You know, I think I've recently been coming to realize what Nietzsche meant when he said that God is dead. (Without actually reading any Nietzsche, keep in mind. This is based off some light Wikipedia research and a lot of thinking). I've actually come to realize that I can agree with his claim despite the fact that I believe in God. The God he was talking about was the God like the old gods, the gods that were myths for how the world worked. He was claiming that we don't need God to explain how our world works anymore, and he's right. However, that doesn't destroy God, only one form of him that wasn't important to his nature to begin with.

Einstein wrote about this, too, though more genteelly. Science has broken free of Religion, thankfully, but there are still things that Science cannot answer, and those are the things Religion deals with.

And finally, having faith is not the same thing as being dumb. Quoted from the Wikipedia article on Kierkegaard: Basically, there is a life room for both pure rationality and faith.



(Creationists are annoying)

That assumption, that you must be stupid to believe in God, I see all the time among those people who believe they are superior because they don't believe in God. When I meet a person like that, there is only one way to deal with them. I ignore them.


Apparently, several of you have misunderstood my assertation that science is faith. I'll give you some more time to think about it. I'd rather you argued against the interpretation I meant you to have, and not the one you do. Though, as usual, you are likely too ingrained in the western style of imperical thought to understand it.

Your thinking is every bit as "imperical". If it seems people aren't understanding you, then explain anew so that they will. You can't affect their understanding capabilities but you can affect your own explanations.

It is irrational to believe in something that is not observable through evidence. Do you ignore everyone who doesn't believe in leprechauns?

Careful with your words, asserting that science is faith is just plain wrong. I'll assume by your earlier post, you meant we have faith in our own observations, as if our reality may or may not be real? Perhaps.. however, science resides in our observed reality, as does the idea of god, therefore debating the repercussions of both within this reality is useful.

Oh, do tell, what is the interpretation I have? If you think we are misinterpreting your assertion, then you should try to explain it better. Right now, you're just copping out from what was obviously a not well thought out statement.

.

Wasn't Noah's Ark supposedly at Mount Ararat?

We're elitist because we care.

.

I am not saying that you cannot understand because I have explained it wrong, I am saying that you cannot understand because you cannot understand. Eastern philosophy is lost on you.

And logic is completely lost on you.

"You X because you X."

...uh huh

More truth is discovered by idiots in a game of chance than geniuses following logical rules.

Yay, the old "modern science is flawed because it started out in the West" argument. Please actually give us cogent arguments, I'm afraid no one's going to listen if you keep telling us that you're super-special and fully understand Eastern philosophy while it's beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Seriously, I get tired of all the woo that relies on "alternative ways of knowing". When you said "too ingrained in the Western style of empirical thought" what you were saying was that we won't understand because we're too ingrained in a methodology that asks for evidence. Pray, tell me, why is that such a bad thing?

Einstein said it better, as I've already quoted. The greatest scientists don't reject religion, they embrace it.

That's not at all what I said. I said believing in science took faith, not that the science was wrong.

Again, you are wrong. I was saying that you are too ingrained in a methodology that considers empirical logic to be the be all and end all, when it is actually one among equals.

Why do you think is that mankind is so inclined towards hating one another?
- That Texan guy on the Simpsons.

That quote is talking about devotion and inspiration, the final sentance being a comparison in that context. Where does it say science takes faith?

It doesn't, which is why I never used it in support of that claim.

Oh, my bad. Where does it say the greatest scientists embrace religion then?

That is the meaning of the entire quote.

It's really not though. It's a comparison.

A great scientist is devoted like a preacher. A great scientist is inspired like a philosopher. In that way, science is like religion.

It doesnt mean scientists are religious. At least, that's what I get out of it.

If they are so like the religious, then what is that difference that keeps them from being religious?

*cough*

Wow, ok.

Belief in the supernatural or belief in anything without evidence. Faith.

That quote is drawing comparisons, because he is saying science is replacing religion as the driving force in our way of life. Comparisons on devotion, inspiration, and human strength.

But religion is not the belief in the supernatural or belief in anything without evidence. Perhaps your definition is too narrow?

Perhaps your definition is too broad?

On the contrary, I would consider that the defining factor of religion.

But please, educate me as to why I'm wrong, and how it changes the meaning of that Einstein quote. :downs:

Didn't Jesus say religion was feeding the poor and taking care of widows, in which case, everyone is wrong?

Jesus was a dumb hippy anyways.

Yeah, but he drank a lot and hung out with whores and drifters, sounds like he knew how to party.

Yeah, thats true.

But his ideals were crap. What a bunch of dumb hippy crap. I bet I couldn't even tolerate talking to Jesus if we were both high.




Hey, wanna go put cigars out on people?

You're right. Religion is the belief in the supernatural based on supplied evidence. Such evidence of course is totally :downs:

Guys, Einstein wasn't saying that Science is Religion, he was saying that they have different goals that intertwine at some points (read the rest of the quotes I linked). Science attempts to tell us how the world works.
Religion attempts to help us lead better lives by giving us some convictions and morals.

The only problem is that Religion used to tell us how the world works, but as Nietzsche said (kind of), that God is dead.

Creationism isn't religion. Creationists are the same as scientists who believe that their work invalidates religion. They are both taking the belief they have in their chosen primary system and assuming that the tiny overlap means they are at war.

