WA is in
BluePOH is in
RedI am dark as usual. I've tried to avoid the use of the word religion as I personally do not believe in religion, only the force. But with people tearing in religion it is hard.
I personally think that science and religion can very much go hand in hand. I remember you made a topic about this earlier, and I'll repeat what I said there. I think that religion (when used properly) nurtures scientific progress. Religion is not something that says "this is this, because I said so". I do not think that faith requires you to blindly believe anything. As in science, those who believe in a particular faith, should question it again and again to make their belief stronger, and to understand why something is the way it is rather than saying "because God said so".
It depends how you define 'faith'. As I understand, faith means irrational, or rather, blind belief. Questioning your belief and trying to make a logical sense out of it, ceases one's belief from being faith - it becomes more of knowledge (subjective knowledge, but knowledge nonetheless). If, on the other hand, faith means belief, however beliefs that are proven, questioned and tested, then that is a different issue. Personally, I have got far more respect for those who questions their faith or respective beliefs, than the one who believes in things simply because they are meant to believe in it.
As far as the competency of science and religion is considers...well, being that one is a problem solving method, and that another one is a belief system, I don't see why they should be incompetent. That said, I don't see any competency either. Just because some decides to make a comparison doesn't necessarily make one appear. Science and religion goes well together as long as you aren't an extremist (in either of these fields).[/quote]
Faith is a trust or a belief in something. This trust or belief exists only because it is proven, not by logical or material evidence but experiential evidence that there is something worth believing in. We have faith in our abilities or in abilities of others, because experiential evidence shows that such faith is essential and valuable. Similarly faith in God or any similar concept has to exist out of experiential proof. There is some sort of value in this faith. For faith to be faith, it has to be tested and questioned and found to have value.
So when one says faith it should be assumed as an internally self proven belief system.
Blind faith is the negative extreme of faith. Its like a woman who unconditionally trusts her wife beater husband even when he is caught cheating. It is downright ridiculous and stupid. Blind faith is an irrational belief in a system that is proven to be contradictory and not useful, but people still continue to believe and completely override the personal testing. For example violence against humans is contradictory to the concept of compassionate loving creator, yet some people accept the contradiction like a cheating husband.
To me science and faith are both problem solving as well as belief systems. Science shows me rational and logical problem solving skills. But faith gives me the ability solve problems that require something beyond proven factual knowledge. Faith gives me something to believe in internally, in an abstract manner. Science gives me something to believe in the outside world, in a concrete structured manner.
In my opinion under a set of normal circumstances science and faith go hand in hand and are co-dependent. Faith inspires and tempers science. A large number of scientific knowledge comes from the fact that people had faith in something beyond what was known. Faith that there is something out there to be known despite the whole world telling me that it is illogical and inconsistent. Science inspires and tempers faith. New knowledge, helps evolve old knowledge giving new depth and perception to what people believe. Sometimes knowledge inspires faith further by proving that such intricate balances and complexities that exist in our world can only be the result if a greater force.
[quote]
As far as people being intolerable of science questioning their faith goes, well the same goes for scientists as well. When a scientist presents a theory, and someone calls it out as inaccurate, a scientist also becomes defensive.
Being defensive isn't the problem. Problem is the incapability of understanding the difference between their personal beliefs and the discovered, scientific truths. A person may hold onto whatever s/he feels like believing. The person, however, does not have the right to label his beliefs as scientific truth. Please keep it in mind that I am not implying that every religious people do so. Many religious folks I have encountered understand it full well that their beliefs are theirs, and their own. Thus they do not get heated up when their respective beliefs are contradicted by any scientific phenomenon.
A scientist is justified in becoming defensive when someone calls his theory inaccurate, in the same way a religious person is justified when someone calls his belief as inaccurate. The scientist, however, do not have the authority to label his scientific facts as religious truth, and neither does the religious person have the authority to label his beliefs as scientific truth. [/quote]
I
think the bolded is extremely essential. The problem is that a large number of people in the scientific community feel that scientific evidence will destroy faith, and a large number of people in the religious community feel that science is a conspiracy to destroy faith.
