Have your religious/spiritual beliefs changed in the past year?

[cookiecutter]

Goddamnit! Stop this shit. There is a clear and obvious difference between empirical science and logic/mathematics. Logical and mathematical facts are not "defined" by science normally conceived.

I think you originally separated these when I asked what is rational besides science. However when I said science, I meant all science.

 

[Mort Divine]

Reports are not scientific evidence, and are just as prone to falsification as pretty much anything ever.

But science doesn't need to be used to believe in something, infact the whole of human history has been based on belief in something in the absence of evidence.

And it has lead to amazing works of art, literature, music, architecture, etc.

If humanity were a species that were strictly logical and rational and scientific, I'd really not want to be alive most likely.

EDIT: Yes I know this has nothing to do with anything, I'm just tired and supposed to be writing my forensic science crime scene conclusion. ;_; and I don't have enough evidence to put the fucker who killed santa behind bars.

 

[Alter]

This is discussion is insanely out of order at this point.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

No it hasn't...certain sects of people believe things without evidence.

Of course it has.
and...

It's a good thing we aren't then I guess. This argument/discussion/thread would not exist if we were all logical. Difference is what makes the world interesting. These kind of threads get me more excited than 90% of "omg check out this band" nowadays.

 

[cookiecutter]

But science doesn't need to be used to believe in something, infact the whole of human history has been based on belief in something in the absence of evidence.

And it has lead to amazing works of art, literature, music, architecture, etc.

These points are irrelevant to the truth of what those people believed. I could draw a picture of Balthazar, but it wouldn't make him real.

 

[Cythraul]

...it's all "science." All of it has to do with acquired knowledge through learning, studying, and testing. There isn't really a "normal" way to "conceive" of science.

There is a rough notion of science that I think everyone can agree upon. Nobody I've ever encountered or read the work of conceives of science as broadly as you do.

 

[CAIRATH]

Actually, I will say this.

So you're saying truth can change? I'm pretty sure that goes against the definition of truth.

This is a common argument in religious threads and it displays either a lack of familiarity with the scientific method or just an outright rejection of it (in which case we might as well stop the argument). In science, yes, the "truth" can change.

Religion's concept of "truth" is not the same as the scientific concept of "truth". Religion offers up truths that are unequivocal and cannot be questioned (they often are, but that clearly wasn't the intent when they were written down). The scientific truth is always a pending truth in a way. Any scientific hypothesis could (theoretically) at some point in the future be falsified. However, until that happens it's considered true. That is why the scientific world model is not static and infact changes over time as the body of knowledge expands and as technological progress makes it possible to reveal or test things that might previously have been impossible.

Science is not (unlike what I've again seen many people insinuate in this thread) an arrogant assumption that it is all-knowing and that the answers it offers are unquestionable and perpetual truths (infact you might say that is exactly what religion often does). It is the opposite, the whole concept of science is based around actively questioning what we know using clearly defined and rigorous scientific principles rather than randomly making stuff up and calling it the truth with no proof of any kind.

Your search for absolute truths to me seems futile. Science will by definition never offer those, and religion will claim to but will never be able to actually convey a compelling basis for them unless you are willing to open yourself up to the avenue of blind faith.

 

[cookiecutter]

Another good post by CAIRATH

 

[Alter]

So than if science is based off of truth and, I think, everything needs to have a causes and than an effect and we dont know what has caused anything before the big bang, how does this effect religious beliefs? And if so how does science factor in with this ad how does it explain everything.


And yes V5, it does make the board a much better place. Plus Nec has no been a total dick yet. The gears in my mind are working thanks to some good posts.

 

[Matt]

Good thread here. My views haven't really changed. I might have become a bit more liberal.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

AAAUUUGGGHHHH!!!!

FUCKING FUCKING FUCKERS!

SOrry alter, but you people give me a headache. I should learn to avoid threads like this.

 

[Alter]

Good thread here. My views haven't really changed. I might have become a bit more liberal.

Thanks for aiding in such detail to the epic post war we have raging right now.

Just kidding. Could you explain a tad bit more on liberal. And sense you are in the same beliefs as me, could you aid on my stance on why you have faith in your religion.

 

[Alter]

AAAUUUGGGHHHH!!!!

FUCKING FUCKING FUCKERS!

Sorry alter, but you people give me a headache. I should learn to avoid threads like this.