Actually, it's really naive to say "religion gives us morals and science explains how the world works." The truth is, most religions are a hodgepodge of both. Most of the major religions attempt to describe historical events, and often, those historical events run contrary to the equivalent scientific history. What's worse is the doctrines in these religions are tied to these false histories.

It's fine if you want to relegate the history portion to the trash bin where it belongs and take the morals, but I don't even bother. It's pretty damn simple and more effective in my opinion to form your own morals.

Science isn't faith, science is doubt. The most important part about the Scientific Method is disproving theories. There are no true scientific 'laws' - for instance, Newtons "laws" of motion don't actually work when you're talking about really big numbers or really small ones.

The Scientific Method takes infinite theories, infinite ideas and whittles them down until we have what is most likely (but not absolutely certain). The idea of creating a theory based on observation is simply a way of weeding out the ones that can be very easily disproven, as well as giving us a good starting point. After you develop a theory you test it. Then you publish your results and your experiment's procedure for other people to test. And test. And test. And then keep testing until someone proves the theory is bogus. The theory is never, ever, ever accepted as gospel or absolute fact.

The only people who have faith in science are people who don't understand it. I am not misinterpreting what you are saying, I am disagreeing with you and stating that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

What you're probably doing is confusing 'Science' with 'Technology', where engineers are basically forced to treat the scientific principles they're using as immutable fact in order to actually get any work done. When you design a bridge you generally don't design it to prevent spontaneous total existence failure, even though - scientifically speaking - that is a (infinitesimal) possibility in any structure; but, of course, designing something to prevent that would be rather stupid.

I'd like to point out that some theories (the very likely ones) may never be (at least completely) disproven. If you don't make that distinction, the :downs: people will run around thinking that science is an endless loop of proving itself wrong. Rather, it's an endless process of whittling away towards the truth. We can never truly get there, but we can get close enough to assemble a very good understanding.

I HATE YOU JONCEY.

I read through pages and pages of crap to make sure someone had posted about constantly trying to disprove scientific theory and you do it on the second to last post.

Gimboid

Freelancer, the difference between forming your own morals and following a religion is that the main component of a religion is having the faith that you will be rewarded in this life and perhaps the next if you follow a set of standards. Belief in something unseen and probably unlikely is a required component of any religion.

What I understood Kierkegaard as saying was that faith is not simply the rejection of reason. Rather it is, as the Bible says "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Unfortunately, there are those in the world who do interpret faith as blind obediance and do some horrible things for it. All I can do is have faith and hope like hell that they are wrong and that there is some force for good in the world that will sort it all out. That faith then drives me to strive for that good. In believing in that force for good, I am believing in a god, so to speak.

As for the bits of supposed history, most of those stories are the remnant of the old religions. However, I can retain the faith that are based off the stories if I interpret them as stories that my chosen God wants me to hear to help me understand the faith that I am striving for. (Hypothetical "I", here). In any religion there are a few stories that must be true for the religion to not be crap (Jesus dieing for our sins, Buddha being enlightened, Mohammed receiving revelation, etc.), but these can rarely be utterly proven or disproven, leaving room for faith.

Let me add now that faith is not static. Faith changes over the course of a life. People understand their God better and learn more about life, people change religions as they find they can have more faith in one than another.

Finally, has anyone read The Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett? In the story there are creatures called The Auditors that are outside of the world and live by complete rationality. As soon as they make human bodies for themselves, they start to experience emotion and they become confused. In one scene, they pick apart works of art molecule by molecule to try and find the piece that makes the pieces powerful.
While the story doesn't really deal with faith, it does deal with rational lives. Emotion and faith are human things. To live by rationality alone, emotion alone, is dangerous and dehumanizing. We are made special as a species both by our ability to reason and our ability to feel complex emotion.

(Good way of explaining science, Jon`C. You wouldn't believe how many times we've had debates caused by that fundamental misunderstanding in my physics class).

I'm afraid you also misconstrue Jon'C. Religion is also doubt, and faith and doubt are two faces of the same emotion. At the same time you doubt the theory, you have faith in the process.

To have faith in the scientific method would be to believe that it is an acceptable method of coming to explain the world around us without any logic, reason or empirical data.

No, religion is faith. And faith and doubt are two completely contrary emotions. And, no, I don't 'misconstrue': I know exactly what you're talking about and I disagree with you.

No. In fact, according to the scientific theory, there is almost certainly a better alternative to the scientific method out there. Show me it and I'll use it. I'll also patent it and become king.


EDIT:

Maybe I do 'misconstrue'. Do you mean faith in a mystical and/or philosophical sense? I suppose even the staunchest atheist has some blind faith. Like faith that reality isn't an illusion, that other people aren't just figments of our imaginations. You know. Things of that sort. Frankly, however, if you will admit to me that you are a real person I'm inclined to believe you. Also, I don't have magical powers and I'm not fortunate enough to spend the majority of my time in the company of a host of nude and open-minded nubiles, so I figure this would be a pretty lame delusion.

At any rate, if this is what you're suggesting you're basically trying to tell us that anything except complete Pyrrhonism is founded on nothing but blind faith. Of course, the system of Western Skepticism (from which the modern Scientific Method is derived) is highly influenced by Pyrrhonism so if that's what you were suggesting it would be a really funny infinite loop of :psyduck:.

i hate it when both my JK editing heroes fight.