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

[matrix3509]

Then tell me why we have laws in the first place? Would people abide be these rules even if they didn't exist? The answer is a resounding no.

I address Atheists as a collective because the only atheist I have ever met (this forum included) only addresses Christians or other people of faith as a collective, because the stupid virus goes both ways.

So, you're saying what you did was stupid... but you know it is stupid?

With or without a holy book or Religion, people still desire stable living conditions... and having laws and police are the best way to protect those you want alive in Society.

Selflessness if actually selfishness projected onto other people. You know that a sharp piece of metal hurts, right?

Through that selfish knowledge, you can then selflessly apply it to pulling someone outta the way of a gunman. Or knocking over a crazy axe wielding murderer to let a little girl run away. It's like "I think that reaction is so negative I will actually help those I percieve as not being a threat (the innocent) to not recieve it".

Yes I know that bullets and/or shrapnel hurts. To that I would say, why would you interfere (unless you have a gun yourself) when said gun would just as easily be pointed and shot at you. There is absolutely no reason to interfere from a biological point of view. Preservation of the self. Selflessness is completely illogical from a Darwinian perspective. So enlighten me... what makes doing that the "right" thing to do?

EDIT: All I'm trying to say is that the reason religion still exists today is because it gives people an alternate perspective on things science may not be able to explain yet. Where did our sense of morals come from originally? And don't say it came from people jsut wanting to be nice. In fact, if you answer anything except religion, you would be wrong.

 

[Booze Zombie]

QFT...

The human system of moral beliefs is inherently unscientific. Why? Because doing things out of interest to the entire community is completely illogical. You won't find many individual organisms in the entire Animal Kingdom that would willing sacrifice themselves for a group. I know there are a few species of animals that do, but they are the exception, not the rule.

To use an example so kindly provided to me, you wouldn't stop a serial killer chasing after a person if said serial killer turned their attention onto you. Why would you, for instance help a blind person cross the road, or feed a homeless person? It makes absolutely no sense to do these things from a logical point of view. Helping these kinds of people as indeed the government is spending tax money to do, only serves to hold the people of a nation back, though the less of these people there are the less detrimental it is of course. But that tax money could instead be used on scientific research. But countries do it anyway. Why?

Because its the right thing to do? Who says it is? The government? Why would you believe the government? What makes them the moral authority? You can't say those basic laws just came about because people just wanna be nice. That's bullshit.

I can come up with, cold logic for "acts of compassion", if you want? Okay.
Say I feed and clothe a hobo and give him the money to go to college and live in an apartment, I used my resources to potentially make a powerful ally out of a homeless man.

Saving a little girl from an murderer? The community would respect you at the very least for trying to save a child, a great relationship booster. Fighting the armed man and winning might cement your reputation with the locals, in that you're not a push-over.

Helping a blind person cross the street? That person getting hit by a car because no one was willing to help them would be utterly stupid, no sizable amount of energy is lost and you really don't lose much time, either. It's almost a non-task.

It's simple, really... we need other people to survive, so if you're not in danger or need you've got enough energy to help someone, which increases your chance of surviving because they can then help you. The "favor" principle.

 

[Booze Zombie]

First, we have to establish the premise of "what is the nature of the human being." Until we figure that out, we can't really have a discussion about what is 'logical' or not--if we do, we'll only be comparing equally valid arguments, but we won't know which of those arguments is sound.

So, nothing is really logical, we just think it is?

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't know exactly what you're asking.

I'm asking you if logic doesn't actually exist.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't want to hear about it any more.

Then go away and don't click on the thread, you dolt.

 

[Booze Zombie]

The only people who drag it down to that level are the ones yelling in the thread about the redundancy of the thread, stating that the thread is boring because it simply mentioned religion, failing to note the irony of their own posts repeatedly mentioning religion and making the thread even more boring.

 

[curlycrouton]

I am a Humanist.
I reject a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural etc.
However, I can see the visible contribution that religion has and can continue to make in our world (as well as the possible negative aspects of certain faiths).

As Richard Dawkins once said, "I am a cultural Christian, but I am an atheist."

 

[Caliostro]

/facepalm.jpg


Science is the polar opposite of faith. Faith needs to reject science to allow religion. Can Science and Faith co-exist? Well that's a bit like asking if Mahatma Gandhi and Adolf Hitler can co-exist or if you can freeze fire... Not very likely no.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

QFT...

