the frustration that breeds the vitriol.

[Sundae]

I've seen the vitriol on both sides. I think it's more the kind of person you are than the point you are arguing.

[Flint]

Let's address the substance of the post. Crazy idea, I know.

[Troubleshooter]

Citing documented, real world examples is vitriolic?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

faith is by definition the suspension of the need for explanation.

No, faith is an acknowledgement of the current lack of an explanation. What's more, it's a lack of an explanation for things which science cannot find an answer to. (Do you honestly believe we can determine the origins of the universe in their entirety through scientific study? That to me seems a lot more foolish than humbly accepting that we can't. We should never stop trying, but we should recognize our limits.)

You refuse to accept that there are different types of faith, and that most of them don't involve hearing voices or seeing idols in everyday objects. Until you can expand your definition, or propose a new word that you would prefer everyone use, you will get nowhere.

[Flint]

Bottom line: scientific knowledge is limited, but acknowledges it's own limitations.

Religious faith, as self-described by it's adherants, is an invitation to short-circuit the discovery process; constantly addressing every as-of-yet explained phenomenon as a "supernatural" occurance.

Of course, the more sophisticated faithful will recognize varying levels of what has been adequately explained, at this point in history; but ultimately science is the refusal to "give up" and say it must be God waving his magic wand.

[Clodfobble]

Religious faith, as self-described by it's adherants, is an invitation to short-circuit the discovery process; constantly addressing every as-of-yet explained phenomenon as a "supernatural" occurance.

Cite. Not a single adherent in this discussion has described it as such, quite the opposite in fact. You and Troubleshooter both insist on asking people here to defend the beliefs of people who are not here.

I don't ascribe only unexplained phenomena to God. I ascribe the explained phenomena to God as well. Explaining something will only ever tell you how, it will never ever give you an answer to the question why. I am just as continuously and deeply interested in the how as you are.