View Single Post
Old 2011-02-20, 09:40   Link #3066
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 25
I get the feeling you're confused as to what exactly I'm speaking against here. I am not challenging science or empiricism. I am not trying to validate the specific claims of any one religion. What I am trying to dispel is the notion that religious faith as a general concept is negative or inherently contrary to intelligent thought.

Which brings me to this point; if you're going to argue that a God exists, then that amounts to an existence claim, and thus a scientific claim which can, in principle, tested for the material effects of such an existence.
I believe I asked you for some examples of the "other ways of knowing" you alluded to in your previous post. I'm still waiting.
To which I preemptively responded:
In my opinion, religion in its ideal form does not claim to know or preach in the same way that science and engineering do, but rather to temper and remind people of what we do not know as tiny beings in the vast existence of the cosmos.
The whole idea of religion, then, is not to discover any hard facts, but to form a psychological basis for people to internalize so that they can better cope with said facts. The existence of religion and the concept of God are intertwined with, in my understanding, the very fact that we are at all self-aware (a concept which is in itself difficult if not impossible to define). Empiricism can explain everything that can be observed, from gravity to the chemical workings of the brain, but it cannot explain, in the end, why we have souls there at all to observe anything with. Nor could it ever hope to explain or encompass the breadth of matter, which appears to be infinite.
At some point, these mysteries escape the scope of human perception, and language, which forms the cornerstone of our science and rationality, is no longer effective in portraying them. In the past, the sky was the limit, since no one could hope to go beyond it to see what exactly was going on up there. Now, even as science advances, the very nature of being and its semantics are still in question.

There is supposedly a Buddhist saying that "Buddha is in the heart". If the soul cannot be discerned, then I would say that the divine truly does exist within this unknowable region. Why must a god exist then, you say? Because there is order in the universe, and there would have to be some sort of "intelligence" behind the laws of matter.

It seems like you wanted an explanation on why God should exist. I have summarily provided that explanation.

I getting my faith shredded away by Richard Dawkins and my family isn't exactly liking that...
Well, why did you believe in the first place?
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote