- Nicole Small
- Roanoke, VA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should Science be Considered a Religion?
This "conversation" has been voluntarily removed from the site. I apologize for any inconveniences. Feel free to add more comments or continue existing conversations here.
Noah Crossfield
Overall, I do not think that science as a subject should be considered a religion. Empirical data and evidence for scientific theories are very different than a theological doctrine. In this sense science is not a religion.
On the other hand, sometimes people develop a philosophical/theological framework based on science. This sort of idea stresses logical reasoning and experimentation. Sometimes however people falsely extend the reaches of science into philosophical/theological realms. For example, science has proven a possible way for humanity to develop through evolution. Some people extend this to mean that no sort of deity exists, but that is an over extension of what science really says. This takes a sort of theological approach that is often associated with, but not really science. When people extend science into a theological realm, science does gain some religious qualities. Ironically though, when people do extend science into theological realm, it is not science at all; it is faith.
James McGuiness
Justin Elkin
Justin Elkin
Charles Ames
Nonetheless we legitimately get into questions like those you pose because uncovering internal contradictions and fundamental disagreements with observations are some of the primary ways we find out that we need better models. (Disagreement with scripture, however, does not count against an otherwise useful theory.)
Its a bit easier on the imagination to run evolution backwards to the first biochemical reactions than it is to get one's mind around "what happened before time began?" That very questions occupies the best minds in Cosmology and remains a subject of intense debate. My limited understanding of the current trend is that our notion of time is mostly an illusion. There was no beginning, nor will there be an end, and so there is no way to ask the question "what was there before time began?"
Brett Gracey
I can't disagree with that concept, it is often difficult to allow for that which seems impossible to understand to just be. So all too often we invent answers to help us sleep at night secure in our knowledge. And that type of thinking is only a problem if one is inflexible in their willingness to revisit said knowledge.
Nicole Small
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Justin Elkin
We are all familiar with the question, if a tree falls in the woods and noone is there to hear it, Does it make a sound? Most of us would answer of course because we understand what sound is and how it travels. The prophet of yore had no knowledge of acoustics much less the vocabulary in his native language to express such knowledge so it passes into the realm of "God makes it so, have faith" or Dhamma. Whether it's looked at as righteousness or a quest to end suffering, the concept of the higher power gave our ancestors the means to a code of behavior that allows for the cultivation of such knowledge. Sure, people have used great messages for evil means and control but to say that's all it's for is crazy. The death of culture and higher ideals are a real thing especially to cultures of antiquity. Presently, there is a disconnect between Scientific Reasoning and Reigious Values that are in need of reconciliation so we can all uplift eachother into the next great step of human acheivement.
Nicole Small
Justin Elkin
Charles Ames
If find it ironic/tragic when science-minded folks act like Yankees fans in a debate like this one. Furthermore, do so isn't going to help alleviate religious-minded anxieties about scientific progress, nor science-minded anxieties about religious influence on public policy.
I liked your term "empathetic view" -- participating with empathy is the only way to learn something, especially about what that crazy person across the table might be trying to say. Dogma has to be at least temporarily set aside in order to achieve that kind of empathy.
Charles Ames
Maybe human nature demands that we align with sides and present opposition. Maybe its simply because you posed this question in the "Debate" section of the site.
In any case, It is certainly ironic, if not downright tragic, to see people who claim to uphold the highest qualities of science -- skepticism, objectivity, reason, willingness to go where the evidence leads -- crippled by dogma. We need to do better.
Justin Elkin
Justin Elkin
If there was, in fact, empirical knowledge throughout history to the beginning of Time, how can logic of evolution and/or atheism claim any intellectual sovereignty, when faced with a point in time where there is nothing to change from, nothing to attribute any distinction to/from, without identifying/acknowledging an entity of emergent transcendence...God?
Brett Gracey
Dan F 50+
Science is not religion. The closest similarity is that both appeal to a wide variety of people, which in turn often bring about close friendships or connections that reinforce one another's involvement. Both have recognized scholars. One more similarity - they both address questions involving the HOWS AND WHYS of reality.
