Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.

[miketrees]

""At the point that somebody chooses to seek an answer from faith, they are no longer acting scientifically. When someone seeks their answers from scientific study, they are no longer acting on faith. The two cannot coexist in answering a question, ""

Faith will take you nowhere, stick with science.

If you like you can claim God gave you intelligence to find the answers with science

[DanaC]

Faith will take you nowhere, stick with science.

If you like you can claim God gave you intelligence to find the answers with science

Just for clarity: I am an atheist. I do not seek any answers from faith, though I take much that I have been told by experts on faith, inasmuch as I have not personally conducted the research. I do not believe in the existence of a supreme being, I do not believe in 'supernatural' phenomenon. Just because we don't have the answer, doesn't mean the answer isn't there to be found. If the answer is not contained within our current understanding of 'nature' then that doesn't place the answer outside of nature, it merely means we drew the boundary lines incorrectly.

It is in our nature, as human beings to take certain things as facts based on an act of faith. We do not need, as a species to hardwire all the instincts and behaviour patterns that we will need in life, because we can learn and remember. We do not need to relearn the world anew with each generation, because we are able to share and pass along knowledge: we do not need to experience something personally, to know of its existence. This drives us forward as a species, but it has also allowed anachronisms to thrive.*
[*] I am fairly sure that the more spiritual dwellars might take exception to my characterising religious faith as anachronistic. No offence intended.

[ZenGum]

Just throwing this in ...

I get paid to talk about this stuff.

So I'm certainly not going to talk about it here. Union regs, you know.

Carry on, and have fun.

[DanaC]

Bah, just noticed, I wrote 'phenomenon' instead of 'phenomena'.

[Sundae]

That's because you are Godless.
True believers are laughing at your poor writting skills right now.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Bah, just noticed, I wrote 'phenomenon' instead of 'phenomena'.

I'll remeber that.

[miketrees]

Well DanaC if you are an atheist you have too much faith that you know everything
Stick with us agnostics, have a bet each way and admit there just might be things out there you have not seen or understood

[DanaC]

Well DanaC if you are an atheist you have too much faith that you know everything
Stick with us agnostics, have a bet each way and admit there just might be things out there you have not seen or understood

At what point have I suggested that there are not things out there which I have not seen or understood? I do not believe in the supernatural, because if something exists then it is natural. I do not pretend to know what does or does not exist, with the sole exception of a human-conceived fantasy creature. Are there more things on heaven or earth than are dreamed of in my philosophy? Most assuredly, yes.

But I no more feel the need to remain open to the possibility of God and the supernatural, than to the possibility that the River Styx flows somewhere beneath. I have no way to know for sure that gravity will not one day desert us; yet I have enough experiential evidence and access to scientific reassurances that this will not be so. This does not make me closed minded, it makes me a pattern recognising, expectant human being.

Have a bet each way? Oh please. That particular fence must be groaning under the weight of such intellectual indecision. The God of the Gaps has already been mentioned in this thread. It is, to me, one of the most compelling single arguments against the existence of 'God'. Humanity keeps encroaching onto the divine and finding nothing but nature. Whilst you are keeping your bets so thoroughly hedged (and if the God most people are praying to does exist, I doubt he'll be much impressed by that little act of inconstancy) on the existence of God and his ineffable plan, do you also keep in mind the possibility that the sun won't rise or that the moon might inexplicably fall from the sky?

Agnosticism. I have little time for it. Have a bet each way? Dear God, give me a fire breathing priest over that watered-down philosphy any day.


[eta] *reads that back and winces, realising she's insulted every agnostic on the Cellar*

[Sundae]

I'm with you there chick.
I'm not against agnosticism as such, but I can't bear the wishy-washy pseudo-spiritualism I hear on a daily basis.

"Well I'm not religious, but yes I do believe there is a God. I do pray, but I don't go to Church, I do things in my own way." Which really means, "I ask for things when I need them. I don't worship, or thank, or praise. I don't follow any set rules and don't feel obliged to behave in any way, but I expect an afterlife of bliss, just for being vaguely nice."

Bleurgh.
At least people who follow the major religions suffer for what they perceive as their eventual reward. At least they put some effort in to thank their Creator and show Him some respect. Not just assume a "right" to everlasting paradise.

There, I've probably insulted everyone else now. Full house for the Godless Brits!

[miketrees]

"Humanity keeps encroaching onto the divine and finding nothing but nature. "

I can be quite flexible on this one.
I am prepared to consider nature to be Divine.

I don't think agnostics suffer from intellectual indecision, more a pragmatists rat cunning

I think the religions give the search for the divine a bad name, I mean all the dogma and virgin birth garbage, that's obscene.

Its when I am reading about space and physics that I tend to want to hedge my bets.

[Flint]

miketrees, you're a good guy. Stick around.

But first... do you think this is an American board? Your thoughts...

[Shawnee123]

I like the people who believe in god "just in case." Is that really believing? Helllllll no!

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

I'm with you there chick.
I'm not against agnosticism as such, but I can't bear the wishy-washy pseudo-spiritualism I hear on a daily basis.

"Well I'm not religious, but yes I do believe there is a God. I do pray, but I don't go to Church, I do things in my own way." Which really means, "I ask for things when I need them. I don't worship, or thank, or praise. I don't follow any set rules and don't feel obliged to behave in any way, but I expect an afterlife of bliss, just for being vaguely nice."

Bleurgh.
At least people who follow the major religions suffer for what they perceive as their eventual reward. At least they put some effort in to thank their Creator and show Him some respect. Not just assume a "right" to everlasting paradise.

There, I've probably insulted everyone else now. Full house for the Godless Brits!

Sundae,

I'm not sure about the afterlife. I don't think it's something we have to worry about. I don't believe God barters. I don't believe then, that there is an eventual reward. The only reward for good character, is good character. The effort and payment for that, is quite enough. We do indeed reap exactly what we sow, if not more.

[Aliantha]

I don't think it's wishy washy to be able to believe in the concept of a higher power or god or whatever you want to call it, but to not believe in organized religion.

I am not anti religion, but going to church doesn't make me feel more spiritual and it doesn't make me believe in god. I do pray though. All day long. Every time I'm hoping for something or wishing for something, it's a prayer for any god who happens to be listening. I believe we all have a soul and when we die it leaves our worn out body. What happens after that I don't know, but I don't believe in hell or heaven for that matter. Not as the church would have us believe anyway.

Anyway, I just think that suggesting someone is a bit pathetic because they don't have a label for their particular belief system is a bit unfair.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

At least people who follow the major religions suffer for what they perceive as their eventual reward.

At least they suffer? People don't naturally suffer enough?

People aren't holy if they don't flog theirselves?

Life is full of suffering. Everyone will have enough of it I am sure. There's no reason to invite more suffering in this world for the sake of a perception of god.