Just a question from someone lost. (ritual, rejecting, eternal, spiritual)

[Random]

The alleged conflict between science and religion is a lie. Like any other lie, if you don't allow yourself to be sold on it, you'll see through it eventually.

Nonetheless, modern science is going the way of Atlantis, hurdling towards its doom with zeal and gusto. Intellectual Pride is the worst of all sins, and the most damaging.

Always remember, that whenever you find a scientist eager to fuel disharmony between his "faith" and anothers religious one, he is most likely motivated only by peer pressure and the desire to qualify for his next big research grant. You'll never convince anyone who makes a living from Evolutionary studies that it is in fact a long discarded Fairytale for grown-ups.

When science and religion are made to clash, Wisdom both human and divine suffers. That is the truth...

[Runlikethewind]

Greetings once again s2a

Originally Posted by s2a

Let us at least then revel in our mutual failings as inarticulate boobs...;-)

Ok!

Originally Posted by s2a

I said:
"Science (that monolithic and conspiratorial entity)" begs of NO concessions, NO forbearance, NO requests of special pleading regarding ANY religious beliefs in order to substantiate/validate/support any tested scientific theories/conclusions {pseudo-sciences like "creationism" and "ID theory" don't count as "science"). NONE.

Why [therefore] should (or would) "science" seek ANY "middle-ground" with faith-based rationales/explanations?

This presumptive notion seems as absurd as a District Attorney seeking input from randomly sampled domestic cats as to whether or not they think the prosecuting DA has a strong case regarding a trial of a double-homicide at a tire factory (which, coincidentally enough, neither employs nor abides the presence of any domestic felines).

What "negotiations" need the DA pursue with these utterly irrelevant cats? What accommodations of testimony/evidence would necessitate the introduction of any particular kitty's opinion as a compelling/influential mitigating factor upon burdens of proof in establishment of a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt?

What?

Science should seek some middle ground out of charity and a desire to further enlighten humanity by its discoveries. They don’t need to seek middle ground to support their discoveries as is implied in your cat analogy but if humanity is to advance in its understanding of the natural world and psuedo-sciences like intelligent design are to be revealed for what they are the people of faith need to get comfortable with science, and that is hard to do when they can seem so aloof, condacending and arogant at times.

Originally Posted by s2a

OK, but stating that each "method" presents it's own course of experience is not especially profound. Science may observe a catastrophic event (like a tornado sweeping through a trailer park) and account of it's effect (perhaps in killing twenty people, while sparing a lone infant under a sink). Science may report the incident's consequences (in leaving a lone and defenseless survivor in it's wake) as a statistical anomaly. Faith may chose to represent this consequential outcome as proof of a divine "miracle". Which perception is "real"? What I know is that elements of chance (within probability tables, and evaluated permutations and combinations of historically accumulated datum) are in fact, predictable...within a certain degree of error. Elements of predictability regarding any prospective divine interventions...are not.

I would say that both perceptions are ‘real’, with qualifications. I would not agree that this lone survivor would constitute proof of any divine miracle. As I have said before, there can be no objective proof of the supernatural aspect of reality. If someone sees the lone survivor as being the result of some kind of divine influence then such an event can go to support that belief. So the scientific description of the improbable survivability is real and objectively provable while the supernatural description that the improbable happened because of some kind of divine/supernatural influence is also real but only provable subjectively. Again there is no objective proof that the faith claim of divine influence is real. For many it is completely unnecessary because the scientific explanation is sufficient. But because it is sufficient does not prove that the subjective experience or belief in supernatural influence is not real. Let me make an example of my own. I have heard of studies conducted to see if prayer helps the healing process. If a person prays and they get better is it because God answered their prayer and healed them or is it because the act of praying helped the body to strengthen its self and heal itself, power of positive thinking sort of thing? Which explanation is ‘real’? Can both be ‘real’ or does it have to be an either or? I think they can both be real explanations describing different aspects of the event.

Originally Posted by s2a

Then I would conclude that some faith-based beliefs (established in your premise) may present an errant or flawed perception/interpretation of "reality" (even without conceding any validity for such a concept as being "supernatural aspects of reality"). Faith-based claims can be demonstrably presented/deconstructed as factually "wrong" (the Pope sometimes leading the way in this...).

