Science and Religion

[Buffy]

HA! You nailed it! Internal consistency is the goal.

No way. Faith has NO need to be internally consistent! Why should it? Its all about *belief*! And the grief I get from self-professed religious folks about my belief in the Easter Bunny being illogical. Pbbbtbtbt. :cup:

 

Here comes Peter Cottontail,

Buffy

[Southtown]

No way. Faith has NO need to be internally consistent! Why should it? Its all about *belief*! And the grief I get from self-professed religious folks about my belief in the Easter Bunny being illogical. Pbbbtbtbt. :phones:

 

Here comes Peter Cottontail,

Buffy

Well it's not required. Believers do struggle with consistency in my experience. It's only natural. Just because some choose to give faith a chance doesn't mean they abandon all mental prowess.

 

FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eostre

[Buffy]

Indubitably.

 

IF <> IFF,

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

Wow, sometimes I can't decide whether to take that as sarcasm or not, because a large number of people believe that. However, that is not religion, that is philosophy.

 

Interesting comment made by Bill O'Reilly today on the Today show. He stated that our society is not based on the christian religion but on christian philosophy (which has been my point for a very long time, and I'm glad to see someone else say it). The difference between the two was pointed out in my philosophy vs. religion thread back about a year ago.

 

Some people adhere to "christian" philosophies, that is ideas borrowed from the Bible and "christian" groups and adapted to fit ones own beliefs. These obviously are not "true christians" in that they don't adhere to the Bible and all of its teachings, but instead choose some mixture of philosophy and religion.

 

Thus that quote "Its all about *belief*! And the grief I get from self-professed religious folks about my belief in the Easter Bunny being illogical. Pbbbtbtbt" is a fairly common thought among those of a "christian philosophy".

 

So to answer the original question

I've found that pretty much anything that major religions say can be backed by science.

What do you guys think? Can scientific ideas be backed by religious ideologies? ...and vice versa?

 

I find this absurd. There are lots of things that "major" religions say that can't even be backed by their own religious books. Thus they are philosophies that have little or no basis in the scientific world either.

 

Is the test of a true religion a scientific examination of 1) whether its text is coherent throughout 2) whether its text is scientifically viable 3) whether the believers in that religion attempt to have a full understanding and adherence to the teachings of its texts? I think these are the starting grounds for this discussion.

[Buffy]

Is the test of a true religion a scientific examination of 1) whether its text is coherent throughout 2) whether its text is scientifically viable 3) whether the believers in that religion attempt to have a full understanding and adherence to the teachings of its texts? I think these are the starting grounds for this discussion.

I think you draw the definition of religion way too tightly. I think South is going to quibble about "the teachings", and I disagree with the need for a "text." Methinks you wish to dismiss us freethinkers (including devout Christian ones) to the benefit of your "organized faith."

 

I don't take O'Reilly to be an expert on anything, and his intent was to simply distract people from the fact that there are many who would indeed insist that the Ten Commandments be burned into the constitution. Its not too much different than when you hear "our nation is founded on Christian, uh err um JUDEO-Christian beliefs"...the intent is not very well hidden.

 

The distiction between "Philosophy" and "Religion" is specious, and its offensive to dismiss a whole class of people's faith as mere "phliosophy."

 

I find your dismissal of the Easter Bunny quite offensive. Its not really a joke.

 

Hippity hopping,

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

Heb 11:1 "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld."

 

IOW, faith is based on something. If not a text, then what? How would a group 100 years later know if their faith was based on the same thing that the founder's faith was based on? Even philosophers put their thoughts down in writing. Without writing, how do I know that your faith is based on anything?

 

The distinction between faith and philosophy is not specious. We already discussed this on the Religion vs Philosophy thread. Perhaps you would like to read it, it isn't very long.

 

I'm sorry if you feel offended that I would not call your ideology a religion. Perhaps you are only offended because you know that you are truely not a follower of christ, but a philosopher who believes they know better than the Bible (that is assuming that you follow some teachings that are not founded in the Bible but in the philosophies of men.) This is of course a fine line, as pointed out in that thread, because many believe all religion to be nothing more than philosophy.

 

We did however find an amicable answer to this. That is to say that a religion is also different from a philosophy in that it professes belief in a higher power. For a christian, I here assert that a belief in a higher power must be tied tightly to adherence to the teachings of the higher power without substituting human philosophy.

[Turtle]

 

IOW, faith is based on something.

 

Yep; it's called superstition. :eek_big:

[cwes99_03]

While faith is not based on superstition, superstition is a type of faith. The basis for the faith would determine if it was founded religiously or simply the philosophy of men (such as an urban legend).

[Turtle]

While faith is not based on superstition, superstition is a type of faith. The basis for the faith would determine if it was founded religiously or simply the philosophy of men (such as an urban legend).

BS Superstition is, as superstition does.

[Boerseun]

While faith is not based on superstition...

This is interesting. If faith is not based on superstition, in your view, what is it then based upon?

 

Religious folk believe in an out-of-body world that can only be accessed upon death. How exactly does this not qualify as superstition?

[Southtown]

Well, from wiki:

 

"A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship."

 

In which case, karma would not be superstitious. Judgement though would require intelligence rather than a simple chain of events.

[Turtle]

Well, from wiki:

 

"A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship."

 

In which case, karma would not be superstitious. Judgement though would require intelligence rather than a simple chain of events.

 

Then we have this definition:

su·per·sti·tion (spr-stshn)

n.

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

2.

a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

c. Idolatry.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/superstition

 

And this one:

superstition

 

 

superstition

 

 

1 definition found

 

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

Superstition Su`per*sti"tion, n. [F. superstition, L.

superstitio, originally, a standing still over or by a thing;

hence, amazement, wonder, dread, especially of the divine or

supernatural, fr. superstare to stand over; super over +

stare to stand. See Super-, and Stand.]