Whenever I see people protesting books like Da Vinci Code etc, it often makes me wonder - how can one say they have strong faith when it is so fragile that it can be rattled by the mere figments of another person's imagination
But the way I see the world, faith has evolved. From believing in pantheons people went to believing in one entity. From believing that kings and queens were divine beings people have started believing in more abstract non human forces. Rituals of worship, entities worshiped, means of worship have all changed. The earth was said to be flat and the earth the center of the universe. Scientists were persecuted as heretics for contradicting such divine truths would end faith as we know it.
Faith however has been consistent throughout the human history. People always have had faith. The truth is science may change what we believe and the way we believe, but they can never shatter that fact that we do believe and in our hearts humans will always believe.
[quote]
But at least he can prove his theory through a series of experiments. What do you suggest someone who believes in God to do? Should he attempt flying to the seventh sky in search of God?
Nope, he simply needs to realize that his beliefs, or rather, his faiths, are personal, they are beliefs, and not scientific truths, thus it cannot be proven by science. I think you are missing my point. I am not implying that religious people should believe in what they do, or else they should come up with scientific evidences to support their beliefs. That's not at all what I meant to say. What I wanted to say is, if religious beliefs are based on faith, and hence, cannot be proven by science (and this is acknowledged almost all religious or theological scholars), then they shouldn't try to put their faith into the same level as scientific facts. Not stating that religious truths are any less worthy than scientific facts (they each serve different purposes), just that it is a little hypocritical that on one hand the religious fundamentalists are claiming their beliefs as superior than science (and that all scientific facts that had been found by now which contradicts their respective scripture are all "wrong"), and yet the moment their beliefs are questioned, they say, "Actually religious beliefs are based on faith, so you cannot get a scientific answer of it". Yet, they were the first one to put their beliefs in the same category as science.[/quote]
I think what WA is saying that a lot of times people are questioned about their belief in whatever they believe in. There are many people who have deep religious personal beliefs that are highly contradictory to modern science, but their faith is personal and they do not impose. As long as they keep it to themselves why should the scientific community treat them as cuckoos. Why should they get the second class treatment simply because they are different from the others. Although I think religious people also need to rethink this when they interact with the scientific community.
Ultimately, 'And it harm none, do as thou wilt'. Who am I to question them as long as they do not question me.
[Quote]Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to mock you here or be sarcastic, I am just trying to show you the other side. People get so defensive when it comes to religion because when you question their faith, you are, in reality, questioning everything they stand for. We spend our whole lives with a certain set of beliefs, principles, and morals that we set as guidelines for ourselves. Ain't no way some scientist is going to come by and tell me I've been living my whole life as a lie. Does that make sense, or am I just rambling now?
Yes, it makes sense, just that I disagree. My response is given above. Just wanted to reiterate that I see no problem with a religious person getting defensive when their faith is questioned and called as inaccurate, in the same way I don't see a problem with a scientist getting defensive when their theory is questioned and called as inaccurate. I see a problem when the religious people claim their beliefs as scientific truths. If you believe your 'faiths' as scientific truths, you should stand up to face all the questions that you will be facing (just as every scientific theory out there faced, faces and will face), and get prepared to bring scientific evidences to back up your 'scientific religious truths'. If, on the other hand, you admit that your beliefs are based on faith that cannot be questioned or answered by science or logic, then I see no problem. If religious beliefs are based on faith, then why call it scientific on the first place?[/quote]
You know some people take that seriously and there are creation museums to scientifically prove creation as it is in the scriptures. Kirk Cameron will save your soul.
I have defended the religious persons right to have their personal faith respected. But I will play DA and ask Ajnu, if you believe in something, you stand by it. Why should one feel defensive when faith is questioned? What is so wrong in faith being questioned? In fact wont the ability to defend your faith when questioned prove the mettle of your faith better to yourself. Being questioned is a way for a person to reassess their faith and determine where exactly they stand and what exactly they believe and if their faith has evolved in any way.
What is a person afraid of when science disproves a certain thought process. It has been done before. Their faith was shattered. But they lived and rebuilt it again.
In reality faith and knowledge is a timeless paradox. We want to know more, about the world and God, yet at the same time the greatest thing we fear is discovering that everything we know is a lie. We are not as afraid of the scientists questioning our faith, what angers us more and makes us more afraid is that they will actually be right and indeed shatter our bubble
Ultimately its a choice? See the truth and the light - or continue living an ignorant lie?
The Red Pill or the Blue Pill?
