What's your religion?

[Xrayz0r]

Originally Posted by Kylaran

Well, if we can't prove or disprove anything, then technically any manner in which an individual chooses to define the nature of the universe stands on equal ground.

Didn't we get past this? Celestial teapot, flying spaghetti monster, Yahweh, Allah. The fact that something can't be disproved doesn't place it on equal ground to anything. All it means is that apparently we can conceive of something.

Of course, that isn't to say we can't place an emphasis on technology in order to improve daily life, but none of that explains why we exist, for what reason we exist, nor the true purpose for our time spent alive. Because science can fail give an answer to these questions, and religion is often times so personal that the answers cannot be communicated easily, there's an inherent overlap in that both cannot be determined as to whether they explain in the true nature of things.

I feel uncomfortable using the word science, it's like Descartes talking about empirical evidence, if you know what I mean. The world view that I support is of an existential nature, the scientific method is not my foundation for it, it's what I end up using for the sake of pragmatism. At the same time it's an explanation for why we act the way we act. We end up "assuming" a world view that matches our logical criteria for truth, whether these be correct or not, and act upon it. Objective reality may encompass more, but that doesn't interfere with the debate between religion and science, since both operate within the same bubble. That is why I object to you attacking science's presumptions whenever it clashes with religion. It doesn't make it's criticism any less valid.

Anyway. Science answers those questions. The answer is figure it out for yourself. Our minds demand answers to questions that shouldn't be asked in the first place. If you so desperately need an answer, purpose is left to yourself. (and yet again, religion fills the gap there as well.. that's why it's successful)

[Telmah]

Originally Posted by Clarste

I'm not disagreeing with you, but your example is a bit interesting. What's actually going on is that the dog understands the big picture while you don't. TV is made up of a bunch of pictures being shown sequentially that creates the illusion of movement. However, that only works for humans. The dog's eyes are better, so they don't perceive the illusion. The dog sees the TV as it really is, a bunch of still images with scanning lines and whatnot. It's uninteresting to the dog because it's aware of the whole picture, whereas humans are caught up in the illusion.

Edit: I suppose you can say that the illusion is part of the big picture though... In which case there is no complete picture, just different perspectives. Birds will attack a mirror because they see a bird, while cats and dogs will ignore mirrors because they smell of piece of glass. In the TV case, we're the birds. But are the dogs missing something?

That is certainly an interesting point--I didn't know the exact details, it is just one of the things I heard and it made me think. Even if we can understand quite a bit, it still might be impossible to understand the big picture. It's like a puzzle with half the pieces missing. You might have a general idea the picture, but you certainly can miss important details as well or find pieces that don't connect to anything.

[Kylaran]

Originally Posted by Xrayz0r

That is why I object to you attacking science's presumptions whenever it clashes with religion. It doesn't make it's criticism any less valid.

Anyway. Science answers those questions. The answer is figure it out for yourself. Our minds demand answers to questions that shouldn't be asked in the first place. If you so desperately need an answer, purpose is left to yourself. (and yet again, religion fills the gap there as well.. that's why it's successful)

But I also attack religious presumptions when they clash with science; I'm not taking one side over another. The point is that there must be a separation of scientific and religious explanations of how the world works. Conflicts between the two do not necessarily mean we can pass a judgment value of which one is truer, or gives us more results.

Like someone said earlier in the thread, there were a great many scientists that were religious despite their knowledge of our perceived reality. Simply said, at an epistemological level, assumptions based on empirical evidence and logic are every bit as circumstance to questioning as universal religious proclamations. Thus, writing off religion as a personal method of self-comfort seems a bit shallow in its analysis of the epistemological question.

I think the disconnect that lies between these two subjects is focusing on the nature of these two world views. I won't get into the very complicated nuances of science and religion in a practical sense because that's where the murky waters lie. When we discuss effects, consequences, and how science and religion affect our world, we're stepping out of the theoretical world of epistemology into much of the conflicts that arise from this topic.

