Religion

[bbsam]

Of course, we are in a vast ocean of ignorance. My response to this situation is to accept that I do not know anything for sure, and to not believe in things for which there is no evidence. "Interpreting" things as miraculous simply because you believe you have witnessed the impossible made possible is not honest, it is faith. That's all well and good, but filling in the large gaps in our knowledge with what you hope to be true is wishful thinking, not intellectual rigor.

In what way is religion not comforting? The notion that the creator of the universe loves you, has a plan for you, and is waiting for you in paradise is not comforting? Don't kid yourself. Faith is an attempt to find solace in a terrifying universe. I can't blame anyone for resorting to it, especially with all the social pressure, but intellectually honest it is not.

In what way is accepting miracles as fact intellectually honest? What proof do you have for resurrection besides an ancient book? The truth is, we have no reason to believe miracles occur. All testaments of truly miraculous occurrences are based on old stories. All things in modern times that are ascribed to the supernatural, strangely enough, do not ever violate the laws of nature or what we know of biology. Amputees never regrow their limbs, no matter how pious. Time never reverses its flow, no matter how much a poor mother may beg God to bring her child back. What do I have to explain away to not believe in miracles? Anecdotal evidence from biased sources?

And what must you ignore to believe in them? Well, you must ignore the fact that all so called miracles can be easily explained without invoking the supernatural. You must ignore that most events that one might call miraculous suffer from survivorship bias - the man who thinks God saved him from a tornado spares no thoughts for those killed by it, and thus denied a miracle.

So, believe what you want. But be honest with yourself: you have no real evidence for your beliefs. That's why it's called faith.

Exactly. Faith defies scientific explanation. Isn't science itself based on faith? Of course it is but the two aren't at odds with each other even though both sides seem intent on making that so. Science shrugs it's shoulders every day with no explanation for "miracles". Why not call it miraculous? Perhaps you should look deeper into science, explore the further reaches. Quantum physics, noneuclidian geometry...the laws of science begin to break down. I will admit, however, that my mind is not well equipped to understand much of that. What "miracles" lie just beyond our grasp today that science will bring tomorrow? Who says scientific miracles are outside the realm of the devine? (By definition that would be impossible.)

But feel good? Constant, rigorous demands for self-sacrifice? No. Religion isn't comforting. It is driving, sustained and forceful. Is it comforting for those who lose limbs? It can be. Not because they suddenly grow new ones but can find another way forward. Does thanking God for not being killed by a tornado really destroy empathy for families who lost loved ones? Of course not. And the feeling of "being spared"--how often has that proved a turning point for individuals for living a better, more altruistic life?

And that's really where the "rubber meets the road". Religion is often characterized as supernatural stories and unproven ideas but it's far more than that. Without religion we don't have Gandhi or MLK Jr. We don't know anything about civil disobedience and yet right there in the face of violence and fear and threat of death that "feel good" that strength prevails against to all odds. Without that "feel good" how does South Africa proceed with reconciliation? How do those on both sides forgive the decades of brutality?

No. Religion doesn't "feel good" and when it is most needed it "feels" terrible.

 

[Timn17]

Exactly. Faith denies scientific explanation. Isn't science itself based on faith? Of course it is but the two aren't at odds with each other even though both sides seem intent on making that so. Science shrugs it's shoulders every day with no explanation for "miracles". Why not call it miraculous?

But feel good? Constant, rigorous demands for self-sacrifice? No. Religion isn't comforting. It is driving, sustained and forceful.

No, science is not based on faith. I suppose you could say that science rests on the assumption that our senses/observations can provide us with actual information about reality, and that the scientific method is a good way to confirm (more precisely, to fail to falsify ) theories about those observations. But that isn't at all equivalent to religious faith. Faith basically transcends the physical world and evidence; it is not concerned with it, which is why I find it odd when religious people try to gather "evidence" to support their beliefs. Science can *only* be concerned with the physical world - by definition any theory that cannot be tested in the physical world is not scientific.

You're kind of conflating religious practice with faith. Sure, religious practice can be demanding (although some would argue that such practice is ultimately beneficial and leads to contentment, if not comfort).

Faith, on the other hand, simply describes optimistically believing in something without regard to or in spite of the evidence. Unless you have faith in something negative, or you have strong doubts, I'm not seeing how having faith that the creator of the universe loves you and has a plan for you isn't comforting.

