"Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revalatory Nature of Faith?"

[The Cheezy One]

"If God gave you a life, why would he want you to waste it talking about him?
If he wanted something to talk about him all the time, he'd have made a world of parrots."

it seems by this topic he has

God is generally one major thing

dont kill people and be nice
its just a stronger feeling of morality that everyone should have

 

[Booze Zombie]

it seems by this topic he has

God is generally one major thing

dont kill people and be nice
its just a stronger feeling of morality that everyone should have

So, basically... God is redundant, because most normal people don't kill and are nice anyway?

By the way, seriously... if your God forsakes me for not knowing he's there, screw him. I'd rather be with the Devil if God's that much of a prick.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Argue against me all you want atheists, but every basic law in every civilised country came from someone who got their teachings from one god or another. Those laws are:

1. Do not kill.
2. Do not steal.
3. Do not cheat.
4. Do not lie.

Believe it or not all of these basic laws came from people with some sort of religious guidance. Without them, we would have ended up far worse.

Thank for addressing all Atheists as a collective, for we are all stereotyped bible burners with a hive mind and we don't ever stop talking.

You speech didn't (ironically) make you come off as holier-than-thou or in anyway present you as being insulting towards another group of people (Atheists).

Religion has these rules because human kind made religion and hey, get this, people don't like being dead, having their stuff taken and being deceived.

[CITATION NEEDED]

What a lot of atheists don't seem to get is the fact that for a lot of people religiousity isn't simply a belief. It is actually something they experience. How do you say so such people that it is just a construct of ancient and stupid humans or that it is nothing more than a set of stories in a book?

 

[Booze Zombie]

[CITATION NEEDED]

What a lot of atheists don't seem to get is the fact that for a lot of people religiousity isn't simply a belief. It is actually something they experience. How do you say so such people that it is just a construct of ancient and stupid humans or that it is nothing more than a set of stories in a book?

Religion is curtailing your views into a rigid group of views based around a group, yes? And this group might just have roots in our rock humping past?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

[CITATION NEEDED]

What a lot of atheists don't seem to get is the fact that for a lot of people religiousity isn't simply a belief. It is actually something they experience. How do you say so such people that it is just a construct of ancient and stupid humans or that it is nothing more than a set of stories in a book?

Religion is curtailing your views into a rigid group of views based around a group, yes? And this group might just have roots in our rock humping past?

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[Booze Zombie]

[CITATION NEEDED]

What a lot of atheists don't seem to get is the fact that for a lot of people religiousity isn't simply a belief. It is actually something they experience. How do you say so such people that it is just a construct of ancient and stupid humans or that it is nothing more than a set of stories in a book?

Religion is curtailing your views into a rigid group of views based around a group, yes? And this group might just have roots in our rock humping past?

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Doesn't that make sex and eating religious? Or anything, in fact?

Edit: Oh no, a ten dollar word! The agony!

 

[cuddly_tomato]

[CITATION NEEDED]

What a lot of atheists don't seem to get is the fact that for a lot of people religiousity isn't simply a belief. It is actually something they experience. How do you say so such people that it is just a construct of ancient and stupid humans or that it is nothing more than a set of stories in a book?

Religion is curtailing your views into a rigid group of views based around a group, yes? And this group might just have roots in our rock humping past?

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Doesn't that make sex and eating religious? Or anything, in fact?

I don't follow your reasoning. If someone experiences what they perceive to be god, gods, goddesses, spirituality in a manner which seems to be direct, then that is something seperate from mere teachings or dogmatic "it says [x] in [y] book, therefore must be true".

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't follow your reasoning. If someone experiences what they perceive to be god, gods, goddesses, spirituality in a manner which seems to be direct, then that is something seperate from mere teachings or dogmatic "it says [x] in [y] book, therefore must be true".

If you felt the ultimate good whilst eating or whilst making love, wouldn't you perceive food or sex as your religion and your God?

 

[mark_n_b]

This is a longstanding argument on Escapist. We've got both religious members and staunch atheists who get along well enough until the chips are down. As one of the latter, I'm inclined towards a divide between Science and Faith. I don't give a damn if you have Faith, just so long as it doesn't interfere with my Science.

If when you say "the chips are down" you mean some douche decides to stir up shit by posting a thread that blatantly suggests that people maintaining the viewpoint contrary to the thread are naive dolts(and this happens from both sides), then yes. That's not a colloquial usage I an familiar with, but I don't suppose we grew up in the same area.

What it comes down to is that no scientific discovery or theory can preclude the existence of God. Nor can it (I assume) assure such a being exists either. Hence the use of the term faith.

This is because religious belief is a life philosophy more than a science.

While I respect people who observe their beliefs by avoiding scientific study and observing boundaries they believe are set forth for them, the rejection of scientifically proven fact based on it contradicting with an interpretation of religious belief (i.e. evolution) is one of the primary reasons extreme fundamentalism incurs so much wrath and disrespect in the world.

If we assume God made Adam and Eve and the Garden in the Garden of Eden, is it so hard to believe that God has mastered the junior high language arts concept of metaphor, making Adam and Eve single celled, and the Garden of Eden the primordial ooze? And no that does not prove that God or Allah or almighty Shiva actually stood there with a spoon, so maybe it is all just a random assemblage of protein molecules in a one in ten trillion chance event. But then given those odds, it's miraculous that life exists at all, so doesn't the existence of a miracle like that prove....

It could go on all day. It's a silly article because it is premised on the idea that philosophical concepts are capable of being held to a scientific model of consistency.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I don't follow your reasoning. If someone experiences what they perceive to be god, gods, goddesses, spirituality in a manner which seems to be direct, then that is something seperate from mere teachings or dogmatic "it says [x] in [y] book, therefore must be true".