Yes many faith based claims can be demonstrated as being false. Those are the claims of faith the say something about demonstrable things like statements about the physical world. A claim based on faith that the earth is flat can be falsified. A claim based on faith that there is a God or that a natural event like the lone survivor described above was influenced by supernatural aspects of reality are not testable and cannot be falsified. This does not make them true and it does not make them false. This is an important part of the nature of faith, the belief in that which cannot be proven. This is not a flawed perception/interpretation of reality it is just different.

Originally Posted by s2a

But isn't this just "begging the question" to begin with? You present an unproven assumption (some existent supernatural realm/causal agent) as substantiation of your premise.

I am glad that you see this as an assumption too. I would even go so far as to say not only is it not proven, it is unprovable (in the sense of objective facts/evidence as the criterion for proof.) It is my opinion that problem arise when someone claims to have proven this assumption one way or another. One is free to choose either way and believe that there is or is not a supernatural aspect of reality, anyone who claims that their belief in this matter is a proven fact (in the sense of being back up by evidence/facts) is mistaken, I believe. I would be wary of anyone who claims to have proven that God exists, I do not believe that such proof exists outside of ones own subjective proofs (but this type of proof is in a different sense and not necessarily tied to objective evidence/facts). I am just as wary of people who claim that they have proven that there is no God. I don’t think anyone can prove a negative like that. One can readily present compelling evidence to support the claim but how can one prove that which is unobservable does not exist? If the supernatural is unobservable it does not follow with logical necessity that it does not exist. That, I believe we agree, is an assumption.

Originally Posted by s2a

The realm (of claims) of the "supernatural" include: deities (singular or multiple, omniscient/dead, benevolent or malicious, etc.); ghosts/poltergeists; demons/angels; magic; UFOs; dousing; palmistry/fortune-telling; "intelligent (or sentient)" winds, rocks, trees, waters, etc.; "cosmic predestination/fate"; ESP; gnomes/brownies/trolls; the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus...and Harvey. If I really, really believe that I have an "invisible friend" that follows me about, does my belief make him "real", or an inescapable factor within anyone else's "experienced reality"?

Your list confuses the issue. Many of these things are not in the realm of supernatural in the sense of metaphysical reality (although there is a relation in some respects.) UFO’s are natural phenomena under the burden of natural scientific proof. Evidence is presented, pictures, eyewitness accounts, crop circles, etc. One either believes in them based on empirical evidence or believes in an alternative explanation. They are not a supernatural phenomena. ESP is the same. It is testable to see whether the natural world can be manipulated by mental powers and such. There may be a connection to some kind of supernatural influence but the phenomena is a natural phenomena and requires the burden of empirical proof. Gnomes/brownies/trolls/the tooth fairy/ Santa Clause, Their existence are all testable. We have been to the north pole there are no elves no toy factory Santa is not real. Magic is like ESP the manipulation of matter by some unknown force, it is testable. Ghost are a bit of a crossover. If one is referring to the existence or non existence of the soul or of sentient trees etc, then there is a supernatural aspect of spirits that is beyond physical proof. If one is referring to the physical manifestation of souls spirits sentient trees etc then one is back to empirical proofs. That is why ghost hunters go about with thermal imaging and such to prove that experiences of what are described as ghosts are real phenomena. Any proof that such event do occur is not proof that these are actually the crossing over of spiritual entities into the material world. They might easily be described by electromagnetic interference or thermal variations or some other natural explanation. One might be able to prove that the phenomena of a ghost is a physical reality in the sense of there being some kind of physical event that has taken place and interpreted by some person as being a ghost but that will never constitute proof that such an event is connected in some way to a supernatural entity. There is a rift between the supernatural and natural aspects of reality that cannot be crossed, that is why faith is required as a means to experience the supernatural. If there is every any interaction then there will be a physical result (the temperature just dropped and we experienced electromagnetic flux) to fully explain the physical experience. Which does not mean that an actual spirit was not the ultimate cause, it just can’t be proven.

[Runlikethewind]

I said:

Originally Posted by runlikethewind

Science should not tell me or the theologian how God works or what or who He is, one learns that from turning to faith.

You replied:

Originally Posted by s2a

Which is precisely what science never does, nor attempts to either instigate or investigate.

