Do We Need Faith?

[cladking]

Regarding the bold section ... I think this accurately describes science, today, for the most part. At it's core it's still just observation and extrapolation. We observe how various aspects of the world we live in interact with each other, physically, and we extrapolate the nature of the physical relationship between them. The objective of this quest is to try and figure out the nature of physical interaction so that we can gain some control of it and use that control to our own advantage. It's how we survive and thrive in a world where life forms eat each other to live. And where the environment can easily kill us if we aren't prepared for it.

Yes. And surprisingly enough it often works.

Frequently though it diminishes humanity or is simply wrong. Also since it is for sale to the highest bidder it serves the needs of very few and is harmful to many. The new global warming bill foresees more increase in CO2 production in China and the rest of the world than the decrease in North America and Europe. We end up with more CO2 and the jobs going to China where CO2 is an asset. We shoot ourselves in both feet and for an encore we do ourselves real damage.

What is called "science" today is not science at all and very often untrue, counterproductive, and/ or suicidal.

For a lot of people religion does much the same thing as science, only not on a physical level. More on a circumstantial level. We observe the circumstantial interactions we find ourselves in and try to extrapolate the divine meaning, cause, or purpose behind them. So that we might gain some idea of how to control them, or control ourselves in relation to them, to our own advantage in the future.

Well said, but this doesn't apply tp all religious people.

 

[cladking]

You do realize that the “ancient science” cladking is talking about, predated writings, as in 40,000 years ago?

No. This isn't strictly true and more importantly is irrelevant. Yes, all species use science. All species have consciousness and all consciousness understands reality "scientifically". It's a different kind of science based on logic and the specific species. Human science (homo sapien) Began 40,000 years ago with the first human who was created by a tiny little mutation which tied his sole speech center to higher brain functions. This science lasted 40,000 years and expanded greatly because every individual was a scientist and a metaphysician. The language being metaphysical became overly complex and collapsed. Survivors had to learn the new pidgin languages which were formatted like ours.

There is a staggering amount of evidence and experiment that supports this. Just because there is no Peer in charge doesn't mean it's any less true.

Our species which arose in the rubble of Ancient Language simply uses a different kind of language which is analog and formatted differently. Early modern language speakers tried to preserve ancient science creating religion. Since Ancient Language can not be translated into any parseable language there are errors and inconsistencies. There are many misinterpretations.

Humans don't remember anything or understand anything before 2000 BC because the very nature of language and thought changed. Even the basis of human behavior changed from knowledge to belief.

 

[cladking]

It is a piece of fantasy fiction of his, based on some pictographic symbols of cave painting, that he presume to be metaphorical language, which untranslatable and unreadable.

How could cladking possibly know these symbols to be language of

Again not strictly true and irrelevant to my argument.

My argument is that I have shown virtually conclusively that pyramids were built with linear funiculars by reinterpreting the LITERAL meaning of ancient writing while simultaneously reverse engineering several of the great pyramids. There is widespread physical evidence to support this theory which is the ONLY theory making accurate predictions. The theory demands there was a single universal human language and the cave writing merely serves to support this. Cavemen all over the world scribbled the exact same symbols into caves. I believe I know what several of them mean because they are similar to later writing in the same universal language and I've made some little headway in deducing ancient science.

More's the pity you think you are presenting my ideas accurately.

 

[cladking]

I actually believe there is a little bit of truth in this, in that both science and religion come from the same root desire. And both are derived from the same root "observation/extrapolation" intellectual process. So that's all I was really commenting on.

YES!!!

This is why religion resonates with so many people; it obviously contains truth. This is why people choose side usually and so few embrace both. It is why rejection of faith is apparently not good for SOME individuals.

People don't need religion and, I suppose they don't really need science but EVERYONE needs reason and both science and religion contain reason.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Never mind. I think we have been confusing faith with belief, they are not the same thing.

All the evidence for belief in a Messenger of God is not something that can demonstrated like in a mathematical proof, or a scientific experiment. There is also an inner evidence that is not evident to everyone.

You posted a quote and claimed it was the definition of faith. But even it was supposed to be a definition for belief, it's a REALLY poor definition... one that makes no sense.

And that 'inner evidence' is just a feeling that you should accept the claim on faith, because there's no verifiable evidence.

 

[Truth in love]

You're being very secretive, which is fine. Your business is your business, and you have no duty to share just what you do or in what you are licensed. I was trying to understand how a guy who thinks he has expertise in psychology sufficient to be believed in that area based on unnamed credentials alone wouldn't know what projection is. So, I'll do what I always do in such matters, which is to decide what the likeliest explanation for that is. I'm guessing that you're a social worker and don't work in a clinical setting, possibly making home visits and doing what I am accustomed to what social workers do. The ones I knew were LCSWs working in hospitals, nursing homes, and hospices. I don't recall them referring to patients as clients. Lawyers do that. Architects do that.