I am a naturalist to the bone. You may detect some bias in my quick list below as to how they differ.
Focus:
Religion: Does not wander far from what is considered sacred, or central to the faith
Science: Wide open to anything that can be physically examined and tested.
Drive:
Religion: Commitment, authority and dogma
Science: Empirical knowledge, discovery, application
World view:
Religion: Varies around the world
Science: Universal methodology and recognition
Purpose:
Religion: Control
Science: Application, understanding
Societal:
Religion: Theocracies to minor roles, but overall big cultural influence with nice stimulating tax benefits.
Science: Modern era take off with profound expanding role generally.
Offerings:
Religion: Promises
Science: No promises
Detractive elements:
Religion: Exploiting individuals, etc.
Science: Environmentally costly commercial application of science technology driven by financial gain, etc.
Appeal:
Religion: Faith and acceptance
Science: Curiosity and perspective
What do you think?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Salim Solaiman 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
To some extent they may both try and explain the universe, but may come at this via different processes revelation versus the scientific process.
By science, I mean the modern scientific process. Obviously this has developed over time.
Also, there may be infinite variations of melding modern science with religious:
From rejecting evolution, to seeing evolution and natural processes as part of god’s creation, to superimposing some mystical and magical thinking and purpose to the universe and the amazing and mind bending explanations and findings at the cosmic and quantum levels. Or simply not choosing to subjectively imply any magical purpose or agency.
So I guess some views of science wander off into the magical realm I mostly associate with religion and superstition. You also seem to be supporting this by highlighting some of the similarities. Even the differences from your perspective might not be barriers to this view if you see some agency or purpose or whatever revealed by scientific findings.
So I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
Personally, I withhold judgement about the agency and purpose questions, and while there are overlaps given they are human activities and are melded into world views etc, to me they are sufficiently different to reject the proposition that sicence is a religion and vice versa.
But I acknowledge people can mix science into religion, or religion into science if they choose, or define and focus on the elements that support their view.
Doug White
Stewart Gault 30+
Gabo Moreno 100+
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Stewart Gault 30+
Comment deleted
Nicole Small
Self-awareness, theology, philosophy, theory (introduces experimentation to philosophy,) and ultimately, fact. Many see Science as diverging from the path, but I see that emotions and opinions still drive people to want to separate the two, when you pretty much can't have one without the other.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Nicole Small
Jeff Cable
Brett Gracey
You are correct about my statement, the fact that religion wants lunacy like intelligent design to be treated as real science is a major problem.
As for equivocating Christian evangelicals with all religions, sure it's overly broad, but it's not the Buddists that are trying to stop stem cell research. It's also not Buddists who run for political office, at least not on the continent on which I live.
If what you would like to hear from me is that not all religions are against science. That's probably true, I don't say this because of specific knowledge, after all I don't claim to know all religions, nor all religious doctrine. What fool could say they do? I do however know much of the Judeo-Christian doctrine that dominates the West and I'm also aware of the damage that those doctrines have done to our society in their all too often overzealous persecution of scientists and scientific discovery in the past millennia.
You may think it's important to attempt to placate some religions ( I believe that is what you are attempting to promote here), but I don't. Why should a researcher have to in anyway cowtow to a religious person? Because their research might anger someone's god, or stop someone from believing, or it's an affront to god? If a religious person wants to have influence over science, then I suggest they get an education, do some research and get in the field, otherwise stick to Hail Mary's.
I don't worry about being perceived as ill informed, dogmatic or idealogically motivated, as I'm not ill informed, I don't subscribe to dogma and above all I value knowledge over hokum.
Charles Ames
>> What possible purpose would there be for science to even dabble in any religion?