Perhaps you want to suggest that a strictly religious life is not a cakewalk and therefore not an easy choice, and depending on the religion and its followers that may be true - but faith itself is comforting by its very nature. *maintaining* faith may be difficult, but faith itself allows you to have hope for something in spite of the evidence.

 

[moreluck]

Good job keeping bbsam occupied !!

 

[Timn17]

Exactly. Faith defies scientific explanation. Isn't science itself based on faith? Of course it is but the two aren't at odds with each other even though both sides seem intent on making that so. Science shrugs it's shoulders every day with no explanation for "miracles". Why not call it miraculous? Perhaps you should look deeper into science, explore the further reaches. Quantum physics, noneuclidian geometry...the laws of science begin to break down. I will admit, however, that my mind is not well equipped to understand much of that. What "miracles" lie just beyond our grasp today that science will bring tomorrow? Who says scientific miracles are outside the realm of the devine? (By definition that would be impossible.)

But feel good? Constant, rigorous demands for self-sacrifice? No. Religion isn't comforting. It is driving, sustained and forceful. Is it comforting for those who lose limbs? It can be. Not because they suddenly grow new ones but can find another way forward. Does thanking God for not being killed by a tornado really destroy empathy for families who lost loved ones? Of course not. And the feeling of "being spared"--how often has that proved a turning point for individuals for living a better, more altruistic life?

And that's really where the "rubber meets the road". Religion is often characterized as supernatural stories and unproven ideas but it's far more than that. Without religion we don't have Gandhi or MLK Jr. We don't know anything about civil disobedience and yet right there in the face of violence and fear and threat of death that "feel good" that strength prevails against to all odds. Without that "feel good" how does South Africa proceed with reconciliation? How do those on both sides forgive the decades of brutality?

No. Religion doesn't "feel good" and when it is most needed it "feels" terrible.

What miracles does science ignore? I can assure you, if a scientist could somehow prove the existence of miracles, they'd win the nobel. However, miracles are supernatural and therefore outside of the realm of science by definition, so I don't see how they could be proven. A "theory of miracles" is not falsifiable. If you have anything besides anecdotal evidence, you might have a Nobel prize waiting for you.

Also, I didn't say that being grateful for being spared destroys empathy for victims. I said that believing yourself to be the recepient of a miracle ignores those who were denied such an intervention. "God saved ME, of course." Empathy can still be there, but the perception of a miraculous event is nevertheless sometimes dependent on attributing divine intervention to blind luck; the nature of a disaster removes all dissenting voices who might take issue with it being characterized as a miracle.

And yes, for some people, faith can be a source of strength. That says nothing about whether the object of said faith is real.

 

[newfie]

In my opinion, this very common argument is a type of defense mechanism used by religious types. Many have trouble even conceiving of someone who simply doesn't believe in any gods; someone who is not hostile to any particular god, but simply indifferent.

.

I welcome the indifference. my personal experience is that atheists are some of the most vocal preachers of their faith I have ever met. You see it here. there is no respectful indifference for those who have their faith and belief system. instead there are constant attacks from the atheist haters who post here.

 

[newfie]

What miracles does science ignore? I can assure you, if a scientist could somehow prove the existence of miracles, they'd win the nobel. However, miracles are supernatural and therefore outside of the realm of science by definition, so I don't see how they could be proven. A "theory of miracles" is not falsifiable. If you have anything besides anecdotal evidence, you might have a Nobel prize waiting for you.

Also, I didn't say that being grateful for being spared destroys empathy for victims. I said that believing yourself to be the recepient of a miracle ignores those who were denied such an intervention. "God saved ME, of course." Empathy can still be there, but the perception of a miraculous event is nevertheless sometimes dependent on attributing divine intervention to blind luck; the nature of a disaster removes all dissenting voices who might take issue with it being characterized as a miracle.

And yes, for some people, faith can be a source of strength. That says nothing about whether the object of said faith is real.

What miracles does science ignore? I can assure you, if a scientist could somehow prove the existence of miracles, they'd win the nobel. However, miracles are supernatural and therefore outside of the realm of science by definition, so I don't see how they could be proven. A "theory of miracles" is not falsifiable. If you have anything besides anecdotal evidence, you might have a Nobel prize waiting for you.

