Faith

Timber, my question was not regarding whether or not science concerns itself with the supernatural. My questions was this: why does faith need public "evidence" while science merely needs public "observation"?



To which I already apologized for.



A threat? Why would it be a threat? Unless of course they aren't sure of what they really believe that is. So is the general thought then that someday science will be able to basically explain everything? Well... if we don't destroy ourselves first that is...



I don't necessarily have anything against science, however I do think that science can be just as influential on some people as religion can be. That was my original point, that I failed miserably at bringing out. Don't misunderstand me though. I'm talking in terms of people running off with "scientific theory's" and such almost preaching it like a sunday school teacher, when in fact the very thing they are talking about has not gone through the whole process to be tested and found to be true, or whatever.



Hold on just a second here... You are telling me that SCIENCE asserts nothing... but SCIENTISTS do. How is it then that religion asserts things? Isn't it "religionists" we are talking about here? I cannot see how religion would be any more capable of asserting anything considering it is no more alive and breathing than science itself is.

We're talking about people here timber. People just like you, me, and everyone else here, who have their own minds, make their own assessments and judgements based on what they choose to see as facts or reality. Whether their basis for making those assessments fits in to our little system of beliefs is really irrelevant. No matter how you sum it up it is, always has been, and always will be people behind both religion and science that are the "voice for their cause".

Hephzibah,

A friend of mine who is a nuclear physicist told me that he and his colleagues "expect to find evidence" for particular sub-atomic particles when a new more powerful accelerator has been completed. His "expectations" are entirely in keeping with the established mathematical and theoretical framework underlying the logic of spending vast amounts of money constructing those machines (such money coming from a global spread of nations). Governments do not invest in such projects without the well founded hope of some payoff in terms of benefits to mankind both materially (in terms of advanced technology) and socially (in terms of international co-operation).

Now compare my friends "expectations" as a scientist with those of a religionist (assuming for the moment they are separate individuals). Wheras both fields may provide "psychological purpose" only science is based on firmly established operational principles which yield tangible results. As Timber said in his last sentence "Religion plays games, science works". The term "game" is apt because religion is an idiosyncratic bunch of rules and principles which are of dubious (or negative) benefit to humanity except as a "comfort factor". Such comfort is strengthened when a group of individuals play such games together and their "self-identities" become merged as "team spirit". Such team spirit can indeed yield local "social benefits" but has been spectacularly unsuccessful on larger scales.

Fresco, I do understand what you are saying, but I disagree. You and timber both say that "Religion plays games, science works". But the fact is it is the people who play the games. Not the foundation on which they are standing, whether that be science or religion. People twist things to fit their own agenda from both sides. Does that mean they are "backed" in what they are doing by everyone else involved in that? No. I don't believe so. Life is not a game (well at least I don't view it as such anyway) and really that's what all this is about. Life. How we live. What influences the things we do. How we react to people. How we react to the world that surrounds us. Whether you agree with this or not the fact is that what we believe directly effects every aspect of our lives.



You call it a "comfort factor" and maybe rightfully so, but tell me this fresco, what is wrong with wanting to feel loved, needed, accepted, whatever? I believe it is a base instinct in pretty much everyone to seek have those needs met in one way or another. "God" for some offers an ideal that strengthens them and helps them to get through things. Yeah, it's been pointed out several times that most radical believers have come out of things such as alcoholism, drugs, prostitution, basically extreme lifestyles. Why? I have a theory. Could be wrong... but I suspect it is because for whatever reason their world wasn't meeting those basic instincts they were born with, so they turned to something else. That didn't work either, so they turned to God.

Really what is wrong with that? Why does that make someone weak? By the time I was 24 years old I had been through more than most people go through in a lifetime... or two... I turned to "God" and that belief in something bigger that me, something... someone that actually cared about ME... is what was the driving force in my life to get where I am today. To be who I am today. Why does that make me weak in some peoples opinions? It blows my mind, and probably only mine because I'm the only one who has walked in my shoes. I'm the only one who lived the horrors of my life and survived it and I did what everyone does... I found what I needed to survive, I grabbed it, and ran with it.

The "game" part really comes into all this when people decide to start taking what they believe (regardless of what that is) and trying to manipulate others with it. I have seen this done with just about everything. Science, religion, politics, whatever. People do whatever they feel they have to do in order to meet their needs. That's really what it all boils down to. I don't think science is a bad thing. I think it can be a very useful tool. However, I also stand that technology, though intended to benefit us, has played a very distinctive role in the slow decay of our society. It benefits us in that it makes life "easier" for us in many ways.