What I have said is that nobody has sufficient evidence to justify belief in metaphysical entities such as gods. They can only be believed in by faith. Just because you point to something and call it your evidence does not mean that that evidence supports your conclusion about it. You can provide no evidence that makes the existence of a god likelier than that there are no gods. If you could, you would have by now rather than repeatedly insisting that you have good evidence that justifies your beliefs.



Agreed. Evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident, which of course means evident to the senses. And, of course, evidence and evidence of are different ideas. Sure, it's evidence since it's evident to the senses, but what is it evidence of?

That's where the power of reason comes in interpreting evidence. My dog and I see the same evidence on the TV, but he interprets it as another dog being in the room. It's evidence to both of us, but evidence of what is the question.



Except that religion can give us no guidance in either of those areas, just its unsupported proclamations which have no practical value beyond comforting. In humanism, we deal with both issues without religion. My moral code does not come from any holy book or any other received wisdom from the past. It's the consequence of reason applied to my moral intuitions, namely that I ought to live by the Golden Rule, and that society ought to be structured to maximize freedom and opportunity for all. And so, unlike the church, I can find no moral failing in homosexuality, and unlike the church, the humanist supports reproductive freedom for women.

Regarding all metaphysical questions, the answer is the same - agnosticism. Are there gods? There's no way to decide at this time. Is there an afterlife? We can't know. Is their a supernatural realm? There is no reason to believe so.

I'd say that these are better approaches to both moral and metaphysical matters, and that religions actually get in the way when they divert people into irrational beliefs, often destructive. Spirituality in Christianity doesn't resemble the naturalistic view on the topic. and in my opinion, doesn't seem to understand what the word spiritual should refer to. Hint: it has nothing to do with spirits, nor unseen worlds. It's about one's relationship to his world.

Look at what Christianity does to that, attempting to divert attention, sense of connection, and gratitude from our actual reality to imagined realities. It's thanking a deity for the work of the immune system and expert doctors and nurses with effective therapies developed by humanity for humanity. That's the opposite of spiritual to me. It cheapens and demeans reality.

Given the extremes the woke folks go to destroy anyone questioning their agenda it is reasonable safety precaution. Also as I might someday serve a person who might read some of this and to avoid any undue influence I keep my details limited (ethics thing).

This takes us back to reality that I can't see evidence of many things unless I put in the work first. I can't go play with a nuclear reactor unless I get the proper training. I can't swing by the local hospital and do surgery. I have great faith that I have a heart and lungs, but I've never seen them. Your argument keep being that if you have not seen it, it is not.

We have many people in many fields who do see and do write about what they see. In my religious up bringing far more than any science class I was in we were asked to see for ourselves. We don't dismiss the writings and words of others, but it is about our own experience to a very large degree.

Halite is salty. How do I know I licked it a few ties to pass geology. Sure I read about it and was told about it, but it was when I actually did the experiment myself that I really had a knowledge of it Now you can yell that geology is a fraud all day long, you can accuse my professor of being a jerk and whatever else, but you cannot alter the fact that I was in the class and did have the experience of licking a few rocks (maybe not the most sanitary choice ever, but that's a side note).

The only difference between the above and matter of religion is that you are more likely to accept rocks than a spiritual experience. I've had both and the latter is no less real.

 

[sun rise]

Depends what you mean my meaning, doing the best i can is meaningful.

Without getting into semantic hair-splitting, what I mean here is that it feels meaningful to you. I could not believe you were an extreme nothing has any meaning pleasure seeking nihilist.

But in the grand scheme of things life is just a natural accident on a small lump of rock situated about the middle of the (current) western spiral arm of our galaxy which is one galaxy among about 2 trillion other galaxies.

What is the meaning of life to the universe?

To the atheist - no meaning. To me, the universe is God manifest.But there's zero sense in trying to convince you that my belief is correct. The only important thing as far as I can see is that we're both trying to do the best we can.

 

[Madmogwai]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

Faith was a word created to make people believe in things they cannot sense or prove.
Next came the word Blasphemy, which was created to punish those who question things, Blasphemous Faithless ********.
What is Faith
A Higher member of any Abrahamic Religion will say, “I have a rock in my fist”. You ask him to open his fist and he replies “have Faith” and your ok with that.
A Buddhist will say open your hand, until you do you neither have it or not.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

No, It is reasonable to "trust" science. It is not reasonable to believe in science. Science is a method that depends on experiment and if you believe in science you start trusting experts which is unreasonable.

So, let me get this right….
You’re telling me it’s not reasonable to believe in something that I can trust?