I would tend to disagree here. Whenever a scientist tries to prove that there is no supernatural aspect to reality they are trying to prove that which cannot be proven and trying to say something about the nature of God. For example, when scientist write books that try to give a natural explanation for the phenomena of faith/belief in the supernatural/religion/etc they are trying to say something about the nature of God and they can be quite unapologetic in the way they present their ideas which can easily be seen as an instigation on their part. Examples:
The future of an illusion / Sigmund Freud
My science tells me that the nature of God is an illusion based on psychological brain activity.
The God delusion / Richard Dawkins
My science tells me that the nature of God is a mental phenomena with no real existence, those who believe otherwise are deluding themselves.
Why God won't go away : brain science and the biology of belief / Andrew Newberg, Eugene G. d'Aquili, and Vince Rause
My science tells me that the nature of God is nothing more than brain chemistry with no real existence. People of faith should just go away.
Religion explained : the evolutionary origins of religious thought / Pascal Boyer
My science tells me that the nature of God is a quark of evolution with no real existence.
Why Gods persist : a scientific approach to religion / Robert A. Hinde
My science tells me that the nature of God has a rational scientific explanation God has no real existence. People of faith just keep holding on to these antiquated irrational beliefs.

Science itself is not and does not attempt to instigate or investigate the nature of God or who or what He is. Individual scientists, however, do at times use their discoveries in exactly this manner. These are the ones that I have tried to point out as playing a role in continuing the conflict between science and religion.

Originally Posted by s2a

Resolved then...science is not an adequate instrument in validating any faith-based claims/beliefs, and faith-based beliefs are irrelevant complaint regarding scientifically derived conclusions. Let's all preach THAT testimony...to drop the fallacious rationale that "God did it" whenever/wherever "science" doesn't utterly remove the "necessity" of a deity as explanation (in the absence of overwhelming and compelling evidence).

Agreed.

[quot=s2a]I understand your position, but "supernaturalism" remains but a concept adhered to by those of faith-based beliefs alone. There are many folks that claim to have "seen a ghost". Have they? Have they really? What then, is a "ghost"? What IS it?

If two people stand next to one another in the same room, at the same time, both looking in the very same direction--and only one of the two "sees" the ghost, whilst the other does not--then which "reality" is "real"? Is there some means or method by which to measure and test and perhaps validate such a "sighting"? Is "belief/faith" alone a reproducible "reality" for others to objectively "experience" for themselves? One might argue that a "faith-based" sighting is "just as good", or "equally valid" as any claim that is reproducible, testable, and prospectively verifiable . [/quote]

The sighting of a ghost is a physical event and under the scrutiny of empirical explanation. Maybe the person saw a light reflecting of a mirror, or some kind of electromagnetic interference or whatever. To validate such a sighting would require some kind of evidence. It may turn out that no such evidence is able to be produced which means that what the person saw was not there and that perhaps there is a supernatural explanation. If such a sighting did turn out to be supernatural then it is not a reproducible reality for others to objectively experience. The experience of a supernatural event is an inherently subjective one it is not objective it cannot be shown/proven/tested/verified/etc objectively. One might argue that such a faith-based sighting is just as good or equally valid and I might agree but that does not mean that it is as equally believable. Objective/testable/verifiable facts are much more believable than subjective ones but I don’t think that believability is necessarily a criterion for being an equally valid explanation. But this is a question of criterion and most scenists see objective evidence as the criterion for an explanation and therefore subjective experiences are not at all valid.

Originally Posted by s2a

Pious Claimant: "I saw [spoke to] God!"
Skeptic: "I kinda doubt that."
Pious Claimant: "Prove that I didn't!"
Skeptic: "Prove that you did...."
Pious Claimant: "You wouldn't understand..."

Impasse. Yet...

Of course the skeptic wouldn’t understand a subjective experience like communing with God in some fashion and there is no way to describe or relate such an experience objectively any explanation would pail in comparison to the actual experience. And so yes they are at an impasse.

Originally Posted by s2a

Claiming Skeptic: "I saw a meteorite streak across the sky tonight."
Pious disbeliever: "Oh really. How do you know what you saw was a meteorite?"
Claiming Skeptic: "If you have some time, I'll show you...and allow you to evaluate the supporting evidence of my claim in attaining your own independent evaluation and conclusion."