Now we can send emails in a second verses a letter via pony express. We can pay for our gas at the pump, rather than going in and actually having to talk to someone. We can sit our kids down to play video games to keep them from whining, instead of actually spending time with them... The list goes on and on. These things, though intended for our entertainment, our ease, our pleasure are slowly eating away at our social system. Slowly making our world revolve around "me and only me". Which I'm sure sounds great to some, but we are by nature social creatures. You said:

"Such team spirit can indeed yield local "social benefits" but has been spectacularly unsuccessful on larger scales."

Has it really fresco? Not speaking specifically about religion here, but just in general. Has it really been that unsuccessful? Do you remember when we could leave our doors unlocked at night? When the kids could go out and play all day, unattended, and even into the late evening hours without even a second thought as to their whereabouts because there weren't sexual predators driving around looking for some little kid to walk by? Do you remember when school was about learning and there was no worry about being shot? Do you remember when neighbors used to actually say hello to each other on the street, have barbeques, introduce themselves to new neighbors? Do you remember ever having a bad morning and going in to pay for your gas and the clerk making you smile? I do. That used to happen to me a lot actually.

My point? These things are little. Very minute to some I'm sure. But their impact is far greater than can be seen by looking at one little aspect of it. These things effect all of us on some level. These things effect how we react to others. Who we will trust. What lengths we will go to, to protect ourselves and so on. So yeah, science has it's benefits, but it also has it's negatives as well. As does everything in life I suppose.

Whew... that was long... LOL I'll get off my soap box now... (oiy)

hephzibah,

I sympathize with you regarding those aspects of your life which have turned you to religious faith. The problem is clearly that contrary to your own arguments, all historical evidence points to the conclusion that religion at the macro-level tends to be pernicious. The analogy with recreational drugs is difficult to avoid.

I believe I have argued above (or elsewhere) that "spirituality" is a viable alternative to "religious faith" as a basis for human empathy and co-operation. No deity or prescriptive dogma need be involved and the level of self perception employed is therapeutic and transcendent of personal history. (See writings of Krishnamurti for example http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/love.html).

Exactly how is it that religion tends to be destructive fresco? I gave you examples of how an aspect of science has been destructive... so how about telling me how religion has been sooo destructive?

Nothing throughout history has wrought more tragedy, oppression, suffering, bloodshed, and destruction than the notion, however derived, rationalized and prosecuted, that some religion mandates prejudice and violence "in defence of the faith".

Precisely.....somebody produced a table a while ago on another thread showing the predominance of religion a causative or predisposing factor in the majorty of the world's conflicts.

SOME ENCOURAGEMENT FROM THE LITERATURE:

'Then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them and show them no mercy' (Torah, Book of Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

'Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but aggress not' (Koran 2:190)

'Whoever fights in the cause of God, then gets killed or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense' (Koran 4:74)

'When all efforts to restore peace prove useless and no words avail, lawful is the flash of steel' (10th Sikh guru, Guru Gobind Singh)

'May your weapons be strong to drive away the attackers, may your arms be powerful enough to check the foes, let your army be glorious, not the evil-doer' (Hinduism's Rig Veda 1-39:2)

Time for work. I will have to get back to this later. Thanks for the examples fresco.

Setanta Wrote:

[quote]Of course--when MOAN or Snood foam at the mouth, i have always pointed out that my beef is with the fanatical. I have never asserted that every one of the religiously convinced are fanatical.[/quote]

I don't care if you call me fanatical or not, but I have asked you kindly to not refer to me as MOAN. My ID has been changed to Arella Mae and I would appreciate you respecting that. And I have never foamed at the mouth.

Ok good examples here. However, regarding the bible passage you quoted... (sorry I've never read the Koran or others you posted so I don't really have any clue of what their context might have been) yet this specific scripture you posted is not a command to all of mankind to go around destroying each other. I'm not sure if that's the implication you are thinking is behind that or not. It is "God" speaking to the israelites about going into and taking the promise land.

Now, I'm sure there have been people who have taken this and others as the above implication... However, anyone with half a brain who has read the bible and knows the bible would see and understand that this was a command made directly to those people within those circumstances. (not refereing to you in any way, shape or form here, but rather fanatical religionists) It comes right back to what I said before:

"The "game" part really comes into all this when people decide to start taking what they believe (regardless of what that is) and trying to manipulate others with it."

hephzibah,

I quoted those items merely to show that those protagonists who want a "divine green light" will find it somewhere in their "holy book". Irrespective of the book army chaplains on both sides will no doubt continue to "bless" their respective flocks before setting out to slaughter each other !

(PS Did you manage to read the Krishnamurti link ?)

Ok. Fair enough. However, I would also like to point out that they aren't the only ones who have or will look for a green light in something to slaughter each other. All slaughter that happens does not have a religious base or starting point. Though there are some who seemingly would like to place all the blame for all the bad things that happen on the bible or God.

I didn't get to that link just yet because I was working on another posting in the contradictions in the bible thread. I've been falling a bit behind there. I'll go look now though.