I am sorry. But watching The Universe on the History Channel has got to my head a bit.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

By liberal he means he's close to ditching god, but still doesn't want to burn in hell. It's like when your 25 and still live with your parents.

 

[Alter]

Interesting and something to look forward to on my part.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

 

[Ender Rises]

My religious views have become more focused over the last year. I can understand why people need religion, but it seems to me to be a real weakness. To need the validation of the existence of a god or a set of moral values made by someone else years ago just seems to be a lack of courage or laziness in the believer, or stupidity. But, because I can understand the motive, I don't view people who are religious as bad people, and there are many religious people who are not weak or lazy or stupid. I've always been a person who believes in letting people believe whatever the fuck they want, so in no way am I saying that religion should be banned or anything like that... please don't misconstrue my words.

As for my own beliefs. I believe that there may be a god or there may not, but more and more I'm believing that human beings simply can't understand the true nature of the universe, and we might be trying to assign meaning where there is none. I have made my own set of moral values that I follow as closely as I can. As for the nature of the universe and all that shit... it's fun to think about, but it has no real bearing on my life. It doesn't particularly matter to me if the universe was made by a God or the Big Bang or the imagination of some stoner. The only thing that matters to me is to try to make myself and the people around me as happy as possible, and have as much fun as possible and get the most out of life, all that jazz.

 

[CAIRATH]

So than if science is based off of truth and, I think, everything needs to have a causes and than an effect and we dont know what has caused anything before the big bang, how does this effect religious beliefs? And if so how does science factor in with this ad how does it explain everything.

Science has no definite answers about what existed before the big bang. There's theories like that the universe goes back and forth between a big bang and a big crunch in a never-ending cycle (in essence that the universe is like a rubberband that stretches and snaps back in a certain interval) but that is still a controversial theory and not commonly accepted at this point. Considering that the laws of physics (the way science has currently formulated them) break down at the point of singularity makes it impossible to say anything meaningful about what happens before that at this point.

How does that affect religious beliefs? Depends on if you feel that in the face of lack of evidence the main other alternative offered (despite equal lack of knowledge/evidence of its validity) automatically becomes the truth. That is the answer that religions apologists like to give (the whole God of the Gaps philosophy where God exists mainly in the margins of science where science cannot offer any definite answers) but I think that's bullshit. The notion of the Abrahamic god having created the universe first of all doesn't solve anything (it defers the question of creation one step further, that is all) and second of all is no more valid than any other claim you could make about it. I could say that a unicorn called Boris created the universe and it would literally be just as valid. Or indeed any of the gods from non-Abrahemic religions. How can you know which one is true? You can't. So why decide at all. Why would you be so sure that one very specific scenario is the truth when there is no evidence for it and there are literally infinite other possible scenarios that in the face of complete lack of being able to verify anything, are all equally likely (or unlikely).

So to answer your question, the various religions fill that gap with their own dogmatic god(s) and science simply shrugs and says "we don't know yet" at this point.

 

[Ender Rises]

Science has no definite answers about what existed before the big bang. There's theories like that the universe goes back and forth between a big bang and a big crunch in a never-ending cycle (in essence that the universe is like a rubberband that stretches and snaps back in a certain interval) but that is still a controversial and not commonly accepted at this point. Considering that the laws of physics (the way science has currently formulated them) break down at the point of singularity makes it impossible to say anything meaningful about what happens before that at this point.

How does that affect religious beliefs? Depends on if you feel that in the face of lack of evidence the main other alternative offered (despite equal lack of knowledge/evidence of its validity) automatically becomes the truth. That is the answer that religions apologists like to give (the whole God of the Gaps philosophy where God exists mainly in the margins of science where science cannot offer any definite answers) but I think that's bullshit. The notion of the Abrahamic god having created the universe first of all doesn't solve anything (it defers the question of creation one step further, that is all) and second of all is no more valid than any other claim you could make about it. I could say that a unicorn called Boris created the universe and it would literally be just as valid. Or indeed any of the gods from non-Abrahemic religions. How can you know which one is true? You can't. So why decide at all. Why would you be so sure that one very specific scenario is the truth when there is no evidence for it and there are literally infinite other possible scenarios that in the face of complete lack of being able to verify anything, are all equally likely (or unlikely).

So to answer your question, the various religions fill that gap with their own dogmatic god(s) and science simply shrugs and says "we don't know yet" at this point.

pwnt.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Good post CAIRATH...yet again!