None, in the conduct of science. But I believe that anyone who enters this debate on the side of science ought to have an objective understanding of both sides, and be able to -- not just refute -- but illuminate, persuade, and inform decisions based on the ensuing discussion. No one can blame professionals who want to just keep their heads down and do their work in peace. But you spoke up, and so here we are.
>> Do you purport that religion has something to teach science that science is unable to discover without the help of a Rabbi, or the bible?
No. Where did you get that idea?
>> It's also not Buddists who run for political office, at least not on the continent on which I live.
Religious freedom will become ever more difficult to preserve if we allow ourselves to succumb to the idea that Religion == Christianity, even in the US. It doesn't. Not even here. Even if there's only 1 Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu kid in the whole school, that's enough to say "there are two religions represented here."
>> (I believe that is what you are attempting to promote here)
Not even remotely.
>> Why should a researcher have to in anyway cowtow to a religious person? Because their research might anger someone's god, or stop someone from believing, or it's an affront to god?
Of course not.
>> If a religious person wants to have influence over science, then I suggest they get an education, do some research and get in the field, otherwise stick to Hail Mary's.
They show up at city hall and vote, and none of your recommendations is a requirement.
I'll make an analogy to illustrate why I think this is important: Cancer treatment is more or less effective depending on how precisely you're able to target the cancerous cells, without disturbing the surrounding tissue. I'm out of space...
Brett Gracey
I argue that for science to continue on it has no need for religion. You argue that there is a practical purpose in a more broader scope. I argue from a point of the perpetuation of science, I believe you are arguing about politics.
So yes, if a scientist wishes to engage in politics, it doesn't hurt to know those who may be opposed to your cause.
For example, Richard Dawkins (whom I assume you have at least some knowledge of), the purpose of his scientific research is to expanding scientific knowledge. He also engages in militant atheism (his term), for the purpose of exposing religion as a corrupting and detrimental influence on society. For him to engage in science, it requires no knowledge of religious doctrine, but to engage in militant atheism, it does.
The original question was "should science be considered a religion?" As I believe I first stated, religion and science are very separate entities. Politics certainly treads on both jurisdictions, but then perhaps politics as a religion might be more appropriate, but that's another discussion.
Cheers Charles, thanks for the debate.
Brett Gracey
In the US, religion is very much = Christianity. For political purposes, they are the only ones that count. You could argue Judaism also, but their power is more derived from the born again Christian, versus the influence of the Jews. Are their other religions, sure, but how many lawsuits are there out there to hang their Buddist tenants in High School gymnasiums or in the lobby of state Capital buildings. Hinduism isn't expounded on US currency.
I don't believe religious freedom has ever been under attack. People in North America (I'm not American FYI) have always been free to believe what they want. What has been under attack for quite some time is the practice of pushing one's religious beliefs onto others. Religion has responded by politicizing. This, I believe will be the undoing of many churches. With declining attendance and declining belief in Deities, the writing is on the wall. I could see soon or later, the tax exempt status of churches will come under attack and churches will be on the same footing as any other retailer. That's just my thought though.
Nicole Small
self-awareness to theology to philosophy to theory to hopefully fact. Self-awareness was realizing there's a ME AND there's a YOU, which led to theology- ME, YOU....and SOMETHING ELSE, PERHAPS? Then, there was philosophy, which posed the questions like "What if there is nothing else?" and "What if there isn't even a YOU and ME?" From the ideas suggested by theology and philosophy (combined,) we got theory which in essence is Science (the process of observing and testing theories,) to come to an ultimate answer. Science is the last step in achieving a unified goal-TRUTH.
