Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Polonius wrote:Well, I think religion still answers questions that science can't. The purpose of man, the nature of morality, even things like the soul/body question and life after death. That's heavy stuff, and science is even more confused now than they were 500 years ago about that stuff.

These are philosophical, not scientific questions.

That would probably be why science is bad at answering them.

It doesn't try to...

Science is not answers. Science is a method of asking questions.

Fifty wrote:You may also notice, from the way I phrase many things, that I do not even like the term "belief/believe", as it carries too many implications of a faith position rather than a logic position.

I like the word "Idea" better. I have a good idea.

(Still sour from the atheist vs. xmas topic...)

C'mon people, let's keep this one going! If someone steps on your toes, point it out in polite way.
If that doesn't work, PM them.
If that doesn't work, feth them. Hit ignore.

I want this thread to live very much. So do others. WE CAN DO IT!!!

Was I rude? I really wasn't directing any of what I wrote there at any one person. If you point out to me what I wrote that was personal or could be interpreted as such, I will re-write it.

IntoTheRain wrote:It doesn't try to...

Because it knows it can't. Because science isn't made for answering those kind of questions.

Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:I am NOT a person who believes in dogma

Then why are you talking to him?

Science does not preclude answers to those questions, it just does no supply them. I am happy that those questions can be answered within a framework that is consistent with a scientific standpoint without recourse to religion or the supernatural. I am very happy with any philosophical system of understanding that works within the empirical. This is why, for example, I am a fan of Buddhism (in its original form) without being a Buddhist myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:It doesn't try to...

Because it knows it can't. Because science isn't made for answering those kind of questions.

Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:I am NOT a person who believes in dogma

Then why are you talking to him?

I don't believe in my dinner table either - I still eat my dinner from it!!!

Fifty wrote:
No, it is not inaccurate at all. Literature on the roots of atheism, before it was even called such, discuss both what it does not and does not believe in. Atheism was a term coined for a set of ideas that had been established before the term itself. That one of the main focuses of this set of ideas was disbelief in god[s] led to the name focusing on that.

The collective set of ideas is irrelevant. All of those thinkers you're referencing as the Atheists had atheism in common, but also possessed a number of other diverse, metaphysical beliefs. Nietzsche is a great example here; assuming you're willing to call him an atheist, not everyone is.

The uniting characteristic which is being referenced is the lack of belief in God/god/s, not the sum of each of their individual perspectives on metaphysics, rationalism, or any other philosophical position.

Compare the terms liberal, and Liberal. The Liberals were a group political thinkers grouped together due to their emphasis on individual freedom as described by the word liberty. They also held a number of other political beliefs, but those beliefs have no bearing on the meaning of the term liberal as that which is marked by open-mindedness.

Fifty wrote:
You are focusing on the semantic roots of a word rather than the ideological roots of a system of thought and ideas. Perhaps even a philosophy.

I'm focusing on the philosophical definition of the term. A good run down can be found here. I'm also acknowledging that many of the Atheists actually held beliefs which were demonstrably metaphysical in nature.

Fifty wrote:
As I said elsewhere, Atheism is better defined by what it does than what it doesn't.

So you're envision Atheism as something approaching a religion in the Buddhist, or Hindu tradition?

Fifty wrote:
To be honest, because of situations exactly like this one, I do not like the term "Atheism". It is such a negative term and defines me what I am not intead of what I am.

Yes, that's one of the great misunderstandings of the word. By technical fact anyone, or anything, that does not explicitly deal in the belief in God/god/s is an atheist.

Fifty wrote:
I AM a logical person who values logical thinking, evidential-based enquiry and rational debate. I am NOT a person who believes in dogma, acceptance and faith in the supernatural.

It sounds like you're a logical positivist with a stronger than average bend towards atheism.

Fifty wrote:
You may also notice, from the way I phrase many things, that I do not even like the term "belief/believe", as it carries too many implications of a faith position rather than a logic position.

That's fine, insofar as you aren't becoming confused with respect to what actually turns on belief, and what turns on logic. Many people fall into that trap very easily. On both sides of the debate.

Fifty wrote:Science does not preclude answers to those questions, it just does no supply them.

Well, it will never be able to supply them if the answers to those questions can never be tested.

I am happy that those questions can be answered within a framework that is consistent with a scientific standpoint without recourse to religion or the supernatural. I am very happy with any philosophical system of understanding that works within the empirical.

Me too.

If science can take a stab at the origin of the universe, finding Higgs Bosons and so on, I don't see why it couldn't tackle life after death.

Of course there may well be situations which are logically beyond knowing, in which case faith based systems of belief are needed.

