I wish I could be religious

Naffa · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:42

Burnsy2023 said:
No. A miracle is an event we don't understand, nothing more. If you said that we can talk to someone in Australia in real time in say the 1700s, they'd have said it was a miracle.

I was under the impression that a miracle is an act or event, caused or created by a supernatural or divine entity.

Burnsy2023 said:
It's quite simple really. Religion fills in the gaps that science can't explain.

I couldn't disagree more. Why, simply because science doesn't hold the answer to something (yet), does it mean that by default, religion does? All you have to look at is the amount of knowledge that's been gained in the past hundred years and the amount of religious arguments that have been crushed by it, and imagine how much more knowledge we will have, a hundred years in the future.

wozencl · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:43

Burnsy2023 said:
It's quite simple really. Religion fills in the gaps that science can't yet explain.

Fixed.

Nitefly · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:43

naffa said:
Things like evolution/Darwinism vs creationalism and such things.

That's really only a problem if you have a particular interpretation of creationism, as discussed in my link to another thread about. Vonhelment, for example, has suggested that the bible might mean that god created man in his 'spiritual image' rather than a literal creation. Personally I think interpretation is pretty wild and totally not obvious.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:44

naffa said:
I was under the impression that a miracle is an act or event, caused or created by a supernatural or divine entity.

And by that I'd say supernatural = something we can't (yet) explain.

aardvark · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:44

Burnsy2023 said:
It's quite simple really. Religion fills in the gaps that science can't explain.

no it doesn't - it just makes things up.
i can do that, it doesn't make me correct.

Sparky__H · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:46

Burnsy2023 said:
It's quite simple really. Religion fills in the gaps that science can't explain.

And with time these gaps have become increasingly smaller.

Destination · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:47

vonhelmet said:
The two are not mutually exclusive. I have no problems accepting both.

I include myself in this group.
There is nothing to suggest that God isn't some extradimensional being, that he hasn't created our universe that we use science to try to make sence of, and that science dictates the methods of particle interaction and chemical reaction that lead to life.
If God is the creator, it stands to reason he created science also. Its only humans who tell us science is wrong, I don't recall God saying it anywhere, no matter whats stories the deep south would like to believe.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:48

aardvark said:
no it doesn't - it just makes things up.
i can do that, it doesn't make me correct.

You can make something up and still be correct though. The thing about science is that most of it is theories and the stuff that is fact can only be proved, not disproved. You can (potentially) prove there is a god, you can't disprove it.

Also modern organised religion is about more than just faith. It's about moral and ethical frameworks which I believe is a net benefactor to the world.

Naffa · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:48

Hikari Kisugi said:
I include myself in this group.
There is nothing to suggest that God isn't some extradimensional being, that he hasn't created our universe that we use science to try to make sence of, and that science dictates the methods of particle interaction and chemical reaction that lead to life.
If God is the creator, it stands to reason he created science also. Its only humans who tell us science is wrong, I don't recall God saying it anywhere, no matter whats stories the deep south would like to believe.

There's no evidence that Zeus or Thor don't exist, but one could fairly safely assume that they don't exist? There's no evidence that Santa doesn't exist either, so by default you are bound to believe in his existence?

Burnsy2023 said:
You can make something up and still be correct though. The thing about science is that most of it is theories and the stuff that is fact can only be proved, not disproved. You can (potentially) prove there is a god, you can't disprove it.

As above, there's no means of disproving Santa. How would you be able to know that there is a means to prove God's existence, if it's an uncertainty that he does exist? The fact is, that if such a means does exist, it hasn't been used and God's existence hasn't been proven.

wozencl · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:52

Sparky__H said:
And with time these gaps have become increasingly smaller.

Indeed. There are fewer and fewer places left for this "God" to be hiding.

You can (potentially) prove there is a god, you can't disprove it.

Exactly. The one reason it's not worth trying to, people will say "Well that doesn't matter because I've got my faith." or "I know God exists.".

Scienctists have got far more important things to be doing. Religion is a phase eventually humanity will grow out of it.

LeJosh · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:53

The whole science is beautiful is a bit misleading it can be beautiful but it has done many things that aren't of a beautiful nature such as war weapons, chemical warfare, even down to the gallows that's just simple math at the end of the day.

If us humans could apply science in a much more 'natural' way instead of having to use it to destroy each other and maybe actually use our resources to further our own advancement as a whole but no greed/power has more of a say.