The human system of moral beliefs is inherently unscientific. Why? Because doing things out of interest to the entire community is completely illogical. You won't find many individual organisms in the entire Animal Kingdom that would willing sacrifice themselves for a group. I know there are a few species of animals that do, but they are the exception, not the rule.

To use an example so kindly provided to me, you wouldn't stop a serial killer chasing after a person if said serial killer turned their attention onto you. Why would you, for instance help a blind person cross the road, or feed a homeless person? It makes absolutely no sense to do these things from a logical point of view. Helping these kinds of people as indeed the government is spending tax money to do, only serves to hold the people of a nation back, though the less of these people there are the less detrimental it is of course. But that tax money could instead be used on scientific research. But countries do it anyway. Why?

Because its the right thing to do? Who says it is? The government? Why would you believe the government? What makes them the moral authority? You can't say those basic laws just came about because people just wanna be nice. That's bullshit.

I can come up with, cold logic for "acts of compassion", if you want? Okay.
Say I feed and clothe a hobo and give him the money to go to college and live in an apartment, I used my resources to potentially make a powerful ally out of a homeless man.

Saving a little girl from an murderer? The community would respect you at the very least for trying to save a child, a great relationship booster. Fighting the armed man and winning might cement your reputation with the locals, in that you're not a push-over.

Helping a blind person cross the street? That person getting hit by a car because no one was willing to help them would be utterly stupid, no sizable amount of energy is lost and you really don't lose much time, either. It's almost a non-task.

It's simple, really... we need other people to survive, so if you're not in danger or need you've got enough energy to help someone, which increases your chance of surviving because they can then help you. The "favor" principle.

Not cases of altruism. Altruism is where one will act for the benefit of another where there is no benefit to yourself. Even something as simple as dropping a few coins into a buskers guitar case can be altruistic. Let me ask you this - what benefit did the millions of Iraq war protesters get from their actions? Some people will help others just for the sake of helping others. I certainly do.

/facepalm.jpg


Science is the polar opposite of faith. Faith needs to reject science to allow religion. Can Science and Faith co-exist? Well that's a bit like asking if Mahatma Gandhi and Adolf Hitler can co-exist or if you can freeze fire... Not very likely no.

That only applies to extremists, which are irrelevant within this particular discussion because they are neither religious nor scientific. Extreme religious fundamentalists are not really religious at all, as they are not following a set of religious beliefs they have come to as a result of their experience but a set of dogmatic rules laid down by someone in authority. By the same token, atheist fanatics who form a theory that there isn't something for which there is evidence, then demand "proof" to disprove their own hypothesis, are acting in an unscientific manner.

Neither need to be brought into this discussion.

 

[Legion]

Ok here is something I feel I need to point out to most people based on the general gist of the thread.

1: Not all religions believe in God the same way as Christianity does, and yet almost every post on the anti-religion side seems to assume that they do. It is not fair to assume that because somebody believes in a higher power that they cannot believe in Science and vice versa.

2: Science cannot prove anything. Humans are not infallible and therefore nothing we say can be granted as absolute fact.

3: Religion cannot prove anything. There is no logical proof for the existence of the Divine and all religious texts are created by humans, who as mentioned before, are not infallible.

"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."

"If God gave me a life and then forsakes me for not using my life to tell everyone about him, he's a dick."

A good point, but you are generalizing; as a lot of religions do not believe in God in the way you describe. Not all think there is a divine being who commanded humans how to live thousands of years ago.

Arguing that an omnipotent needs to be "Scientifically proven" is both ignorant and downright insulting.

Agreed. It's also illogical.

But when you reduce religion, in its entirety, to "a man in the sky who is everywhere at all times" this demonstrates you have close to zero understanding or knowledge of the concepts involved.

The least logical thing is to dismiss something you have no knowledge of.

A point I think a lot of anti-religious people need to take note of.

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.

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.

Point 1: I agree with the fact that this thread does by the wording used, however no need for the insults.

Point 2: That is why I get annoyed when Scientists dislike religion so much. It just feels like they have to hate it in order to have peace of mind.

So, nothing is really logical, we just think it is?

Correct.

I wanted more points to make supporting the Science side; but I don't feel that many people have given many valid points due to the apparent lack of knowledge on the difference between the Religions that exist.




Just to make it clear: I am not trying to suggest that people should not follow science or religion, rather that both sides need to accept that they cannot say that they have the answers whereas the other is wrong.