Religion (proper) and science (proper) both must be devoid of superstition?

[Unveiled Artist]

There is one universal belief---all societies, no matter how remote all have had a belief in a higher power and they all call it some kind of a god

No they didn't. Not all gods are supreme beings and creators. The gods, devas, and so forth in Buddhism (for example) are at the same level of learning as humans are. They are not people of worship nor are they deities. Pagans see deities different and they may use the same word god, but to compare it to Christianity is a big big huge no-no.

And because it is not universally accepted, it is considered a superstition. What is wrong with that word?

 

[omega2xx]

I think everyone has a issue with the words rather than the meaning.

I have faith (trust in something that I cannot prove) that my grandmothers exist. It is blind because it is something I cannot prove. It's "invisible" trust/truth that I know in my heart is true regardless of what it is called. It's not based on something that I can see hence the reason it's called "blind."

On that note.

Your assurance and conviction does not mean you can see (by your post) what you believe and know is true. Since you cannot see it, it is considered "blind" or invisible. That does not invalidate what you believe. It just means it's not tangible.

Just because god, moses, and everyone can say it is true does not make it visible. It just means you have confirmation of what you believe is true. That doesn't mean it is not blind. You still need faith or a leap of faith/trust to believe in something you say you cannot see (you need trust to believe in something you are blinded by) but having confirmation doesn't make your faith less blind just substantiated by your experiences and testimonies you hold dear. Nothing wrong with that.

Faith is blind or it wouldn't be faith it would be fact. It's like looking into a deep abyss. You have confirmation that there is someone under the darkness that will catch you. Nothing wrong with that. But you still admit that you cannot see through that darkness. That means regardless of whose assuring you what's at the bottom, your faith is blinded until you make that jump. When you make that leap of faith (called blind faith or just faith) you are assured what you believe is true.

But as long as you need faith to believe it and don't claim it as knowledge or fact, it will be blind. Nothing wrong with believing in god by faith. I don't agree with living life off of faith or leap of faith (blind faith). I am sure and know that my grandmothers exist. I don't need faith for that. So it isn't blinded.

However, the christian faith says "hope for things unseen" and it says that what can be seen is not as important as what cannot be seen. Moses couldn't even see god's face. People have been killed for trying to find god and others turned into salt.

So, there's nothing wrong with blind faith. Call it leap of faith or taking a chance or hope. But in the end, because you don't know, it is always something you cannot see. Another word for "not being able to see" is being blind.

Nothing wrong with that, right?

I certainly don't object the the term "blind faith." I just like the one in the Bible better. The bottom line is we have confidence that somethng we can't see is real.

 

[omega2xx]

No they didn't. Not all gods are supreme beings and creators. The gods, devas, and so forth in Buddhism (for example) are at the same level of learning as humans are. They are not people of worship nor are they deities. Pagans see deities different and they may use the same word god, but to compare it to Christianity is a big big huge no-no.

Right but the bottom line is that every society evee found, had a beleif in some kind of god.

And because it is not universally accepted, it is considered a superstition. What is wrong with that word?

Believing in false god;s is superstituion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I certainly don't object the the term "blind faith." I just like the one in the Bible better. The bottom line is we have confidence that somethng we can't see is real.

Well, the term has gotten a negative connotation along the years but I find it redundant. That's why we have faith because we want to trust in something we don't know about. Whether it's real or not isn't the issue. I think that's where the mix up comes from. Just because you have blind faith doesn't mean what you have faith in is false. But not many "non believers" understand that. But I think that's only a handful. Not many people care, actually.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Right but the bottom line is that every society evee found, had a beleif in some kind of god.

Being a little sarcastic: If it makes you feel better, many societies do but to generalize them all is, well, wrong. To compare them to the god you know is definitely wrong and an insult. To define them how you define god is an insult. So, unless you know other people's gods, just because they say they believe in gods and deities doesn't mean they share the same definitions and views as you do.

Believing in false god;s is superstituion.

Believing in god in and of itself is a superstition because it cannot be supported by reasonable facts. It has nothing to do with a specific religion. There is no "false" in the definition of superstition. Unless you can justify the supernatural and how it influences the causes and events we have on a daily basis, it will always be superstition.

Why is that a bad word? (Based on the actual definition of the word)

 

[Revoltingest]

Spiritual concepts are never testable, but that does not make them false.

They're in the old "not even wrong" category.
(That's why I'm a weak atheist.)

 

[Willamena]

Unless you can justify the supernatural and how it influences the causes and events we have on a daily basis, it will always be superstition.

Bingo.

 

[Willamena]

Neither 'superstition' or 'science' are inherently true
If a step on a crack I don't break my mothers back, is a superstition
The faked embryo drawings of Henkle may have made there way into many text books today but they are and always were fraudulent like Piltdown man who was a chimp with teeth filed flat and stained dark. Theories of the big bang the last century changed so massively as to contradict each other on basic boundaries of universal constant ranges we absolutely know.