Both influence our world, but passing judgment on whether one form is more valid or not in seeking truth is technically impossible for the reason that truth is isolated from this world in one way or another. I refrain from deciding whether one method is better than the other simply because the mysteries behind the truth. It's an inherent contradiction to accuse one thing of the same thing that another thing has.

This dead horse has been plenty flayed, beaten, skinned, and used for various purposes. All along, we've had a definitional disconnect, because we failed to identify the subject of our focus. Mine is universal truth. Perhaps yours is pragmatic application, or something else, but it also means that how we argue our points different significantly, which results in the mutual exclusion of evidence on both sides.

Originally Posted by Telmah

That is certainly an interesting point--I didn't know the exact details, it is just one of the things I heard and it made me think. Even if we can understand quite a bit, it still might be impossible to understand the big picture. It's like a puzzle with half the pieces missing. You might have a general idea the picture, but you certainly can miss important details as well or find pieces that don't connect to anything.

It's an excellent example of how perspective changes knowledge. What we define as something may seem like something else to another, meaning that the linguistic value of the object at hand is different between view points. Furthermore, it's questionable whether or not those definitions are even functional in the first place. Kind of makes you go o.o;.

[Xrayz0r]

Originally Posted by Kylaran

Simply said, at an epistemological level, assumptions based on empirical evidence and logic are every bit as circumstance to questioning as universal religious proclamations.

Could you give an example of these? To my knowledge, a 100% of these claims have come about through quasi philosophy and pseudo science. Concerning ethical systems, most is derived simply from a zeitgeist of a specific point in history. That is obviously why they seem out of place today.

Like in epistemology, a truth that was established (that is: believed) through a non-method doesn't count as knowledge, it is called a "lucky guess". The way we would be able to verify it would be by an actual method, which would be entitled to it, and not the non method mentioned earlier. Although that method would have to be proven viable, which science isn't, so far as we "know".. I guess, but that's beside the point. The point is that religion is wholly made up, which I dare you to challenge.

[KimmyChan]

I'm a Christian (C of E)

[cheerio_888]

I'm a Catholic.

[KimmyChan]

Originally Posted by KawaiiKimmy

I'm a Christian (C of E)

But not a strict one, as in I don't go to church, read the Bible nor celebrate Easter as such

[Kylaran]

Originally Posted by Xrayz0r

I guess so. I haven't been arguing for a way to establish objective truth, I've acknowledged the fact that we can't, I've tried to give an explanation for why we all have unconsciously accepted the world view that we have, but also point that this is the most logical and useful way of looking at things. Our range of "what can be explained" is incredibly large here, much less in a religious context or an extremely skeptical one.

The reason I take the skeptical standpoint is because I feel it is a useful tool for reminding us (humans, that is) of how little we know about the world. I am not saying that I do not see certain systems of thought as providing more benefit to our mundane lives, but that I feel truth is so elusive we sometimes forget the true nature of human knowledge.

That being said, it's clear that there's a general agreement over the same idea. The idea that we can't establish objective truth. However, if we can't, then it means that at the most basic level, we have no idea which path gives us truth at the end. And thus, in terms of the most abstract concept of truth, they're all equal.

This doesn't mean there aren't benefits to pursuing science as a, let's say, more "accurate" form of pursuing knowledge, but so much that we should be humble in our endeavors to understand our universe.

[Miki7]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Wow I thought there wouldn't be this much Atheist here, I thought there would be more of Christan here.

I am christian but not a catolic one... for me my religion it's very important cause without that I couldn't be so happy... call me crazy if you want ... I won't say details but without my religion I would have killed myself...but now I am happy thanks to the Bible and I am so damn happy, NO TO SUICIDE !

[Chaho-Chi]

Im Muslim in short.

[Ebichuman]

Christian as a child, Agnostic as a teenager, Humanist as an adult.

