Religion, relevant and rational?

[BEAKER]

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???????? ;) ;)

Orb,

"The truth is out there...." (X-files).

 

But seriously,

Last night I was reading a book about Michael Faraday; considered to be one of the greatist experemental scientists the world has ever known. (discovered many properties of magnetism/electricity, etc.- paved the way for T.V., etc.).

He had no formal education of any kind. He simply observed what was actually happening in reguard to his experements, and didn't back down from his views in spite of all the contrary oppinions voiced by his "more learned" contemporaries:xx: . He was terrible in math so all of his discoveries had to be translated mathmatically by someone else after the discovery was made. In the end it was his conclusions that made it possible for the science of electricitiy to become what it is today.

 

His sucsess is atributed to the fact that within his religious upbringing, (he was a devout Christian - Sandemanian sect), he was taught that in order to understand truth, _specifically the truth of God's word (the Bible), he must seek God, and understanding without the help of anyone else. Not a preacher, nor a bishop, nor the pope. He must pray and seek God for himself and allow God to give him revelations of the truth through His Word (the Bible).

 

He confronted his world that way; and his success in science is testimony to the understanding that can be gained by looking beyond what everyone else is saying, and focusing on what's really happening.

 

So in answer to your question; the truth has always been right in front of your eyes. - And yes, there is faith involved in any viewpoint you choose to accept. Don't let anyone decieve you about that. As fas as being "supernatural" - that's only a human concept because we humans really have no idea what God is capeable of. - To him it's all natural.

 

Faith is not blind.;)

 

No matter how much you want to believe you can know it all to the point where faith is no longer neccessary, your just fooling yourself.

[Stargazer]

There is no supernatural as far as I can understand. Either something exists or it doesn't. Maybe this universe is the only universe and the only thing that is, ever was or ever will be, or there are other universa, perhaps, or there is a multiverse in which our universe is part of. Either way, everything that exists, must exist as much as anything else. Why would some things, inside or outside of this universe, be supernatural while others are not?

 

Regarding that some scientific theories require faith, I mostly hear this when creationists (people who, for some "reason" elevate myth and fantasy to be part of reality) complain about evolution, or modern cosmology.

[Queso]

that's only a human concept because we humans really have no idea what God is capeable of. - To him it's all natural.

 

i understand what you are saying, but we know exactly what god is capable of, because we created him. i could say he's capable of coughing up straws, or shooting lasers from his teeth. that's THE SAME THING as saying "let there be light"

it's all stupid mythology.

but i agree with you on the faith part.

[Biochemist]

i understand what you are saying, but we know exactly what god is capable of, because we created him....

I suspect you did make up your impression of God. I am not so certian that I made up mine.

[Biochemist]

There is no supernatural as far as I can understand. Either something exists or it doesn't....

True. But your understanding of something does not affect the reality of it. The fact that you have no concept or perception of God has no bearing on whether or not He exists.

[Biochemist]

Faith is not blind.;)

Absolutely true.

[infamous]

[There is no supernatural as far as I can understand.] Either something exists or it doesn't. Maybe this universe is the only universe and the only thing that is, ever was or ever will be, or there are other universa, perhaps, or there is a multiverse in which our universe is part of. Either way, everything that exists, must exist as much as anything else. Why would some things, inside or outside of this universe, be supernatural while others are not?

 

Regarding that some scientific theories require faith, I mostly hear this when creationists (people who, for some "reason" elevate myth and fantasy to be part of reality) complain about evolution, or modern cosmology.

 

 

Very true Stargazer; We term things supernatural when we don't have an explanation for mysterious events. Everything has a cause, we may not understand it but there is a deterministic cause. If a supreme being exists, he is fully capable of interperting and understnading why things happen when we as humans have absoultely no clue. For him, nothing is supernatural. We only view it as supernatural because we don't understand the cause. Truely, there is nothing that is supernatural when all the facts are known.

[Stargazer]

True. But your understanding of something does not affect the reality of it. The fact that you have no concept or perception of God has no bearing on whether or not He exists.

There are many concepts of gods, as you may know. Could you explain what is supernatural and what is not, and what, exactly make something supernatural?

 

I do suspect that it's utterly pointless in asking you this, but hey, maybe I'm bored. I'm not expecting any actual answers.

[Stargazer]

Very true Stargazer; We term things supernatural when we don't have an explanation for mysterious events. Everything has a cause, we may not understand it but there is a deterministic cause. If a supreme being exists, he is fully capable of interperting and understnading why things happen when we as humans have absoultely no clue. For him, nothing is supernatural. We only view it as supernatural because we don't understand the cause. Truely, there is nothing that is supernatural when all the facts are known.

And this is why I am not a terribly big fan of Randi's paranormal challenge. Exactly what is paranormal? If something exists, or is possible, then surely it is as real as anything else that we do not call supernatural. I see the term as a cheap exit that allows people to believe in all kinds of things. They then have the possibility to say that some things are beyond science, which conviniently gives them some sort of get out of jail for free card, that is they have decided to believe something that science can't touch - or so they think.

[Stargazer]

And yes, faith is blind. Faith is when you believe something yet have no evidence or reason for it. That is faith, whether you like it or not.

[paultrr]

There is no supernatural as far as I can understand. Either something exists or it doesn't. Maybe this universe is the only universe and the only thing that is, ever was or ever will be, or there are other universa, perhaps, or there is a multiverse in which our universe is part of. Either way, everything that exists, must exist as much as anything else. Why would some things, inside or outside of this universe, be supernatural while others are not?