On the other hand saving faith is a leap toward the light, not a shot in the dark .
Science is also build on conjecture, speculation and theory toward the light it sees, explaining data seen and testing it refining ideas

That part in red isn't science, though. And theories of the Big Bang evolve, as well they should. Science isn't inherently true for entirely different reasons than you suggest.

 

[Willamena]

I agree. Been there, one that. However there are no superstitions in Christianity, for those who undersatnd it.

What about penance for sin?

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, the term has gotten a negative connotation along the years but I find it redundant. That's why we have faith because we want to trust in something we don't know about. Whether it's real or not isn't the issue. I think that's where the mix up comes from. Just because you have blind faith doesn't mean what you have faith in is false. But not many "non believers" understand that. But I think that's only a handful. Not many people care, actually.

"Just because you have blind faith doesn't mean what you have faith in is false"
Please illustrate one's point.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That part in red isn't science, though. And theories of the Big Bang evolve, as well they should. Science isn't inherently true for entirely different reasons than you suggest.

"Science isn't inherently true for entirely different reasons"

Please give some reasons with illustration.
Regards

 

[McBell]

Study the Bible. Those things are not part of Christian beliefs. In fact they are condemned.

Double talk

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Just because you have blind faith doesn't mean what you have faith in is false"
Please illustrate one's point.
Regards

I explained it better in #60 to @omega2xx

 

[Willamena]

"Science isn't inherently true for entirely different reasons"

Please give some reasons with illustration.
Regards

Science is an epistemological study, which means that it takes the side of doubt against the side of knowing. It builds models and tests that those models work, and while they work it's all good, but when they no longer work, science must evolve. It must build new models.

Just like consciousness.

 

[omega2xx]

Well, the term has gotten a negative connotation along the years but I find it redundant. That's why we have faith because we want to trust in something we don't know about. Whether it's real or not isn't the issue. I think that's where the mix up comes from. Just because you have blind faith doesn't mean what you have faith in is false. But not many "non believers" understand that. But I think that's only a handful. Not many people care, actually.

Agreed. Non-believers use "blind faith" in a derrogatory way to try and show Christians are putting their faith in something that is not real. We know better.

 

[omega2xx]

Being a little sarcastic: If it makes you feel better, many societies do but to generalize them all is, well, wrong. To compare them to the god you know is definitely wrong and an insult. To define them how you define god is an insult. So, unless you know other people's gods, just because they say they believe in gods and deities doesn't mean they share the same definitions and views as you do.

It was not sarcasm, it was a true statement. ALL societies ever found have had a belief in a god, or gods. I used "god" not "God." I have not compared anyone to God or a god. I have not said anything about thier god(s).

Believing in god in and of itself is a superstition because it cannot be supported by reasonable facts. It has nothing to do with a specific religion. There is no "false" in the definition of superstition. Unless you can justify the supernatural and how it influences the causes and events we have on a daily basis, it will always be superstition.
My belief in God is not a superstition. I KNOW He is real.

Why is that a bad word? (Based on the actual definition of the word)

Where did I says it was a bad word?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It was not sarcasm, it was a true statement. ALL societies ever found have had a belief in a god, or gods. I used "god" not "God." I have not compared anyone to God or a god. I have not said anything about their god(s).

How do you define their g- ods?

god just means object or person of worship. A lot of religious call who or what they believe in gods (given the abrahamic influence) but according to their religion, it is not considered so. It's an abrahamic influence to define other peoples objects or persons they give reference to (or so have you) to make sense of who or what others worship in comparison to their own.



It's a natural comparison, though. How else do you define gods if not for what you know about gods compared to other people's definition of the word in their language and culture?

 

[suncowiam]

When neither view can be proved, we must turn to what is most logic al. IMO, it is not logical for a creation not only to have a Creator, since all of the processes we have work perfectly the same way all the time, we also need an Intelligent designer.


Christian faith is not blind---Faith is the assurance of things hope for, the conviction of things not seen---Heb 11:1.

Oh, and who created the creator?

It's only "logical" that anything would have a creator, even the creator.

 

[omega2xx]

Oh, and who created the creator?

It's only "logical" that anything would have a creator, even the creator.

You can't have it both ways. Either God is eternal or matter, energy and life is. IMO it is more logical to say a creation needs a Creator. If you have a better explanaion for matter, energy and life to be eternal, please present it.

 

[suncowiam]

You can't have it both ways. Either God is eternal or matter, energy and life is. IMO it is more logical to say a creation needs a Creator. If you have a better explanaion for matter, energy and life to be eternal, please present it.

The sum of all energy is 0 so we live in a flat universe.