We're the only species that seems intent on destroying each other and making each others life as miserable as possible. We can't blame religion or science for that or explain, it's our own fault. Sorry bit of a rant... (I know the animal world has it's flaws but hey)

Edit - Further reading on my post I don't even think I'm on topic... :\

Anominity · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:53

That makes me think science is beautiful, my favourite youtube video ever

Destination · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:53

naffa said:
There's no evidence that Zeus or Thor don't exist, but one could fairly safely assume that they don't exist? There's no evidence that Santa doesn't exist either, so by default you are bound to believe in his existence?

I think it is slighty different to assume that something created the universe in which we live, and if I'll get my presents each year. If you simply think of God as a creator, or a creator event, then it may relate to a basic physical interaction, the 'spark' which generated the Big Bang. I couldn't say you were incorrect, but it still would have a creationish event.

If I choose to think of my God as an extradimensional being observing our universe, a situation he generated, its quite different to the Santa situation. Its in the definition rather than being flippant.

aardvark · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:54

Burnsy2023 said:
You can make something up and still be correct though. The thing about science is that most of it is theories and the stuff that is fact can only be proved, not disproved. You can (potentially) prove there is a god, you can't disprove it.

i disagree - you cannot assume you are correct, its moronic. Due to the infinite number of possibilities, as soon as you construct a belief without any evidence you are statistically guaranteed to be 100% wrong, just like everybody who has ever lived, its not possible to be right.

Naffa · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:55

LeJosh said:
The whole science is beautiful is a bit misleading it can be beautiful but it has done many things that aren't of a beautiful nature such as war weapons, chemical warfare, even down to the gallows that's just simple math at the end of the day.

If us humans could apply science in a much more 'natural' way instead of having to use it to destroy each other and maybe actually use our resources to further our own advancement as a whole but no greed/power has more of a say.

A fair cop, but I think you've misunderstood the intention of a comment like that. I think a better way to word it would be to say that the natural world is beautiful enough, and miraculous enough without a supernatural dimension for a need of one to exist.

Nitefly · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:55

naffa said:
As above, there's no means of disproving Santa. How would you be able to know that there is a means to prove God's existence, if it's an uncertainty that he does exist? The fact is, that if such a means does exist, it hasn't been used and God's existence hasn't been proven.

Let us compare god to the loch ness monster.

We can search loch ness for ol' nessie and observe him with the scientific methods (measure his height, observe him etc). Since we have not been able to do so as of yet, it seems unlikely that nessie exists.

A 'god', however, might not be able to be measured by these scientific methods as he / she / it might exist outside of our space and time. Since science does not allow us to measure what lies outside of our space and time (yet), then we cannot fairly speculate what might lie outside of it, if anything at all.

Hence I can only haphazardly guess as to a 'god's' existence (i use the word god very loosely). If you believe one way or another, that's absolutely fine.

Sparky__H · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:56

LeJosh said:
If us humans could apply science in a much more 'natural' way instead of having to use it to destroy each other and maybe actually use our resources to further our own advancement as a whole but no greed/power has more of a say. \

War is natural. Many social animals that exist in large groups often have territorial disputes over land and the resources it contains.

Sweetloaf · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:57

apeZ said:
Do you think that by reducing life, the universe and everything to a bunch of scientific equations and complex mathematics that we remove the beauty of life itself?

No, and neither do you, if you did, you wouldn't be listening to Hendrix.

LeJosh · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:57

naffa said:
A fair cop, but I think you've misunderstood the intention of a comment like that. I think a better way to word it would be to say that the natural world is beautiful enough, and miraculous enough without a supernatural dimension for a need of one to exist.

I think I have misunderstood. I agree it is a beautiful thing that such a thing as Earth exists amongst many other planets. Just can't help but feel dissapointed we've applied the nature of science so wrongly.

Sparky__H said:
War is natural. Many social animals that exist in large groups often have territorial disputes over land and the resources it contains.

I understand this but we're of greater intellect and have the abillity to advance ourselves much further over and above animalistic attitudes. But there's too many of us now.

Naffa · 5 Jan 2010 at 18:58

Hikari Kisugi said:
I think it is slighty different to assume that something created the universe in which we live, and if I'll get my presents each year. If you simply think of God as a creator, or a creator event, then it may relate to a basic physical interaction, the 'spark' which generated the Big Bang. I couldn't say you were incorrect, but it still would have a creationish event.

If I choose to think of my God as an extradimensional being observing our universe, a situation he generated, its quite different to the Santa situation. Its in the definition rather than being flippant.

I disagree. The fact remains, there is as much evidence for the existence, or non existence for each of the two entities. Why should either one be subject to a different standard of proof? One should always have exceptional standards of proof before believing exceptional claims.