1. An excessive reverence for, or fear of, that which is

unknown or mysterious.

[1913 Webster]

 

2. An ignorant or irrational worship of the Supreme Deity;

excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or

practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the

observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points

of minor importance; also, a rite or practice proceeding

from excess of sculptures in religion.

[1913 Webster]

 

And the truth

With superstitions and traditions taint. --Milton.

[1913 Webster]

 

3. The worship of a false god or gods; false religion;

religious veneration for objects.

[1913 Webster]

 

[The accusers] had certain questions against him of

their own superstition. --Acts xxv.

19.

[1913 Webster]

 

4. Belief in the direct agency of superior powers in certain

extraordinary or singular events, or in magic, omens,

prognostics, or the like.

[1913 Webster]

 

5. Excessive nicety; scrupulous exactness.

[1913 Webster]

 

Syn: Fanaticism.

 

Usage: Superstition, Fanaticism. Superstition springs

from religious feeling misdirected or unenlightened.

Fanaticism arises from this same feeling in a state of

high-wrought and self-confident excitement. The former

leads in some cases to excessive rigor in religious

opinions or practice; in others, to unfounded belief

in extraordinary events or in charms, omens, and

prognostics, hence producing weak fears, or excessive

scrupulosity as to outward observances. The latter

gives rise to an utter disregard of reason under the

false assumption of enjoying a guidance directly

inspired. Fanaticism has a secondary sense as applied

to politics, etc., which corresponds to the primary.

[1913 Webster]

 

http://www.wordseek.info/word/gcide/superstition.html

 

All in all, the common theme is irrationality.

[Boerseun]

Superstition can also be described as the full set of human beliefs and religions, minus your own. For some reason, a superstitious person will never own up to the fact. So if you're a Muslim, everybody else is superstitious except you. And if you're a Christian, everybody else would be superstitious, except you.

 

Superstition is the belief in the unprovable. If something is unprovable, there is no causal link between it and the world around you.

 

Superstition does seem to generate a lot of money, however... can you see the propelling force behind religion? What gives the incentive to those preaching it...? What made it roll on for literally thousands of years?

 

Buffy wins the prize! It's called marketing. And if you have to put the fear of God into your client base (literally) to empty their pockets, so much better for the bottom line. Actually, that is your product... the Fear of God.:shrug: Problem is, of course, if you have a winning product and sales formula, pretty soon the competition will rear its ugly head. And there we go. Now you know why we have religious fundamentalism in the world today. Marketing. Badabing badaboom. Sales reps slugging it out for the same market.

[Buffy]

Buffy wins the prize! It's called marketing... Problem is, of course, if you have a winning product and sales formula, pretty soon the competition will rear its ugly head. And there we go. Now you know why we have religious fundamentalism in the world today. Marketing.

Tee hee! But of course some marketing cynics like to point out that all that persuasive stuff is just "used to justify decisions that were already made."

 

Its all about getting the base to turn out at the pews,

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

There are tons of superstitious people, who are aetheists.

 

1) a guy who always bets on a particular number at a roulette wheel or craps table, not because of odds, but because of luck.

2) a person who always repeats a certain task or set of tasks on a regular basis simply because they believe that there is something to that repitition that makes things better in their life, not because they understand how the repition of the task actually improves anything.

3) a person who repeatedly does anything, or observes anything without a reason for doing so (a person who votes because they believe their single vote counts even though they have repeated proof that no election they have ever voted in has ever been decided by a single vote)

4) a person who votes down party lines, even though certain members running for election in that party may not hold the same views as they do

5) a person who votes for someone thinking they are a better choice than the opposition, even though multiple people they have voted for in the past have turned out to be sexual predators, pedaphiles, hypocrites, drug addicts, adulterers, war mongers, blackmailers, bribe takers............

Who would like me to go on?

Superstition is not just belief in the unprovable. Superstition is the belief in something that you refuse to take a deeper examination of. Belief, as has already been stated, in the mysterious. Thus, people of any belief who have no firm understanding for why something happens, but choose to believe it all the same, are superstitious.

The following is for Turtle.

People who believe that God takes the lives of people because he works in mysterious ways, are a superstitious lot.

[Southtown]

Superstition is the belief in the unprovable. If something is unprovable, there is no causal link between it and the world around you.

I don't think that's necessarily the case, generally speaking.

 

Superstition does seem to generate a lot of money, however... can you see the propelling force behind religion? What gives the incentive to those preaching it...? What made it roll on for literally thousands of years?

 

Buffy wins the prize! It's called marketing. And if you have to put the fear of God into your client base (literally) to empty their pockets, so much better for the bottom line. Actually, that is your product... the Fear of God.:hihi: Problem is, of course, if you have a winning product and sales formula, pretty soon the competition will rear its ugly head. And there we go. Now you know why we have religious fundamentalism in the world today. Marketing. Badabing badaboom. Sales reps slugging it out for the same market.

There's more to religion than you see on tv. I don't even go to church for instance. Neither do I attend study groups. I did allow the Jehovah's Witnesses to come in a while back, though, since my hobby is arguing. They don't come around much anymore.

[cwes99_03]

Yah, I've noticed they don't want to sit and argue points, they generally only want to talk to people who want to learn what they teach. Can you blame them though for not wanting to waste their time arguing all the time?

 

Anyway, Boer and a couple of others have often pointed out their lack of knowledge on the multitudes of religions, and their sheer hatred for them. They often lump them all together. Not that I can blame them, because I see that a large number of those multitudes fall into some of the categories he has created. It would however be unfair to treat them all that way since based solely on a few bad experiences, especially if you made no attempt to verify the truth being touted or the background of the group in question.