Seems like a natural progression to me. Though I did go to church, I was fortunate enough not to have religion drilled into my head as a child. It's always made me wonder just how influential indoctrination is as opposed to other factors.

[idiffer]

Ebichuman, out of pure curiosity, can i ask you why you think thats a natural progression? humanism from my POV doesnt have any basis, at least the one that it states doesnt convince me its the right thing.
i agree with the first 2 though...

[jaz08]

I am a christian. The real presence of God was really felt on our faith.I also want to share my experience and belief to others.

[Ebichuman]

Originally Posted by idiffer

Ebichuman, out of pure curiosity, can i ask you why you think thats a natural progression? humanism from my POV doesnt have any basis, at least the one that it states doesnt convince me its the right thing.
i agree with the first 2 though...

To clarify, I thought it was a natural progression simply because it's a non theistic stance. Maybe it would have been better to just say agnostic to atheist, then to humanist based on my own views.

[idiffer]

ok, basically i understand what you mean....

[BanishingBook]

A thelemite perhaps, with a slight Catholic faith lingering.

Indecisive about religion but philosophically Thelemic.

[Langknow]

Religion?

NO thank you !

However, I do follow customs that are attached to Buddism. Meaning I do pray/pay respect to my ancestors by offering food and burning the yellow sticks.

However, I do not believe Religion to be a truth seeking method. Being told otherwise is a slap in the face to scientists.

For example, I heard some schools in the US are teaching kids the creationist theory saying that it we should let kids decide on their own about it .

I think that's aload of bull crap.

Imagine if you will, if people still taught kids this : the theory that the earth is round, and another theory that the earth is flat. And teach both theories to the kids, and have them decide which one is right for them.

We all know the earth is round, and we should stop teaching kids that the earth is flat, anything else is just ludicris (not the rapper).

[vedicardi]

Originally Posted by Langknow

Religion?

NO thank you !

However, I do follow customs that are attached to Buddism. Meaning I do pray/pay respect to my ancestors by offering food and burning the yellow sticks.

However, I do not believe Religion to be a truth seeking method. Being told otherwise is a slap in the face to scientists.

For example, I heard some schools in the US are teaching kids the creationist theory saying that it we should let kids decide on their own about it .

I think that's aload of bull crap.

Imagine if you will, if people still taught kids this : the theory that the earth is round, and another theory that the earth is flat. And teach both theories to the kids, and have them decide which one is right for them.

We all know the earth is round, and we should stop teaching kids that the earth is flat, anything else is just ludicris (not the rapper).

I concur, though as an american I don't practice any of the customs you mention.

[Vexx]

Actually in the US, no *public* school has gotten away with mixing religion and science for very long after public attention is drawn. But since school boards are poorly watched elections and the boards populated by people who sometimes don't have a clue about education - there is a never-ending stream of "clowns in the circus" moments concerning science, school safety, dress codes, bookbanning, etc.

OTOH, *some* private evangelist christian schools do teach creationism and other subjects (history, geography, culture, etc) from their own particular point of view. A religious based school isn't automatically "looney" -- some of the best K-12 education out there is run by religious groups (Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc) who provide *access* to their religion but don't cram it down your throat.

[Ebichuman]

Originally Posted by Vexx

A religious based school isn't automatically "looney" -- some of the best K-12 education out there is run by religious groups (Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc) who provide *access* to their religion but don't cram it down your throat.

Even if they aren't looney, they still pose problems. I can only speak for the religious private school my brother went to, but there was a huge lack of diversity. Their ideas weren't forced on students in their curriculum, but were due to the environment they were in. A Christian private school, with Christian teachers, which naturally attracted only Christian parents. They claimed to be impartial, but I say "claimed" because I never heard any differing views. The pressure for conformity to one religious viewpoint was strong, even if that wasn't necessarily the schools intent.

They're better than public schools education wise, but I'd be nice if they were secular instead.