 

Regarding that some scientific theories require faith, I mostly hear this when creationists (people who, for some "reason" elevate myth and fantasy to be part of reality) complain about evolution, or modern cosmology.

 

I agree with that in general. First off, while perhaps we do not have all the answers at this time I suspect there are natural explinations for what people call supernatural. I also do find that its mostly creationists who accuse us scientists of operating on our own bit of faith. In the multiverse there could be some designer who via science created this universe. However, such a designer would not really be supernatural at all anymore than we'd be supernatural if we ever had the ability to create or design a universe. We might appear as such to anyone in that created universe. But in the end run we'd only be using science to create something even if that science was outside of their ability to fully measure such.

[BEAKER]

And yes, faith is blind. Faith is when you believe something yet have no evidence or reason for it. That is faith, whether you like it or not.

"...Faith is the substance of things unseen..."

 

I know thats too ambiguous for those who believe they can understand it all, if only given enough time and facts.

 

If you die without all the facts, and you surely will; you will ultimately put your faith in what you believe to be the most logical solution. But you will always be finite within the bounderies of the infinate.

[lindagarrette]

Very true Stargazer; We term things supernatural when we don't have an explanation for mysterious events. Everything has a cause, we may not understand it but there is a deterministic cause. If a supreme being exists, he is fully capable of interperting and understnading why things happen when we as humans have absoultely no clue. For him, nothing is supernatural. We only view it as supernatural because we don't understand the cause. Truely, there is nothing that is supernatural when all the facts are known.

In science there is no such thing as supernatural. When some of the facts are not known, some of the facts are not known. No reason to attribute the gaps in knowledge to an entity that exists outside of nature.

[Queso]

In science there is no such thing as supernatural. When some of the facts are not known, some of the facts are not known. No reason to attribute the gaps in knowledge to an entity that exists outside of nature.

 

this is completely true.

but as fishteacher, and a few other people here have pointed out, doesn't some theories take faith to believe in...seeing as how not all facts are known? not in god at all, it just takes faith itself to believe...??

[Biochemist]

There are many concepts of gods, as you may know. Could you explain what is supernatural and what is not, and what, exactly make something supernatural?

I am happy to give this a shot, SG. But this is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. By the way, none of my points are original arguments. I think a lot of this framework would follow some of the thoughts of Francis Shaeffer. However, I have not read any of his work in over twenty years, so I suspect that some of the ideas below are borrowed from other sources as well.

 

1) I don't use the term "supernatural". I think that if God exists, he is part of nature (by definition) and He could not be "above" Himself.

2) There are events and states of nature that are not testable, or are weakly testable. That is, the scientific method has boundaries that (logically) do not include all of nature or all of history. Some things are not now known and will probably never be known. This basket of unknowable, untestable information may drive some to posit answers to questions that are beyond the scientific method. Some are merely human interest (e.g., Was George Washington really a highly moral man?) Others are of perceived great import (e.g., Why are we here?) The latter set is the category of answers that includes theism.

 

It is not true that there is no evidence for God. I think it is true that the evidence is weakly testable, and generally difficult to falsify.

 

Discussion of theism usually falls into two steps:

 

A) Does God exist, and

;) If He does, is He personal? By "personal", we are asking the question whether He has intimate knowledge of individuals, and cares about their individual decisions. This is contrasted with a God that plays only a background role in supporting nature.

 

To avoid writing a tome here, we can divide the arguments in support of part A) into two core pieces: A1) Something was the first cause for generation of the universe, and theists believe it was God. A2) Something makes humans unique (including things like self awareness and free will) and theists believe that was God as well. Do keep in mind that there is real evidence for both A1 and A2. It is just weakly testable, and difficult to falsify.

 

Point B above extends the issues in point A2 above. One of the unique attributes of humans is their self awareness, and this breeds other issues. It includes the propensity to investigate, including (for example) your desire to ask a question that you even acknowledged might be a little silly. This propensity to investigate drives many humans to attempt to identify their purpose in life. Many folks come to the conslusion that their purpose in life is greater than survival, procreation and economic viability. The drive to establish purpose seems to be broadly held within mankind. Those folks that believe we have a purpose often come to the conclusion that we have a personal God.

 

Most of the world falls into this latter camp, so apparently the search for purpose is broadly distributed. The personal God includes all of the religions that came from Abraham (e.g., Judaism, Islam and Christianity). I am not aware of any other "personal" God religions, although there may well be some. Oddly these three major religions share some source holy documents, although there are certainly differences. Many have said that this commonality in source it itself evidence of the personal nature of God.

 

Again, evidence for point B is real, but weakly testable, and difficult to falsify. I would argue that the scientific method is a valid tool. But constraining your thinking to that category of information that can be falsified is restricting yourself to a subset of nature. I think you are free to make that choice. Some on this site believe you are not free to make that choice. They believe (by postulate) that the choice was made for you at the Big Bang. I don't hold that opinion.

[Biochemist]

...doesn't some theories take faith to believe in...seeing as how not all facts are known?...

Certianly. One valid dictionary defintion of "faith" is "firmly held opinion without proof". Certainly many scientists hold strong opinions without proof. This is faith by definition.

 

For example, belief that God did NOT cause the Big Bang is a clear example of faith. Paultrr's point that agnosticism is more evenhanded is probably true in this case.

[Biochemist]

And yes, faith is blind. Faith is when you believe something yet have no evidence or reason for it. That is faith, whether you like it or not.

Evidence and reason are easliy separable. Acts of faith may be based on weak evidence. They, may, however, be based on very sound reason. Faith in string theory is more on reason than evidence at the moment. I think, in this example, the faith is reasonable.