2009-09-24, 12:56 | Link #2021 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
|
Look, Historically science and religion have been in competition for the truth, rivals for what is finally and ultimately true. But if this has been historically the way science and religion have related, it does not necessarily have to be that way! They could be viewed as complimentary, needing each other in order to come to the full truth.
In fact, The Center for Theology and Science at University of California Berkeley has as its mission to find the complimentary relationship between science and religion! |
2009-09-24, 13:00 | Link #2022 | |
So right I'm left
Join Date: Jun 2009
|
Quote:
Presently, we simply lack the means to ascertain the truth, that's all there is to it. |
|
2009-09-24, 13:02 | Link #2024 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-09-24, 13:09 | Link #2027 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
|
Look, Another we might view science and religion is that of having different areas of jurisdiction: Science is about the physical universe and religion is about a spiritual realm; science and religion are talking about different things. If philosophy, science and religion are all in some sense about the truth, and philosophy’s means to it is reason and science’s means to it is observations and experimentation, then what is religion’s means to the truth? This is not an easy question to answer, and one of the reasons for this is because there is not just one religion, there are MANY! We cannot assume that all religions come to the truth in the same way, whatever way that may be, nor can we assume that they come to the same truth.
|
2009-09-24, 13:09 | Link #2028 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2009-09-24, 13:20 | Link #2029 | |||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by White Manju Bun; 2009-09-24 at 15:37. |
|||
2009-09-24, 13:25 | Link #2030 | |
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
So, explain to me why i know many atheist that are just parasites, while I know some religious people who contribute well to the society whatever their beliefs that they don't expose all the time (at least here, you can see people acting kindly without exposing their beliefs. I think it might be different in the US, since so many people claimed that in the US, religious are all the time on the street trying to convert people. Well, it's not like that here)? You can be a religious who don't serve the society well, and it's also true for atheists. |
|
2009-09-24, 15:50 | Link #2031 |
Anxious bookseller
Author
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Shibuya Psychic Research
|
Ok let's all have a refresher course of what's acceptable in the forum...
1.2 Do not insult or harass other members Insults, harassment, flaming, trolling, baiting or other similar abusive behaviour towards other members of The Forum will not be tolerated. This includes the use of "retort images". Images used to convey a "come back" message (i.e. to "retort") are forbidden in all areas of The Forum, they are often offensive and only serve to ignite flame wars. 2.8 Avoid flammable and cyclic topics Please be aware that political and religious discussions often cause very heated debates with little give or take on either side. They normally start out interesting and sensible but degrade rapidly. This produces the same arguments repeatedly for pages and induces many members to start "flaming" each other. Such topics will most likely be closed unless care is taken to keep the thread both interesting and polite. Similar discussions, concerning the illegality of fansubs and licensing debates, may also be treated in this way. I believe this thread hit that mark today which is why it was closed while the cleaning crew went through it. For now the thread will remain closed, I'll probably open it sometime tomorrow. If when reopened the rules can't be followed the thread might be closed for longer/forever.
__________________
|
2009-09-25, 18:20 | Link #2032 | |
Nani ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Emerald Forest ( yes its a real place. )
|
Quote:
===================================== For those too lazy to click the link. ===================================== Here is an interesting thing to ponder when questioning whether or not religious people who believe in an absolute being that dictates right from wrong have a better grasp on ethics then those who do not believe... The entire premise that to be ethical requires an absolute being rests on the idea that the answer to the euthyphro dilemma is that it is "right because God says so". This makes God an objective being- meaning that all he says is 100% truth and reality. If God were to say leprechauns exist, they would. In comparison, we are subjective beings. Reality is not bended to our will. If we believe that we see a leprechaun during an acid trip, it does not mean that leprechauns exist. It just means they exist in our mind. Our thoughts and opinions on reality are subjective and thus open to question. To put it in simpler terms, think of God ( Objective ) as a game programmer and us ( Subjective ) as characters in his game ( Reality ). The programmer dictates reality and we have no choice but to go with it. The thing about being a subjective being is that pretty much everything we experiance or think is subjective. For all we know, everything we hear, breath, touch, and know is an illusion via a system similar to "the matrix". We can "know" things for 99.9999 % but we can never reach 100%. Every piece of knowledge we come accross must first be comprehended by our subjective minds. Which explains why we humans have different opinions on what things mean - different ideals mean different things to two different subjective minds that have experienced reality through other perspectives. Ironically, this is why we even have different religions in the first place. Now lets take it up a notch and look at the relationship between a subjective being and an objective being. If one of us was to talk to God and God was to tell us the meaning of life, would he then have objective knowledge regarding life's purpose ? Actually, he wouldn't. In order to understand the objective knowledge that is being transferred, the subjective being in question would go through a number of subjective walls. First: acknowledge that they are talking to an objective being ( God ) - Subjective. How does the person know they are talking to God and not their own hallucination ? Even if He really was talking to God, it doesn't change the fact that his understanding of the situation is still subjective. Second: Acknowledge and comprehend the wisdom that has been given to you by the