Julius Newman
i don't mean to sound disrespectful i just feel that the evolution of scientific compartmentalization is irrelevant
Nicole Small
That may be the formula for something, but the problem is that there are so many definitions of science and logic. Don't you notice that we have a tendency to put everything into a "box?" One of the biggest setbacks in solving real world problems is defining the limits of the system. How can we measure it? Compartmentalization leaves large, undefined, unknown spaces. Knowledge is bound by the confines we place over reason. How do we discover what it is that we don't know? Perhaps we shouldn't try to bind philosophy into branches because in most instances we try to explain existence by seeing the order within the chaos. I believe the most relevent question to be, "What is the single template of functions that all of existence is based on?" This would create an effective grouping of knowledge. Truth is the sum of the circumstances relevent to it. By answering this question, we will have a template for answering all other questions. Logic should be grouped according to relevence; not by how it works. You can determine it's relevence by understanding how existence evolves; when a label can be given to science. There should be only one method of thought with different degrees of relevence. I believe this is the basis of the theory of everything as it relates to what we can observe. I don't mean to sound disrespectful. I just feel that the evolution of scientific compartmentalization is irrelevent.
Based on what I gathered there, it sounds like you're throwing the hierarchy model out the window. Check out this link to wikipedia and scroll towards the bottom, where it says "Further Applications."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy
Julius Newman
Nicole Small
Julius Newman
Obey No1kinobe 50+
What I find is sometimes people think and view the world so differently, or and/or communicate in such a different way to me that it is a challenge to read and understand.
E.g. March Rose must have a completely different world view, wiring or communication style to me. The diversity of human thinking etc is astounding.
Perhaps that is part of the value of TED discussions, not mixing with people who tend to be more similar in outlook, experience, world view and communication styles.
Julius Newman
i understand your reason for asking the question because philosophy and belief are the basis for religion. i should suggest a different view: perhaps science should be completely separate from religion and to successfully separate science from religion we would need a unifying theory derived strictly from pure reason. by taking the "logic" out of religion and making the true logic the basis of science, religion then becomes more of a culture. as opposed to a dwindling flame to be defended. in evolution the most consistent pattern that's been conducive to the success of all species has been a species ability to perform actions conducive to its success. whatever it is doesn't have to perform actions for the right reason, but if it performs the right actions it can survive. with religion the real relevance is it's original purpose, peace. the way to create lasting peace is not a religious dilemma it's a logical dilemma. find this pure reason, and teach people how to things work, why we are here, how to be successful, how to express themselves, how to solve problems, how to work with people. create this environment and you create something very scalable which serves the same function as religion but is able to evolve with the human intellect without leaving entire societies in dismay. religion is not the place for science it is the place for culture. science should be devoid of emotion, based on logic because despite how we see a problem it doesn't conform to fit our formula. if we change the formula to fit our views then it doesn't work.
Nicole Small
Here's the formula for that as I observe it:
self-awareness to theology to philosophy to theory to hopefully fact. Self-awareness was realizing there's a ME AND there's a YOU, which led to theology- ME, YOU....and SOMETHING ELSE, PERHAPS? Then, there was philosophy, which posed the questions like "What if there is nothing else?" and "What if there isn't even a YOU and ME?" From the ideas suggested by theology and philosophy (combined,) we got theory which in essence is Science (the process of observing and testing theories,) to come to an ultimate answer. Science is the last step in achieving a unified goal-TRUTH.
Barry Palmer 50+
Because, in the USA, if science is a religion, then the government cannot fund science in any way, and science cannot be taught in our schools.
There are many ways of approaching this question, and one way is to consider its consequences.
Nicole Small
self-awareness, theology, philosophy, theory and the hopeful outcome is the fact. I don't see Science as diverging from this path, since the goal is the same. Science is the process we use to find the truth (it's in the same "neighborhood" as theory, but just a bit closer by providing proof.) Truth is the "crowning achievement" of all of the steps that were necessary in it's discovery.
Noah Crossfield
Doug White
Religion purports to tell us facts about existence, about philosophy, and about how we should live our lives. When religion is at it's best, it is acting as a guide for us, helping us to reduce the amount of harm we do to each other and to the world. When it is at its worst, it is telling us how things came to be, and giving us 'laws', complete with punishments that we will suffer if we disobey. At its very worst, religion makes the claim that we already know the answers to the most important questions in the universe.