Fifty wrote:Was I rude? I really wasn't directing any of what I wrote there at any one person. If you point out to me what I wrote that was personal or could be interpreted as such, I will re-write it.

Not at all, sorry for that rant bleeding into my kudos to you. I was reciting a line from the movie "Dogma". Rufus the 13th apostle for FTW!

That rant that came after was my followup from the thread you quoted. Sorry for not being concise...

Kilkrazy wrote:If science can take a stab at the origin of the universe, finding Higgs Bosons and so on, I don't see why it couldn't tackle life after death.

Well, we already know a lot about how the brain works and how a person dies. And it takes a lot less investigation to find out a week-old corpse doesn't spontaneously reanimate.

In that sense, you could say that science has already "tackled" it to whatever degree it can be tackled with empirical testing. "Life after death" usually then goes into souls, and other planes of existence, and such. You can't really disprove the existence of those kind of things.

A lot of that depends on how we want to look at souls. Simply because the definition defines them as something which is incorporeal doesn't mean they actually must be as such. After all, we used to think the mind was something fully distinct from the body. A substance in itself. But that doesn't mean because we now see the mind as a series of electrical impulses flashing along neural pathways that what we're discussing isn't the mind. It simply means we were mistaken as to the mind's true nature, and likely still are.

I know this might be inflammatory, but has anyone else noticed that when it comes to Science V Religion, the onus is always on Science to come up with the proof/evidence, whilst the Religious view remains the default until disproven?

Seems a tad unfair to my mind. Discuss.

But what's the difference between a mind and a soul?

It seems like the usual difference is that the soul is incorporeal by definition; if it weren't incorporeal the word "mind" or "brain" would be used to describe it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I know this might be inflammatory, but has anyone else noticed that when it comes to Science V Religion, the onus is always on Science to come up with the proof/evidence, whilst the Religious view remains the default until disproven?

Seems a tad unfair to my mind. Discuss.

Do you not understand anything about the differences between faith and empirical science? If you're expecting faith to provide proof, you're doing it wrong.

If religion had evidence, it wouldn't be religion. If science didn't have evidence, it wouldn't be science.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If science can take a stab at the origin of the universe, finding Higgs Bosons and so on, I don't see why it couldn't tackle life after death.

Well, we already know a lot about how the brain works and how a person dies. And it takes a lot less investigation to find out a week-old corpse doesn't spontaneously reanimate.

In that sense, you could say that science has already "tackled" it to whatever degree it can be tackled with empirical testing. "Life after death" usually then goes into souls, and other planes of existence, and such. You can't really disprove the existence of those kind of things.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I know this might be inflammatory, but has anyone else noticed that when it comes to Science V Religion, the onus is always on Science to come up with the proof/evidence, whilst the Religious view remains the default until disproven?

Seems a tad unfair to my mind. Discuss.

I think:
It is possible to know anything (not everything) in this universe, except for one thing.
I choose to not give that thing a name. It is like saying "Well, I don't know your name, so I'm gonna call you Bob..."

I do refer to it as Pan sometimes though, from Ancient Greek πᾶν pan "entire". Therefore, I think pantheist is a better fit for me...

Wiki wrote:In Wicca, the (Pan) archetype of the Horned God is highly important, as represented by such deities as the Celtic Cernunnos, Indian Pashupati and Greek Pan.

I see all gods as the same single entity that is a collective conscience, similar to the concept of thetans before Incident 1 in Scientology. You may call it God, Allah, Satan, Joe Pesci, or Christopher Walken.
We are always part of it, too. The only distinction is: do you have a physical body, or not. We are all drops of water in the water fall. One day, we will be returned to the river from whence we came.

All science has on it's side, is the emperical evidence that god does not exist (as I assume that is the debate)... and really though, having evidence that something does not exist, doesn't really add up to anything.

This is why magic tricks will continue to work, mainly because people are not necessarily there to have faith, (though that is one of the pillars of magic, and I am not talking about religion per se) more often than not, people partake for the inspiration. The sheer spectacle if you may.

Not all religions focus heavily on aesthetics, but in general, there is a long-running use of what some would consider propaganda (and many pieces in their own time, clearly were propaganda), mainly due to the fact that religion has always been so political on the whole of it.

In many ways, religion is the sole founder, of the concept of politics; and in many ways, religions played an extremely integral role, in the way we incorporate business and economics into our every day lives today.

Back to the OP though...


Religion is clearly not as integral to society, as it once was. I don't necessarily take this to mean that humans have changed all that much, or that we no longer "need" religion (I mean, I need a taco, but do I really need that taco? I have faith in this taco, to deliver itself unto me), just that, the huge assortment of experience available (indirectly for most cases, but clearly present) to the modern human; this is bound to lessen the amount of people to choose religion as their personal life "guide". I can find my experiences in rocks, just by staring at them... staring at them.... rocks and trees.

