44,000 year old house built by Neanderthals discovered

[Drowsy Emperor]

Whatever do you mean. I don't know of any religion that discards dogma when faced with conflicting evidence.

 

The totality and meaning of religious belief both for the individual and for society as a whole goes far beyond something as simple as dogma.

 

Besides, there's no conflicting evidence, because you either believe or you don't, its not a debating contest.

For some people the existence of God is as self evident as the fingers on your hand.

 

Isaac Newton was one of those people by the way.

[Gorgon]

Yes, sure people can believe whatever they want, but if you want to find out if it's actually true you have to question and examine, the sociological construct that is religion aside.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Science and religion are not flip sides of the same coin. In science you try to understand the world around you, using whatever tools are at your disposal. In religion you basically just give up and accept a 1000 year old template without question.

 

 

How very strange then that most of the men science venerates so much today as its pioneers were fervent believers.

 

The idea that the two are mutually exclusive is a naive atheist fantasy and stems from not understanding the role of religion.

 

While religion used to explain physical reality (in ways appropriate to the times), which science subsequently took over the true core of religion as an exploration of man's inner being and a quest for meaning remains untouched.

 

Science doesn't offer meaning or purpose it just gives quantifiable facts. And its good at it because that's what it was created for, a grand bookkeeping of reality.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Gorgon]

I'm not saying that they are, mostly because religion doesn't come up anymore. It's personalized. You are no longer tried by the inquisition for stating that the world is observably round.

 

If you do actively question religious dogma, still the underpinnings of a majority of religiously active people, it seems you are not allowed to use all your faculties but have to jump in blind and either accept it or not. It's a neat trick alright.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Gorgon

[Drowsy Emperor]

If you're searching the tenets of any religion for complete structured logic you're doing it wrong.

 

Any educated believer will tell you that there are countless contradictions in the scriptures. In fact their existence is perfectly logical - because of man's inability to sufficiently grasp the subject that he has an active inner need to explain.

 

Imposing scientific methods on religion is thus erroneous to start with, since they deal with separate realities and the tools of one do not conform to the other.

 

 

As someone who comes from political sciences, and has been exposed to much philosophical/sociological though I'm always struck by how inadequate and piecemeal it all seems. An endless barrage of classifications and typologies that have only vaguely anything to do with reality.

 

Religion, by comparison offers a much more complete world view, and its easy to see why most of the people on the planet today are believers. Its not irrational, in fact it has a perfect rationality in itself, because it accepts that the ultimate knowledge lies beyond our grasp, something that most people regardless of era or level of education would agree upon. But at the same time it doesn't say anywhere that you should stop searching for it using whatever means are at your disposal.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[pmp10]

If you do actively question religious dogma, still the underpinnings of a majority of religiously active people, it seems you are not allowed to use all your faculties but have to jump in blind and either accept it or not. It's a neat trick alright.

You seem to be under assumption that science doesn't do the same.

There are plenty of scientific theories that are commonly accepted despite contradicting evidence.

[Gorgon]

The difference is everything we have just gone over. Peer review, the theory is only good as its ability to withstand scrutiny. It's all the difference in the world.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why would one assume that the metaphysical cannot be observed with scientific means.

It would just be "physical" then, wouldn't it? Science is the study of nature, so by definition science can't study something that's supernatural. That's a realm of philosophy and theology.

[Gorgon]

An example of how naming something is also controlling it. When we are discussing the boundry between the natural and supenatural. 'Because that's what it's called'... It's not really much of an argument now is it.

[Zoraptor]

It is more than just semantics. Science and the scientific method requires 3 basic things:

 

1) A testable hypothesis

2) Objective measurement

3) Ability to replicate and repeat, to show that results are consistent

[--> Revision, rejection or lack of rejection of hypothesis]

 

To use one of those horribly over/mis used internet catchalls "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack".

 

Science works increasingly poorly as you move towards the abstract/ subjective since that is by definition unmeasureable/ not objectively measureable and increasingly well as you move towards stuff that can be described by absolute means. That's simply a limitation of science.

[Tale]

The question of whether god exists is entirely immiscible with scientifc observation- he could not be measured or quantified in anything other than a wholly subjective sense. Same as with the metaphysical question of whether any of us really exist.

 

Basically you cannot use science to prove/ disprove the abstract. You could probably say much the same thing about "honour" (cannot be objectively measured) as god, but that does not mean that honour doesn't exist.

There's no disputing that god can't be disproven. At least, not the general one that shrinks away from all duties as other explanations come to be known. That is to say, Thor is no longer credited with lightning.

 

But that's sort of the point. That which cannot be proven, that which is entirely in the realm of speculation with no measurable features, is completely indistinguishable from making **** up. It's Russell's Teapot. Yes, it's possible. It doesn't mean that all unproveable flights of imagination are therefore to go unquestioned.

[Gorgon]

And how about proving the existence of God. I wonder what he would have to say about all the sneaking around and working in mysterious ways. If he's omnipotent he's got a lot to answer for... That is if he's actually one of the good guys. Could just be good PR.