If you felt the ultimate good whilst eating or whilst making love, wouldn't you perceive food or sex as your religion and your God?

Because they don't experience "ultimate good". It is a religious experience, not merely being very happy.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Unfortunately, I don't understand religion. It's a shame, I would like to.


But surely, if god does exist, he can't punish a guy for not believing in something with no evidence. I don't see why that if I beleive in god, why shouldn't I beleive in unicorns or vampires or the smurfs. I have never understood this.

 

[Darkong]

If you want to throw evolution in there, well first you have to show how it is possible for ooze to form life, then explain where that ooze came from. Then explain by what process evolution happens, and I mean macro evolution not micro.

That abiogenesis you're reffering to there, not evolution (two completely different studies), evolution deals with how life adapts to its surroundings through natural selection, and abiogenesis is already pretty well understood. The process of how evolution happens is already well explained and the terms macro evolution and micro evolution are a misnomer, there is only evolution.

Naturally this leaves most science alone, theory of relativity, gravity, electricity, mathematics pretty much any science that does not deal with the origin of life is completely valid and untouchable by religion. Just as science cannot in any way tell somebody what morality is, religion cannot dictate how the physical realm works.

The thing about scientific theories is that they're all founded on the same principles of hypothesising, testing and presening evidence, making predictions, and retesting, that's what people who reject the theory of evolution don't get, if you reject one theory you pretty much have to reject them all. So reject evolution and you have to reject gravity, atoms, cells, germs, the round world theory, nucelar fission, amongst others.

I'm not trying to get at you personally btw, just trying to make a point.

On the actual subject, the two (science and religion) will never be reconsiled because they are fundamentally incompatible, science is completely dependant upon evidence to prove conclusions, religion is dependant upon faith, meaning believing in something despite there being no evidence to prove the belief being held. And therein is the issue, in science if something is claimed without proof then it can be dismissed without further investigation, when something is claimed with proof the evidence is tested to see if it stands up, this highlights any problems and weeds out false claims (cold fusion and nebraska man being two of the more famous examples dismissed through this method). Its why creationism (or intelliigent design if you prefer) is rejected, there's no evidence to support it, only conjecture and faith.

 

[Socius]

short version: Yep, pretty much! but there are a few things thats no problem, ex did you know the Big Bang theory was made by a Monk? he saw it as a sure proof of the existence of god, becouse there was no way to explain how the explosion ever happened.

 

[Lukeje]

short version: Yep, pretty much! but there are a few things thats no problem, ex did you know the Big Bang theory was made by a Monk? he saw it as a sure proof of the existence of god, becouse there was no way to explain how the explosion ever happened.

No explosion ever did happen. Just inflation.

 

[wootahK]

I've got to be honest. I'm not sure the question even makes sense. What does revelatory nature of faith mean? Let alone mean in this context?

Does it mean God reveals to us what he wants when he wants. I think when it comes to science it is all there for us to discover. Any normal person, Christian or not, can do empirical science.

Does it mean that it is all there revealed in the bible? I'm not sure what the bible has to do with any given experiment being conducted in a lab today.

I am more confident I could make arguments that the Christian religion layed the foundation for science. The belief that God was not capricious (like roman and greek gods) and that God wanted us to know him and that we could know him through looking at and studying the world drove western science was one of the reasons for men to take up studying nature.

Personally, I originally came to the conclusion that why should I throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Christian religion has done a lot of good. You can reply with some of the bad but I think a fair analysis says it's done a lot more good than bad. The evidence for the events of Jesus life happening is substantial enough for my research. The evidence against the bible just isn't as substantive as people claim.

Whether you are religious or not one has to let the facts fall where they do. I am yet to see real evidence for evolution and real evidence that refutes a young earth.

Here is my reply to the question. Empirical science has not yet contradicted the revelationary nature of faith as I have read that in the bible.

I think empirical science and religion do not mix. Any same man would be be abhorred if a scientifically verifiable and repeatable fact was hidden because it conflicted a religious viewpoint. But a religious man can conduct empirical science as well as a non religious man. I think that the final word has not been said on the origins of life and the universe to throw out the notion that the universe is not young.

I also guarentee that any scientist working on anything practical is not using evolution to do it.

 

[Socius]

short version: Yep, pretty much! but there are a few things thats no problem, ex did you know the Big Bang theory was made by a Monk? he saw it as a sure proof of the existence of god, becouse there was no way to explain how the explosion ever happened.

No explosion ever did happen. Just inflation.

what? no, I read in Ilumistrated science that there was an explotion and it was on the size of a bag of sugar but hey you may be right, it wouldn't be the first time they didn't check their sources good enough

 

[ioxles]

Faith and Belief are part of science. It's that simple. In the near future they will become another subsection of science, subject to the scientific method when they become measurable.

There's a whole lot more to it, but the gist is that having faith and believing directly changes your perception and the reality of the world around you, your belief/faith will directly affect your body.

 

[Lukeje]

short version: Yep, pretty much! but there are a few things thats no problem, ex did you know the Big Bang theory was made by a Monk? he saw it as a sure proof of the existence of god, becouse there was no way to explain how the explosion ever happened.

No explosion ever did happen. Just inflation.

what? no, I read in Ilumistrated science that there was an explotion and it was on the size of a bag of sugar but hey you may be right, it wouldn't be the first time they didn't check their sources good enough

An explosion would require a centre from which everything was moving away. With inflation everywhere is expanding away from everywhere else. Unfortunately, an explosion is easier to visualise, and is what is generally taught in schools.