|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: religion Post by usdragonfly on Jan 19th, 2004, 9:07am why are there so many religions? i mean aren't we all praying to the same person/thing? no one knows whats really going on just that there's something.(for those who do believe there is something) it's so agravating when you have both of your parents and there both pulling you two different ways and you don't how you should sit them down and explain how there both praying to the same god!! maybe someone can help me put in tactful words, how i feel. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Jan 19th, 2004, 10:11am on 01/19/04 at 09:07:18, usdragonfly wrote:
Quote:
Hinduism at first sight looks very different, since there seem to be many gods and goddeses, which would mean it can't be the same as the one god from Abraham. But in some interpretations all those gods and goddesses simply represent aspects of one true god, which might be the same one after all. It's harder to find that one god in different forms of paganism. Some have a god and a goddess, other worship nature itself or there ancestors.. There are also religious cults that worship UFO's or something (I don't really know enough about them to do them justice). I'm sure you can imagine that vastly advanced aliens might have appeared to be gods in the past, so it may be the same person(s), but frankly I think they're nuts.. There's many more types of religion, and most I don't know anything about. Either way it's hard to proof it's really about the same person/thing. You'd have to trace the roots and literature simply doesn't go back far enough. And of course even if they are the same, people still believe in it differently (just look at all the different versions of christianity, and that's definately the same god, yet they still kill each other over it in a "my god is better than yours" way..) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by usdragonfly on Jan 19th, 2004, 11:48am well i guess what i meant was catholics, baptist, pentocastols...these religions are all praying to the same god. but for some reason my dad hates that i go to church with my mom cause she's catholic and he's baptist. what he doesn't understand is that i don't care either way cause were praying to the same god! |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Jan 19th, 2004, 12:33pm Well, there certainly are some differences between catholic and baptist.. But of course you're right that they're more alike than they are difference. And if they could get passed the differences long enough to get married and have kids it shouldn't become a problem now.. Would it solve anything if you went with your mother one week and with your father the other? Since it doesn't seem to matter much to you it might be a compromize they can be happy with. I don't really know the situation, but it might not even really be about the religion.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Jan 19th, 2004, 7:07pm Denominations form when people decide that the issues dividing them are not ones that can be put aside. It happens all the time. It is happening again right now in the Episcopal chuch over the issue of homosexuality. On one side are those who cannot see sanctifying something so clearly called sin in the Bible, while on the other are those who see the Bible as nothing more than the opinions of a few men 2000 years ago, and hold that their own opinions are more valid, having been formed in more advanced times. Most divisions in Christianity boil down to a few root causes: 1) Differing ideas about the authenticity/authority of the Bible. 2) Differing ideas about the authenticity/authority of certain people. 3) Differing interpretations of what a particular biblical or other teaching actually means. 4) (perhaps the most common) Personality clashes over ideas about where the church should go from here. (This one regularly leads to small divisions that hang on for awhile - even a few centuries - before completely dying out. Right now a lot of it is happening in Evangelical denominations over the issue of music.) The higher up on this list a conflict occurs, the more intractable it will be. Those who clash over personality issues will eventually die off, leaving separated descendents who no longer care about the issues that divided them. Interpretation of the Bible and other teachings is always influenced by the greater culture. As culture changes, some interpretations that were once popular eventually lose all support, and in later times people wonder how anyone could have believed that. But questions about the authority of the Bible or of such persons as the Pope, tend to dive to the very bottom of peoples beliefs. If the very basis of one person's faith is a belief that the Bible is the very word of God, and another believes that it is nothing more than a collection of made up stories and opinions of men long dead, there is little hope of reconciling them. The first is being asked to remove the foundation of their faith. This cannot be done without causing that faith to collapse. The second is being asked to build their faith on something they see as being of little worth. This is the issue dividing your parents - assuming that each is sincere in their own faith (many on both sides of this are not, but go along for the sake of their community - such people are actually the worst behaved, since they do not have a true belief in a loving God to restrain them). Baptists believe in the Bible as the one true authority for all question of faith. While Catholics also believe that the Bible is the word of God, they do not hold it as being the ultimate authority. That position is given to the Pope. Since the office of the Pope as it currently exists is not described in the Bible, Baptists (and all other Protestants) reject this idea to some extent - the Baptists reject it completely. So the issue is not which God, but rather which authority on earth. And this one is intractable. What difference does that make? Well, believing in everything is the same thing as believing in nothing. In the end, it leaves you empty. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Bulletproof Fly on Feb 13th, 2004, 11:04am Every single religion is an exact copy of another one, with a few tweaks. It all started with something similar to Paganism, whereas you lived for yourself and only you. Helping others was only if you felt like it. Then people knew they had to band together to get things done. A collective effort. Well, helping only yourself and working together didn't work too well in these small civilizations, as everyone was accountable for their work directly. Collective thought also brought up intelligence. Sharing of ideas brought us amalgamates of theories, which ultimately is how religions formed and divided, but I'll get back to that later. Anyhoo, people knew that there had to be something after this, or at least they hoped, and they knew we had to have come from something. They couldn't properly explain it though, and they wanted to believe there was more than living so many years and then passing on. They wanted to know there was a reward for being a good citizen, so the people who weren't contributing and were enjoying life would eventually pay for it. This is a massive control device in people's minds, but the question is, is it so wrong? It keeps people civil and in order. They feel that if what they do is good and just, they will be rewarded. With many people thinking this, we'll have a better society. That is, ideally. Sadly, many religions battle with each other and constantly fight and bicker, because no one wants to be wrong, but they can't all be right. So who is right? Damned if I know. All I know is, it dosen't take a cult to give me spirituality. If anything, it will rob me of it. It will detach me from myself, and closer to an Idol. I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong, I'm saying that, as cliche as it sounds, the answer lies within. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Feb 22nd, 2004, 10:06am There are several theories as to how religions developed in the first place. Some say that religion represents an attempt to control people - to bully people into following certain patterns of behaviour with the promise of an eternal reward/punishment after death. Other theories say that early religion was an attempt to control the forces of nature - if you want rain to water your spring planting, you hope the rain god's in a good mood, and to make sure, you sacrifice something to him. With the Greek gods, for example, you didn't so much follow a prescribed code of conduct to get a better after-life as try and avoid attracting their attention in any way during this life. Organised religion seems to be prone to take power over its members lives, all the way from suicide cults to the Catholic church itself (which, in its medieval incarnation, got up to all sorts of things), and as part of that, tends to be very jealous of competition (religions that aren't tend not to survive as organisations). My belief is that the heart of religion isn't about control, but about understanding God and His creation - and I suspect the aim of the original proto-religions was simply to understand why the world was the way it was. As to how much of it is true, few people have ever claimed to know (most first class scientists will admit that their theories are probably not the "truth", merely a very good approximation) and the rest of us are unlikely to find out before we die. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by aero_guy on Mar 9th, 2004, 1:33pm An interesting point in considering the initial questions of conflicts between very similar religions is to consider that some of the bloodiest conflicts have been over very similar religious beliefs. Think Iran vs Iraq or the Spanish Inquisition. Often people do not take beliefs that are very different from their own serious enough to get violent over it. Odd but true. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Mar 10th, 2004, 2:55am The closer two religions are, the more competition there has to be between them if they are to keep separate identities. If there isn't a definite attempt made to keep the two separate, at least from one side, then the gap between them will tend to fill; the boundary to blur as people from one religion adopt elements of the other. The other question is how far this violent conflict between related sects is part of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions and how much conflict has arisen between and within other religions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Cathos on Apr 1st, 2004, 10:34pm I'm going to bring up another religion that hastn't been touched so far - Buddhism. It seems that most western(and not so western) religions have had at least some experience with mass violence, war or what-not that directly stems from religious beliefs. Such things as the crusades, the inquisition, the above mentioned Iraq-Iran confict and many others appear to be the result of religious beliefs. To date I have heard nothing that parrallels this in Buddhist cultures. I've never heard of one sect battling another because of difference in beliefs, or wars based on dogmatic interpretations. Sure, there have been instances when Buddhists have fought, but it's been over more socio-political issues, not belief systems. I may be wrong, if anyone has heard of such a thing I'd be curious to know what it was. A question to raise, though, is why this is the case when the religions involved (Christianity/Catholocism, Islam, Buddhism) all tell people not to be violent? Christ told his followers not to kill and in fact, not to resist an evil person, but these followers beliefs have lead to some of the bloodiest conflicts known, religion-wise. I'm no expert, but I think the Quran teaches similar doctrines, but there is obvious hostility between Muslims and Christians (and Jews). So is it the extreme bent of picifism Buddhism teaches the reason for the vast difference? Or is it more geographical, since traditionally Buddhist cultures are relatively isolated from western religion (or have been until relatively recently)? Is it perhaps the extreme difference between these religions that prohibit some of the bloodier moments - ("The Jews follow the wrong patriarch, the Christians added a bunch of nonsense about a saviour, let get 'em! What, him? He's just a crazy Buddhist, don't worry about him.") Just some food for thought, hoping to get some decent discussion, It's all rather interesting to me. :) P.S. No offense intended to anyone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Apr 2nd, 2004, 4:48am I don't know about Buddhism, but Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have a hierarchical structure - meaning that a lot of power gets focused in the hands of a few people. It may be unduly cynical of me, but it seems to me that putting that much power in one place encourages the unscrupulous and power-hungry to grab for it. Once they have that sort of power, their next priority is going to be keeping it and preventing anyone else from threatening their position whether internally (by competing for the same post) or externally (by building up a similar position in a (subtly) different religion). As I said, I don't know much about Buddhism, but what I've heard suggests that buddhist teachers don't have the kind of authority that your average cardinal or bishop has - still less the pope or whatever Muslim top hierarchs are called. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 3rd, 2004, 4:10pm I have yet to hear of one single conflict that was really about religion. Religion is the window dressing we put on our wars that are really fought for other reasons. Iran-Iraq? It wasn't religion that drove them against each other! Rather it was a political war. Israeli-Arab? The ancient conflict was caused by control of trade routes. The modern conflict by control of land. Neither were of religious origin. The crusades? Trade was again the driver. The closest religion got to being the reason for the crusades was the fact that pilgrimages to Jerusalem was a big money maker for the church. The Muslim drive into Europe? A matter of finances. Like the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire went on a campaign of expansion in order to keep itself afloat. There are many conflicts laid at the feet of religion, but the truth is, religion is not enough to drive a conflict. Indeed, for most religions, those involved in the fighting have to ignore their religious teachings in order to keep in the fight. The Irish Catholics and Protestants are an excellent example of this. Their conflict has been soundly denounced by religious leaders on both sides. If that fight had been about religion, it would have been over ages ago. This is not to say that religion is innocent in these matters. It is not the primary cause of these conflicts, but has been used to deepen and prolong them. In order to sustain a conflict, those on both sides must see the other as separate, different from themselves. Cultural differences therefore get emphasized, and no cultural matter is of more importance in people's minds than religion. Joe Blow is not going to give up his good life and go to war with the people in the next valley just because they are too stupid to worship his god. But tell him that they are going to come and take over his life, and he is far more likely to believe it, to become angry and willing to "fight back" if they do worship differently than him. After all, if they don't worship his god, who knows what else they might be up to? When it comes to this, to portraying those who believe other than they do as being of inferior intellect, of crazed demeanor, of illicit behavior, there is one modern religious belief today that is king. Unsurprisingly, this belief also has the bloodiest history of all, surpassing the death tolls of all other religions put together. Does anyone want to guess what it is? It may well surprise you. But even for this religion, its pograms were driven by other reasons, economics & power & class warfare. But the religious distrust has been used very effectively to push the conflicts far deeper than they would have gone otherwise, and to justify the massive death toll. Is Buddhism different? I'm sure Buddhists will tell you so, but no. The reason you haven't heard of Buddhist conflicts is not because they do not exist, but because you, like most westerners, are woefully ignorant of the history of the far east. While I also am woefully ignorant of it, I do know enough to know that the story is essentially the same there as it is in the west. Power and greed and control and endless other conflicts occured in Buddhist lands just as in the east. The Khmer Rouge (the originals who built Ankhor Wat, not the more recent group who borrowed the name) had a reputation for visciousness (the modern group does too, but are not Buddhists). And just as in the west, religion figured heavily in these conflicts. Japan, whose majority religion is Shinto, has one of the most militaristic histories of any nation on Earth. Part of this was due to their continual fight with the Buddhist Chinese. A fight in which the Japanese were usually the ones being attacked ("Kamikaze", which means "divine wind", was taken from the name given a storm which destroyed a Chinese invasion fleet that likely would of overrun Japan). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 4th, 2004, 7:32am Just a note, I don't think the original Khmer were 'rouge' (communist) Also, I think they were Hindoe at the time, as soon as they became Buddhist their civilisation dwindled and soon went belly up.. (People weren't putting in the effort for their 'normal' king, like they once had done for their earlier god-kings. At least that's one explanation) Another reason for the crusades was that there were too many noble sons. Since only one could inherit the land of his father, the others had to find another way to make a living, and one popular way was to join a band and pillage the countryside or wage war on the neighbours (if you can't inherit a castle, you can always try to take one from someone else). Getting them to fight somewhere far away abroad seemed like a good idea at the time.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 4th, 2004, 12:02pm Yeah, I blew when I added in the "rouge". And, yes, primogeniture was a big contributing factor to the Crusades. I had thought that the Khmer were Buddhist all along, but upon your post did some searching and saw that you are right. They were Hindu until the 12th & 13th century, when they became Buddhist, leading to the decline of their monarchy and eventual overrun by the Thai. Still, I believe a familiarity with Eastern history would reveal conflicts that could be attributed to Buddhism just as much as western conflicts are attributable to Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by John_Gaughan on Apr 5th, 2004, 6:47am on 01/19/04 at 09:07:18, usdragonfly wrote:
I am halfway through a class in World Religions right now, and this is one question that came up in discussion. We have so many religions for several reasons. The world is a very large place and for most of its history there was little interaction between various continents and groups of people. They grew separately and developed religion separately. Over time people and their religions split (e.g. Catholics and Protestants), as people disagreed (it is human nature to bitch and argue). Then we have things like the Christian missionaries, pilgramages, etc. that spread religion. We have had organized religion for the last four or five thousand years. When you think about it, that is a long time. Fragmentation and divisions are bound to happen. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Three Hands on Apr 25th, 2004, 7:10am on 01/19/04 at 09:07:18, usdragonfly wrote:
Part of the problem may stem precisely from the fact that we don't actually know precisely what we're praying to, assuming there is indeed just the one thing. The arguments would presumably spring up around what we are praying to, and how they would want us to act. Indeed, Monotheism is something of a strange development from the early beliefs in God, where it was generally accepted that each tribe/village had it's own god, and the god that was stronger was the god of the tribe which won any battles against the other tribe/village (assuming that the given god was not angry with the villagers/tribe at the time - the usual excuse for losing ;) ). So, given that there is no conclusive and widely known proof for what God is out there, or even that there is just one God, it isn't particularly surprising that there are lots of different suggestions about what there is. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Kazn on May 1st, 2004, 12:25pm I think the main reason for religion is to explain what we don't understand about the world. Like the theory of evolution. It has caused many conflicts over religions that believe someone created them. Why then does finding answers to problems cause even more conflict? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by John_Gaughan on May 3rd, 2004, 9:11pm on 05/01/04 at 12:25:03, Kazn wrote:
That is one of the classic arguments used to explain religion -- it explains the unknown, like a cloak that covers ignorance. In some cases this may be true but I think it is not always true. It is human nature to form a societal structure, a pecking order as it were. Religion fits in by establishing a framework that facilitates this. Anything from Catholicism to Hindu to Judaism et al. fits this description. I disagree with it, but I think it is at least partly true. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by NAIMA omar on Dec 1st, 2005, 11:57am ISLAM IS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE RELIGION ALL THE REST DONT MAKE SENSE FIRSTLY JESUS IS NOT THE SON OF GOD AND HOW CAN GOD BE 3 THINGS AT ONCE THE FATHER THE SON AND THE HOLY SPRIT GOD IS ALMIGHTY "ALLAH" MOST PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND THAT JESUS DID NOT SAY IAM GOD HE DID NOT SAY IAM THE SON OF GO ETHEIR HE SAID THERE IS A GOD AND WE ALL ARE HIS CHILDREN |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by JCJC454 on Dec 2nd, 2005, 4:43pm Firstly I know this thread is well over a year old. Secondly I really hate it when people type with there caps lock on. (possibly could be an actualy problem but I doubt it with this post.) Thirdly, ''ISLAM IS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE RELIGION.'' and ''JESUS IS NOT THE SON OF GOD'' How can you make these statements. Do you know for a fact or are you just believing what you heard. Anybody may believe what they wish as nobody can control that. But......(always a but) It does not mean that what other people believe is not true. Nobody knows if there is a god and who or what that god it. You should not come and say that other people are wrong because of their believes, this is how all the trouble has started between the different religions. Fourthly (sounds weird nobody ever says that) I myself do not believe there is any one god or maybe any god at all, I am in no way religious and I really do not like it when people try and convince you that there religion is correct and is the ''True Religion''. If that was the true religion I would believe it for myself and would not need people coming round my house or preaching on the streets about it. What you believe you may but you dont need to force it upon other people. Fifthly, sorry if I have offended anybody. And lastly (and probably leastly) I didnt really understand most of that post it didnt make sense towards the 2nd sentence. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by JiNbOtAk on Feb 22nd, 2007, 6:20pm on 01/19/04 at 10:11:02, towr wrote:
Sorry to bring back a really old thread, but towr, I was struck by your comment. Any proof to back that claim ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Feb 22nd, 2007, 7:52pm You weren't familiar with that fact? Basically, Christianity and Islam can be considered off-shoots of Judaism. All three acknowledge the some of the same writings as scripture. Christianity differs from Judaism in believing that God established the Jewish religion to pave the way for the coming of his Christ, who would make the ultimate sacrifice for sins. Islam differs from both in believing that God works by sending new prophets as the messages of the previous ones are corrupted. Mohammad was the last and greatest of these prophets. But Moslems accept that Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and Jesus were also prophets. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by JiNbOtAk on Feb 22nd, 2007, 8:47pm on 02/22/07 at 19:52:06, Icarus wrote:
I was just struck by what towr said, if its true that the god of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the same, what is His name ? Moslem refer to Him as Allah, Christians as the Lord, Jewish as Eli ? Are these entity one and the same ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Feb 22nd, 2007, 11:59pm on 02/22/07 at 20:47:22, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Quote:
But what it really comes down to is that in all three cases, it's the god of Abraham we're speaking about. Although, of course, people's view of him may still differ among the three religions, even in the religions (e.g. not all christians believe in the trinity). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Feb 23rd, 2007, 5:31am All three "Lord", "Eli", and "Allah", are titles, not His name, which is given in scripture as "I am" (translated). This is something that pretty much all adherents of all three religions will agree on (at least those that are well enough educated to have any clue at all what their own religion says - but that is another issue! :P). I would not say the common heritage is being diligently forgotten. It is actually core to all three beliefs. Rather, the animosity comes because each sees the other religions as having abused and corrupted the true worship of God. When outsiders attack, it's a minor threat - but when your own compatriots let you down, it's major. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BNC on Feb 24th, 2007, 11:31pm A note about the Hebrew name: El means God. Eli means "My god", but I don't think it's used as the name of god, but rather as a way to approach him in prayer. The common names used are Elohim (another way of saying Gods), and Adonay (My Lords). Interesting both names are plural... The holliest of names we have has no way of being spoken: YHWH (that's the origin of the English Jehowah -- if that's how it's spelled). AFAIK, it's used only to obscure the real names. Kaballa says it has many true names of God, in variying degrees of holliness. If I recall correctly, it has about 70 names. What you make of these claims is up to you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by THUDandBLUNDER on Feb 25th, 2007, 4:52am on 02/24/07 at 23:31:27, BNC wrote:
Oh Eli, what's in a name? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by anant on Mar 23rd, 2007, 2:55am One of the most interesting paragraphs about religion from Richard Dawkins' essay "viruses of the mind". http://brainyard.blogspot.com/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Mar 23rd, 2007, 8:33pm If you want to find "viral memes", a concept I find questionable but will go along with for now, you can spot a number of them right in that blog. First and foremost is the idea that people who believe in a religion do so against evidence. Of course, those who think so don't see their own religion this way, but this doesn't stop them, because they define everyone else's beliefs as "religion", but consider their own to not be "religion". What they refuse to realize is that this is exactly the same bigotry they like to condemn the "religious" for. It is amusing to note that this idea that religion is "belief against the evidence" is itself held against the evidence, because one does not have to look far to find people for whom it is not true. But of course, one does have to actually look instead of assuming it must be "because everybody knows it". And why bother to look, when you get to feel so smug and superior without looking. The real reason that people don't believe the same way you do is not that they are "believing against the evidence", but rather that they have experienced different evidence than you. This even applies when you show them your evidence and they reject it. They do this not because they "believe against the evidence", but rather because your evidence conflicts with their own, and they choose to believe that yours is the evidence that is flawed (just like you choose to believe their evidence is flawed). Whenever you look down your nose at someone, it's your perspective that gets screwed up. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by spanchap on Mar 23rd, 2007, 9:02pm Well said Icarus. Belief is a trickery slope and so is evidence. Let us say you are an intelligent piscean species living in deep deep sea and have never had even a remote possibility of considering (let alone considering and then rejecting) the concept of land based animals, every evidence you would have would reinforce that the world you see around you is the only wold possible. The only statement that can be made would be along the lines " I do not know what I do not know". What I know I know and what I know I do not know are both way more limited than what I do not know I do not know. For example, there is no way of knowing that the universe as all of us are "experiencing" is not a dream being dreamt by a dreamer in a dimension which we cannot even contemplate about contemplating. Every "scientific" and "religious" belief/evidence we have would be consistent with such a thing occuring right now without us being aware. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Ulkesh on Apr 9th, 2007, 2:48pm on 03/23/07 at 20:33:51, Icarus wrote:
Further to our discussion of 2 or so years ago... I completely agree with what you say--his attitude does come across as snobbish. However, from what I know of Dawkins he doesn't particularly care what people think of his work--he is convinced that he is correct beyond all doubt and sees no need to go into particular details of how his conclusions are correct. I find his ideas interesting, but see that he will convince few skeptics. Personally, I see most of his ideas as making a lot of sense. He does confuse the issue a little though (probably with the intention of being provocative). For example, I know a number of religious people who believe due to evidence. A friend of mine converted to Christianity due to the prophecies of David (aomong other things). Apparently there are carbon-dated documents predicting the birth of Jesus (and a lot of related facts), made many hundreds of years before his birth. I find this intriguing, but the effort I'd have to put in to convince myself one way or the other would make me an accomplished historian. My current belief is that there's a lot of room for error when looking at 2-3 thousand-year-old documents, but I have to concede that without doing the research this debate reaches a dead-end. Addressing your final paragraph, Icarus, you seem to be looking at things on a fairly pragmatic, human level. Although it's impossible to remove human ego from the equation, I like to think of having my point countered as a learning experience rather than a lost argument (easier said than done!) I do believe that belief from faith is belief against the evidence, but I suppose that's true by definition. I mean 'faith' here in the philisopical sense--belief that goes beyond the realm of reason, or believing it to be true because you want it to be. It's clear that people gain a lot from a belief in God, so even if they do believe due to upbringing and haven't questioned their beliefs, why rock the boat (as long as they don't rock mine first)? In the end, though (apart from the possiblility of looking at the historical evidence avenue), my discussions and research have simply not swayed me to believing in the existence of a God or gods. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 9th, 2007, 5:43pm on 04/09/07 at 14:48:09, Ulkesh wrote:
I.e., his approach is dogmatic, not scientific or academic. I can think of only one reason why he would not care to go into details. His ideas, while sounding interesting at high-level, are either untestable (which means that they are also useless) or else upon close examination, all sorts of problems crop up that he would rather ignore. Quote:
Ideas that don't "make a lot of sense" quickly die out. On the other hand, successful liars know that to tell a lie and have it believed, you need to wrap it up in truths. At first, all people hear are things that they know are true, or can readily verify. This builds trust, and people stop checking after a while. When the lies finally come in, the victims believe them by habit. Quote:
Provocation is a proven way of getting attention for your ideas with little verification. Another trick for liars is to tell people things they want to believe anyway. By "supplying ammo" to one side of a disagreement, people on that side are likely to accept it without even an attempt at questioning its accuracy. This happens all the time in the political arena. It even got Dan Rather fired. At this stage, though, I'd better stop and say that I am not accusing Dawkins of lying, or even of being wrong in his "viral memes" idea. My purpose is to express why I find his approach untrustworthy. Of the man himself, I can think of few greater condemnations than that first quote: Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 9th, 2007, 5:46pm on 04/09/07 at 14:48:09, Ulkesh wrote:
Prophecies relating to Jesus are found scattered throughout the Old Testament. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, we had few if any document fragments predating Jesus. In fact, our oldest substantial document evidence for the O.T. in Hebrew mostly dated to about 1000 AD (there are older translations extant). However, there were a number of factors that offset this late date and gave us good reason to feel that the versions we have today are fairly accurate to the originals. And there is no doubt that the originals predated Jesus (though there is debate on how far). One quick example: Archeologists have uncovered cultural behaviors of the time of the patriarchs that were not longer practiced or even written about as little as 300 years later. Yet examples of these practices are found in Genesis - particularly in the story of Abraham and Sarah. This is strong evidence that at least this portion of Genesis was written prior to about 1700 BC. Quote:
A good scholarly source for this is Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which outlines evidence that he originally researched while attempting to discredit christianity. It's about 40 years old now, but still a good source. Quote:
Well said - including the final comment! Quote:
Here I disagree. Faith is believing beyond the evidence - not against it. Paul calls it "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 - NAS) Believing against the evidence is believing that when I let go of a ball, this time it's going to just hover there, instead falling like it did every time before. Believing beyond the evidence is believing that inside the center of the ball is a diamond. The first belief is unreasoning. The second may seem unreasonable, but may in fact be based on a preponderance of evidence. If you have found diamonds in the center of similar balls in the past, it would appear a very reasonable belief. But until you rip the ball open and look, your belief is beyond evidence. Quote:
Then why are you rocking people's boats now? Or even more in your earlier posts in this thread? You cannot exchange ideas without rocking boats. And unless your boat is rocked a little, you will never grow. People may gain something simply from "a belief in God", but they also lose something more if they believe in things that are actually false. I always liked Star Trek, but the "Prime Directive" seemed to me to be nothing more than moral cowardice, and a supreme disdain for other life. It amazed me how the writers kept returning to this theme, writing scripts that clearly demonstrated the moral bankruptness of this idea, and yet still attempted to defend it in the same show. (The best example is one where the sun of a planet with a primative culture is about to nova - if I recall correctly. Picard refuses to rescue any of the people because the Prime Directive considers this "interference with their cultural development". They are only rescued because Warf's adopted brother is willing to set the Prime Directive aside.) The concept that "if someone believes something, I shouldn't challenge it" seems to me to be a sort of intellectual "Prime Directive". If you accept this idea, then you will stunt both the intellectual development of others, and of yourself. I prefer to grow. Note though that "challenging" does not mean "disparaging". It means demanding "why do you believe that", not "what an idiot you are to believe that". Quote:
I wouldn't expect it to. Go talk to your friend about those "other things", if you want to truly find out why people like (s)he and I have abandoned disbelief to become christians. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 10th, 2007, 1:17am on 04/09/07 at 17:43:19, Icarus wrote:
on 04/09/07 at 17:46:55, Icarus wrote:
It's a bit like the prophecies of Nostradamus, you can always find someone or something to associate prophecies with later on (and otherwise you tend to forget about them anyway). They're certainly consistent with certain beliefs about Jesus, but well, the rest goes beyond evidence. Quote:
If you remember the show about where they're observing a vulcan-like society develloping, and suddenly they get mixed up and mistaken for gods. Well, that's the sort of problem they want to avoid. It took them some explaining how they're just using technology beyond the natives' comprehension to do those magical feats. So yes, it is moral cowardice when taken as gospel, but it does have a point if you take it as "something to think about". Kirk was a lot more relaxed about it (hence why he ended up sleeping with nearly every female, alien or otherwise). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Ulkesh on Apr 10th, 2007, 4:53am on 04/09/07 at 17:46:55, Icarus wrote:
I don't see how these examples differ with respect to the point you're trying to make. I believe the ball will fall based upon past experience, and I believe there is/isn't a diamond in the middle through reason, also. There may be a diamond, but my knowledge of the world economy and the value of diamonds, of the lack of reports of diamonds in balls, of the pointlessness of the ball-maker putting a diamond there, leads me, when questioned, to say 'I believe there is no diamond in the middle of that ball'. I don't have to tear open a number of other balls to have evidence that there is no diamond inside this particular ball. Of course, the fact I'm asked the question will make my assertion a little more cautious (what a strange thing to ask!), but it all adds to the weight of evidence. I'd say that in the first case the evidence is direct, in the second it is more incidental, but it's evidence nonetheless. I think I understand your point, but if we have no incidental evidence from which to make inferrences, we have an arbitrary choice. And when that choice is either belief or not, the proof of burden is on the believer to convince me. My default position is no belief. Quote:
When I mentioned rocking people's boats, I was referring to those who believe in God through upbringing without questioning their beliefs, and don't like to have their beliefs questioned. I disagree that they're necessarily worse-off having never questioned their beliefs. Edit: Explicitly, I've spoken to one or two people who've been brought up as Christians and love their religion. They admit they may be wrong about the whole idea, but a belief in things such as life after death gives them comfort. They don't like being drawn into a debate about precisely why they believe because they're not sure their 'faith' will survive it. And I don't mind people questioning what I believe whatsoever. Like I said, I want to learn. However, boat-rocking needs to be separated from being open-minded. A rocked boat can lead to an illogical defence of your point of view and a desire to win an argument beyond a desire to share points of view. Needless to say, if I were trying to be provocative in this discussion I'd be a hypocrite. Quote:
I think the point they make with the Prime Directive is that interference can lead to a slippery slope. If you start trading with less advanced life, it's easy for less scrupulous captains and races to take advantage of the situation. It's not clear the less advanced race will be better-off due to interference so they set up a law prohibiting it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 10th, 2007, 3:40pm on 04/10/07 at 01:17:31, towr wrote:
Well, if he isn't offering it as scientific, that is more acceptable. However, if he is presenting it as being scientific to a non-scientific audience, without any attempt to actually approach it from science, then I would call that fraudulent. What little I have read seems to suggest this. But that may be because of the third party I read, not Mr. Dawkins himself. Quote:
I didn't mean to suggest that the prophecies had no other interpretation. However, I think a number of them are significantly more specific than anything you will find in Nostradamus. on 04/10/07 at 04:53:04, Ulkesh wrote:
YOU may believe this, but your definition of faith is to believe that the ball will NOT fall. My definition of faith considers that belief to be ridiculous, but allows you to believe that there may be a diamond inside the ball, until you have enough evidence to say otherwise. The point is: faith is belief that goes beyond what you already have evidence for. It is not belief that goes against what you already have evidence for. That was my point. Quote:
And I continue to disagree with you. They are definitely worse off for never questioning their beliefs. This is even more evident by the fact that they do not like it when people do question their beliefs. This tells me that they are insecure in those beliefs. From the perspective of my own religious beliefs, I would say that these people do not even have a real faith. Faith and self-delusion are two different things. Quote:
A little provocation can be a good thing, but usually when people are being "provocative", what they are really doing is being insulting. I like provocation that leads to debates and real exchange of views such as is happening here. ----- Concerning the "Prime Directive", yes, there are a whole host of ethical issues that need to be addressed when two widely different cultures interact. However, the Prime Directive chooses to avoid those issues rather than address them. It does this by ignoring another whole host of moral issues. If I see someone who is suffering or in danger, and it is well within my power to alleviate the problem, then I think it is abominable to stand aside and let them suffer or be damaged. The Prime Directive, on the other hand, requires exactly this, even when the potential damage from interfering is dwarfed by that of standing by. Kids are also easily taken advantage of. The Prime Directive approach to parenting is to lock the kid in a room, and not interact with him until he figures out the concept of reading and writing on his own. I prefer to send the little bugger to school. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 11th, 2007, 1:33am on 04/10/07 at 15:40:24, Icarus wrote:
Quote:
So it's always a matter of degrees. Letting people blow themselves up will of course cut short any potential they have, letting them (figuratively or literally) cut themselves in the finger, however -- well, they need to take some personal responsibility. People may in many cases be better off if they end up saving themselves, rather than getting help from above (be it god or benevolent aliens). Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Ulkesh on Apr 11th, 2007, 6:29am on 04/10/07 at 15:40:24, Icarus wrote:
But I believe there may be a diamond inside the ball, just as I believe the ball may not fall when released. You can never be sure in either case. It seems that you're dismissing the incidental evidence I described in my last reply as no evidence at all. I'm sure if you bought a solid ball from a toy shop and I asked you whether you thought there were a diamond inside, you'd say 'probably not'. Essentially, I disagree with your last sentence: your definition of faith and your example do go against what you already have evidence for. It's simply a different kind of evidence from the gravity-acting-on-ball example. Quote:
I suppose this depends on how you define 'worse-off'. From a utilitarian point of view it certainly isn't clear whether interference or not is for the best, much like with the Prime Directive. I'd advocate a case-by-case judgement--there certainly isn't a blanket answer. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 11th, 2007, 7:36pm on 04/11/07 at 01:33:35, towr wrote:
Picard and Janeway both adhered to it dogmatically. Both had to be forced into doing the right thing even when it was obvious. Quote:
I recall at least two shows (the Next Gen episode I mentioned originally, and a Voyager episode) where the Captain specifically demands that the race be left to certain complete annihilation in a catastrophic event in order to satisfy the Prime Directive. on 04/11/07 at 06:29:08, Ulkesh wrote:
The problem here is that you have completely misunderstood my example by demanding things of it that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was trying to illustrate when I offered it. It was not a complete and perfect analogy. Yes, I know that balls do not generally have diamonds in them. Yes, I know that there is plenty of evidence to this. I'm sorry that I thought it would be okay to pick something that was ludicrous. Forget the balls. Here are three real life examples: Some educated people in western culture still believe that the earth is flat and that the sun orbits the earth. They believe this because they take the idea that the bible is literally true to ridiculous extremes. Their belief is not what I call faith. I consider it to be foolishness. Many people are convinced there is life on other planets. Yet there is not one shred of validated evidence that this is so (except possibly that martian meteorite - and that is questionable). There is only evidence that it is possible. There is also no evidence that life does not exist on other planets outside our solar system. Those who believe that life is "out there" do not do so against the evidence, but they also don't do so on the basis of evidence. That is faith. Every morning we see the sun rise (or at least, see the consequences of it). Yet all of this evidence, stretching back to the dawn of history, does not prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. When we make the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow, we move beyond evidence into theory. The belief that this theory is true, even though well-grounded in evidence, is also faith. In my opinion, the reason why people get the idea that faith is "believing against the evidence" is that they people rejecting evidence because of their faith. But what this ignores that those who reject evidence on the basis of "real faith" (as opposed to the self-delusion we've also been discussing) do so because they have other evidence that conflicts with the evidence they reject. When you have conflicting evidence, obviously some or all of it is flawed (or misinterpreted). They choose - on the basis of their faith - to assume that their evidence is true and the evidence you seem them rejecting is false. This may be wrong, or it may be right, but either way, I do not think it counts as "believing against the evidence". Quote:
Sure, it is a judgment call. But in their case, I think the judgment is fairly easy to make. I believe that "the unexamined life is not worth living". |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 12th, 2007, 12:13am on 04/11/07 at 19:36:59, Icarus wrote:
Faith would become a very empty concept if we considered these to be examples of faith, because then everything can be considered faith. There couldn't be any emperical statement about the world that isn't. The mere suggestion the laws of nature will apply in a moment as they do now would be nothing but faith; even that the world as we experience it exists at all. At the very least this isn't what I mean by the concept 'faith'. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 12th, 2007, 6:07pm ??? ??? How is believing in life on other planets "following the evidence"? What validated evidence is there for life on other planets? (By "validated", I mean something verifiable - not UFO sightings.) I am aware of none other than that martian meteorite. And while that one is provocative, it falls well short of being convincing. Theories are not the same as evidence. And conscious certainty beyond evidence is exactly what faith is. What is the problem with recognizing that any time you extrapolate past patterns into the future, this amounts to faith that the pattern will continue? Perhaps the problem is revealed by your phrase "would be nothing but faith". This suggests that you view "faith" as something insubstantial. To call something "faith" makes it seem less trustworthy. But belief beyond the evidence is belief beyond the evidence no matter what name you give it. And any time you make an empirical statement, you are moving beyond evidence. That is the whole point of such statements - to move beyond what has been witnessed and make predictions about future observations. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 13th, 2007, 1:22am on 04/12/07 at 18:07:07, Icarus wrote:
I can only suggest to read "What Does a Martian Look Like", by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. It gives a very readable overview of the issues involved and gives a lot of support to the claim that the chances are stacked against an empty universe. Quote:
Quote:
Which isn't to say there can't be a competing (and supported) theory that points a few degrees to the left or right, but it's unlikely it points in the opposite direction. Quote:
I'd be hard pressed to say exactly what faith is. But it just doesn't sound and feel right. It puts belief in god, and the belief the sun rises tomorrow on the same level. Even though the latter has been emperically verified a million times. But still, any induction goes 'beyond evidence', strictly speaking; it's not a logically valid principle. "And therefore the existence of god is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow". Quote:
I'm not prepared to put all these things on the same level. Certainly, we might all be in the matrix. But I'm more sure we're not than of the sun rising (because obviously it wouldn't really be the sun if it was just in the matrix). I'm not prepared to just take evidence as something that I have faith in existed. There has to be some distinction to have any meaning in those concepts. Quote:
That's just not what 'faith' means in my book. But results may vary per author. Quote:
It just doesn't compare. If I saw God today, I'd be more justified to belief he exists tomorrow than if I didn't. "Beyond evidence" be damned. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 13th, 2007, 1:27am And one more points I seem to have lost on the way. Evidence may point in some direction (usually by building a theory around it). What you find there is in my, perhaps not as humble as it might be, opinion more justified than what lies beyond the evidence in other directions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Ulkesh on Apr 13th, 2007, 6:19am on 04/12/07 at 18:07:07, Icarus wrote:
I more or less agree with towr's point of view, although I'd like to elaborate a little on this point. I do not see how it is possible to believe something in the absence of, or against, evidence. I suppose it is possible to fool yourself to some extent that something blindingly obvious is not the case (hypnosis?), but once fully questioned holes will appear in the belief and it will fall apart. From this standpoint, I do not see how a rational person could not believe the sun will rise tomorrow (unless you know of some alien super-weapon...). It is true, there is no direct evidence that the sun will rise on the 14th of April, 2007. But then, since the future hasn't occured, there's no direct evidence of any particular future event. So every prediction is based on a theory, the sun rising every ~24 hours being a particularly successful one. I agree with towr that this is evidence--not what I'd define as faith, at least in a meaningful way. Even defining faith as belief in something in the absence of any evidence, including past occurences, doesn't make sense to me. That makes it sounds like a choice to believe or not to believe in something arbitrary. I suppose the distinction between the lack of a belief in something and the belief that something is not the case should be made. A newborn baby lacks belief in God, but hasn't been presented with the idea, so cannot believe there is no God. A belief that something is not the case is a belief in itself and needs to be justified, so to choose to believe it is arbitrary and nonsensical. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that doing this is fooling yourself. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 13th, 2007, 4:57pm Ulkesh - you are the one who tried to define "faith" as "belief against the evidence". Now you are saying you don't see how this is possible? And I did not define faith as being in the lack of evidence. I defined it as going beyond the evidence. Towr, "beyond" indicates "in the same direction as", not "in other directions". I certainly wouldn't refer to something as being "beyond the lake" if the lake was north, and what I was referring to was to the west. But it doesn't matter whether either of you agree with my definition of faith or not. When you see "people of faith" talk about faith, my definition is the one they are using, not the "against the evidence" one that Ulkesh gave, and certainly not the vague untrustworthy concept that towr can't even adequately describe. If you choose to consider faith to be something less, then you do not understand what they are talking about. As for the life on other planets issue. Go back and read that book again yourself. This time keep careful note of exactly where it touches on hard verifiable facts. You'll be amazed at how far it is from such facts to the conclusion. David Brin once said that he thought the arguments against life on other planets were statistical arguments based on a sample size of 1. I was disappointed that he failed to realize that is even more true of arguments for life on other planets. We don't even know how life got started on this planet (I know what the theories are - but note that is "theories" - there are plenty, and the ones in vogue keep changing). Until we have some solid conclusions on that subject, theories about how it could arise on other planets are much too speculative to be considered evidence of anything. There is nothing wrong with speculation, in my opinion, but you should never mistake it for anything more than speculation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Ulkesh on Apr 14th, 2007, 4:50am on 04/13/07 at 16:57:37, Icarus wrote:
Firstly I'll apologise for confusing the matter by 'trying-out' different definitions for the word 'faith'. I'll take your word for it that the first definition I gave is not generally what is meant. Beyond that I was searching for a useful defintion for the word, because I believe yours is not. From your definition of faith, are you saying that if you make (and believe) a prediction based upon empirical evidence this is faith? As towr has pointed out, this covers a vast swathe of human existence. By this definition your ball dropping example requires faith that it will drop the next time you release it in the same way as the sun rising tomorrow. However, you say that belief that the ball wil not drop goes against all available evidence. To me this is equivalent to the sun example. There's emperical evidence that it has risen, and in the same way there's emprical evidence that gravity continually acts. Regarding the alien life example, in the absence of any reliable evidence I don't arbitrarily believe what I want--I say 'I don't know'. If you define faith as this, fine. But given that many people would consider your faith as belief in a prediction made by empirical evidence, it's a very confusing use of the word. Especially since 'faith' is regularly used in a religious context. Please tell me, what use does this definition of 'faith' have beyond confusing poor people like me? By the way, the sun rose today just as I predicted! :D |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 14th, 2007, 12:47pm on 04/14/07 at 04:50:34, Ulkesh wrote:
That depends on what you are trying to use it for. If your purpose is to feel assured that people whose beliefs differ from yours are being illogical, then yes, my definition is useless for that. Quote:
Yes. Any time you move beyond what you can see, and trust that it is so, this is faith. I know the sun came up today, yesterday, and all the days before, but until tomorrow morning, my certain expectation that it will do so again is faith. There is no deep qualitative difference between this faith and my faith in God. Both are the result of a vast body of experience that supports my conclusion, yet neither conclusion is something I've seen directly - yet.[/quote] Quote:
Yes, faith is an integral part of everyone's lives - even of the lives of those who hate to admit it. Quote:
Yes - the two are both examples of faith - that is why I gave them. However, just to be clear, the ball dropping example does not require faith. The ball will drop whether I believe it will or not. The sun will rise whether I believe it will or not. The existence of God also does not depend on my belief or disbelief. What I am saying is, to believe the ball will drop is faith. Quote:
??? ??? How is believing the opposite of what strong empirical evidence predicts equivalent to believing the same as strong empirical evidence predicts? ??? ??? Remember: believing the ball will not fall is an example of YOUR definition of faith (that is, the one you gave in the post I was replying to at the time). Believing that the ball will fall, or the sun will rise is an example of the definition of faith I gave. Quote:
Nice to know - but whatever you believe or don't believe about it, you must admit that there are many people who are absolutely convinced that life exists on other planets without any reliable evidence. That is why I used it as an example of faith. Quote:
And here we come to the crux of the problem. Why are you confused by this? It is because faith is a religious term, and you like to think that religion has no empirical basis. And this is where you are completely wrong. Every religion - without exception - is entirely empirical in nature. Every doctrine, every theory, every practice, all of it derives from the experiences of its practitioners. The reason we have so many religions is not that people are inventing something to believe in that is opposite the evidence before them (those some do invent things for other people to believe, but that is another problem). Rather, the reason we believe differently is because we are looking at different sets of evidence, and different experiences by which we interpret that evidence. Quote:
Keep the faith, brother! ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 15th, 2007, 8:15am on 04/13/07 at 16:57:37, Icarus wrote:
How far beyond is still sensible, and with what degree of variation? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 15th, 2007, 9:09am on 04/14/07 at 12:47:04, Icarus wrote:
The gnostics might have said that the world is just a clever delusion fabricated by a false god to make us accept a lesser state of being -- and all the supposed evidence to the contrary only shows how good a job he does. It's also a bit matrix-y, admittedly. Quote:
However, I don't know of any objective evidence pointing to either visiting aliens or God; that is to say, nothing that can't have a million other explanations as well. With the evidence pointing in all directions, any conclusion is beyond it. Some further out than others, too. You can't share the personal evidence in any real way, not the way you can share scientific evidence; and in that sense there is something more to faith than to regular beliefs. Faith, in my book, also has connotations of much greater personal importance than regular beliefs; and faith tends to touch on the meaning of it all. I just think it just doesn't do it justice to heap it all together. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 15th, 2007, 3:03pm on 04/15/07 at 08:15:42, towr wrote:
The problem here is that people disagree on where the evidence points, not that some people choose to go to the side of where it points. I.e., the question isn't whether it's a mile or two west of north, but rather: which direction exactly is north? Quote:
This is my point. The definition I gave IS the one used by people of faith (to the extent I've gone with it - more on that later). If you choose to reject it, then you will not understand what they mean. But their meaning is not dependent on your interpretation. Quote:
Then either you have not met anyone who has a real grasp of faith, or you have and have failed to recognize it and understand what they meant. Do you really mean to tell me that you would reject a clear definition because of the maunderings of someone who you admit has no real idea what they are talking about? Among those of us who have studied faith, its origins, and its applications, the idea that it springs from evidence, but goes beyond that evidence, is the essential part. The only difference you will find is in exactly what words we use to describe the concept. (Caveat: Augustinians will not agree with this. To them, faith is something given supernaturally from God, not arising out of our own experience. Obviously, other religious movements may have their own ideas as well. But all will agree that it is belief that reaches past evidence). As for comparing faith in God to belief in the sun rising. You are very much mistaken. This comparison does much favor to both. To faith in God, it reveals that faith is not some nebulous fuzzy-wuzzy feel-good concept, but rather a rational hard-grounded conclusion based on the person's experiences. I find much in favor of that. To belief in the sun rising, it points out that any prediction of future events, no matter how basic, is a step beyond observation. It requires putting trust in your reasoning ability, and in things that you can only assume are true. (Who knows that there aren't Vogons out there ready to destroy our world and spout bad poetry?) Quote:
No definition in ordinary language is complete and exact. Mine leaves off a significant part of what faith is. I have ignored that part thus far because it was peripheral to my point: that faith works with evidence, not against it. However, to be more thorough, faith means not just believing in something, but trusting in it. The best way of explaining this that I know is by a famous illustration (of which I'll only give a synopsis). The story goes that a tight-rope walker sets up his tight-rope across some precipice and after several demonstrations of his prowess, asks the crowd if they believe he can cross the tight-rope carrying someone. The crowds all cheer and say they believe he can. He then asks "Who will be the first to go?" Faith is not just believing it can be done. Faith is letting the tight-rope walker carry you across. Quote:
It may be that you don't consider it something less, but by your remarks, you have been making something less of it. Quote:
It would be nice to have it be an actual science. But in order for it to become one, you need to be able to test hypotheses, and right now that is impossible. The only testing that is possible at this time is limited to the planets of our own solar system (and except for one, the testing is extremely difficult). Quote:
That mathematics is the same is pretty much a given, as mathematics is strictly mental. That the overall structure of physics would differ is implausible, but cannot be entirely ruled out. That the values of the basic constants of physics are the same throughout space-time is mostly an assumption, also untestable at this time (some theories predict that all constants are constrained to particular values, but these theories have not been successfully tested, so far). Chemistry is derivative from physics. If the physics is the same, so are all other hard sciences. But even given that physics behaves the same everywhere in the universe, I cannot see how they can have given any meaningful calculations, because we don't know the physics and chemistry here well enough yet! Theories about the origins of life on this planet are too unsupported for me to be willing to put any trust at all in predictions made from them about life on other planets! |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 15th, 2007, 3:29pm on 04/15/07 at 09:09:23, towr wrote:
If that was Ulkesh's meaning, I still don't see how it has anything to do with the things he was replying to. Quote:
Actually, I should apologize for "speaking for Ulkesh". In my previous post (other than the first half of this one), I went too far and put my suppositions about the cause of his confusion in his mouth. I shouldn't have phrased it way I did. I don't know that Ulkesh actually in any way thinks like I said he did. That was just a guess on my part based on his phrasing. As for the rest, I pretty much agree with you. But recognizing that faith has a basis in rational empirical deduction has significant positive consequences in how you view it. As does recognizing the difference between observation and theory in science. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Apr 16th, 2007, 6:16am "Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet! You can travel further with both than you can with just one." - Brother Alwyn, The Deconstruction of Falling Stars, Babylon 5 s4e22 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 16th, 2007, 1:03pm on 04/15/07 at 15:03:38, Icarus wrote:
And I don't recall saying they have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about. Having an idea of what faith is is not the same thing as being able to give a definition. The idea that you only know something if you can define it is mistaken, imo. Certainly philosophers through the centuries have been fond of the idea, but Wittgenstein adequately ruined the fun. But fine, apparantly there are no religious people here. No real scotsmen either. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While it's not per se life, it's an important step towards it. It's a start. And as long as we can't get to the rest of the universe, we can at least work out the basics which we can get our hands on. And it certainly beats e.g. anthropocentric endeavours hallowing our earth's rarity (most of the arguments for which easily swing both ways: either life here was very lucky to survive the early earth, or it is so damn robust it's impossible to get rid of). Quote:
We can see other stars out there, and some (big) planets; at the very least it doesn't fit with randomly varying fundamental constants. Quote:
Quote:
But with regard to the theories about the origin of life on our planet, I'm more skeptical with respect to whether or not they are the right explanation for life here, than with the possibility they may account for life somewhere (still, preferably they ought just create some life as proof of concept). The origin of life on earth by all means needn't be the only kind. (Just like the kind of life here needn't be the only kind). And the more possible ways people find, the likelier the universe found some too. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 16th, 2007, 4:07pm on 04/16/07 at 13:03:37, towr wrote:
I've been calling it "my" definition of faith simply to differentiate from Ulkesh's earlier definition. It did not originate with me, and further is widely used. I see it used all the time from numerous sources, some of high credentials. In particular, it aligns nicely with the comments to be found about faith in the New Testament. Yet you tell me that you have never heard anyone use "faith" in this fashion. And then go on to say that the people you hear talking about faith don't have a clear concept of it. Yet somehow I am wrong to think a clear definition widely used by people who have invested much thought into the its nature is superior to the conceptions of people who apparently have never considered the question well-enough to have a solid concept? And that if you have not seen this usage that I see all the time, then evidently you must not have any connection to the large audience I see use it? Quote:
I can't show you now the sun rising tomorrow, which is the appropriate comparison, here. I only called the belief in future risings of the sun "faith". Belief in past or current risings is not faith. Quote:
ditto! Quote:
Indeed. Just like climbing a step ladder is an important step towards landing on the moon. At least everything that has been demonstrated so far is about that far removed from what even the simplest life is. Any catalytic reaction satisfies the conditions you've described. But life is much, much, more than this. Until we've figured something out about the rest of the trip, we don't have enough to make meaningful predictions about it occurring elsewhere. Quote:
The main physical theories do not predict values for a number of basic physical constants. They could be perfectly supported, and we still would not know if the values we see here hold elsewhere in the universe. Observations put some limitations on possible values - that is why I said it was mostly assumption. But much of our interpretation of those observations is dependent on the assumption that these values are constant. I am not suggesting that they do change, but only noting that evidence slim at this time. Quote:
??? My line that you quoted considers the case that there is no such difference! To repeat myself: the problem is: We have NOT seen the necessary reactions HERE! Until we know what they are here, the question of whether or not they occur elsewhere is unanswerable. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 17th, 2007, 1:01am on 04/16/07 at 16:07:04, Icarus wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
That's the whole thing that makes it faith, it's inherently personal. [e]Come to think of it, faith also stand apart from many beliefs in that it is inherently non-falsifiable.[/e] |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Ulkesh on Apr 17th, 2007, 4:12am on 04/15/07 at 15:29:07, Icarus wrote:
My point was that you initially pointed out that believing the ball will not fall is unreasoning. Then you said that belief in the sun rising tomorrow is faith. As I have said, these examples are equivalent with respect to making a prediction of the future based upon empirical evidence. Therefore, is belief that the sun will not rise tomorrow unreasoning? If you base this upon my original defintion of faith as against the evidence, then belief in the sun not rising and belief that the ball will not fall are both examples of faith. By your definition you seem to be saying that you'd be foolish to believe either of these things, but belief in the opposite (sun rising and ball falling) require a leap of faith at the edge of the precipice of evidence! Quote:
No, this isn't what I meant! With a clear definition it isn't a problem, but the use of the word 'faith' by people who consider it more of a notion of 'trust' will be confused. In fact, thinking about it you can extend all of human experience into the realm of faith (by your definition). Anything not known a priori requires faith its belief. For example, I believe I'm sitting on a chair. There is current evidence this is true. But in the spirit of Descartes, you can never be sure. This notion of faith I find unnecessary. To believe anything requires evidence pointing in a direction and then faith to span the gap. I prefer to simply say I'm using the evidence to make a prediction, and I believe this prediction is correct. You may call the last two setences equivalent in their meanings, Icarus, but I do not see the need for the first. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 17th, 2007, 7:50am on 04/16/07 at 16:07:04, Icarus wrote:
If I was being to vague again, I meant reactions where for example chemical B is formed from A, then chemical C is formed from B, and then chemical A is formed from B. And also at the end of each cycle you end up with more A,B,C's (Naturally other material has to eb involved in the reactions as well). Catalytic reaction are typically just A+Cat => B+Cat, no cycle or selfreplication. Quote:
Quote:
It's rather hard to empirically verify a process that would take a million years, but that doesn't mean you can't make a sensible evaluation of the likelihood of it working. A lot is known about how molecules react and the effects of their concentration, temperature and other factors. Moreso, none of the paths people are exploring requires reactions that we don't know of or haven't examined. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 17th, 2007, 7:37pm on 04/17/07 at 01:01:31, towr wrote:
Admittedly, some of that past evidence you cannot share. However, some you are aware of and have chosen not to accept. Some others you don't currently know, you could learn of, and study for yourself, if you felt so inclined (I am not arguing that you should - though I personally think so - just pointing out that this option is available). As for future experience, your belief that you cannot or will not share in it is most definitely an article of faith on your part. My own belief is that you eventually will. And this demonstrates again the connection between faith in God and faith in the sun rising tomorrow. You say they differ, because when tomorrow comes, everyone can see the sun rise, but not everyone will see God. But in fact, because I have faith in God, I believe and fully trust that a day is coming when everyone will see God, whether or not they wish it. This belief is no less certain to me than the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. This belief is founded on a large body of public evidence. It is confirmed to me first by a body of "semi-public" evidence - shared experiences of local believers that is not fully available to everyone, and confirmed even more by a body of private experiences. Because of the whole of this confirmation, I trust that not only the past experiences of God's intervention occurred, but also that future interventions will continue to occur, exactly as promised. That trust, in God and in his actions in this world, is what faith is all about. And I challenge you to find an example of faith that is any deeper, or any more meaningful. This same pattern fits believing that the sun will rise tomorrow. In particular, my faith in both confirms to me the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of both when the appropriate times come. And yes, experience in God can and has been shared. There are a number of books on just that very subject. You may even have heard of one or two. Just because someone chooses to reject your evidence does not mean you had none. After all, someone could claim that the "sun rising" was all done with spotlights and mirrors. Quote:
There is no evidence of anything, other than experience! Quote:
Give me a belief that you think is falsifiable, and I will tell you how it can be believed in despite any falsification. People are quite inventive at coming up with excuses to ignore evidence that they don't like. on 04/17/07 at 07:50:05, towr wrote:
That Cat in Cat+B is usually not the same Cat as in the Cat+A. The catalyst is destroyed in the intervening reactions and then recreated. While usually the amount of catalyst itself does not increase, the amount of B does (A is the raw materials). Your described cycle is just 3 chemicals acting as mutual catalysts for each other. While it is more specific than a general catalytic reaction, it still is a very long way from any thing that could be called life. How the rest of that trip goes is still a much debated topic. Quote:
No. What that means is that we have no information to base an estimate of likelihood on. The values of the fundamental constants of nature could vary continuously in space-time, and by the mathematics we would see no difference here, at least for some of them. It is merely an assumption that they are the same everywhere. Many modern theories of particle physics predict that all constants have set values (though they are not very good about predicting exactly what those values are). If any of these theories could garner substantial evidence, then we could consider it likely that "constants" are constant. But the Standard Model makes no such prediction. Until its fall, the best we can do is assume that what we see here also applies billions of light-years away. Quote:
And I am saying that this evidence is untested supposition stacked upon untested supposition. By the time you get down to actual experiments, you are far removed from life. It is fine and worthy speculation, and I do not dispute its value as such. But I find it far from convincing, much like you find my evidence for God unconvincing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 17th, 2007, 8:28pm on 04/17/07 at 04:12:30, Ulkesh wrote:
How is predicting that the ball will NOT fall "making a prediction of the future based upon empirical evidence"?? Predicting the ball will not fall is making a prediction that is entirely contrary to empirical evidence! As is belief that the sun will NOT rise tomorrow. Both are unreasoning (unless there is some other evidence available that make the next repetition different from all the previous ones - such as a table under the ball, or giant ships in the sky broadcasting bad poetry). Quote:
Belief in the sun rising tomorrow and the ball falling next time, and anything else that extrapolates beyond current evidence (and recall that to extrapolate merely means to follow the already established trend, not go off in other directions) does not "require faith". Rather it is faith in and of itself. It does not require great exercise of your "faith muscle" to believe either of these. These are pinky-weights, not 100 Kg weights. But they are examples of faith none-the-less. Quote:
I apologize again for stating it like I did, claiming that I knew what exactly you were thinking and why. That was arrogant, and I shouldn't have done it. I don't apologize for coming up with the interpretation, as it was the best reason I could think of for your question. But when forming my reply, I should have given more credence to the difficulties of communication and less to my own reasoning power. Quote:
The notion of trust in faith is in no way absent from my comments and examples. I have not emphasized this aspect of faith because my concern was countering the concept of faith being "against the evidence". However, it is implicit in every example I gave. I don't just believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, I trust that it will. If I didn't, I would have made preparations to get me through the dark and cold, just in case the sun didn't rise (hoping of course for some future rising :P). Quote:
If you will look carefully over my comments, you will see that I never said that faith was the same thing as belief. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by ThudanBlunder on Apr 18th, 2007, 1:20am on 01/19/04 at 09:07:18, usdragonfly wrote:
on 01/19/04 at 19:07:23, Icarus wrote:
on 04/09/07 at 14:48:09, Ulkesh wrote:
on 04/09/07 at 17:43:19, Icarus wrote:
on 04/10/07 at 15:40:24, Icarus wrote:
on 04/09/07 at 17:46:55, Icarus wrote:
on 04/15/07 at 15:29:07, Icarus wrote:
on 04/17/07 at 04:12:30, Ulkesh wrote:
on 04/17/07 at 19:37:44, Icarus wrote:
on 04/17/07 at 20:28:46, Icarus wrote:
Yeah, but what do you mean by 'mean'? As usual towr (I like your sig) cuts to the chase: on 04/16/07 at 13:03:37, towr wrote:
;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Ulkesh on Apr 18th, 2007, 5:21am T&B: you're mean! on 04/17/07 at 20:28:46, Icarus wrote:
No problem whatsoever. It's very easy to have a point in mind and not communicate it properly. I'm as much to blame as anyone in this sense! Quote:
I find this comment interesting. You make it sound like a conscious decision to have faith in a particular prediction. From my point of view the decision is made for me by the strength of the evidence and where it points--I cannot choose what to believe. So, believing the ball will fall when I drop it is a small act of faith. Let's say that belief in alien life is a larger act of faith (I'm hoping you agree!). However, the size of the act of faith depends upon the amount of evidence and where it points (as long as it points roughly in the right direction). This seems to imply that you have freedom to have faith in a range of predictions in the vicinity of where the evidence points; the range increases the weaker the evidence is. To me, this amounts to arbitrariness and justification in believing what suits you. Simply evaluate the evidence (as thoroughly and objectively as possible) and the most sensible belief will automatically instill itself into you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 18th, 2007, 6:46pm on 04/18/07 at 01:20:25, ThudanBlunder wrote:
Curious. What is it about "new formula generator (stuck in beta) [old version (permanently out of order)]" that you find so likable? ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 18th, 2007, 7:26pm on 04/18/07 at 05:21:17, Ulkesh wrote:
To tell you the truth, I suspect our positions on this are not as far apart as it seems, but we've all done a poor job at working towards understanding each other. Quote:
For Augustinians, faith in God comes from supernatural intervention. For those of us of an Armenian persuasion, however, faith is very much a personal choice. For it to be anything else would deny us our free will. This applies to secular faith as well as it does to religious faith. (The difference between these two is only what our faith is in, not in the nature of faith itself.) Quote:
Sure you can. You can choose instead to ignore all the evidence and believe the converse instead. Just because that choice is foolish doesn't mean that it isn't there. Quote:
You have freedom to have faith in anything you want. Contrary to the point I've been pontificating on, it is possible to have faith in something that is totally contrary to all the evidence you have. However, I do not see how such a faith could arise, unless it is by either insanity or supernatural activity. The fallacy in your description, though, is that the evidence arrives at a single well-defined conclusion. The river of evidence flows out in a wide estuary, not a well-defined channel. Some of the channels in the estuary obviously lead nowhere, but others seem broad and strong for a long time before you finally discover that they too are a dead-end. I have chosen one channel, you have chosen another. Both of us have made our choice based on what we have seen before. It remains to be seen if either is the true channel. But I'm already taking my boat down mine. That is faith. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Ulkesh on Apr 19th, 2007, 12:36pm on 04/18/07 at 19:26:45, Icarus wrote:
I'd say that I haven't chosen a channel; rather I've split different proportions of my belief down all streams waiting to see what appears. If pushed beyond saying 'I don't know', I'd pick the one the largest proportion of my belief is down at the moment. But I reserve the right to row back upstream and take a different route if I'm proven wrong! |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 20th, 2007, 3:03pm Meh. The advantage of having ignored this thread for a few days is that it really cut down on my mental anguish. The disadvantage of course, is that it's neigh impossible to adequately respond on everything; or anything, really. Maybe I'll give it a try after the weekend. Perhaps collect my thoughts into some clearer summary of my views; god knows I've adjusted them throughtout the thread often enough -- but then, it takes me a lot of time to let a deep-seated intuition crystalize into anything like a clearly worded concept. So -- just to let you know I haven't relented or am ignoring you ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 23rd, 2007, 1:02pm I find it hard to adequately describe what the concept 'faith' means; not in the last place because it has various uses. But let's start at the more general 'belief'. There are a number of sides to belief: for example, the (nature of the) subject you believe something of; what you believe of that subject and the evidence you have for that belief. But also the strength of the belief (which is not solely a consequence of evidence) and expectations those beliefs lead to (also the latter can be said to be just beliefs in themselves; just like you might say knowledge includes everything that can be deduced from known facts). Any of those sides could have an essay dedicated to them; but you'll never have to worry about that from me ;) Seeing as faith is a type of belief (or rather the types of faith are types of belief), we can see if considering any of those aspects will give any insight. So let's consider first the nature of the subject of a belief. For example, I might believe a clock shows the right time; likewise I might believe a person has told me the right time. Obviously if I believe a person has told me the right time (and I didn't already knew what the time is), it means I have faith in that person (with regard to telling time); while I know he might, in principle, choose to lie or otherwise deceive, I trust him not to. With the clock, I feel, the situation is slightly different; a clock has no choice whether to be sincere or not, it just does what it does. In as much as I would say I have faith in the clock, it would sooner mean I have faith in the person that manufactored it. A different example might be an essay, giving some sort of argumentation. It seems more appropriate here to not only have (or not) faith in the writer, but also in the argumentation; on the other hand you could say the latter is rather faith in your own judgement (i.e. you trust yourself to detect bad argumentation). In relation to a belief about God vs a belief about the workings of the world, that is one possible argument why I feel uncomfortable with applying faith to the latter. By all means it's not a clear cut division, but I tend to see faith as a judgement of character. Like a clock doesn't choose what time it tells, the rising of the sun isn't a voluntary action (well, assumedly not. Apologies to any believers in Ra or Phoebus or other sun gods.) Of course, anyone that knows me sufficiently well, would also know I do hold it possible that AI (in the sense of intelligent artificial machines) is possible (or rather, not a priori impossible); and it's easy to see that if that is so, there must be a grey area. These AI would be mechanical but also have a character (but the same could be said for people, of course, if you're a physicalist. For the non-physicalist there needn't be a problem in either case, although many might find attaching a mental substance to an artificial creature a bit of a stretch). Perhaps a better way to look at it is from the view of your own understanding about the inner workings (mechanical or mental) of the subject. The less faith you have in your understanding the more faith can apply to the subject (which immediately opens the door to millions of people that can reasonably be said to have faith in their computer, and a lot of misplaced faith in their VCR). The amount of faith (which is a seperate issue) would depend on your experiences and character. I think I'll leave the other 4 aspects for another day; this has been enough writing for me for one day. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Apr 24th, 2007, 6:13am I will note that I did have faith in my watch until a couple of weeks ago when I mentally downgraded it to "unreliable", and then, a couple of days later, to "stopped". You can argue about whether the faith was in the watch itself or in its designers. Personally, I feel that my trust was in the known quantity - the specific watch - for instance I wouldn't trust another seemingly identical watch to the same extent until I've had it several months, while I will trust this one again as soon as I get around to replacing the battery... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on Apr 24th, 2007, 6:32pm Like most words, there are actually several meanings to "faith". To be clear, the meaning I have been talking about refers to "a quality of belief". Faith is belief that you are willing to rely on. Another common usage of "faith" is to refer to a set of doctrines that one believes in. Thus we speak of someone's "religious faith" when we mean his religion. This is a fairly common construction in English - using an attribute to refer to the object the attribute applies to. "Belief" is another example. We use it not only to describe the idea of considering a statement to be true, but we also use it to mean the statement that is the object of the belief: "I believe that the world is round" vs "It is my belief that the world is round." My point is this: When speaking of faith as a quality of belief, I don't feel that the concept of faith itself should be tied to the object of that faith or the origins of that faith. If my belief in the sun rising tomorrow and my belief in God have the same general characteristics - in particular, that I am willing to wholeheartedly rely on both - why should I have one word, "faith", to describe that belief in God, but not have a word to describe that similar belief in the sun rising? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Apr 25th, 2007, 9:09am Because it confuses me :P And because in general it isn't immediately clear which meaning of faith is intended; unless like just now you state unambiguously what meaning you use. In regards to the strength of belief, a belief in the sun rising can be equivalent to the belief in God, or the belief in greek gods*), or a belief in Santa Claus (if you're young enough not to have been desillusioned), or even a belief in Harry Potter**). But when it's not clear which notion of faith is meant, comparing these can easily be taken in the wrong way, because they differ in other respects. And it may be confusing that the beliefs you have that faith in are left unspecified. *) The reason I mention the greek gods is of course that even if you believe in them, I somehow doubt you would have faith in them (beyond existing). You can rely on them being there (somewhere), and you'd have to deal with them; but faith in the sense of relying on them to behave appropriately, nah; they're a bunch of soap-opera rejects. **) In the case of Harry Potter, it would be unlikely you actually believe he exists, however you can have faith in (beliefs about) his character, his role in the story. For example you can rely on him not dying (permanently) untill at least the last book. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by ThudanBlunder on May 1st, 2007, 9:49am From the thread (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_easy;action=display;num=1177823492;start=25#25) about the number 153: on 04/30/07 at 18:42:32, Icarus wrote:
Is this not circular reasoning? And what is one to make of the claim that the genealogy of Jesus (born about 2000 years ago) can be traced back through 77 generations to Adam (born on the sixth day of Creation), making the world about 6000 years old? Or does this come from a bastardized version? If, as seems statistically likely, it turns out that the cosmos is teeming with intelligent life, could there be any Klingon bibles out there? And as writing bad poetry is insufficient reason to be shunned, surely a Vogon bible is not completely out of the question? Or have we been singled out for preferential treatment? ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on May 1st, 2007, 4:31pm No that is not circular reasoning. First of all, I was only referring to the belief that the version we have today is a reasonably accurate representation of the original. It has nothing to do at all with the question of whether or not the original is what it claims to be. Second, my faith in the Bible comes from my faith in God, not the other way around. The two go hand in hand, but ultimately, I believe in God - the God portrayed in the Bible - because of His actions in my life and in the lives of those around me. Because I believe in Him, I believe in His word. As for the genealogy of Jesus, it actually the chronology associated with the genealogy of Abraham, along with the ability to associate Abraham with a particular time in history, that gives the 6000 year date. However, this calculation depends on a number of assumptions, including that the genealogy is complete, and that the "days" of creation really were days, and not more general periods of time. And of course your side assumes that the evidence has been interpreted correctly and the earth really isn't 6000 years old. As for the statistical likelihood of life elsewhere, even leaving aside my comments earlier in this thread about the flimsy scientific backing for these calculations, they are made in the absence of any consideration for an active and involved God in control of every aspect of this universe. Am I really supposed to accept such a calculation, and then modify my beliefs about such a God because of it? THAT is circular reasoning! But suppose there are intelligences elsewhere in the universe. There has been christian speculation about this concept for many decades. In C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, other planets are inhabited by innocent beings like Adam and Eve before the Fall. Only Earth's ruling angel (Satan) has rebelled and taken mankind down with him. Two other christian viewpoints assume that people have fallen on other planets. One says that Jesus has repeated his sacrifice on each planet. The other says that Jesus' sacrifice here is sufficient for all, but just like isolated peoples here, we must eventually carry the message to them. I say that until we have evidence of such life, speculation is pointless. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by ThudanBlunder on May 2nd, 2007, 5:51pm on 05/01/07 at 16:31:54, Icarus wrote:
But surely when you were a young boy you were first introduced to the teachings of the bible as a way of knowing, understanding, and loving God? Hence your faith in God must have sprang from your faith in the bible. on 05/01/07 at 16:31:54, Icarus wrote:
When presented with scientific evidence supporting the Old Testament how many caveats and assumptions do you come up with? on 05/01/07 at 16:31:54, Icarus wrote:
Why is an a priori belief in a pantheistic God necessary in order to objectively investigate the question of ETI? on 05/01/07 at 16:31:54, Icarus wrote:
Straw man. Consider or take into account, not accept. I don’t see why new evidence, if valid, should clash with religious beliefs. Provided they are correct. on 05/01/07 at 16:31:54, Icarus wrote:
Isn't that like saying, "Until we know whether or not the Riemann Hypothesis is true, it is pointless to consider its implications"? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on May 2nd, 2007, 6:55pm on 05/02/07 at 17:51:14, ThudanBlunder wrote:
No. I went to church for a while as a young child, but stopped at about the age of 7. After that, I never thought about God at all until I was 13. At that point, because of the influence of the books I was reading (most particularly, I was a big Heinlein fan - the adult stuff, not his teen books), I came to the conclusion that it was very unlikely a God existed. And if one did exist somehow, it certainly wasn't the God of Christianity. I was fully convinced of this and grew in this belief for about 4 years, often considering how foolish christians were. However, God contrived that I should come in contact with a group of real dedicated christians. After watching them for some time, it became apparent that they were different from everything that I had thought christians were, and from what I saw in society in general. Most particularly, they demonstrated real, unselfish, unconditional, active love for other people. It was because of this disjunction between what I had thought was true and what I was witnessing that I started to re-examine the reasons I had rejected God, and found them wanting. After I turned to God, and experienced his power and love myself, I turned to the Bible to get to know him better. So my faith in the Bible derives from an earlier faith in God, not vice versa. Further, though their path was different, I believe the same can be said of those I know who grew up christian. For the christian, the Bible is the path to greater knowledge of God, but we follow that path because we already have a relationship with God and want it to become deeper. Quote:
As many as I can. It doesn't matter what the object is, every theory should be challenged. And as I've indicated repeatedly in this thread, I don't consider a faith that is not questioned to be true faith at all. If you really believe something, why are you afraid to question it? Quote:
I didn't in any way hint that it was. But if the calculation is made in the assumption that God does not exist, why should I consider it applicable to a universe where God is in control? Quote:
If the calculation was made in the assumption that God does not exist, then any conclusions from it do not necessarily apply if God does exist. Such calculations and arguments based on them are fundamentally unable to shed light on the question of God's existence or his relation to this universe. They can only logically address the situation described by their assumptions. Quote:
No. With the Riemann Hypothesis, there are only three possibilities: it is true or it is false or it is undecidable. Each of these three has solid implications that can be tracked to useful conclusions. If we track those implications, then some effort may be lost when the truth is discovered, but at least we know what the road looks like a ways down each of the three tracks. But with the implications of other intelligent life in the universe, we don't have 3 tracks. We don't have 30 tracks. We have thousands of different tracks which lead off in every direction. Do you have an a priori position you would like? Well guess what, if you play your assumptions right, you can get there! I have seen people come up with the craziest ideas when thinking about this sort of stuff. They become absolutely convinced of them, and angry that others don't arrive at the same conclusion. Always it boils down to things they just assumed were obviously true - though to other they were not obvious at all. When a situation is so wide-open in possibilities, speculation is acceptable, but should always be recognized as only speculation, and not as evidence of anything. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BNC on May 2nd, 2007, 11:21pm on 05/02/07 at 18:55:42, Icarus wrote:
With you permission, Icarus, I'd like to pick your brain about this particular point. I can definitely understand why meeting a group of dedicated, loving, caring people at a point in life when a person is still in the molding can have great influence on that person's life. But let me ask you this: if those people were Hindus instead of Christians, is it possible you would have been a Hindu yourself today? Or, alternatively, if you would have met a group of nasty Christians (then or now) – say some guys teleported here from the Spanish Inquisition – would that change your mind about the nature of god? What I'm trying to ask* is this: why should an anecdotal experience determine your overall view of the nature of thing in general, and the presence of god in particular? * I don't think I'm successful in conveying my thoughts here. In addition to the inherited difficulty of putting such thoughts into writing, I am further bounded by my flimsy knowledge of the English language. I apologize for that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on May 3rd, 2007, 7:25am on 05/02/07 at 23:21:35, BNC wrote:
There's an implicit assumption in that hypothetical (meeting Hindus instead of Christians) that Hindus can be like that group of Christians were. If the Christians were like that because of the direct intervention of a deity, it seems unlikely that any Hindus could be the same (unless they also experienced divine intervention) Encountering equivalent evidence of the existence of a given deity should give rise to equivalent belief in that deity. In much the same way, if I let go of a stone and it drifted upwards, I would have different beliefs about the nature of gravity. I assume Icarus would too. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on May 3rd, 2007, 3:36pm I agree with rmsgrey, but would also like to expand. (When have I ever been short of words?) If I had met nasty christians, I would not have met real christians at all, and it would have confirmed my beliefs. You should understand that the first effect of meeting these people was that things I had been confident in were shown to be false. In particular, I thought I knew what was going on with christians - what they were, how they acted, why they acted that way. What I found was that my ideas on all three were wrong. This alone is enough to cause me to re-examine my beliefs to figure out why. Secondly, as I interacted with them, I found them to have love, hope, and peace I didn't find elsewhere - most particularly in myself. That is enough to make me ask why. After watching for awhile, I decided I wanted what they had in my own life. That is when I met God. When God became active in my own life - this is what caused my faith to grow. If I had run into a different group that showed the same properties against my expectations, I would have been attracted to their beliefs. But if I had not experienced God myself, I would not have stayed. By the way, this experience is only anecdotal for you. For me it was personal and real. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BNC on May 4th, 2007, 3:15am on 05/03/07 at 07:25:42, rmsgrey wrote:
Now, hold it right there, Mister! >:( Are you saying that only Christians can be gentle, kind, and loving? 'cause let me tell you: I have met numerous groups of people, of both "nasty" and "kind" subset. I found no correlation whatsoever to their religious beliefs (if they even had any). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BNC on May 4th, 2007, 3:19am Thank you, Icarus, of the explanation. I can surely understand that. Allow me also to apologize, if I didn't explain myself better: on 05/03/07 at 15:36:49, Icarus wrote:
When I said "anecdotal", I didn't mean "unimportant" or "unreal". I only meant that it was a singular experience, no necessarily related to the general rule (if one exists). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on May 4th, 2007, 3:58am on 05/04/07 at 03:15:59, BNC wrote:
No. I am saying that it's possible that only followers of the Great Prophet Zarquon fit the "exceptionally kind" subset, in which case it's potentially worth lending additional credence to their beliefs. Personally, my beliefs aren't sufficiently organised to conclude whether that's likely to be the case for followers of Zarquon or for any other form of faith. In my personal experience, the "exceptionally kind" people I've encountered have all been Christian, but the sample size is probably statistically insignificant. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Icarus on May 4th, 2007, 3:47pm on 05/04/07 at 03:19:07, BNC wrote:
"Anecdotal" indicates 3rd-hand information of particular events. While this was a limited particular event, it was for me a first-hand experience. My point in bringing this up was that I don't expect my descriptions to be in any way convincing to anyone else. Anecdotes are not strong evidence. But for me, it was not anecdotal, which made its impact much stronger. And please understand that my faith in Christianity is not based on meeting loving christians. It was these christians that caused me to re-examine my rejection of God. And their example caused me to desire to have in my life what they had in theirs. This led to the birth of my faith. But, it was the subsequent experience I have had of God, his love, and his personal actions in my own life that form the basis of my faith. Without this, the nascent faith the resulted from my experiences with other christians would have "died on the vine". I know that there are good people out there of many faiths. Living where I do, I was far more likely to run into strong committed christians than people of other faiths. Despite the christian majority here, I have known many very good people of other faiths - Islam in particular, but also others. This is why mere "goodness" would not be enough alone to convince me. (I have met many good atheists and agnostics, too. They are fairly common here. However, I have never personally known any I could put in the "very good" category: those who not only behave well towards others, but show a selfless love for other people.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Jun 20th, 2008, 1:24pm We know that correlation does not indicate causation. However, i would like to discuss the possibility of a link between the importance of religion to citizens and their average IQ. Most children do believe in God, but as their intelligence develops they tend to have doubts or reject religion. Similarly, as average IQ in Western societies increased through the 20th century, so did rates of atheism. There is no doubt that there are people who are both religious and intelligent. We don't need to look at individuals, but larger numbers; higher IQ generally speaks to an inquisitive nature. Religion requires faith without questioning. When the word “why” is discouraged, so is learning. Church attendance (most recent) by country http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance IQ and the Wealth of Nations Table http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm By comparing Church attendance and average IQ in the following countries Most theistic countries: Nigeria...89%...67 IQ Ireland...80%...93 IQ Philippines...68%...86 IQ South Africa...56%...72 IQ Most atheistic countries: Finland...4%...97 IQ Sweden...4%...101 IQ Japan...3%...105 IQ Russia...2%...96 IQ We see that atheistic nations appear to do better intellectually than the cream of the crop among theistic nations. Take the Russians, they are edging out the Irish people by 3 points. Do you find these stats surprising or is it something you would expect? Has it been your personal experience in life that most of the intelligent people you'vemet tended to range anywhere between religious neutrality and frank atheism, while the moststubborn religionists have generally been slow learners with narrow vistas and limited experience in life? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Jun 20th, 2008, 2:26pm Lol. Like church attendence is a proper measure of religion. (Japan for instance is fairly religious. And freely combine many of them, like having christian weddings and buddhist funerals.) Perhaps you should divide by the number of churches per capita. And even if it were a good measure, as you say, correlation doesn't imply causation. And what does an IQ test really say in a case like nigeria, where most people simply haven't gotten the opportunity to develop their IQ-test proficiency like we have in the west? You're comparing disparate classes of people here. Why not try instead taking student populations for comparison? Rather then comparing the mostly downtrodden classes with the mostly middle class? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Jun 20th, 2008, 4:19pm Thanks, towr, for your input. I think there is a correlation between religiosity and lower IQs. Please take a look at this linked document http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm it is a good review of several studies of IQ and religiosity, paraphrasedand summarized from Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith," Free Inquiry, Spring 1986: It summarises as follows: "The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time,subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Jun 21st, 2008, 3:46am Those studies still do nothing to seperate the variables that may underly the difference. They should check people of different IQ in the same socio-economic circumstances, for example. If poverty is positively correlated with religiosity (which it might be because it is comforting to have something), and poverty is correlated with low IQ, then it will seem like religiosity is inversely correlated with IQ. But what if, on actual inspection, people of different IQ in the same poor circumstances are equally religious? Then they're not in fact correlated. Doing statistics on different groups without correcting for those differences is simply poor science. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 21st, 2008, 9:44pm I think this seeming correlation is best understood keeping in mind that people with a higher IQ/intelligence tend to question their surroundings more than people of lower intelligence. Most religions put great store in faith beyond what senses or logic tells us and so puts it at odds with intelligent people who question in an effort to better understand their environment. So ultimately, the intelligent person either discovers reasons to support or deny faith based on their own experiences and logic, whereas someone of lower intelligence is less likely to ever challenge the validity of their beliefs (which may suggests those of higher IQ who still are religious have stronger religious values and find deeper personal satisfaction in them from first testing them than people who never question.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Jun 22nd, 2008, 1:58pm Thank you, Towr and ima1trkpny, My intention is not to offend believers, but to look at statistics, to deepen my understanding of stats. I see one major problem with these kinds of stats: the risk of stereotyping groups of people. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 22nd, 2008, 5:58pm on 06/22/08 at 13:58:32, BenVitale wrote:
No offense taken in my case... stereotyping us as thin-skinned? ;) Quote:
Fair enough, but I'm not all that concerned about it... I would be if I perceived the stereotype to be "wrong" (meaning isn't a practically viable assumption in the theoretical simulation). However, in my experience, the more intelligent the person, the more they question things around them. Challenge instructions, question motives, and generally ask "why?" is something that, at least in my experience, tends to be seen in people of higher level intelligence and not so much in people with average to below average intelligence who, again in my experience, are more likely to go along with what is told or presented as fact and never try to find out if it really is. I can't tell you why everyone makes the religious choices they do because a lot of factors go into each person and everyone has their own unique reasons for coming up with their world perception, but as I've said, I'll argue at the very least that religiousity and intelligence are correlated and based on my experiences it would appear that often one causes the other. It maybe argued fairly that it is a logical fallacy based on a stereotype, however in my experience the stereotype holds true in most cases so for the purpose of problem solving it is a convenient assumption given that I don't have specific individual people in front of me to analyze. So for now, I hypothesis that intelligence correlates to religiousity for the aforementioned reasons and when I have actual data to work with I will then judge whether or not my assumptions/hypothesis was correct. 8) (Don't bag on stereotypes... much as that word has a negative connotation it can be a very handy thing and as we've discussed in other threads it is an integral part in human nature regardless of how "open-minded" a person would like to think they are.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on May 6th, 2009, 1:10pm Hello, I haven't visited this site for such a long time! My question is: Could anyone suggest an interesting website that would help us understand the origins of religions and why we believe in things we cannot prove I found this website: http://www.patheos.com/ Anyone? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by JiNbOtAk on May 7th, 2009, 7:01am on 05/06/09 at 13:10:35, BenVitale wrote:
Maybe we could start to ask another question : Why do we feel the need to only believe in things we could only prove ? ( some of us anyway) Whereas faith is believing despite the lack of proofs. Would christians believe in the divinity of Christ if he didn't perform his many miracles ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on May 7th, 2009, 7:42am on 05/07/09 at 07:01:52, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Quote:
And heck, some would go as far as to claim their faith is proof, and furthermore that any evidence to the contrary is a test and therefor another proof of the validity of their faith. Some people are silly. I'm not saying the latter two are correlated, but I believe they may be ;) Quote:
More to the point, none of the current Christians ever saw those miracles. The story would be the same if it were factual or made up. They believe the story, not the reality behind it, because they cannot know it. Now don't get me wrong, this also applies to, say, scientific articles. If you weren't around to do the experiments and interpret the data, then you believe the story of science, and you can't truly claim to know the reality behind it. Any story is only as reliable as combination of its authors and the chain of transmission. But in the case of science both are tested a bit more stringently; and in principle you can replicate experiments yourself (if you have the resources to build the LHC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LHC#Cost)). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on May 7th, 2009, 7:49am on 05/06/09 at 13:10:35, BenVitale wrote:
There's probably some books on it. Actually, I rather suspect Dawkin's "The God Delusion" (http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004) might have a lot to say on it. But I haven't read it, so it's always possible it has more to say on the ills of religion than its origins. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on May 7th, 2009, 9:18am on 05/07/09 at 07:49:44, towr wrote:
I have read The God Delusion, but all I remember about it is that it used some seriously dodgy debating tactics, so I didn't take in the message because I was too busy holding my nose... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on May 7th, 2009, 10:01am Maybe Religion Explained (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465006957/wordtradecom) might be a better start then, here's a review: http://www.wordtrade.com/society/anthropologyreligion.htm |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on May 7th, 2009, 1:44pm Quote:
Because they can be false. Some of us have been trained to think mathematically. A theorem is a statement that is true, provable, otherwise it is a conjecture or a hypothesis. Can we prove that god exist or doesn't exist? No, I don't think so. For now, it is undecidable. I was looking for a handy, non-partisan website -- a website that offers a comparative study of all religions. I made another search, and I found: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ No matter how you describe yourself, you should find your beliefs and practices accurately represented in this website. I've read "The God Delusion," and watched the documentary on religion by Richard Dawkins, entitled “The Root of All Evil." Dawkins angered many believers, and has made many mild atheists and agnostics, like myself, uncomfortable. Such an attack on religion is not the most persuasive way to convert people or talk about religion/faith in a rational way. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by JiNbOtAk on May 14th, 2009, 3:13am on 05/07/09 at 13:44:02, BenVitale wrote:
Interesting. On that note, what would you consider to be a concrete proof of the existence of god ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on May 14th, 2009, 4:04pm on 05/14/09 at 03:13:09, JiNbOtAk wrote:
A "concrete proof" implies physical evidence. We don't have any. Faith is the foundation of all religions. Believers have faith, and they argue: if you have faith, proof is not required. If you seek proof, then you will never have faith. Believers have personal feelings or experiences that they feel validate their religious beliefs for them. These feelings or experiences are subjective and personal, not verifiable, as a scientific experiment would be. So, no evidence, no concrete proof. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Grimbal on May 15th, 2009, 4:56am The question of the existence of God has meaning only after you have defined what God is. It seems however that you can believe in God without having a clear understanding of what is meant by that word. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on May 15th, 2009, 10:28am Grimbal, I like the definition of "god" that theoretical physicists and mathematicians give. There's the traditional/historical meaning of "God" -- as defined by all religions. And there's the "god" that theoretical physicists and mathematecians talk about: It's really an abstract principle of order and harmony, a set of mathematical equations. The "god" they talk about describes the laws of nature. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on May 15th, 2009, 1:34pm on 05/14/09 at 03:13:09, JiNbOtAk wrote:
On that note, what would you consider to be a concrete proof of the existence of dark matter? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on May 15th, 2009, 1:53pm on 05/15/09 at 13:34:16, rmsgrey wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on May 15th, 2009, 3:54pm on 05/15/09 at 13:34:16, rmsgrey wrote:
"dark matter" is beyond my understanding. I'm not a physicist. What I know is: scientists believe that dark matter exists, that it has a mass, that it is something we cannot directly see, and that they, Physicists and cosmologists, study dark matter by looking at the effects it has on visible objects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Jul 24th, 2009, 11:23pm Religion? Is religion something that survived from man's primitive past ? Are there rational explanations for the success of religions? Or do you view religion as a category of behavior largely immune to the rational calculus? True or False? Religion is doomed to disappear in era of science and general enlightment? Religion may be defined, in a broad sense, as something that provides a framework for one's values or some purpose to one's life It appears that no one can live entirely free from a framework of meaning. But it is a fact that not all religions require a God, as Judaism, Islam or Christianity do. Philosophy provides a framework for one's values or some purpose to one's life ... so does Psychology What about Economics? Economics does it, too! So we have at least 3 competing intellectual disciplines: Philosophy, Psychology and Economics. Any other discipline? Would you vote for economics? I'd vote for economics. Many economists explain the nature of the world in economic terms ... economists could be the new priests Is this outrageous? Have your say. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Jul 25th, 2009, 5:08am on 07/24/09 at 23:23:19, BenVitale wrote:
But new one's keep popping up; like Scientology. One can't call that one a remnant of the primitive past. Quote:
For example, neurological research has shown that stimulating the brain in certain ways with magnetic fields produces religious experiences (e.g. a sense of presence and out of body experience). And, furthermore, people are natural pattern recognizers; even if there is no actual pattern they'll find one (this is known to Discordians as the aneristic illusion). So it's easy to think why they might sense the influence of something greater, an all-encompassing pattern. Quote:
Quote:
However there is a trend away from organized religion to more individual spirituality. ... And belief in UFO's. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Philosophy is the mother of all sciences. The only sense in which it competes with other disciplines is at an institutional level, for resources like money and students. But every science aims at the truth and sound principles; none of them can, ultimately, compete. Quote:
Quote:
Economics doesn't tell you that, say, "making money is good"; it tells you "if you want to make money, you can best do it so and so". It doesn't presume to claim it is in any way good or bad to make money, or that it's worse to aim instead for happiness and well-being, or for a better environment. It is, in principle, entirely devoid of opinion on value and purpose, as all science is. Suppose one were to argue that people should be moral and cooperative because this will result in the highest economic benefit to all. Is this a claim of value? No. Only if we already value economic benefit will this be an argument to also value moral and cooperative behaviour. The statement itself is empty of judgment. Rational arguments can only lead to conclusion of value and purpose if those were already included in the premise. Because there is no answer to why we should value something or hold some purpose, other than that it supports some other value and/or purpose. And when we get down to the final level, there is no reason to want anything; we just do. Why should we want to live? To accomplish something? But why should we wish that? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Jul 25th, 2009, 8:26am Thank you for answering. My intention was to generate a philosophical debate. I see that my post was poorly constructed ... it didn't come out right, I need to rethink about this and I'll come back in this forum. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 1st, 2009, 11:56am I came across a hilarious article: The Economics of Jesus (http://grainofwheat.blogspot.com/2006/11/economics-of-jesus.html) which begins with this excellent line: “Jesus probably didn’t know much about macroeconomics, even though he was God... One fundamental assumption about human nature: people respond to incentives: postive incentives and negative incentives. Which is another way of saying that people's behaviors are consistent with self-interest. What was Jesus' “incentive” to go on the cross? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 1st, 2009, 1:43pm on 11/01/09 at 11:56:16, BenVitale wrote:
Nothing in the "economics of Jesus" as he lays it out would necessarily lead to the conclusions of world-wide poverty he expects. Quote:
in-cen-tive –noun 1. something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity. Sounds more like you spelled out a tautology than an assumption. If people did not respond to them, they would not be incentives. Quote:
Nor, for that matter, are people's behaviours always that consistent; even with themselves, let alone with their goals (which themselves, again, can be conflicting). Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 2nd, 2009, 10:13am I'll address to the issues you've raised one post at a time. on 11/01/09 at 13:43:20, towr wrote:
Self-interest does not necessarily mean selfish. The lay person's definition is different from the economist's definition. I was surprised and amused to find out that even expert economists themselves may end up misusing the term and reverting to the normal definition without noticing. So I went to check on the definition in my book. It is often alleged that altruism is inconsistent with economic rationality, which assumes that people behave selfishly. Certainly, much economic analysis is concerned with how individuals behave, and homo economicus is usually assumed to act in his or her self-interest. However, self-interest does not necessarily mean selfish. Some economic models in the field of behavioral economics assume that self-interested individuals behave altruistically because they get some benefit, or utility, from doing so. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 2nd, 2009, 10:18am For those who are interested to find out more about Economics: HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT (http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 2nd, 2009, 11:30am on 11/02/09 at 10:13:44, BenVitale wrote:
If altruism itself is an agents goal, then any behaviour towards that goal is self-interest, even when it is not to their own benefit. It is self-interested because it furthers their interests (goals), which in this case aren't a selfish interests, but nevertheless still their own. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 2nd, 2009, 11:43am on 11/02/09 at 11:30:39, towr wrote:
If we abandon the term 'self-interest' as you suggest, how are we then going to define rational behavior? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 2nd, 2009, 12:28pm on 11/02/09 at 11:43:12, BenVitale wrote:
You could, for example, say that rational behaviour is behaviour aimed at, and plausibly bringing you closer to, achieving your goals. It would remove a bias towards selfishness in the goals and it makes intentionality a component of rational behaviour. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 2nd, 2009, 5:19pm How about: In economics: Rational behavior is a key assumption. People make choices in pursuit of satisfaction. Basic premise: Given the choice, people prefer more to less and would rather be better off than worse off. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 3rd, 2009, 12:53am on 11/02/09 at 17:19:28, BenVitale wrote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 5th, 2009, 12:56pm What was Jesus' “incentive” to go on the cross? on 11/01/09 at 13:43:20, towr wrote:
It depends on your belief system, it depends on whether you're a believer or not. If you’re a Christian then you may say that Jesus was an incarnation of an all-loving, benevolent God. But if you're not a Christian, you might say ... (a) it's a myth, a fabricated story -- a good story, nevertheless. (b) his incentive was a chance at being loved and worshipped into eternity. Ego is an incentive too, although an intangible one. (c) other But, imagine if Jesus didn’t die on the cross. Then what? The Church would have voided the whole (John 3:16) line (John 3:16): "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Grimbal on Nov 6th, 2009, 5:31am This is the kind of things that make make the whole concept of God look suspiscious to me. If God could solve the problem, whatever it was, without letting his son die, but didn't, then he wanted him to die and that makes him bad. If God could not solve the problem in another way, then he is not an omnipotent being, and as such, isn't really a god. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 6th, 2009, 5:36am It depends on what your definition of omnipotent entails. I wouldn't expect God to be able to make round squares. And if for whatever reason one solution to a problem is best, I wouldn't expect him to invent a better one. It's simply contrary to logic. There are much better reasons to be suspicious of the concept of a god. ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Grimbal on Nov 6th, 2009, 5:44am Such as the question: Can God create a rock so large that He himself cannot lift it? Either way he/she isn't omnipotent. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 6th, 2009, 5:59am Yes. If you define "omnipotent" as everything one can write down in a sentence (or an equivalent formulation), then it is easy to show it is an impossible concept. But you can give it different meaning. For example, consider the universe as a computer simulation, and God as the programmer/technician that runs it. He can affect and effect anything that is possible in the simulation. Of all possible things, he can do it; and in that sense he is omnipotent. He cannot do the impossible things, of course, but they don't need to be included in the concept of "omnipotent". |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Nov 6th, 2009, 12:39pm The logical conclusion is that the concept of omnipotence (in the definition that involves being able to lift a rock you can't lift) is complete nonsense - like the concept of a square prime number... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Grimbal on Nov 7th, 2009, 6:03pm on 11/06/09 at 05:59:01, towr wrote:
But who says what is "possible"? What if the only possible course of event is the one defined by the strict application of the rules of physics. Would God still be omnipotent? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 8th, 2009, 7:08am on 11/07/09 at 18:03:10, Grimbal wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Grimbal on Nov 8th, 2009, 1:00pm That would be hyperpotent, not omnipotent. Almighty God would still have to comply to the physical rules that supposedly she herself created? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 8th, 2009, 2:06pm on 11/08/09 at 13:00:48, Grimbal wrote:
But if the only definition of omnipotent you'll accept is one that is utterly meaningless, then by all means call this something else. For reference, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent om-nip-o-tent –adjective 1. almighty or infinite in power, as God. 2. having very great or unlimited authority or power. Definition 2 does seem to allow for some room to exclude impossible things. The dictionary may not have heard of hyperpotent, but if it did, I expect it would say something like "having very great authority or power"; which is merely omnipotent2 with "or unlimited" scrapped, making it a subset of that property. ::) Quote:
Of course, doing so would invalidate the simulation. One might imagine that if there is some purpose to this universe, that likewise (grossly) "cheating" might invalidate it. God might need to follow the rules she set up, for that reason. There must certainly be limitations in place as to what she can do if we are to have free will in any meaningful way. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Grimbal on Nov 8th, 2009, 3:21pm Actually, I thought of giving ultrapotent and megapotent as alternatives. ::) OK, omnipotent can mean that there is no greater authority, or at least not subject to a higher authority. But your definition #1 1. almighty or infinite in power, as God. is exactly the point. People describe God's might as infinite. Not just very great, but infinite. Which doesn't make sense. But maybe it is just a metaphor. God is just supposed to be more powerful that any one of us can imagine, so an absolute, definitive, unlimited power is a good approximation and puts aside the question of what exactly God can do or not. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 8th, 2009, 3:41pm This is the Omnipotence paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox) Some see this paradox as a reason to reject the concept of absolute omnipotence, but Descartes argued that God is absolutely omnipotent, despite the problem. The problem is similar to another classic paradox, the irresistible force paradox: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 9th, 2009, 2:44am on 11/08/09 at 15:41:06, BenVitale wrote:
Likewise an irresistible force cannot exist, because it would likewise have to be infinite. Therefore if it does work over any distance the energy involved is infinite. And energy being equivalent to mass, it warps space to such an extent that time stops. Since it takes time for anything to happen, and given that time stops when these concepts are involved, nothing happens. :P ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Nov 12th, 2009, 11:38am By definition, if an object is immovable, there is no force that can be applied to it without it resisting it - equally, if you have an irresistible force, it will move any object to which it is applied. Even in cosmologies where you don't need infinities to have irresistible forces or immovable objects, the two can only co-exist as long as they never collide... And, of course, infinite power doesn't necessarily mean being able to do logically inconsistent things - being able to produce arbitrary, non-negligible amounts of energy in zero time means you supply infinite power over that time - but doesn't enable you to create something too heavy to lift... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 12th, 2009, 12:00pm Any force can be resisted by an equal but opposite force; so an irresistible force cannot exist. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Vondell on Nov 12th, 2009, 1:15pm on 11/06/09 at 05:31:12, Grimbal wrote:
He could've. But a different solution would have taken away free will. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Vondell on Nov 12th, 2009, 1:37pm As far as the irresistable force/immovable object paradox, I've always considered it a logic question...not whether or not such concepts could exist in reality. Anyway, since one can't move, or be moved, by the other...wouldn't they essentially destroy each other thereby cancelling out each. Just because something can't be moved, that doesn't mean it can't be destroyed. Thoughts? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 12th, 2009, 2:27pm on 11/12/09 at 13:37:03, Vondell wrote:
Read the Irresistible force paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox) As an exercise in logic. The answer is either: (a) True (b) False (c) Undecidable or unanswerable I believe the answer to be (c) An immovable object <==> infinite mass and create a singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity) An unstoppable force <==> infinite energy In a finite universe, infinite energy does not exist. In the universe as we know it, there are no irresistible forces and immovable objects. But, if we imagine a universe A which allows irresistible forces, it won't allow any immovable objects. Otherwise we have a contradiction. And, if we imagine a universe B which allows an immovable object, this universe won't allow an irresistible force. Again, we would face a contradiction. So, we cannot have both irresistible forces and immovable objects. So, an irresistible force cannot meet an immovable object. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by ThudanBlunder on Nov 12th, 2009, 2:33pm on 11/12/09 at 13:37:03, Vondell wrote:
But doesn't classical logic tend to be insufficient for dealing with infinities, eg. transfinite numbers, singularities, etc? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Vondell on Nov 12th, 2009, 2:44pm I agree that the scenario is pretty much impossible. (Personally, I allow the possibility for anything to exist/happen however improbable.) But, the question is a "what if?" It does not require that the objects/events in question actually exist...just that thought is exercised on the question itself. For example..."If you could have any superpower, what would it be?" Some would answer with a given "power," while others would answer, "superpowers do not exist, therefore the question is irrelevant." It's the question, not the reality. It's a "what if" scenario. IF the laws of physics were bent/broken for just a moment, what would the outcome be? Besides, where would we be now if "what if's" were never explored? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Vondell on Nov 12th, 2009, 2:47pm on 11/12/09 at 14:33:45, ThudanBlunder wrote:
That's why a definite answer can't be agreed upon. It's an attempt to define/answer something we can't/don't fully understand. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by JiNbOtAk on Nov 13th, 2009, 3:41am on 11/05/09 at 12:56:13, BenVitale wrote:
Err..correct me if I'm wrong, but did Jesus had any choice in the matter ? In my opinion, God being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything and everything. Aside from the example that Grimbal gave, there are other limitations to what God cannot do. Basically, God could (or as some might say, should) only do Godly things. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 13th, 2009, 12:13pm We could define Economics, incentives as: Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. We live a life defined by scarcity, Jesus' promise (the promise of heaven if you chose to believe in him) was to transform scarcity into into a world of abundance. An incentive is any factor (financial or non-financial) that enables or motivates a particular course of action ... It is an expectation that encourages people to behave in a certain way. Here's a perspective I found in Time magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898431,00.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 13th, 2009, 12:29pm on 11/13/09 at 12:13:16, BenVitale wrote:
Quoting the article: "If this supernaturalistic event [Jesus ressurection] did not take place, as unbelievers hold, it requires a natural explanation" Does an event that did not take place really require any explanation? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Vondell on Nov 13th, 2009, 1:15pm I believe it means "What happenned to His body if He were not resurrected?" But, it seems as if most of the information in the article is taken largely out of context. As far as faking His death on the cross, consider that most people condemned to die by crucifixion had their hands and feet bound to the cross with rope. Jesus had His hands and feet 'nailed' to the cross. Not to mention He had already been beaten and lashed prior (and was too weak to even carry His own cross.) After His death, the 2 others with them had their legs broken so that they could not support themselves any longer, but His side was pierced which would contribute to considerable blood loss. After His death, the priests and Pharisees were worried that the disciples would steal Jesus' body in order to fulfill the resurrection, so they went to Pilate and had the tomb sealed and guarded to prevent such an occurrence. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Grimbal on Nov 22nd, 2009, 3:23am Is there any evidence that Jesus actually resurrected? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Nov 22nd, 2009, 7:13am on 11/22/09 at 03:23:18, Grimbal wrote:
There's a handful of eye-witness accounts that were written down (according to current thinking as reported on Wikipedia) within a few decades of the event that have Jesus walking and talking after his death. It's hard to think of any other kind of evidence that would be expected to exist if someone really did come back to life a couple of thousand years ago. Even if someone were to reliably come back from the dead today, it's hard to think of any evidence that we could leave that would convince sceptics in a future where no-one resurrects... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 22nd, 2009, 7:16am on 11/22/09 at 03:23:18, Grimbal wrote:
In the same way there is a plenty of evidence for Santa Claus; such as getting gifts at Christmas. But there are many other reasons not to believe it, and the evidence there is for him can be explained in other ways as well. Christmas gifts can both be evidence for Santa and for your parents' generosity and love. However, aside from the bible, I don't believe there is a lot of (independent) corroborating evidence. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 22nd, 2009, 7:29am on 11/22/09 at 07:13:55, rmsgrey wrote:
If you had pathology report by a reliable physician that someone died, and other reports of a later date that the person was alive, and an explanation by experts how that happened, then I think any reasonable skeptic would be able to value such expert evidence for what it is. If we had independent witness accounts, of say Roman soldiers, that 1) saw Jesus had died, and 2) (possibly others) that saw him at a later date, then that would do much to substantiate the claims he came back from the dead, or at least did something very much like it. But as far as I know his name doesn't even come up in any Roman records, let alone with such details. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 22nd, 2009, 1:05pm on 11/22/09 at 07:16:23, towr wrote:
That reminds me of the Curry's paradox or Lob's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox#In_natural_language) If a man with flying reindeer has delivered presents to all the good children in the world in one night, then Santa Claus exists |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Nov 24th, 2009, 2:14pm on 11/22/09 at 03:23:18, Grimbal wrote:
It seems that there are parallels between the story of Jesus with various pagan saviors: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa6.htm And here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm Comparative Religion http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/cr.htm David W. Deley's Home Page http://members.cox.net/deleyd/index.htm Horus and Jesus: mythological plagiarism? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/05/horus_and_jesus_mythological_p.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by BenVitale on Jul 16th, 2011, 11:01am Lionel Tiger: The Brain Creates Religion Lionel Tiger means that it is a neurochemical process. "Believing in God generates soothing "juices" in the brain that make us feel good." http://bigthink.com/ideas/20159 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Jul 17th, 2011, 5:48am The brain also has mechanisms for percieving colours, tastes, straight lines, edges, words, faces, etc, etc, etc... Therefore, nothing has a face! Or maybe not... But any invoking of the "God-spotter" region of the brain as an argument for the non-existence of gods has to account for the difference between that mechanism and the various mechanisms that exist to detect those aspects of the world that are generally accepted as real - or else it becomes an argument that faces don't exist... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by ThudnBlunder on Jul 17th, 2011, 2:19pm BenVitale, are you differentiating between 'religion' and 'believing in God'? If so, perhaps 'believing in God' could be renamed 'religion, but not as we know it (Jim)'. LOL |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by khuram4u on Oct 27th, 2011, 4:15pm this is very serious and sensitive question. You should be good at research to know the reality. there are many religions and views but The God is only one. In fact, people made this a complex issue due to misguide and wrong interpretation. Well, go and research your self, i would simply say. if i explained my opinion, to say this is right religion and that is wrong, then i am afraid many of us will hurt. I must say only one is true else are the wrong interpretations. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by JiNbOtAk on Oct 31st, 2011, 11:56pm on 11/22/09 at 03:23:18, Grimbal wrote:
I know this is an old issue, it got me thinking, for Jesus to be resurrected, he would need to die on the cross. Is there any evidence of that ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 1st, 2011, 10:32am Well, we do know that plenty of people have been crucified and died as a result, even if we lack evidence for most individuals it happened to. It's problematic enough to find solid evidence Jesus existed at all; all we have to go on are writings put down long after he supposedly died. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by JiNbOtAk on Nov 1st, 2011, 7:13pm Point conceded towr, I guess I wasn't really clear with my question. The Christians (generally) claims that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. This is one of the basic foundation on the divinity of Christ, upon which Christianity is based. For Jesus to be resurrected, he would need to die first. Question is, did he ? I've yet to come across any biblical reference on whether Jesus did die before his alleged (for want of a better word) resurrection. Lots of reference about him being crucified, but not on him dying. Unless we accept that being crucified, regardless of the duration, would certainly result in death. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 1st, 2011, 11:43pm The bible does mention that he died on the cross and that this was verified by poking a spear into his side. John 19:31-37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19&version=NIV) Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by khuram4u on Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:34pm can you tell the exact para and phrase where there is mentioned in bible!! on 11/01/11 at 23:43:39, towr wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 2nd, 2011, 1:04pm ??? I... already did... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Grimbal on Nov 19th, 2011, 5:07pm If there is a supernatural being ruling over the Universe, then it is far beyond reach of what my mind can grasp. So whether such a being exists or not doesn't really make a difference to me. The real question is: is there a supernatural being that is aware of our existence, that cares about our doings, wants us to behave in some way and will reward us and punish us accordingly. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by towr on Nov 20th, 2011, 1:48am And if so, is it morally acceptable to let the prospect of those rewards and punishment influence our decisions on what's right and wrong. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by aurther on Jan 16th, 2012, 11:25pm In the Christian circles the divisions and emergence of different paths has to do with what people believe to be fundamental truth. I realize that many of the things that cause separate ways will be better understood when one is in it or among "them". For example if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit of the bible it is absolutely hard to understand why certain ones will go their on way because the others have refused to recognize say the importance of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. So this is how it is generally. I find that conflicts and divisions in religion are hard to understand and often look plain silly from the outside unless and until you also believe in something. It's just amazing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by iatkrox on Jul 2nd, 2012, 1:17am More types of peoples more religion's and also there are different kind of opinions out there that the main reason to start lots of religion's. Anyway i trust Allah and i follow rules in Islam. You have freedom to follow what you want . |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by littlemisschic on Jul 26th, 2012, 9:59pm Just tell them what I told mine when they wanted me to have my son baptised. There are far too many conflicting religions, all with different inconsistancys. You will read may fables in your time... ....Just not from a book that wants you to believe every word it says and not question its meaning. We live in a world were we are able to question everything, Religion as a whole is outdated and does not speak to the modern generation. You will chose to believe whatever you want and believe something exists, you are just unsure what? so you are Agnostic |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by Acequotes on Oct 4th, 2012, 2:10am Imagination is more important than knowledge. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by rmsgrey on Oct 4th, 2012, 4:21am on 10/04/12 at 02:10:45, Acequotes wrote:
Not really. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that knowledge is more important than imagination either - you need both for just about anything. To plan anything, you need imagination to conceive the goal and the approaches that might lead there, but you also need knowledge to evaluate those potential approaches. To communicate with others, you need knowledge to convert ideas to words and vice versa, but you also need imagination to come up with ideas in the first place... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: religion Post by anglia on Aug 15th, 2015, 1:12am Religions are made by human. Never snatch the religions from human otherwise they will make you their own religion. We should respect every religion. All are one. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4! Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board |