Also, I didn't say that being grateful for being spared destroys empathy for victims. I said that believing yourself to be the recepient of a miracle ignores those who were denied such an intervention. "God saved ME, of course." Empathy can still be there, but the perception of a miraculous event is nevertheless sometimes dependent on attributing divine intervention to blind luck; the nature of a disaster removes all dissenting voices who might take issue with it being characterized as a miracle.

And yes, for some people, faith can be a source of strength. That says nothing about whether the object of said faith is real.

case in point 5 long winded posts from a newly created account preaching your religion to me. But let me preach mine to an atheist and they lose their freaking mind.

 

[wkmac]

Do you know how horrifying it is to consider that many of the world's faithful cannot conceive of a reason to be moral in the absence of commands from god? Is the fear of punishment and the desire for reward the only thing keeping you on your tether? That's akin to the moral calculus of a child.

Morality, for me, is derived from compassion, empathy, a lot of thinking and by reading the ideas of various philosophers. I do not need to be cowed into submission by a bully in the sky to maintain a moral framework. As if the 10 commandments are even impressive - half deal with satisfying the vain, jealous nature of your god. "Have no others before me, no idols, etc. " Why would an omnipotent manifestation of love fall victim to the ugliest of human vices - vanity and jealousy?

Nicely said Timn17.

 

[oldngray]

Why would someone create a "Religion" thread that is critical of every religion other than Atheism?

 

[bbsam]

No, science is not based on faith. I suppose you could say that science rests on the assumption that our senses/observations can provide us with actual information about reality, and that the scientific method is a good way to confirm (more precisely, to fail to falsify ) theories about those observations. But that isn't at all equivalent to religious faith. Faith basically transcends the physical world and evidence; it is not concerned with it, which is why I find it odd when religious people try to gather "evidence" to support their beliefs. Science can *only* be concerned with the physical world - by definition any theory that cannot be tested in the physical world is not scientific.

You're kind of conflating religious practice with faith. Sure, religious practice can be demanding (although some would argue that such practice is ultimately beneficial and leads to contentment, if not comfort).

Faith, on the other hand, simply describes optimistically believing in something without regard to or in spite of the evidence. Unless you have faith in something negative, or you have strong doubts, I'm not seeing how having faith that the creator of the universe loves you and has a plan for you isn't comforting.

Perhaps you want to suggest that a strictly religious life is not a cakewalk and therefore not an easy choice, and depending on the religion and its followers that may be true - but faith itself is comforting by its very nature. *maintaining* faith may be difficult, but faith itself allows you to have hope for something in spite of the evidence.

Let's start here.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-mimics-faith/

 

[wkmac]

Why would someone create a "Religion" thread that is critical of every religion other than Atheism?

Post #1

Should deism be more in the debate than it is?

Deists: Believers in a different kind of creator

Number of Deists in US

Is America a Deist Nation?

Have at it!

 

[bbsam]

...and then there's this...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150319-three-questions-francis-collins-nih-science/

 

[oldngray]

Post #1



Have at it!

Nice deflection. Not an answer.

 

[bbsam]

...and of course...

https://edge.org/conversation/paul_davies-taking-science-on-faith

 

[wkmac]

Crossan is an atheist ex Catholic priest. Interesting choice.

Let us also make note, when this thread started, nothing of atheism was said nor advanced, nothing critical of any belief made and then in post #8, atheism was introduced into the conversation and look who did it.

 

[wkmac]

Nice deflection. Not an answer.

I actually enjoy the subject of religion. It teaches about human nature, human capacity, history and even who and what we are. Even why we act the way we do.

Religion is not without its value but I don't find it necessary to accept all its claims either.

 

[oldngray]

Religion and faith are not the same although some people attempt to use the terms interchangeably.

 

[wkmac]

Religion and faith are not the same although some people attempt to use the terms interchangeably.

I agree but people of religious mores quite often themselves connect the 2 as inseparable so maybe you are preaching to the wrong crowd.

 

[bbsam]

Because you see, the universe and the physical laws break down and weven know for a fact they break down...

https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-define-what-the-laws-of-physics-break-down-actually-means

 

[bbsam]

It seems science really isn't sure what to think of itself...

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585

 

[bbsam]

Good job keeping bbsam occupied !!

What? No meme or cartoon? This might.be a little deeper for you.