Which claim retains the greater prospect of being "proven" as true?
Which claim retains no prospect of verification or falsification?

If you mean by ‘proven’, objective evidence that is testable/verifiable/etc, then of course the meteorite has the ONLY prospect of being proven the speaking to God cannot be proven in this way by definition of it being a subjective experience. So the experience of God has no prospect of verification or falsification even in the mind of the one who had the experience! They may actually believe it one minute and doubt it the next, questioning their own sanity.

Originally Posted by s2a

If you were buying a used car, or a new house from either of these two salesman, whom would you choose to accept as being: more forthcoming; more credible; or more "believable"? Would you place more "faith" in the salesman that claims that the car he is selling gets 100 mpg, but only challenges you to "disprove" his claim absent any substantiation or provided data? Or would you prefer to test the merit of his claim first, for yourself?

Why is it that there are so many people that are ready and willing to accept a claim that defies any empirical or demonstrable tests in validation/falsification ("God exists"), yet revert to becoming the most ardent skeptics and critical thinkers under virtually identical circumstances when it comes to buying a used car, or a home (sight-unseen) hundreds of miles away?

Why is that?

I do not see this as referring to virtually identical circumstances. The existence of God is by definition beyond demonstration/validation/falsification the only way to accept it is to just accept it or not and support it with experience or rationalizations. Buying a car or house is by its nature testable/verifiable. One does have a choice to investigate and test these things so people become skeptical and do so when they can. One is untestable the other is testable, these are not identical circumstances. Why would one not be skeptical about buying a house or car if it can be proven? The skepticism might actually result in the uncovering of facts about the purchase.

Originally Posted by s2a

I agree that "faith based knowledge of supernatural aspects of reality" are inherently and personally existential (thusly both objectively suspect and unreliable), but remain neither testable nor subject to any credible empirical evaluations/estimations. If you "think" (or earnestly proclaim) that "ghosts are real, because I saw one"...that don't make it so...at least not in the "real" world. Belief (in some testified "reality") only reinforces belief itself...but it establishes no independently verifiable "experience" that may be objectively observed/experienced in any predictable/measured/quantifiable way.

Agreed.

[Runlikethewind]

Originally Posted by s2a

In the "real world", we can positively claim and confidently assert that the Grand Canyon "exists". Anyone of means can travel there, and "experience" it for themselves. Science can not predict how any individual person may react to, or "experience" an encounter with such a natural wonder (some may "see God"; others may marvel at the evidentially exposed, inexorable effects of time and erosion upon the landscape).

[PS. I'm not robot. I marvel at every spectacular sunrise; I never cease to be astounded by the unfolding cosmos every time I peer though the eyepiece of my recently acquired Meade truss-tube 12-inch Dobsonian reflector telescope (I can observe the birth of new stars!). I can wonder at the chaotic symmetry yet purposed drive of a busy anthill. I love the smell of fresh-tilled earth, and remain amazed that that planted life-forms can prevail in my little garden. There are cardinals, thrashers, red-bellied woodpeckers (and a particularly lonesome red-tailed hawk) that I know by given name, and frequent this little patch of earth beyond the windows of our den. I "experience reality" every day (more than some, and less than others), and not once do I 'see" or "experience" any additional supernaturalistic "reality" in appreciation of same. Nature IS the wonder that envelops us all. We are all a part of that wonder, and brief experience. How is that most evident fact not enough? Quarks, quasars, black holes, and multi-verses! How is it that "nature" can't somehow "exist" without some superfluous supernaturalistic "invisi-answer" (I just made that word up, and expect due credit whenever it is "borrowed" by another)?]

Well said. I marvel at these wonders myself. They do not require an “invisi-answer”® nature is the wonder that envelops us all and that evident fact is enough to marvel at. It does not mean that there is no more to nature, and the belief that there is more only adds an additional layer of marvel to it, in my own experience.

Originally Posted by s2a

I applaud your perspective. I only hope that your are vocal and courageous enough in that held perspective to actively dissuade others from either promoting or approving of such unscientific proposals/concepts/theories. Silence amongst the faithful tends to bolster such spurious positions/caliams.

