Sign in to follow this  
Kevin.

Religulous

Recommended Posts

But in religion... it appears there is no room for alternate theories.  That apparently conflicts with "faith."

 

I would never want someone to change their views if it makes them happy.  It's when they push their faith on other people as being the "only truth."  

 

Me, personally, I'm curious and will always question everything.  Especially things of spiritual nature that cannot... and never will be pinned down.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Burn-E said:

Both operate under the scientific method. Faith is developed by testing understood phenomenon.  

No, religion does not operate using the scientific method. At all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Burn-E said:

The interesting question is how much have we lost or forgotten that was once known?  I'll give you one example: one of the problems with how we teach engineering is that we teach how humans have solved problems and our own approach.  What the science of biomimcry is rediscovering is that nature and the other residents of the earth (insects, animals, plants) have often come up with substantially more intelligent approaches to solving complex problems.  And many of those approaches were once understood by our ancestors because they spent more time observing the world around them rather than observing how they themselves think.  

What if instead of teaching engineers the first principles of hydraulics we first taught them a course on biology where they learned about how the heart and other natural pumps function?

I think you're outlining why people are trying to apply binary computing to the brain.

For anyone interested, I believe Damascus steel and Roman concrete are examples of forgotten technology. I think the stonehenge and pyraminds are lesser examples with a bunch of theories but no solid answer. When I was younger, I disregarded history's value. I was annoyed at how much time was spent teaching it. A mix of my own arrogance and the subject matter. They dwelled on sequences of events, instead of the overarching lessons. Lately, I've been much more interested in how events shape the general public's mind. How events before my time shaped the politics that affect me today. And unfortunately, that extends to religion :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Burn-E said:

Oh but you are assuming they exist Erik.  Based on tested phenomenon.  No different from spiritual things.  Both operate under the scientific method. Faith is developed by testing understood phenomenon.  

 

really Alain? Assuming electrons exist? I guess I just assume that all molecules exist, but since I've never seen one my faith leads be to believe that it's true? Do you realize how silly that sounds when you spell it out? They are proven to exist, with documentation and the like. The scientific method certainly is not used when it comes to religion, but I would like to hear you explain how it is in a relevant way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might sound crazy Kevin but let's examine how you personally know electrons exist.  Maybe you ought to stop and consider that people far smarter than you and me who work daily in this field - organic chemists, molecular biologists, physicists who work with nano materials make the exact statement that I did.  We do not know electrons exist because we see, touch, taste, hear or smell them. Full stop.

We know because we have basic principles that have developed theoretically over time. We have observed these phenomenon and validated them through tests and experimentation.

As Eyring said you rely upon crude postulates that are the basis for what you claim to know. And as he said God is found in a precisely similar fashion.  If you don't believe me (Erik) then what you're saying is that you reject the foundational postulates which in truth to me is no different than a climate change denier.  I say that not as an accusation but just to show that just as climate change might be self evident to you, the certainty that God is there and speaks to us is equally evident to me. The proof is right there if you'll apply yourself and examine the evidence and apply the principles.  You may disagree that it works that way because you can't see, taste, touch, smell or hear God.  And I would say this is no different from discovering electrons.  Deny it if you like but I'm here to tell you I know what I'm saying is true.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

We know because we have basic principles that have developed theoretically over time. We have observed these phenomenon and validated them through tests and experimentation.

 

 

you keep saying this, yet there is no physical proof of a god. There is a clear difference between proving that electrons exist through the scientific method and proving that God exists. L Ron Hubbard seemed to have spoken to God, and his "religion" is considered a business and cult in Europe (and should be worldwide). 

 

don't even compare this to denying climate change Alain, that's bullshit and you know it. You're saying that God exists because you feel he/she/it does? Well I'm sure Al Gore has a few things to say about Manbear Pig then 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep building those tabernacles, but they will never be as big and as expensive as the largest "church" ever made.

lhc-sim.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alain are you saying that "faith" is required to believe in the complexity of things at a molecular scale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I am Lucas.  It operates under the same principle. Recall the definition I offered for faith earlier in the thread.

And Kevin, sorry but even L Ron Hubbard acknowledged he made that stuff up.  I have a hard time respecting your inability to differentiate between faith and fake. 

I'm saying you don't know what you don't know Kevin.  You think you know but I will say it goes more deeply than "a feeling." The answers are out there.  You can reject that statement, scoff at it, declare you know exactly what I'm talking about and that it's all bollocks. But again you're just rejecting the postulate without having really examined it intelligently.  I know you had an experience with religion as a boy and a teen but I would call that adolescent adherence to parental and authority figure directives. You've yet to really independently explore it in an honest manner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

Yes I am Lucas.  It operates under the same principle. Recall the definition I offered for faith earlier in the thread.

 

This would be a straw man argument if because faith is need for believing in religion so then in order to believe mocelular scale, then it is the same principle. 

One is science where it can be proven right or wrong. It can show whether it exist or not.

 

other side of argument for religion is speculation. It is like I think my biotech stock will get fda approval based on my research so it must be right and it is the truth to dump my money into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is clinging to science the way he is doesn't acknowledge that we still don't know a lot. You can break down particles to the lowest level, but those things are just floating around in space as the result of the big bang? And that explosion started in the middle no where? He says science explains what we formerly explained as god's power, but that's not really accurate.

If you put aside skepticism involved with biblical stories, and discrepancies that evolved from scientific understanding, what do you believe exists beyond space?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burn-E said:

Yes I am Lucas.  It operates under the same principle. 

Thanks for the LARGE TEXT SUGGESTION!  lol

However, I really have an issue with this claim.  It is not faith allows me to confirm or deny the existence of molecules.  A microscope allows me to do that.  Just as it is not faith that allows me to see distant starts and galaxies... the Hubble Space Telescope allows me to do that.

 

I really... REALLY hate that idea of "if you can't touch/feel/taste it, then it must be due the existence of god"   That is what turns so many people away from religion, and really, rightfully so. Why isn't it just ok to say we just don't know?  Doesn't mean we won't know eventually... but not "well it must be because of god" until we realize that there is actual science that explains it.

You're trying to tie religion and faith into science to mute the fact that science has repeatedly been used to defy religious beliefs in the past.

23 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

what do you believe exists beyond space?

The multiverse, potentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Commander Riker said:

The multiverse, potentially.

And what do they exist in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The large text was an accident of pasting when I pulled it from the bottom of the post.

Now, I'm not tying science together with religion because I think it solves some historical problem.  I'm telling you the two are interrelated in ways you're just not grasping.  Go back and read again what I've written.  We experiment upon a principle we want to understand in order to find proofs or evidence that either or confirms or denies or perhaps muddles our supposition.  Eventually you learn that what is most important is finding the right way to frame your questions.

I'm telling you that methodology is the exact same approach for better understanding physical phenomenon like chemical reactions, molecular composition as much as it is for understanding all things spiritual.  

The exact same approach that I use for solving engineering problems on Wednesday is the identical effort I use on Sunday to better understand spiritual questions / problems.  Eventually certain principles become knowledge and not faith and provide a foundation for further understanding and experimentation.

I never said just because you can't use your five senses it must be of God.  What I said was those who deny God with that line of thought fail to realize there are all kinds of ideas and principles they take for granted that would be rejected as well if that logic is extended appropriately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am attempting to grasp (and apparently failing) is that it sounds as though the belief in things at a molecular level is the a faith that is akin to believing in a god.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this