A Belief Question

[Scazrelet]

I am not inviting flame wars here, but I am honestly curious...

In this day and age of logic, science, and understanding, how do you, personally, choose to explain in a rational (or irrational I suppose) manner your religion or system of beliefs?

Do you back up your ideas with evidence? Do you trust in faith alone? Is science compatible with religion to you?

[Aliantha]

I think this is a great question although I'm sure there'll be 'flame wars' in response if some people notice the thread. lol

From my perspective what I believe would have to be defined before I can tell you why I believe it, so here goes.

I think I believe in a God...at least, I've been brought up to believe in one...somewhere or other he lurks, but it's possible that he/she doesn't exist, in which case I'm fine with that too. I do believe that the Budhist philosophy works pretty well in that I can see how there are lessons to learn in a lifetime and there are different people at different stages learning different lessons in life and I've often wondered why some people have such hard lives and other seem to have it much easier. So with that in mind, I think it's possible the Budhists have got it at least correct in part. Also, I find their belief in the 7 planes of existance fairly comforting since this one we're on now is apparently the lowest which means it can't get any worse.

I think I believe these things because I don't want to accept that maybe when I die I just no longer exist.

Also, since I do believe in ghosts and souls because I think there's overwhelming evidence to suggest they do exist - in my opinion - that there must be something that comes after this life.

It's just what comes next that I'm confused about.

Oh, and I don't believe that God watches every little sin we commit and holds us up for judgement after death. If that were the case, God wouldn't have given us the ability to sin. I believe that if there is a God who sees all, that he knows when we're doing the best we can do, and that if that's what we're doing, then we're square with the keeper. To me, God is more like my conscience, so if I can sleep at night, then what happens next is beyond my control.

[wolf]

A universe without God(s) does not make sense to me. "God" and "Science" are not mutually exclusive terms.

I can't explain it in any more detail than that. I do not think doing so is necessary.

[theirontower]

Originally Posted by wolf

A universe without God(s) does not make sense to me. "God" and "Science" are not mutually exclusive terms.

I can't explain it in any more detail than that. I do not think doing so is necessary.

/agree totally

There is a line in shogun where Mariko and Toranaga agree that analyzing the divine is a waste of time. There are lessons to be learned there that have nothing to do with fact, or even with truth.

[MaggieL]

Growing up as the child of a Protestant clergyman who also taught elementary science was an interesting experience.

My own "belief system" does not require insulation from my knowlege of science and mathematics. That understanding encourages me not to expect too much enlightenment from religious systems based in language...as so many are. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem makes it clear to us that formal symbolic systems aren't even up to the task of encompassing themselves, much less the Transcendant.

The development of western organized religions, (like other memetically-based systems for aggrandizing power like "government"), are informed and mediated by information technologies, including linguistic systems and communications media....from the invention of written languge to the Roman system of couriers and roads to Gutenberg's press to the fax machine to the Internet.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Scazrelet

Is science compatible with religion to you?

These are two different ways of describing the same thing, IE the universe which we can never fully understand, or remove ourselves, as observers, from being a part of. The effort to find the common ground between these two methods of understanding, and eliminate false conflicts where they exist, is a great opportunity to find a more comprehensive way of looking at the universe. After all, two different methods of describing an object do not create two different objects, merely two different descriptions.

Wherever conflicts arise between the two, it is necessarily the fault of the methods themselves, as reality cannot be blamed for our faulty perceptions. Wherever science and religion appear to clash, there is an opportunity to resolve our fundamental problems in describing the universe.

I believe its called "faith" for a reason. Some things cannot just be explained to EVERYONE's satisfaction. I have a Master's in bilogy and I see no cross over between faith and science. Science is about logic and proof; faith is about belief. I do believe in some Higher Intelligence of the Universe, but I wouldn't dream of attempting to explain my faith beyond that.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by marichiko

...I see no cross over between faith and science...

I propose that the "cross over" is: these are two ways of attempting to describe the universe. And, there is only one universe.

[lhatcher]

I'm flying on faith. There are so many amazing things in the world. I can't abide people getting into major discussions about religion versus science. I don't believe they are really separate. I'm always amused by the evolution/creation disagreement. Isn't it possible that God created evolution? The only constant is change, so things have to evolve. That's part of the deal. Anyway, that makes total sense to me.

[morethanpretty]

Science has a lot of that faith stuff mixed into it as well...just not so blaringly obvious. You have to have faith that the experiments and theories were established properly and all that mumbo jumbo is more than just mumbo jumbo that the scientists are using to make themselves feel smart. Many theories and experiments are debunked by later theories or experiments. More scientists are advocating the Intelligent design idea rather then the Big Bang theory nowadays.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

More scientists are advocating the Intelligent design idea rather then the Big Bang theory nowadays.

I suspect this is a purposefully deceptive phrasing you picked up somewhere, intended to conflate "Big Bang" theory of 1927 with modern scientific thought. The suggestion that ID is taken seriously by the peer-reviewed scientific community is utter bullshit. It isn't even science.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

More scientists are advocating the Intelligent design idea rather then the Big Bang theory nowadays.

Originally Posted by DanaC

I'd like to know where you pulled that little gimlet from.

Read what it literally says...

Originally Posted by Flint

I suspect this is a purposefully deceptive phrasing you picked up somewhere,
intended to conflate "Big Bang" theory of 1927 with modern scientific thought.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

You have to have faith that the experiments and theories were established properly and all that mumbo jumbo is more than just mumbo jumbo that the scientists are using to make themselves feel smart.

No you don't. You can try it yourself. That may not be practical, but it is possible, so faith is not necessary.

Many theories and experiments are debunked by later theories or experiments.

And the debunked theories are discarded. This is not indicative of faith, but of pragmatism. If you maintain faith in a debunked theory, you are no longer doing science. (See astrology and phrenology)

More scientists are advocating the Intelligent design idea rather then the Big Bang theory nowadays.

Maybe if you are making a distinction between "advocating" and "generally acccepting".

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Science has a lot of that faith stuff mixed into it as well...just not so blaringly obvious. You have to have faith that the experiments and theories were established properly and all that mumbo jumbo is more than just mumbo jumbo that the scientists are using to make themselves feel smart. Many theories and experiments are debunked by later theories or experiments. More scientists are advocating the Intelligent design idea rather then the Big Bang theory nowadays.

And what may I ask are your scientific credentials? There is no "faith" that experiments were established properly. Any scientific study or experiment published in a respectable peer reviewed journal MUST be reproducible. That means that if I publish that I have discovered a vaccine for small pox, 99.9% of the scientists who follow the protocal given in the paper will get the same results. That is called "proof" - not "faith."

Science is an EVOLVING field of knowledge, just like any other. As further research is conducted, new discoveries may be made. However, just because we have made discoveries in the area of quantum physics does not mean that the law of gravity ( a component of classical physics) no longer is true.

Very few, if any, respected scientists advocate intelligent design. Do you even know what intelligent design postulates and why comparing it with the big bang is like comparing apples and oranges?

Just because YOU don't understand something, doesn't make it mumbo jumbo. If you spend just a couple of years taking a few basic science courses in college, maybe throw in a year of calculus, and a good introductory course in logic, you might be able to make coherant replies to discussions such as this one.

Or you can keep listening to the Focus on the Family crowd.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by marichiko

--snip--

Or you can keep listening to the Focus on the Family crowd.

Crowd is close. County or country would be closer. He get so much mail that, and I am not making this up, he has his own zip code.