Religion, relevant and rational?

[Stargazer]

Exactly how is any religion relevant when it comes to our understanding of the universe?

 

Also, I would like to know how religion is *rational*

 

There you go.

[Queso]

it isn't and it's not.

there you go.

 

let the infinite flood of arguments of biblical proof begin:

[Stargazer]

it isn't and it's not.

there you go.

 

let the infinite flood of arguments of biblical proof begin:

I know, but it came up in another thread that it was relevant and rational. I'm not sure why I'm asking, perhaps it would be funny (in one way or another) to see the arguments...

[Queso]

... perhaps it would be funny (in one way or another) to see the arguments...

;) i agree! obviously who ever said it was relevant to the unviverse and rational had no idea what they were talking about. *looks around room to see if whoever that was was in the room EVEN THOUGH i have no idea who they are* ;)

[Biochemist]

I know, but it came up in another thread that it was relevant and rational.

Let me take "rational" first. I will include an argument here from William Lane Craig, not because it is particularly important or insightful, but just to argue that it is a valid position. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html I think the bibliography is probably more important in this link than the actual argument posed.

 

My point is NOT that we can PROVE anything form this. My point is ONLY that holding this position is NOT IRRATIONAL.

[Queso]

if it can't be proved then why bother. just another waste of time if you ask me.

[bumab]

if it can't be proved then why bother. just another waste of time if you ask me.

 

Nothing can be proved in science. That's a silly argument.

[Biochemist]

..obviously who ever said it was relevant to the unviverse and rational had no idea what they were talking about.

Well, here I am. The "relevant" element tends to be a little more individualistic. I (personally) am a determinist, and I have a difficulty in resolving the conflict related to free will (i.e., that free will exists) without a theistic construct. As I mentioned in the previous thread (determinism and the scientific method), some believe that the absence of free will precludes an assumption of validity of the scientific method. I believe in the scientific method, and hence I believe a creator is required to grant us enough independence from creation to identify the natural laws expressed within it. I think (although I cannot substantiate it very well) that many of the great historical thinkers (Einstein, Newton, Mendel, Copernicus) held a similar position.

[Queso]

Nothing can be proved in science. That's a silly argument.

if nothing can be proved in religion, and nothing can be proved in science. what can we prove?

what do you mean nothing can be proved in science? i am obviously misinterperting you. ;)

 

and once again biochemist i will say that just because the smartes person in the world believes in something, or 342907 billion people do, that doesn't mean it's right, or true.

[Fishteacher73]

While I personally do not ascribe to any sort of theistic model, many do. Many of our greatest thinkers where theistic and ventured into many of the realms that they pioneered as a validation of their belief. It would seem irrational to conclude that religion has had no relevance in our understanding of the universe.

 

In terms of today I think there is a schism between science and religion as the implications of science have erroded theistic views. In an increasing theoretical realm of science I think it is unwise to preclude certain possibilities unequivically. Theoretical physics claims dark mass and energy...invisible undetectible entities...that requires faith to accept, even if you do not want to admit it. I personally see no difference in accepting these ideas as any different than accepting a possible deist idea of a creator being (but not an interested manipulating being).

[Biochemist]

if it can't be proved then why bother. just another waste of time if you ask me.

Because some have labeled the position as "irrational." I am merely trying the refute the postulation that the position is irrational.

[Stargazer]

Let me take "rational" first. I will include an argument here from William Lane Craig, not because it is particularly important or insightful, but just to argue that it is a valid position. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html I think the bibliography is probably more important in this link than the actual argument posed.

 

My point is NOT that we can PROVE anything form this. My point is ONLY that holding this position is NOT IRRATIONAL.

What position? The Kalam cosmological argument?

[Queso]

...that requires faith to accept, even if you do not want to admit it.

really good point! i don't know much about that subject-wish i did-so i can not say where i stand on that.

[Biochemist]

...and once again biochemist i will say that just because the smartes person in the world believes in something, or 342907 billion people do, that doesn't mean it's right, or true.

We are not debating "truth". We are debating, among a range of valid opinions, whether one particular opinion is irrational.

[Biochemist]

..In an increasing theoretical realm of science I think it is unwise to preclude certain possibilities unequivically. Theoretical physics claims dark mass and energy...invisible undetectible entities...that requires faith to accept, even if you do not want to admit it. I personally see no difference in accepting these ideas as any different than accepting a possible deist idea of a creator being (but not an interested manipulating being).

Good analogy, FsT.

[Queso]

We are not debating "truth". We are debating, among a range of valid opinions, whether one particular opinion is irrational.

 

ok.

so if truth is NOT the case, cant an opinion be rational in someone elses eyes, and irrational in another? that's what makes it an opinion, right?

[Biochemist]

What position? The Kalam cosmological argument?

The link is an example of one argument (among many) that God exists. No one has to agree with it. But I think it is internally consistent. There are others as well.