If you have hard time understanding your experience (however you would construct that box, as to rationally assume it is possible to actually do so in the first place), you are more likely to drift down a spiritually oriented path. Many people are turning to eastern religions, mainly for the change of aesthetic, an new set of guidelines if you will. If having a clear separation of what is and isn't right or wrong, or clear hazy backwards, and otherwise designated confusing; religion might be for you. If you can simply handle the fact that life really might be a totally inert experience, devoid of anything besides that which we directly (and even indirectly within a certain context) experience; agnosticism and iPods might be for you.

If you simply cannot stand the fact that your experience, is as ill-defined as you allow it to be; atheism might be for you.

tblock1984 wrote:I see all gods as the same single entity that is a collective conscience, similar to the concept of thetans before Incident 1 in Scientology.

Isn't that already part of Hinduism?

Wrexasaur wrote:All science has on it's side, is the emperical evidence that god does not exist (as I assume that is the debate)... and really though, having evidence that something does not exist, doesn't really add up to anything.

Is it evidence that god doesn't exist, or no evidence that god does exist?

Orkeo wrote:Is it evidence that god doesn't exist, or no evidence that god does exist?

Evidence that we have no evidence of god existing. As I said, it is really a pretty misinformed path to take on.

Apples and Oranges can argue all day long, but when they start arguing about themselves, to eachother... well... hmmm...



It becomes a srs thread indeed...

dogma wrote:

Fifty wrote:
No, it is not inaccurate at all. Literature on the roots of atheism, before it was even called such, discuss both what it does not and does not believe in. Atheism was a term coined for a set of ideas that had been established before the term itself. That one of the main focuses of this set of ideas was disbelief in god[s] led to the name focusing on that.

The collective set of ideas is irrelevant. All of those thinkers you're referencing as the Atheists had atheism in common, but also possessed a number of other diverse, metaphysical beliefs. Nietzsche is a great example here; assuming you're willing to call him an atheist, not everyone is.

The uniting characteristic which is being referenced is the lack of belief in God/god/s, not the sum of each of their individual perspectives on metaphysics, rationalism, or any other philosophical position.

Compare the terms liberal, and Liberal. The Liberals were a group political thinkers grouped together due to their emphasis on individual freedom as described by the word liberty. They also held a number of other political beliefs, but those beliefs have no bearing on the meaning of the term liberal as that which is marked by open-mindedness.

Fifty wrote:
You are focusing on the semantic roots of a word rather than the ideological roots of a system of thought and ideas. Perhaps even a philosophy.

I'm focusing on the philosophical definition of the term. A good run down can be found here. I'm also acknowledging that many of the Atheists actually held beliefs which were demonstrably metaphysical in nature.

I think the problem we have here is that the term "Atheist" was not even used until the late 18th Century. If you contend that there was no such thing as Atheism or Atheists until then, you are correct in what you are saying. I view it that there were Atheists before that date who never referred to themselves, nor were referred to by their contemporaries as Atheists. Those earlier thinkers were unified more by a belief in how to think more than a belief in what not to think.

I think we could, for the purposes of a more meaningful conversation, agree to disagree on how to use the word "Atheist" and refer to Rationalists a preferred term for "my" kind of Atheist and an "A-theist" or "Unbeliever" for your kind of Atheist.

As I say though, I do not like the term Atheist anyway, and don't really like to call myself or be called one, so I'll even concede the term to you and use your definition for this thread, whilst retaining my own definition for use in my own thoughts.

Sadly, no-one has ever come up with a term I really like in order to better describe what I am. Rationalist is okay, but I don't lke it. Humanism also seems to come with a whole heap of baggage I do not like to have attached to my values, ideas and, okay, beliefs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no empirical evidence I am aware that God does not exist.

Science does not disprove God, as far as I am concerned. That does not make me believe in him though, any more than it makes me follow any other religious belief system.

Religion gave me hope and lifted me out of my depression. It gives me moral guidance and a community that doesn't judge me. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but my life has become a lot better since becoming religious.

That said, I'm no zealot and I think that any of the religions could be right or wrong. I find homosexuals an awkward topic because I think it's abberant behavior, but I tolerate them.

We should probably kill the thread quietly before someone comes in with a 'lol sky fairy' argument.

Fifty wrote:There is no empirical evidence I am aware that God does not exist.

Science does not disprove God, as far as I am concerned. That does not make me believe in him though, any more than it makes me follow any other religious belief system.

Ideally, empirical research yields empirical evidence, which can then be analyzed for statistical significance or reported in its raw form.

The number zero is not a number? As far as I am concerned, zero is just as statistically relevant, as a billion is, or a trillion... bananas, hats, shoes, fishnet stockings... woah... that just got kinky.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:I see all gods as the same single entity that is a collective conscience, similar to the concept of thetans before Incident 1 in Scientology.

Isn't that already part of Hinduism?

Yes. But, I think you misinterpret my idea of Pan. It's not you, it's me.... Unfortunately, I can't think of a better analogy.
Oh well, I am not here to hammer my philosophy into anyone's head, just share it.

To begin with,I'm not religious,nor do I belive in any particular god,that being said...
The only answer I can honestly come up with to MDG's original question is this.
The point that religion serves in the modern world is simply to offer comfort and guidence to those who make the choice to have faith in it.
It answers questions (weather correctly or not) for them concerning morality,society and "what happens when you die."
The fact that I disagree with the basic tenents of religion does not minamilize it's impact and purpose for those who have faith.
We are all, in one way or another.searching for answers to the same questions...for those with religious faith,much of that "search" has ended.

IntoTheRain wrote:It doesn't try to...

Did you know that that's what philosophy does? If science doesn't try to answer philosophical questions and philosophy doesn't try to answer scientific questions, then they should both go out and have a child that solves both scientific AND philosophical questions. They should call it Philoscience or Sciphilosophy.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Religion gave me hope and lifted me out of my depression. It gives me moral guidance and a community that doesn't judge me. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but my life has become a lot better since becoming religious.

That said, I'm no zealot and I think that any of the religions could be right or wrong. I find homosexuals an awkward topic because I think it's abberant behavior, but I tolerate them.

We should probably kill the thread quietly before someone comes in with a 'lol sky fairy' argument.

That doesn't make religion true, it just makes it nice. And even the "nice" part is subjective, as I know plenty of people whom religion has made miserable, including a girl whose childhood was ruined by her Jehovas Witness upbringing, a guy whose Islamic upbringing made him hate himself, a couple of Catholics with very very mixed feelings about their religion vs their sexuality (gay) and more...

I am happy for you if religion provided those things, but I would question whether it was faith, doctrine or community that provided it, and whether it has really solved the problems you had, or just removed the need to solve them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

Fifty wrote:There is no empirical evidence I am aware that God does not exist.

Science does not disprove God, as far as I am concerned. That does not make me believe in him though, any more than it makes me follow any other religious belief system.

Ideally, empirical research yields empirical evidence, which can then be analyzed for statistical significance or reported in its raw form.

The number zero is not a number? As far as I am concerned, zero is just as statistically relevant, as a billion is, or a trillion... bananas, hats, shoes, fishnet stockings... woah... that just got kinky.

I can't see the connection you are trying to make here?

That you can prove the absence of numbers, and zero is an absence of numbers, so you must be able to prove the absence of God too?

Bu zero is NOT an absence of numbers. It IS a number that measures an absence of things.

So, in that case, are you saying that you can prove there are zero Gods? How?

That's a big issue. My church doesn't preach anti-gay and in fact we have support groups for people who were beaten up because they were gay.

It all depends on the church and diocese its in. A diocese in Virginia and a diocese in California may have totally different beliefs about society despite them both being Roman Catholic.

Fifty wrote:I can't see the connection you are trying to make here?

That you can prove the absence of numbers, and zero is an absence of numbers, so you must be able to prove the absence of God too?

Bu zero is NOT an absence of numbers. It IS a number that measures an absence of things.

So, in that case, are you saying that you can prove there are zero Gods? How?

I have met zero gods, and pretty much all of the miracles in various texts, are literally impossible. You can interpret a natural event as the cause for such an interpretation, but the lack of proof is still there. And yes, by many definitions, zero is still a number; even if the lack of being a number, in the context of other existing numbers, is all that makes it one.

In a base ten system, zero is merely representative of the possibility for a non-number (zero), to "artificially" represent a set of numbers. The presence of possibility, denotes our ability to comprehend that which is undefinable. Even though natives seeing ships on the horizon, may have interpreted the ships as one thing, they were still using a zero construct; in order to denote that which they did not understand fully. IN essence, this leads us to a conclusion, along the lines of "god IS zero", or something like that. I can comprehend what this could mean, but as I said, the only difference between knowing, and not knowing, is how much you did not know in the first place.

I already stated that this is a silly argument, and I am not trying to disprove the existence of god, just merely pointing out that we have no confirmation of god even existing.

I summarize all of this in a very simple concept, which I consider to be basically minimalism



Why is it so easy for me to experience this landscape? How can my mind fabricate an experience, based on nothing but the lack of space. Is there more too it than the lack of space? Does the presence of space actually compose the ideal of this experience.