Thank you, I voice my opinion in this matter to my friends of faith every chance I get.

Originally Posted by s2a

Fair enough...as long as the "tables" are properly identified as what they really are, versus what the presume to present themselves as being...

Good. A lot of the problems in this science/religion conflict is this very problem of misidentification.

Originally Posted by s2a

Sorry.
Consider such ovations as "tough love". Santa doesn't really exist. Sorry about that...
We told you that story when you were young...primarily to keep your indiscriminate behavior and choices in check...and secondarily, well, because you trusted adults to impart "the truth" as explanation of/for/to complex and involved questions regarding "reality".
It's OK to "believe" in Santa when you are six years old.
It's OK to tell your six-year old that Santa exists.

But there comes a time when the inevitable question is put; "Daddy...Is Santa real?"

Then comes the hard choice. Is it better to believe and instruct your kids to testify to all of their peers that "Santa is real!", or tell them why you lied to them..."for their own good"?

Your analogy of Santa here is without merit. The existence or non-existence of Santa is a testable/empirically verifiable claim, we have been to the north pole and he is not there. When you insert God into there and the child asks if God is real then what does one say? It seems your implying that one ought to say God is not real. It would be best to say that there is no way to ‘prove’ it but we believe that God is real. Telling a child that Santa exists is an untruth, he does not. Telling a child that God exists is an unprovable assumption/belief. Your idea of tough love is to impose upon those who believe the scientific/objective definition of criterions for proof and objective evidence to prove that which is not subject to such a test. I might even go so far as to say your use of the Santa analogy here amounts to setting up a straw man to knock down here. Would you approve of believers attempting to impose their subjective/faith-based criterion of proof upon claims of the way the world works? Of course not, we have already established that this is not the area for such subjective proofs. I say that neither is it proper for science to say that since there is no objective proof of God, believing in God amounts to believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. I say faith is the only method of saying anything about God, about those things that cannot, by their nature, have any sort of objective proof. What sort of objective criterion would say amounts to proof that God does not exist?

Originally Posted by s2a

No, it doesn't.

This best illustrates "mob rule" (or contradictorily, an imposed theocracy). This is why I introduced the skeptic into the illustrated fray. Popular opinion, majority rule (of majority opinion), or enforced dogmatic adherence--does not serve to establish estimable fact, or truth. Experimentation and scientific methods do (or at least lead in that direction). "Popular opinion" (alone) within these United States would support the claim [of some] "existent" deity. Depending upon the survey cited, anywhere from 70-90% of the US population "believes" [in some qualified claim of a] "real" and/or currently existent god/deities. Belief does serve to validate faith. But it serves nothing in either presenting fact, or searching for truth.

It never has. It never will.

Ok I misunderstood your example, I see the point your trying to make. I agree that mob rule is not the method by which we should establish facts or truth and such. I do not think that even if 100% of everyone in the U.S. believed in some kind of existent deity, that would constitute proof, it would not, everyone could be wrong. So I agree, belief does validate faith but ‘proves’ nothing, never has never will. That is the nature of faith there will always be some doubt, it will never be 100% certain.

Originally Posted by s2a

Well, the cube would continue to exist. But 50% would stridently deny it's existence, and be wrong. What "truth" does that serve?

No 50% would not deny its existence they would merely deny that it can have any existence apart form God granting existence to it and to them as well. This does nothing to the truth that the object on the table is a cube and does in fact exist. That will remain true regardless whether one thinks God is required in the process or not. Whether God is required is either true or it is false on its own, and as I have said there is no way to objectively prove this requirement as being true or false, such proofs are subjective proofs and matters of faith.

Originally Posted by s2a

Except for the very uncomfortable fact that "believing" you have an "invisible friend" sitting next to you at that same kiddie table really don't make it so...and if you're over the age of eight, you might expect your accountable parents/guardians to seek some professional psychological aid for the benefit of aiding such a "delusional" child as yourself. Doubt is good. Skepticism is good. "Vision/imagination/creativity" is good. Critical thinking is even better. Burdened proofs are better still.

Claiming that you "see things" that no one else can see (unless they really choose to believe as you do), is either childhood imagination, an adult testament of pure faith, or some treatable form of delusional insanity.