Just for the record, I do choose the Blue Pill. The Matrix is one of the biggest BS philosophy ever. I am more than happy living a lie. As they say, if it smells like chocolate, if it tastes like chocolate then it must be chocolate who cares if its artificial flavoring. The truth is overrated.
[quote]Once again, Adam and Eve's existence cannot be proven through science. In order to believe upon creationism, you first need the faith. Otherwise, its just a story.
This is precisely what I was trying to convey. Without 'faith', the Adam-and-Eve story is just that - it is a story. It has no basis in science, thus it has no place in the scientific classrooms (it can, and should be taught in religion, history, sociology, anthropology, mythology, etc classes, but not in science). Yet, ironically, it is the religious fundamentalists, who screams out loud so that 'creationism - the most authentic science ever' is taught in biology, as a published 'fact', and 'evolution - a deceit' is taught as a lie. Thanks for making my point.[/quote]
Personally I view tales in religious scriptures as parables, something like Aesop's fables for grownups, with more deeper lessons to be learned. A lot of values in this world like honesty, perseverance, virtue cannot be taught in a classroom environment or understood through definition and principles. Fables that we tell children are simplified presentations of such concepts in an easy to understand manner. As the child matures their life experiences builds on this foundation for deeper complex knowledge. Similarly, I view scripture to be parables attempting to explain the complexities of the world in simple easy to understand terms. People are expected to not take this as face value but build and enrich upon it through experience.
For some people Genesis 1 is scripture that establishes creation. To me the Genesis 1 is thousands of years of evolution explained as a seven day story. I do not think you necessarily need religious belief to make a story more than a story. I do not subscribe to western monotheism but yet I take Adam and Eve to be a story that attempts to establish deeper concepts of knowledge and sin, in fact to me Adam and Eve give me the same philosophical gist as Pandora's Box. The cataclysmic food is recorded history, in Western monotheism Noah built an ark, in Hindu scriptures Matsya Avatara warned Manu of the great deluge, the term hurricane comes from the Mayan Huracan the wind god that caused catastrophic floods, Greek legends speak of cities buried by floods. An example of history, became legend, legend became myth. Even Troy was considered a mythical city until ruins was found.
To me scripture is not divine and absolute wisdom. Nor is it just a stories. All you need is an open heart and mind to find wisdom in words.
[quote]Now going back to creationism being purely a philosophical concept goes, I can pick up a religious scripture and prove to you that creationism existed. Just like you can pick up a scientific textbook and prove to me that evolution existed/exists. [/quote]
Just like the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti monster will show with illustrations how FSM created the world.
[quote]But before either of us believes the other person, we must possess faith in that text. Science seems so much more tangible to us, because we are taught these scientific theories as facts in school. We are told these things as absolute truths.
Imagine having a religion class where creationism was taught the same way, we would not be asking for scientific theories then. [/quote]
No it is human nature to question. Almost all knowledge in this world exists because someone dared to challenge the known to find something new. The great philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates, Plato encouraged their students to question their masters, each others as well as the entire system.
In fact Creationism has been taught in schools for eons. The Greek children learned how Kronos created the earth. They learned how Persephone and Hades caused the changing of seasons. Hindu children learn how Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the forces of creation, preservation and destruction for this world. Despite being taught creation and other things as actual facts and absolute truths the world has seen people who decided to question time and time again and find new answers.
The surprising thing is that they all had faith, that there was more to know.
Science is a leap of faith. Religion is accepting current science and sitting pretty about it.
[quote]What do think about a scientists who studies evolution day in day out, believes upon it, and goes home and worships God? Is that not also hypocrisy at its best? [/quote]
Studying evolution - learning the ways of the force. Worshipping God - Being one with the force. It all goes harmoniously together.
[quote]
P.S. Are you really Anju, or is that a nickname created by IF-ians?
Its Ajnu. And most definitely just an IF name. Everyone used to call me Ajnabee. Someone decided one day to shorten that and make it Ajnu. And there you have it. 😆Then this isn't your real name.😠I will then prefer to call you as WA.😃[/quote]
I do like Ajnu. It kind of sees more personal than WA. WA sounds like something a baby would cry. Ajnu sounds like a name, I think it adds a personal touch.
PS: The last line is not a debate or a comment to argue or disagree for the sake of it. Its just a thought that crossed my mind that I like the sound of Ajnu. Edited by return_to_hades - 16 years ago
Udne Ki Aasha
Cricket