Science simply acknowledges that we know very little, but that we have the capacity to learn, to understand. It provides a methodology for discovering more and more about the universe, and finding out where our previous 'best theories' are incorrect. Nothing is ever proven true in science. We only prove things false, and hopefully find new theories that are harder to prove false.
Stewart Gault 30+
Comment deleted
Nicole Small
Barry Palmer 50+
You have made a very good point. From a scientific point of view, this idea makes a great deal of sense. But there are religious people who also believe that science is not a religion, and that science has no business elevating itself to be a religion. From their point of view science is not remotely capable of addressing the most fundamental questions of our existence, and this disqualifies science as a religion.
One of the big problems of this debate is that some parties are arguing from a particular point of view and cannot see any validity in the opposite point of view.
Nicole Small
10 years ago, if someone had asked me the very question I have, I would have agreed with nearly everyone here that, based on definitions and popular beliefs, it's preposterous to even suggest such an idea. As a believer in science and fact, I would have been offended by a "lamebrain" suggestion like that.
On another level, science is also related to politics and the processes that determine "what's wrong or right." Every time a new scientific discovery is made, it is used as the foundation that decides the outcome of future events. That's why gravity is a Law. The bible uses the same process by adding testaments and such. The laws in politics are often amended to allow for new possibilities, etc. It's as though we begin with self-awareness, move to theology, then philosophy, then theory, then fact (we hope.) All are steps in achieving an ultimate goal.
Charles Ames
Comment deleted
peter ezzell
create, to me, implies intention, which implies an intelligence...not a word I would use, especially when discussing religion, where create tends to have a narrow meaning associated with gods..
Comment deleted
peter ezzell
an atheist like me simply has no beliefs in postulated supernatural claims. I am willing to say I dont know the answer to most big questions, and maybe we humans aren't equipped to know, but I am not willing to plug those gaps in understanding with fabricated simple-minded stories, or admit that just anything can be possible. I assign the likelyhood of existence of the christian or muslim or hindu gods, for example, the same as the norse or greek gods. zero.
as for intolerance - I don't mind a few, and it's really only a few, so-called intolerant atheists being blunt about how ridiculous much of religion is - about time..maybe it will wake a few people from their culturally brainwashed slumber.
Nicole Small
Ed Schulte 50+
what they call "science" in a "Religious" way ..iow putting their "Faith" and reliance in being told by science "Who they are" ...sure why not..then "Should Science be Considered a Religion "
The catch to making this an actual TRUTH however is not wether anyone can say it....it is only those who actually are practicing "Science" ( and what / who / is going to set those boundaries is another subject altogether ) that can say "Science is Religion."
If one reads the legitimate Science Journals and talks with actual Scientists it is seen very clearly right away that they don't care what it is called!! except went Religios leader from the Orthodox Religions try to interfere with the research .
Christopher Tiller
Nicole Small
Charles Ames
Theistic religions hold that god(s) with freedom of action and sometimes prickly personalities are the reason things happen (Apollo makes the Sun rise, etc.) Science dispels such mysteries, often revealing others. And the search goes on...
What differentiates science from theistic religions is, in my opinion, progress.
Dan F 50+
This question implies that science is not as remote from faith as some of us consider it to be. That, in fact, there is a faith component to science which some of us may be blind to recognizing, because we assume too much about what we think we know.
You have cleverly taken a swipe at science by suggesting it does not have a corner on what is actually "going on" any more than any other belief system does. You are actually expressing what many faithful people feel and choose to believe, despite evidence, despite anything, despite everything.
Here's my two cents. Don't regret getting involved in the middle of something where the fur flies. My experience has been that the truth has a way of creeping up on those of us that are engaged in life and somewhat receptive to the elephants that may be in the room. It may not mean you will be any happier, but you will be richer by far.
Nicole Small
-Thanks for your time.
Dan F 50+
You appear to seek new knowledge and a better a understanding of the physical world and for that matter the limitations of what has been determined and discovered. You are an explorer. I think you are an asset to TED.