If it’s unreasonable to trust experts, who is it reasonable to trust; the inexperienced and uneducated?
Or do you mean something different when you say
“Experts”?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You are just repeating what I said; we know everything except how life began so the only "gap" is here. Homo omnisciencis.

What was the date or the discovery when it became justified to say everything is caused by natural law and there is no God? Or are we still waiting to show life originated in a pond?

Can you discern the difference between these 2 sentences?
1. One of the last gaps.
2. The only gaps

 

[cladking]

So, let me get this right….
You’re telling me it’s not reasonable to believe in something that I can trust?

If it’s unreasonable to trust experts, who is it reasonable to trust; the inexperienced and uneducated?
Or do you mean something different when you say
“Experts”?

And there you go with semantics. I don't play.

Can you discern the difference between these 2 sentences?
1. One of the last gaps.
2. The only gaps

You defined the terms with your words. Go back and read your post (or mine).

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You really should read what I write.

"As more observations are made, the accuracy of an object's orbit improves dramatically, and it becomes possible to predict where an object will be years or even decades into the future – and whether it could come close to Earth."

They are watching a significant number of known bodies that come or might in the future come near earth. The chances of them spotting an unknown body approaching the earth is very very low until it gets very very close. There are no professionals or large telescopes sweeping the sky searching for anomalous movements. Most such bodies are found by amateurs.

As I’ve said before:

Maybe if your going to make claims about things you have little to no understanding of….do at least a smidge of research?

You keep claiming that we are incapable of doing things that in fact we do routinely.
When your shown that, you go all passive aggressive.

I gave you the link.
I’m afraid I can’t read it for you….
“You can lead a horse to water,
but you can’t make it drink”

Guess you missed:
“The Center also maintains the Scout system that continually monitors brand-new potential near-Earth object detections, even before they have been confirmed as new discoveries, to see whether any of these generally very small asteroids might pose a threat of short-term (possibly imminent) impact.


NASA established the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO) to manage its ongoing mission of planetary defense. The PDCO:

• Provides early detection of potentially hazardous objects (PHOs) – the subset of NEOs whose orbits predict they will come within 5 million miles of Earth’s orbit; and of a size large enough (30 to 50 meters) to cause significant damage on Earth
• 
  
• The PDCO sponsors projects through its Near-Earth Object (NEO) Observations Program that employ a variety of ground and space based telescopes to search for NEOs, determine their orbits, and measure their physical characteristics. The PDCO is studying possible space-based telescope missions optimized for NEO search and characterization that could accelerate the discovery of the currently undetected NEOs.”!

I see no need to continue this pattern.
I fear I might not recover from yet another passive aggressive pasting

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You suggested that everyone should do what scientists say

I have never said this,… perhaps you can point me to where you perceived me as saying anything close to it?

Remember when you said you understand how science works?……
Here is more evidence to the contrary:

Where is the science that says refrigerators should last only a few years? Where is the science that says we should import things from China that cost more to transport than they are worth? Where is the science that says the US taxpayer should be forced to pay for the insurance of things built on the beach before rising sea levels? Where is the science that says we should use more energy to make gasahol than the energy contained in the finished product?

Where is the science that says the human race should be self destructive if it benefits the few?

Where is the science that shows greed is good and Peers are always right?

Obviously science isn’t involved in any of this nonsense.
I’m sorry you just can’t understand that.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Once upon a time long long ago all science was based on experiment but many changes have happened since. Science was wrecked by Darwin and then its pieces assailed by Freud. Einstein tried to sweep up the pieces but might not have gotten everything put back together quite right and much of the damage was already done and spread like a cancer. Now days much of what is called "science" is more aptly named what I call "Look and See Science". This science holds that if you're well respected among Peers you can just look and see what's real, create computer models, or count the angels dancing on the heads of a pin.

Long before this science arose there was a more ancient science not based on experiment but on logic. No, not our logic because our logic is dependent on words and how they are parsed. It's impossible to make any statement that can't be parsed to be wrong AND to be right. Logic is inherent not only to consciousness but also to reality itself. Long before there was a homo omniscience to count to one if a bird landed in a tree the number of birds sitting in the tree went from zero to one. This logic is ALWAYS maintained in nature and is the only universal truth so far as our science can determine. But the bird's perspective or the homo sapiens watching it there was a natural logic that arose naturally from their consciousnesses. No bird in tree > a bird (me) in tree. This is the basis of all science other than our science. I call the human version of this science "ancient science" because it was far more advanced than all other consciousnesses not because humans are any more conscious or any more intelligent but because humans had a complex language which could be used to expand knowledge from generation to generation. It was complex language that created homo sapiens and its failure at the tower of babel that destroyed it.

