[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Chronon]

I think what Dogscoff had to say about his philosophy of religion is relevant here. As is usual with these discussions, we are operating on a number of different levels. As Dogscoff argued, there is a huge difference between organized religion (the Church) and a personal spiritual journey. I would argue that the path to enlightenment is a sort of personal progress (although the Zen masters would whack me around the shoulders for conceiving of it in this way ).

On the other hand, progress (the Enlightenment philosophes at work again - the same people for whom Catholicism was a superstition) in its modern usage is irrelevent to religion. Early Christianity, for example, eschewed the material in favor of the spiritual (the Papacy of the Medieval and Early Modern periods is another story) and would have scoffed at the importance of worldly progress. Saying that religion does not have progress is like saying you can't score goals in baseball. It simply does not apply.

Moreover,in the spirit of the Devil's Advocate (and post-modernists' advocate, too), I would like to toss out the postulate that progress itself is a modern myth. On one hand we have modern medicine, computers, cd players, SUV's, and Quick Marts. On the other hand, we have the atomic bomb, nerve gas, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, and totalitarianism (impossible without modern technology). Are we really improving ourselves?

About twenty years ago I would have answered a resounding yes. Now I'm not so sure...

[Andrés]

Evidence supporting Evolution vs Evidence supporting Creationism

[Fyron]

Chronon:

ethnic cleansing

We have _always_ had ethnic cleansing. This is nothing new.

On the other hand, progress (the Enlightenment philosophes at work again - the same people for whom Catholicism was a superstition) in its modern usage is irrelevent to religion. Early Christianity, for example, eschewed the material in favor of the spiritual (the Papacy of the Medieval and Early Modern periods is another story) and would have scoffed at the importance of worldly progress. Saying that religion does not have progress is like saying you can't score goals in baseball. It simply does not apply.

My entire point was that the "faith" involved in believing in science is wholey unequivalent to believing in religion. That was only one example of how the "faith" is in no way equivalent.

Baron Munchausen :

This is a fascinating argument. I see you keep repeating it so I have a question

It is only repeated because people keep missing my point. I have no choice but to reword it, in hopes that they can see it.

Do you consider the concept of evolution to be science or faith?

As Andres said, the theory of evolution is based off of observed evidence, experimentation, etc. It is the model that best fits with the evidence and such, so it is the commonly accepted theory. If new accurate evidence surfaced that wholey contradicted evolution and pointed to something else, then the theory would be modified or replaced, as need be. Now take a religious example: creation. Creation is not based off of evidence or experimentation, it is based off of what [insert name of holy scripture here] says, period. If new accurate evidence comes out that contradicts the holy scripture, the evidence must be flawed. Religion is not subject to change of its major views in the way that science is. This is another part of how the "faith" involved in accepting religious and scientific views is wholely unrelated.

[Gryphin]

Hmm the most basic Faith vs Fact
What was there before there was something?
Where did that something come from?

[spoon]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
Hmm the most basic Faith vs Fact
What was there before there was something?
Where did that something come from?

One theory:
1) Nothing
2) Nothing

The follow-up:
1) What was there before God?
2) Where did God come from?

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Evidence supporting Evolution vs Evidence supporting Creationism

Wrong example. The issue is not which theory is 'better'. The issue is that evolution is NOT a proven theory. I am asserting uncertainty, inconclusiveness, not a rival theory. This is the instant assumption of the believers in Scientism, though. Anyone who challenges evolution must be a religious fundamentalist.

[Fyron]

Electron theory is not a "proven theory" either.