Real World Philospohy

[Loser]

You are right, Narf, there are a lot of similarities between Science and Religion. The big difference between Science and all the other Dogma out there is that science is wrong. No other Dogma is willing to admit that it is wrong, if that ever happens, it is abandoned and people invent a new one, maybe giving it the same name, but the words of higher powers are never wrong.

Science, on the other hand, is wrong. It is allowed to be. It is constantly correcting itself, improving, and moving forward. True science does not require faith, because "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", and science is not about hope, or the unperceivable. Real science deals only with what can be proven, and most importantly what can be proven repeatedly by different scientists. If an experiment does not get reproducible results the theory it 'proves' is not proven, and not part of Hard Science.

Some areas commonly associated with science are difficult to prove, but that doesn't stop people from trying, and from taking the results and forming new theories. The psychology of an individual and certain actions or trends of great scale, like astrophysics, evolutionary biological trends, or even economics, may still be highly theoretical simply because we do not yet have the technology to make the needed measurements, let alone to run or reproduce an experiment. So these might not be Hard Sciences, and these might, for now, require 'faith'. We're working on it.

Now you might point out that you are not able to reproduce, personally, the experiments on which many modern principles of Science depend. And you might claim this moves Science into the realm of faith. And you might point out that the lingua sancti of Science, Math, has grown so large that no one man can understand all its fields, in fact I believe that Last man to do so was John Herschel, who died in 1871. And you might have a point. But they can be proven, where faith is reserved for those thing that can't.

[Erax]

While I agree with most of Loser's points, I believe there is a larger issue you are all missing.

Simply put, there is no need for conflict between science and religion bercause they address different questions.

Science exists to explain how.

Religion exists to explain why.

Using science to explain why or religion to explain how is apt to fail miserably (and often does).

[Cyrien]

I don't like arguing religion. Neither side can ever win because it is... faith. And faith by it's nature can never be proved or disproved.

But... as to misery on earth being created by humans and free will... Last I checked hurricans and tornadoes and earthquakes weren't caused by humans and their freewill.

Now you can use the old argument that such disasters give people a chance to show their virtues such as bravery etc... but doesn't that interfere with freewill? In addition aren't all the man made disasters, such as war, collapsing buildings etc enough for people to prove their virtues without having to cause great disasters that kill, maim, torture and otherwise do evil to those who possibly have done nothing to deserve that. (What does a 2 month old baby do to deserve something like that? Wasn't original sin taken care of already with Christ?)

I could go on and on with the problems in organized religion and unorganized and most of the religious texts (several of which I have read in several different translations) ....

There is no point to doing so however. Experience has showed me that people who believe believe regardless and arguments to the contrary, even ones they can't counter won't have any affect. That is the nature of faith.

Those who don't believe already don't believe so what is the point?

Let me just say that the God who talks to me is right and yours is wrong! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! My morale and ethical values are correct and you can either agree with me or you can be wrong! Fortunatly for you, you don't have to believe in my God to get the good afterlife or at least a second chance. Those who are deserving of punishment shall recieve it based on a code of ethics and morales to complex to be accuratly placed into words, but not having the faith isn't adequate cause to be eternally damned to torture and pain.

After all... what is the point of having free will and punishing for the wrong choices if you tell at least 5 different people that they have the one true path and all others are damned and can't agree on what is and isn't forgiveable?!?


Just my few cents worth or whatever other currency you want to use.

[Loser]

Nice, Erax. I'll keep that point around for the next time I get in one of these.

[TerranC]

My philosophy is to never discuss politics, sciences, religions, and world issues over the dinner table.

IMHO, it's the most solid one there is in this world of ours.

[ November 06, 2003, 20:50: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[Andrés]

Of course, God existing is a pretty big assumption to begin with.

Assuming there is no God is an equally big assumption.
It takes faith to accept God's existence, but it also takes faith to deny it.
Truly scientific thinking should give the benefit of doubt to something that although cannot be proven cannot be disproved either.

I like to think it's possible that there is somekind of superior being (or beings), although I doubt any religion is right about its nature.
If there is a god, He (or She or They) should be able to show himself in a way that even the most skeptic would have to admit He's real, and if He wants us to behave in any particular way He should give clear instructions of what He wants us to do.

The lack of such proof leads me to conclude that either 1- there is no god, or 2- He is powerless to affect our world or 3- He doesn't care what we do or what happens to us.

But those are just my personal thoughts. And it's not my intention to force my point of view on anyone else.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Andres:
I like to think it's possible that there is somekind of superior being (or beings), although I doubt any religion is right about its nature.

Given that just about every logical possibility has been set forth by the world religions, it just can't be that they're all equally wrong. If logic and rationality hold true in the religious/spiritual sphere as they do in other areas (and I think they do), then somebody has to be right - or at least more right than the others. It is impossible that Bertrand Russell (atheist), Gandhi (pantheist/Hindu), and G. K. Chesterton (Roman Catholic) were equally right/wrong as to the nature of supernatural reality. The question is, "how do we tell"?

EDIT - name errors

[ November 06, 2003, 22:55: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]