Another comment, if I may. Just as someone is not entitled to their own facts, nor are they entitled to their own definition of a word. It is more honest to explain how you differ on how a term is defined and perceived by expressing yourself utilizing specific words that effectively make your argument or point. Actually, the tactic of using a word out of context or specified use to make a point is not uncommon, I just personally think it is pandering to emotions over substance.
Anyway stay active and don't be reluctant to dissect things in your own mind. It's what personal growth is all about and will continue to make you more and more interesting.
Nicole Small
Elizabeth Gu 30+
It's really weird to say that science is a religion, but we can't be sure that it isn't. Since according to the definition, we can notice that science is also "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," and we believe what science proves through various experiments. "involving devotional and ritual observances," judging by this part, science does involve devotional--experiments including risky ones, and ritual observances--well, it's not quite ritual, but scientists do use basically similar ways of observing something when it comes to experimenting. However, as for the "containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" part, science is not relevant. It's just used to support people's arguments by providing credible evidences. Besides, as for the "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" part, people 'who believe in--so to speak--science" does not practice such thing. I think for now—and for a long time, science is not a religion. People aggressively disagrees with religious people's idea that god exists. They think it can be possible, but still bull s***. They think it's irrational to believe that there's some kind of deity in this world. We can't officially write down some words like this, "there is a God" in our children's textbooks since that's a religious idea, not a scientific idea. Some people say that religion is a culture, which is regional, but science is universal and official.
Peter Law 30+
Yes, you word mongers, it is an argument from ignorance; when it comes to this degree of complexity we are all ignorant.
I give you evidence for God.....
http://www.wehi.edu.au/education/wehitv/body_code_drew_berry_2003/
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Brett Gracey
"science that proclaims there is no god is a religion". Kind of like not playing tennis is a sport.
Stewart Gault 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
There seems to be no scientific evidence for gods (many of definitions, not the ones that god is the universe, god is everything, god is truth etc). Perhaps I've missed some convincing evidence. What have you got?
Just because life and the universe is complex does not mean it needs agency.
If they are immaterial outside time and space etc, it is hard for science to play a role on the direct question as to their existence.
E G 10+
Peter Law 30+
You seem to dismiss the evidence such as that shown on the link as of no consequence. We would never accept a petrol engine evolving from the earth by natural causes. How do you rationalise biology, which is millions of times more complex ?
:-)
Charles Ames
Brett Gracey
Peter Law 30+
Biology wasn't alive to begin with either. Vast amounts of time only reduce things to dust, that is scientific; testable, repeatable. As yet there has been no experiment that would suggest that biology can come from dust.
:-)
Brett Gracey
Gabo Moreno 100+
Peter Law 30+
The 8 minute movie scratches the surface, but gives an idea of the complexity of biology. Ten trillion cells, each as complex as a major city, all cooperating with each other to form a whole creature. All producing the raw materials required to form it's particular bit of body. In addition these cells are digesting nutrients, getting rid of waste, & replacing worn cells at a rate of tens of thousands per second. How complex does it have to get in order to merit admission of design ?
Regarding who made God. We don't need to know who made the petrol engine in order to reach the conclusion that someone did. We are big headed creatures to assume we can know these things. However we do have a certain expertise; which is very strange for evolved apes; so let's give it a go.
As I understand Einstein, time is affected by mass. It is generally believed by scientists that time came into existence in conjunction with the formation of the universe. The bible (before Einstein) tells us that God is an eternal spirit; ie a massless entity outside of time. This of course implies He is unaffected by time, & consequently must have always existed, & will always exist. If He has always existed, He requires no maker. Our science will no doubt change, but for today that is my best understanding.
:-)
Brett Gracey
So a book written by men, for the purpose of controlling other men, states that god is eternal. Out of that you derive that god therefore is a massless entity that exists outside of time? Okay, probably doesn't say that in the bible though now does it?