[Drowsy Emperor]

*sigh* If you had proof belief would be unnecessary.

 

But you don't really want proof, because even if it was handed to you you'd look for a way to question it.

 

Like a militant atheist you're basically annoyed that anyone else dares to believe in what you consider hogwash so you press the issue even though you have all the answers you need to make up your mind either way and be at peace.

[Gorgon]

platitudes. God would still exist if we were able to prove it.

[Rosbjerg]

But you don't really want proof, because even if it was handed to you you'd look for a way to question it.

 

And if God was disproved you would simply dismiss it as the inability of the human mind to properly understand.. You two are a perfect example of my previous statement.

[Drowsy Emperor]

But you don't really want proof, because even if it was handed to you you'd look for a way to question it.

 

And if God was disproved you would simply dismiss it as the inability of the human mind to properly understand.. You two are a perfect example of my previous statement.

 

No. As others have pointed out the discussion was resolved long ago (by people who made the issue their life's work) with the conclusion that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved, for reasons that are entirely logical and admitted, albeit grudgingly, by both sides. Taking the logic further the only decision that's left in the relationship between God and man is a personal one - to believe or not to believe.

To still believe in the possibility of any form of conclusive "scientific" proof either way is a fool's errand.

 

What I was pointing out is that the issue Gorgon has, has nothing to do with God. His problem is with people who believe, because he doesn't. If he was entirely comfortable with this state of affairs he wouldn't need to jab others over points that were discussed to death years ago.

[Gorgon]

How do you know the existence of God can't be proven. That's complete nonsense. He could appear tomorrow 1000 feet tall and shooting thunderbolts from his eyes. You can't say to a certainty that he won't.

[Drowsy Emperor]

How do you know the existence of God can't be proven. That's complete nonsense. He could appear tomorrow 1000 feet tall and shooting thunderbolts from his eyes. You can't say to a certainty that he won't.

 

And the sky could fall on our heads, and the sun might decide not to come up and you just might steer this conversation towards something sensible but the chances of all that are very very slim.

[Gorgon]

Also, the lot of you are assuming too much. I don't prosyletise anything. Certainly not atheism. I'm trying to have an original thought or two and not be hamstrung by dogma, whether it originates in religion, atheism, or middle of the road I don't want to have to think too hard about thisism

[Gorgon]

How do you know the existence of God can't be proven. That's complete nonsense. He could appear tomorrow 1000 feet tall and shooting thunderbolts from his eyes. You can't say to a certainty that he won't.

 

And the sky could fall on our heads, and the sun might decide not to come up and you just might steer this conversation towards something sensible but the chances of all that are very very slim.

Still, my original statement stands. We aren't discussing probability.

[Walsingham]

I hesitate to bring this up again, but I don't feel I can usefully controbute unelss we settle it: you can't PROVE anything. You can form a hypothesis, organise facts which would disprove it, and test accordingly. But you simply cannot prove. Ever.

 

It is therefore no more or less insane to wish for proof of the existence of God, than of my downstairs bathroom.

[Gorgon]

This is getting into the whole subjectivity debacle again. Alright then, demonstrate God within the same margin for error as the existence of your bathroom.

[Walsingham]

But margin for error defined how? To the best of my knoeldge stistical tests are pretty much arbitrarily pegged at what we have found to be useful. But if utility works then the god-monkeys already win. Because I've seen god-boys doing crap I would have said was absolutely impossible as an unaugmented human.

[Bos_hybrid]

Well I know one thing, if God is real and anything like the one in the bible, I'm going to hell.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The question of whether god exists is entirely immiscible with scientifc observation- he could not be measured or quantified in anything other than a wholly subjective sense. Same as with the metaphysical question of whether any of us really exist.

 

Basically you cannot use science to prove/ disprove the abstract. You could probably say much the same thing about "honour" (cannot be objectively measured) as god, but that does not mean that honour doesn't exist.

There's no disputing that god can't be disproven. At least, not the general one that shrinks away from all duties as other explanations come to be known. That is to say, Thor is no longer credited with lightning.

 

But that's sort of the point. That which cannot be proven, that which is entirely in the realm of speculation with no measurable features, is completely indistinguishable from making **** up. It's Russell's Teapot. Yes, it's possible. It doesn't mean that all unproveable flights of imagination are therefore to go unquestioned.

Russell's teapot, if it's what I think it is, has a subtle fallacy. The problem is it's supposed to exist in the physical world, which we're familiar with, and thus it's on its face preposterous. Also, if the universe is infinite, there should be a Russell's tea pot out there somewhere. As far as evidence of God, you can study history, and ask if these events are really random, and if so why are we still around? Or look at your own life and think whether stuff just happens at random or if there's some meaning behind it.

 

Edit: As far the claim that religious belief is purely the result of indoctrination, well, lots of people believe in fate, but there's no particular indoctrination into that.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Wrath of Dagon