Religion, relevant and rational?

[pgrmdave]

It seems to me that the people arguing against religion seem to believe that rational beliefs must be provable, and true. However, that is not the case. First off, provability and truth are not necessarily the same. Godel showed that within any mathematical system, it is possible to construct a statement which, while logically true, must be false - a mathematical version of "This sentence is false." This shows how things which may be proven, may not necessarily be true. Other things may be accepted as true, by scientists, without any physical proof. Some cosmological theories rely on up to eleven dimension, most of which have no evidence other than mathematics, and internal consistancy.

 

That brings me to my next point - rationality has to do with internal consistancy, not truth. Euclidien geometry may not have been true, but it is rational, much of philosophy is not provable, but it is rational. It was rational to believe that the sun rotated around the earth, because that seems to be true, even though it turned out to be false. Rationality has to do with logic, and internal consistancy, not truth.

[Biochemist]

It seems to me that the people arguing against religion seem to believe that rational beliefs must be provable, and true. However, that is not the case....Rationality has to do with logic, and internal consistancy, not truth.

Articulate post, P-dave.

[Biochemist]

I just put lots of salt on greasy foods. Increase the BP to push out those clogs in the veins....

If you combine this highly synergistic combination with a little red wine (to raise HDL) and mitigate your risk of coronary occlusions, I think we have the perfect diet.

 

Maybe we ought to start a thread on the most ___________ diet. We could filll in the blank with healthy, unhealthy, anabolic, nonsensical, pleasant, inexpensive or whatever.

[BEAKER]

We live in a world where we believe we are intellectualy masters of the knowable. So much so that we are quick to dissmiss what is outside the realm of empirical testing as worthless and unimportant - when in fact it may be the most important thing we could ever possibly investigate; even with our lack of ability to prove. Some of us may one day discover sadly that all we considered valuable was actually just an illusion, and our inflated estimation of the importance and signifigance of all our science may one day be found irrelevant in the face eternity.

 

Of course this reuires more faith than some people want to focus on; it's much easier to simply turn the channel to things tangible and testable.

 

It's like wanting to understand why we cannot breath, and we don't know we're drowning.

[Biochemist]

We live in a world where we believe we are intellectualy masters of the knowable....Some of us may one day discover sadly that all we considered valuable was actually just an illusion, and our inflated estimation of the importance and signifigance of all our science may one day be found irrelevant in the face eternity....

Beaker- This is a remarkable post. I have to admit I was moved by the clarity.

 

"professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man..."

Romans 1:22-23a

[Fishteacher73]

Much of what we already "claim" as science is to a degree beyond anything emperically testable. The whole realm of theroetical science is essentially notrhing more than a number of equations that possibly work out if we have quite a few constants and theoretical constructs to have it work out.

 

Evolutionary science has evidence, but it is not testable. There are many aspects of science that are essentially "faith based".

[TINNY]

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.

There's no question that great developments in intellectual endeavour during Muslim civilization was directly inspired by the Qur'an.

Avicenna, Khawarizmi, Algazel, Al Kindi.........

[BEAKER]

Evolutionary science has evidence, but it is not testable. There are many aspects of science that are essentially "faith based".

This is one of the most important realities many have totally lost sight of, and in fact, reject as unreal. But it is this truth that stands as a stone wall between two sides of our personal free will. The faith required to stand on eather side of the wall is completely different; however it is still faith. Which side of the wall will you stand on?

[lindagarrette]

Evolutionary science has evidence, but it is not testable. There are many aspects of science that are essentially "faith based".

That's completely incorrect. Every scientific theory has to be tested with evidence. Faith iis belief that there is something supernatural (outside of science) interfering with nature.

[lindagarrette]

That brings me to my next point - rationality has to do with internal consistancy, not truth. Euclidien geometry may not have been true, but it is rational, much of philosophy is not provable, but it is rational. It was rational to believe that the sun rotated around the earth, because that seems to be true, even though it turned out to be false. Rationality has to do with logic, and internal consistancy, not truth.

You are correct but remember that once something is shown to be internally inconsistent, it can no longer be considered rational. What's irrational is that even long after science showed that havint the sun rotate around the earth was not consistent with evidence, religious leaders still insisted it was true.

[infamous]

That's completely incorrect. Every scientific theory has to be tested with evidence. Faith iis belief that there is something supernatural (outside of science) interfering with nature.

 

I believe Linda, from reading a few of your posts that you are interested in string theory, if I'm not mistaken? Just how are we going to test this theory, and what proof do we have that this theory should be accepted as valid? I personally think that there is a lot of faith being demonstrated by those that push this theory.

[Biochemist]

That's completely incorrect. Every scientific theory has to be tested with evidence. Faith iis belief that there is something supernatural (outside of science) interfering with nature.

This is a misuse of the English language.

[infamous]

This is a misuse of the English language.

 

Isn't it interesting how some will accuse others of using irrational faith and still feel free to use it themselves if it fits in with their scientific theories. String theory is about as testable as showing evidence for the existence of a God. Even so, some will contend that it has more legitamacy than faith in a Creator.

[motherengine]

That's completely incorrect. Every scientific theory has to be tested with evidence. Faith iis belief that there is something supernatural (outside of science) interfering with nature.

 

interfering?

[BEAKER]

Isn't it interesting how some will accuse others of using irrational faith and still feel free to use it themselves if it fits in with their scientific theories. String theory is about as testable as showing evidence for the existence of a God. Even so, some will contend that it has more legitamacy than faith in a Creator.

Bullseye!;)

 

This is a misuse of the English language.

Bullseye!;)

 

Nice shooting fellas!

[infamous]

Bullseye!B)

 

 

Bullseye!;)

 

Nice shooting fellas!

 

Thank you BEAKER: My fellow poet.

[Queso]

That's completely incorrect. Every scientific theory has to be tested with evidence. Faith iis belief that there is something supernatural (outside of science) interfering with nature.

this is what confuses the hell out of me.

some of you say that a lot of science takes faith to believe in, but then again, some of you say faith is strictly about supernaturals.

where is the truth???????? ;) ;)