So the crux of your argument, (based on specious logic) is that because god has no mass, unlike the universe, he can have always just existed, but the universe since it has mass has to have been created, by said god. Unless of course if you want to count photons as being part of the universe, which from my understanding exist and it's questionable if they have mass. Maybe they always just existed too, but didn't god create the heavens and the earth?
Curious if we were made in the image of god, then why do we have mass?
You see belief in god creates way more questions than it doesn't really answer.
Charles Ames
In fact, the only way you can say that its impossible is by saying "I don't believe that. I believe God did it."
btw-- Einstein did not say time is affected by mass (it depends only relative motion) so he can't back up your idea that the massless would be timeless and therefore eternal. The Bible is many things, I think we now have to say that a reliable source on Cosmology isn't one of them.
Peter Law 30+
The only scientific data we have points to design requiring intelligence. You may hypothesise that dead matter designs stuff, but empirical data is a bit hard to come by. Normally a designer is required to be greater than his design, so an intellect greater than us is required to design us. That is what current empirical science would suggest.
The bible describes God as an eternal (or everlasting) spirit.
John 4:24 (KJV)
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Genesis 21:33 (KJV)
And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord , the everlasting God.
Revelation 22:13 (KJV)
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
He sees the future, the whole of time ..
Isaiah 46:10 (KJV)
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Time is irrelevant....
2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The birth of photons ..
Genesis 1:3 (KJV)
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
We are made in God's image, we are spirits, our bodies are a temporary location, soon to pass.
Genesis 1:26 (KJV)
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
:-)
Brett Gracey
I don't.
I also don't hypothesis that dead matter designs stuff. (that's your straw man argument) Gabo pointed out earlier that the earth is not made up of just dust. I know that doesn't jive with Genesis, but neither does reality. So once again, no deity required to create what already exists.
Gabo Moreno 100+
:-)
E G 10+
It's simple : if by the concept of god I understand something that goes beyond my imagination and everything I know , then obviously reason can't proclaim there is no god .
In fact , we both know that your own type of atheism testifies against you this time .
Brett Gracey
If you understand a concept through your belief in god, then how does it go beyond your imagination and everything you know? You would, because of your belief in god, know it. Then your reason, wouldn't allow you to proclaim there is no god, otherwise you wouldn't have understood the original concept.
Now if someone doesn't plug in hokum to understand what is beyond their imagination and everything they know, they would neither have to claim supernatural deities nor the lack of them. They could instead just seek to understand and comprehend.
E G 10+
Then I talked about a potential situation , it was something like : 'if I.... " , it doesn't necessarily mean I really do understand the concept of god in that way ; that's why I don't see any reason why you think I would understand the concept of god through 'my' belief , that belief.
Even if I understand the concept of god through my belief It's false to say that because of my belief in god I know something about god. The entire logic of your comment rest on this --- so faulty logic is what guide your comment .
Now again something potential : what about if my belief in god is : god is beyond everything I know and imagine and nothing more ? If I understand the concept of god through this belief then my argument is valid , right ?
Brett Gracey
"if by the concept of god, I understand something that goes beyond my imagination and everything I know...."
If the concept of god allows you to understand something, then how can it possibly be beyond your ability to know and imagine? If you can conceptualize it, you can certainly imagine it and if you believe in it, you kind of have to at least have a cursory understanding of it's existence (implies you can both imagine it and comprehend it.) Otherwise you probably don't understand it.
"Even if I understand the concept of god through my belief It's false to say that because of my belief in god I know something about god" You are unaware of the concept of god? You believe it? Yet you don't know anything at all about it? So you can believe in god, yet not know even the simplest detail, say such as his existence? Perplexing.
If you believe you understand the concept of god, then you must admit, god can't be beyond your imagination and everything you know. Kind of hard to believe in a concept one has no knowledge of, nor imagined anything about it.
I was pointing out the silliness of statements like god's power goes beyond anything you can even imagine or hope to ever know. I wonder if god knows what the largest number is?