This 40,000 years of scientific advancement was lost in its entirety but the shreds exist everywhere we look today. The most intact ancient science exists in religion which is essentially the results wrapped up into something recognizable to people. It is presented as a belief system because it is not known how it arose. Obviously it is no longer logical because nothing can be expressed logically in modern languages. But make no mistake there were no beliefs in ancient science. It was merely a description of reality based on human interests and expressed in a human perspective. It's no wonder it resonates with many people. The Ancient Language had no words for belief or thought and it broke Zipf's Law because this arises only from thought and they didn't think.

This reads like the prologue to a fantasy novel.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

And there you go with semantics. I don't play.

I used your words…..

It is reasonable to "trust" science. It is not reasonable to believe in science.

you start trusting experts which is unreasonable.

And I asked for clarification…..
Would you like to try again?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You defined the terms with your words. Go back and read your post (or mine).

Could you let me know which post #s you would like me to reconsider?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Okay, thanks for the background of the conversation. Normally I would be reading through the posts to try to understand what people are discussing but I have had more pressing issues lately, so I just picked something that I read that jumped out at me to respond to.

No problem

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Indeed, if the Bible is interpreted literally, it does contradict what is actually known by science about the physical world. As a Baha'i, I do not interpret those things literally, I believe they are symbolic for spiritual truths.

So would you agree, like I said that many religions (possibly not yours; which is why I didn’t say all)
do make claims that fall within the “domain of physical reality”, and that many of their adherents make claims of miracles etc. that directly contradict known physical science?

BTW, I do not believe that God 'makes' the sun rise. The reason the sun rises is explained by science. This is all part of the physical creation God created but I don't believe God is intervening and 'doing stuff.'

So, would you agree with me that:
“The concept that there is no God because the planet rotates revealing the sun every morning is far less supportable than the concept that God makes the sun come up in the morning.”
Is a false claim?


My apologies, I’m not very familiar with the Baha’i Faith. I’ve never personally met anyone (at least that I’m aware of) that was a Baha’i.

Of course I do not expect an atheist to accept that, and it is not a claim, it is a belief. I do not make claims about things that cannot be proven.

That is wise.
May I enquire then what that belief is based on?

“Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate.

Would you say that since that time (when was this?), the conception of either system has become adequate?
Would it be one, the other, both or neither, and in what way?

 

[Truthseeker]

What about them?

The communist state in the Soviet Union killed millions of people under Stalin, and through all it's history unjustly incarcerated people for political reasons. They had the principle of atheism, and not having the principle derived from Christianity the desie to please God in the path of serving the best interests of men for the sake of God. If you say in Russia religion had become a tool for the Czar, you would be largely right, that's how Christianity had degenerated in that country.

I'm talking even about things like laws against Sunday liquor sales or giving special tax breaks to clergy, along with more critical issues like same-sex marriage bans.

I don't understand why alchohol sales are banned on Sunday, where is that derived from Jesus' teachings? Christians drink alchohol. Jesus drank wine. It looks arbitrary to me and not based on any reasonable extrapolation from the Bible. It's just a custom that developed, it has nothing to do with ethics derived from Jesus' teachings. Why are there tax breaks for churches? It's because the money they get is presumed to be used for good ends. I know very little about that. I don't belong to a church, I don't know what churches are doing. I'm a Baha'i, and we don't have clergy.

Baha'i also believe that marriage should be of the same sex, but we are not going to pressure government to ban same sex marriage, it would be wrong to impose our standards on people by our ethics.

I advocate for ethics derived from religious teachings in a fair and just way from the Founders, that what I am asking for. If religon is corrupted into bad forms or mere customs over time, that has nothing to do with the essence of that religion. You are asking for Christian good ethics in all cases after it has been polluted over time by the culture it decveloped in that has nothing to with the original teachings.

And I'm talking about how ethics can be justified.

If you're inspired by your religion to do good in the world, great.

... But if you try to pass laws that will impact others, you'll need to justify this restriction on liberty to the satisfaction of the people under those laws. If your justification depends on the principles of some religion that those people don't all believe, then it isn't a reasonable justification.

I agree that those principle shouldn't be imposed on people who don't believe in the teachings of a particular religion. When I say ethics, I am primarily talking about applying justice fairly, being trustworthy, being truthful, things of that nature, things that people who don't have religion, in my opinion are less likely to apply to themselves. What keeps the religious people, some of them, on the path of righeousness is the desire to please God, and to serve men for the sake of God.

 

[Truthseeker]

You posted a quote and claimed it was the definition of faith. But even it was supposed to be a definition for belief, it's a REALLY poor definition... one that makes no sense.

And that 'inner evidence' is just a feeling that you should accept the claim on faith, because there's no verifiable evidence.

It's not verified publicly. It's crazy, in my opinion, to insist that you have verify everything in a public to believe in something yourself. I don't insist on you following my "inner evidence". It has nothing to do with you. I believe in unity in diversity of opinion, and not trying to impose sameness on everyone.