objective being. Wake up ! You just got told the meaning of life. So now what do you do ? Simple, the first thing the subjective being would do is attempt to figure out what he has been told actually means to him. whether this is done subconsciously or consciously doesn't matter, if the subjective being has any hope of remembering what he has been told, he goes through this step. This creates a problem: No matter what, a subjective being cannot gain access to objective wisdom even if it is told directly to you by the almighty one himself, because Just by comprehending what it is you have been told through a subjective mind, the objective wisdom you have gained becomes subjective to your own understanding and thus becomes subjective in the process. Its the same as pouring water into orange juice, no matter how much watter is poured in their will still be some orange juice inside. its that barrier between 99.999999999999999% and 100% that we as subjective beings, by definition cannot ever cross. In other words, even if an absolute objective being exists that dictates the reality behind ethics...as far as we are concerned and as far as we can comprehend, it doesn't matter. As subjective being's we will always find ourselves turning to our own reason at one time or another, because thats what we ultimately understand. Even if God were to give us Objective knowledge of morality we would still only be able to comprehend that objective knowledge through a subjective mind. Our ethical standards would still be subjective. If God was to tell us that murder is in fact, morally good, how many of us would honestly just flat out stop thinking about what we feel is right or wrong and go kill everyone we know and love ? Except for the few extremely brainwashed individuals, most of us would try to protect our families from the inevitable onslaught to come. Personally, I would give God the finger. But thats just me. In conclusion: absolute "Universal Laws" dictating what is right and wrong are as far as we're concerned, nonexistent. Just my 2 cents. EDIT NOTE: I am not posting this in an attempt to stir up flamewars. I'm simply posting my personal view of objective vs subjective morality. Take it to mean as you will. There is obviously nothing to stop anyone from flaming me for it, but just be aware that I will ignore any response to this post that I feel would result in this thread getting locked if it was taken seriously. Of course, for those who have something constructive and non flammatory to say, I'm all ears. |
|
2009-09-25, 21:05 | Link #2033 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
To me, as far as history goes, by majority, it's pretty clear that humans do have that *good* tendency to actually strive for organization, peace and harmony, as oppose to destruction, chaos and complete violence. (This might not be a very strong point considering how there were world wars.) ....And for my explanation for the *evil* minority: they're either affected by some heavy emotional nurture issues or are/were not mentally/properly "human" anymore----psychological defects. |
|
2009-09-25, 21:30 | Link #2034 | |||
Hina is my goddess
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Ignoring all of that, if god gives me a tool,say free will, and doesn't help me use it properly, say by allowing me to give into temptation or be fooled by a false prophet, and punishes me when i had no chance to do the right thing, then why should i praise him and follow a religion? Quote:
I don't believe people are either born good or evil, only someone sees a mutual benefit in helping each other and hence "good" was formed. Otherwise people are motivated by greed. Either greed for acceptance, praise, or material goods. |
|||
2009-09-25, 21:48 | Link #2035 | ||||
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So people see the *benefit* and acts because it? And, after years pass, this forms the societal pressure that creates *conscience*? Good point. Though I think its *deeper* than mere *benefits*. Just like how its natural for Moms to protect and love their children, Its natural to, in different levels, help others----instinctively(biological reason of life) perhaps, but I'm saying *good* is instinctive as well. My sentences might be too confusing (in fact, it is (a bit) to me, ), so if you want clearance, please don't hesitate. |
||||
2009-09-25, 22:23 | Link #2036 | |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
There is no such thing as true altruism in my eyes. All supposed good actions usually benefit the person in question (And all it can be in the end is self-gratification and fulfillment ala Mother Teresa types). Obviously morality is made by a society. The most typical types of moral values stem from Judo-Christian religions (In Asia I don't know. Perhaps Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintaoism and all that jazz). Well you just elaborated on something I wanted people to think about, didn't realize someone already made an elaborate post on this idea, though this thread has existed for quite a long time. Good post.
__________________
|
|
2009-09-25, 22:30 | Link #2037 | |||
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2009-09-25, 22:33 | Link #2038 | ||
Hina is my goddess
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
I am not trying to say religion is bad or anything like that. Just as a person growing up in a non-religious house and learning science at a young age makes it hard to believe in a religion or a god who just goes against all laws of nature. I want to see how people deal with all the contradictions that i see in religion. |
||
2009-09-25, 22:37 | Link #2039 | |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Societies come together because they want to protect themselves. I don't want the caveman 10 feet away to come into my cave, bop me on the head, and take my mate.
__________________
|
|
2009-09-25, 22:43 | Link #2040 | ||||
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
On the case of how it goes against all laws of nature, there really is no *definite* "laws" of nature. Its just a system created by science for simplifying reasons for others to understand better and faster---which are...in my opinion, actions that are understandable. My suggestion is to think more *intuitively*, or dwell on the outside of the "boxes"----"boxes" that are science and other practical or "real" issues. Quote:
Quote:
Yes, you could also take that *affection* as a logical way of removing social depression---an *also* necessity towards survivability. But you can't remove that *innate tendency* of man to be "good". Last edited by Cipher; 2009-09-25 at 22:56. |
||||
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
|
|