E G 10+
"If the concept of god allows you to understand something, then how can it possibly be beyond your ability to know and imagine?"
This is a fallacious rhetorical question because you misunderstood what I said playing with words and because your faulty logic :
- you misunderstood what I said because what I said was : 'by the concept of god I could understand something that goes beyond my imagination and everything I know ' , if that something I understand goes beyond me then obviously I don't know that something , when I said what I said it was about a conception (as I specified) , I described this conception -- but it is fallacious to confuse the description of something with that something .
Here is your fallacious thinking : - you reason very abstractly guiding yourself only after words and not after ideas , this makes you confuse the description of something with that something .
"You are unaware of the concept of god?You believe it? Yet you don't know anything at all about it"
This wrong continues to make itself felt , again you confuse the concept itself with the description of it --- when you asked me if I'm unaware of the concept of god you did it to defend your falsity I described , but in my description of your falsity I was talking about the description of the concept of god not about the concept itself , however you try to defend your falsity by talking about the concept itself . See your wrong thinking ?
Now to clarify the thing : I understand the concept of god , the concept itself as much as I can as a human being , but about god himself I could say I'm unaware ( I'm talking about being unaware mentally , in terms of understanding ) .
Of course the thing gets perplexing when you make confusions .
And something else : you can't understand anything about god if you aren't ready mentally to handle paradoxes .
Brett Gracey
It's the equivalent of saying I have no clue how it works, fact is I'll never understand, but when I look through this lens, everything makes absolute sense. If that's your logic, I understand what you are saying. I have no clue how reasonably you could expect others to derive the same conclusions, but hey it's probably because I don't have a description of a concept that would allow me to dodge all the paradoxes that belief in God creates. If one doesn't believe, one doesn't have to handle all of those pesky paradoxes, instead we can just seek to understand.
E G 10+
I don't talk about something and I call it god , I never did --- try to understand the ideas of what the people say .
'by the concept of god I understand something beyond me '' --- it is obvious that what a rational person should understand from this is that by 'god' , that I , understands something that's beyond him . It doesn't mean he knows what's beyond him is like . Look again your fallacy -- for you it meant that what I said means I know what's beyond me .
I tell what you did : - you wanted to find contradictions in what I said , you didn't get what I actually said ... this things made you to just reason with words .
Also in your last comment you take again anything literally , try to get to the next level : get the ideas not only the words . Then if you have an objection we'll can talk .
"you were simply giving a description of a concept, which you whole heartedly understand no doubt, about something which you can't possibly understand"
I told what you should have understood , read again what I wrote and think better .
Brett Gracey
Perhaps you fail to understand, but I was simply having a little fun with your original statement. Did I take it literally, ummm, yep! You may not have meant for your words to be taken literally, but since I'm not a mind reader, how would I know that. The crux of your argument is that I take words too literally and I miss the ideas behind them. Once again, all I have is your words, which take a little work to comprehend. The problem isn't that I need to read again and think better. I read it, I know what you said, I also know what I said.
Comment deleted
Gabo Moreno 100+
If "faith" is "confidence that the knowledge is true, irrelevant of your reason for having that confidence." Then the word is inadequate to compare science and religion, because one (among others) of the fundamental differences between science and religion is the reasons for having such confidence. Got it now mr fallacies?
"presumptuousness" is the fact that you pretend to make science into a religion by using a single word (faith) as if that word defined both completely, religion and science. So, now concede or be wrong. That's your option.
Brett Gracey
How about you just finish our discussion without me, as it seems my input really isn't required.
Comment deleted
Gabo Moreno 100+
Should I make a cartoon of religion, and another of philosophy for you? I would, but I have some respect for philosophy (but not for any philosopher), and have a cultural interest in religions. That leaving alone that making cartoons does not help solve anything. It's mere rhetoric.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
And your simplistic and inaccurate characterisations are pathetic.
Are your comments serious or trolling?