Pure faith is uncomfortable at time, since there are no objective proofs to rely upon for support. But just because there is no way to objectively prove that there is no invisible friend sitting next to me doesn’t mean that the invisible friend is not there. Doubt is good, and so are critical thinking, skepticism, and burdens of proof. Unfortunately for questions of faith, the burdens of proof do not amount to the type of objective evidence that our society is most comfortable with. If one has true pure faith then they will still believe in spite of the lack of the ability to prove, in spite of all the doubt, in spite of the mountain improbability built by skepticism. If someone is not insane and has tested their beliefs to ensure that it is not a childhood imagination then they will have a pure faith. This type of faith will be able to recognize that ‘God did it’ is no way to explain the workings of the physical world and will recognize that their beliefs must be reconciled with the discoveries of science and not the other way around. Those who have not tested their beliefs will believe things like the world being six days (or 6000 yrs) old because if they deny any word of the bible their faith falls apart. Those who have not tested their faith will seek to prove objectively that God does exist by proclaiming the pseudo-science of intelligent design because if they can’t have some physical proof of God their faith falls apart. I have tested my faith, there is nothing that science can discover that would cause me to not believe, although my beliefs must be flexible to accommodate the truths of the world discovered by it.

[Runlikethewind]

Originally Posted by s2a

Psychology (to some) is scientific quackery. Emotion-based voodoo. But that's another topic...

Neurology remains an ongoing experiment of trial and error, testing, and reformulations of hypotheses. Neither are particularly "exacting" sciences, though both present their merits in sustaining further pursuit. To my [albeit unprofessional] understanding, neither discipline has offered even so much as a rudimentary hypothesis as to "why" mankind [seems to] prefers war over peaceful coexistence, or why slavery [amidst us al]l continues to this day.

I don’t have much knowledge in this area either but there does seem to be hope for progress and future discoveries.

[quot=s2a]What might that supernatural aspect [as lent explanation] be? Just curious...[/quote]

The supernatural aspect would be in the root causes of the problem of evil, theology of free will, the fallen nature of man, satanic influences, etc. Take satanic influence, if Satan is influencing our souls to commit an evil act that action, when committed, will manifest itself in the physical action of the person. There will then be brain activity, there will be psychological reasons and such that can be pointed to as the cause of the evil action. The question of the soul and of the interaction of the soul and body and of angelic/demonic influences is a question for faith and theology. The questions of behavior, psychology, and neurology and such are for science. So even if neurology where one day to advance to such a level as to explain thoroughly evil actions the connection between the brain activity and the soul, the existence or non-existence of the soul, are not questions that can be answer by objective science. Brain activity may be the physical manifestation of the activity of the soul. Or something to that effect.

Originally Posted by s2a

Why not? What would limit any prospective cure? God, or something else?
Is religious faith the obstacle, or the answer to such ills? What's the delay?

The limit would not be God, at least I think not. The limit would be the fallen imperfect nature of man. Religion and faith need to grow as does humanity. I speculated that I was not sure if religion could solve them, this is because of my belief that humans where created not for this world of temporality but for the world of the eternal in heaven with God. Based on this belief I speculate that the problems of evil may not be solvable in this spacial-temporal existence. What I do think is that a few thousand years is not enough time for religion to solve such problems. And I do not see this as a delay. The universe is some 20 billion years old, give or take. The earth is some 4 billion years old, it took at least 3 billion years from the time of the first life on earth to the emergence of humanity. Humanity has only been around in this universe for a blink of the eye. See how far we have come in such a short time and look at all the problems and the distance left to travel. Imagine where we will be in a few million years and the things we will know. Imagine how much both science and faith can grow.

Originally Posted by s2a

Bunk.

When you can adequately qualify a particularly compelling example of an "improper use of science", and couple that example as being the primary instigation of any justification of any war or rationalization favoring human slavery, I'll listen.
Gimme a break. Really.

Nazi's tried to confirm/prove a forgone conclusion ("White people are superior to all other races!") as a matter of "faith" (or imposed dogmatic "belief/policy" espoused by a tyrannical megalomaniac). Nazi-driven "eugenic science" was both purposefully exploited, and disengaged from any measured boundaries of either anonymous objectivity or quantifiably burdened proofs. Today we must endure the same pseudo-science of "creationists" and "ID theorists" that seek to validate their forgone conclusions by "scientific" means.

When I examine history, I see little evidence of any war (or rationalization/justification of any human slavery) predicated upon ANY scientifically derived conclusions. Furthermore, I see no direct evidence of any nation/people going to war (or justifying an enslavement of a people) predicated upon a scientific theory or hypothesis. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Huygens, Einstein, Hawking...has any one nation, culture, or philosophically driven state ever gone to war citing their conclusions as rationale in senselessly murdering/enslaving millions of people? ANY? EVER?

C'mon...

Point well taken. I guess that I was trying to do a little science bashing out of frustration. Both science and religion have been used to justify all kinds of actions, religion more so than science. This is not because of the inherent badness of science or religion it has more to do with the people who use them to further there own ends. I humbly submit my error in this matter, I have very little background in history and cannot argue on these points and I also admit that I only brought it up out of frustration.

Originally Posted by s2a

Attempts to qualify/quantify human behavior (by scientific means/measures) is by no means to be correctly construed as a scientific endeavor to evidentially explain "why" mankind engages in warfare. How does science hope to quantify/qualify emotional motivations bore of irrational fears, ignorance, or want?

Just as "true" piety has no quantifiable test of reliable report/estimation, neither does any purely irrational, emotion-based rationale bear any definitive scientific explanation. Stupidity and greed seem to prevail over reason and charity, but I have yet to encounter any scientific explanation of merit that outlines why it is so, or why it persists. I blame human ignorance, and self-confidence bolstered by willful ignorance, as primary causal influence...though I concede that I can provide no compelling evidences (beyond thousands of anecdotal reports) that would serve to validate my personal view.

Well said. I think I agree with your assesment.

Originally Posted by s2a

While i leave estimations of "sin" to those that would impose their sense of morality/ethics/dogma upon others...I would yet inquire as to whether or not the concept of "free will" necessitates any sort of supernaturalistic cause as some sanctioned pass/fail test of the human condition as a whole.
If "free will" is "given", then it is in fact...conditional upon the provided constraints of the "giver".

If "free will" is the hallmark of humanity itself, and of our evolved status as free-thinking individuals--then what need, want, or purpose does any claimed deity serve?
Can human "free-will" exist without a deity/force/supernaturalistic cause/effect as instigator/progenitor/supervisor of same? Is "free will" nothing more than a cheap "test of faith" in the omniscient hands of a dubious and doubting deity? Really?

No I don’t think that free-will necessitates any sort of supernatural pass/fail test. I don’t think free will was given to us to test humanity. The way I understand it, God is love and God loves so much that He wanted to share that love. In order to share it, he had to create creatures capable of doing so, angels, humans, and any other intelligent creatures. In order for those intelligent creatures to truly return their love to their creator, as He created them to do, they must freely choose to do so, true love must be given it cannot be forced or coerced. Which means that we must have the free will to choose to love and also that we cannot have solid, undeniable, objective proof that God exists. Such proof as I have said, I believe, is impossible for this very reason ,that it would infringe on our free will choice to love God. And one does not even need to believe in God to choose to love him because they can love the good, they can love their fellow humans and work for justice, etc, and at the final judgement God will say what you did for the least of your brethren you did for me. So I’m preaching a little here and I apologize. Basically free-will does not require a test, it can be seen as a necessary quality for fulfilling our purpose to love God in whatever way we can. So free will doesn’t have to meant that God is testing us at all.

Originally Posted by s2a

Perhaps I have subsequently served to properly facilitate your outlined caveats...perhaps not.

Your replies/rebuttals remain, as always, both invited and encouraged to retain specificity and pertinent detail in evaluative response...whenever possible.

[PPS- Frubal policies being what they are...I can not lend you greater recognized Karma at this point, but know that I do appreciate your tenacity and defense of your views.]

Yes thank you. I feel better in answering your points and have tried to support my views as best I can in this most recent reply. However one may judge our exchange, I know that I have grown in wisdom because of them. Your responses have continued to be insightful and well articulated and have caused me to really think about my views as well as teach me about other perspectives, which is why I joined RF in the first place. Thanks, I look forward to your response and apologize for taking a few days to reply myself, there is a lot here!