The Faith FAQ

[iCraig]

I don't believe science as whole is directly incompatible with religion. Both are too broad to label. Some forms of religion reject scientific explanation of our creation completely, and some scientists hate religion, religiously.

For example a scientist may believe in the big bang model and believe life on Earth evolved over millions of years, but beyond that, they may believe that a God created the big bang. It would be ignorant to say that the big bang was *not* created by God. It's certainly logical to assume that beyond the incompressible barrier lies God. It's also logical to assume beyond that lies nothing but pure science, no intelligence involved, no higher being. As science nor religion can prove it either way, neither of them can begin to touch base on anything beyond the beginning of the universe. The lines between religion and science blur.

Isn't one of the most fundamental scientific particles that is rumoured to be the building blocks of our universe, named by scientists as the God particle or something?

 

[growse]

Science doesn't 'prove' anything, and nor does it claim to. I'm tired of reading crap from people like you: people who don't understand science, or the scientific method, and yet make claims about what science does and does not do.

Science tries to explain and predict. It makes models of the physical world, and test those models against previous observations. It makes predictions about future observations from those models, and then tests the models again. If they give poor predictions, they are discarded or modified. If not, they are used to make other predictions which can be used to test them.

At no point does anyone (except for incredibly stupid people who don't know the first thing about science anyway) say that science has proved that X causes Y. Argh!

This is so amazingly true it's worth repeating.

 

[Arcade Fire]

Isn't one of the most fundamental scientific particles that is rumoured to be the building blocks of our universe, named by scientists as the God particle or something?

Some people have referred to the Higgs boson as the God particle, as it's the source of mass of fundamental particles. Some people see it as the final keystone in cementing the standard model of particle physics as the 'most right' physical theory out there. The Higgs particle is predicted by the standard model, but has never been observed. If it was observed, then it would be a huge triumph for the standard model.

All of this has got very little to do with either God or religion, though.

 

[Psyk]

Wow, you really don't understand anything, do you?

I'm sorry, did I offend you somehow?

That's just a definition of the word atheist that I read somewhere. It seems like a good definition to me. What do you think is wrong about it?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Isn't one of the most fundamental scientific particles that is rumoured to be the building blocks of our universe, named by scientists as the God particle or something?

Otherwise known as the Higgs boson particle, you are right though it is thought to exist. I suspect that the people dubbing it the god particle are showing a sense of humour rather than an actual belief per se.

 

[Arcade Fire]

I'm sorry, did I offend you somehow?

That's just a definition of the word atheist that I read somewhere. It seems like a good definition to me. What do you think is wrong about it?

I don't even remember making that post, haha. I think I must have read it as "Atheism is either the belief that there is no god, or the belief that we do not know whether there is a god." What you actually said is fine. Please accept my apologies for being a drunken spacker.

 

[growse]

I'm sorry, did I offend you somehow?

That's just a definition of the word atheist that I read somewhere. It seems like a good definition to me. What do you think is wrong about it?

Active belief in the absence of a god and not knowing / not having an opinion about it aren't subtley different, they're hugely different. Atheists hold the first view, which is just as irrational as the belief in a God given that there's no evidence.

The people who hold the I don't know / I don't care are called agnostics.

 

[Raz]

questions! less arguing!

leave that for when I've realised the draft

 

[Psyk]

I don't even remember making that post, haha. I think I must have read it as "Atheism is either the belief that there is no god, or the belief that we do not know whether there is a god." What you actually said is fine. Please accept my apologies for being a drunken spacker.

Apology accepted

Thought it seemed a bit out of character lol.

Active belief in the absence of a god and not knowing / not having an opinion about it aren't subtley different, they're hugely different. Atheists hold the first view, which is just as irrational as the belief in a God given that there's no evidence.

The people who hold the I don't know / I don't care are called agnostics.

I think lack of belief in god is different to not believing either way. Sometimes it's called strong and weak athesim. Strong atheism being the belief that there is definitely no god, and weak atheism which is basically disbelief in any of the gods that anyone has ever been described and doesn't believe in any other sort of god either. Weak atheism doesn't completely rule out that there could be a god-like entity out there somewhere.

I'd say an agnostic is someone that doesn't really believe either way in regards to current gods eg. they are unsure of whether the Christian god exists or not.

It's not very clear cut and I suppose you could say there's some overlap between weak atheism and agnosticism, but I think there is a difference.

 

[cleanbluesky]

Science doesn't 'prove' anything, and nor does it claim to. I'm tired of reading crap from people like you: people who don't understand science, or the scientific method, and yet make claims about what science does and does not do.

Science tries to explain and predict. It makes models of the physical world, and test those models against previous observations. It makes predictions about future observations from those models, and then tests the models again. If they give poor predictions, they are discarded or modified. If not, they are used to make other predictions which can be used to test them.

At no point does anyone (except for incredibly stupid people who don't know the first thing about science anyway) say that science has proved that X causes Y. Argh!

The aim of explaining is to forge a model of understanding, and to understand - one must seek truth, and truth cannot be seen without proof. Hence science IS involved in proofing, albeit indirectly.

Also, your talk of science does not pay heed to the dichotomy between the body of scientific knowledge, the methods of positivism and the relationship of interpretation between them.
The body of scientific knowledge is based on faith that the work of those before us is 'right' and their ideas are true, this work was originally created using the scientific method, and the interpretation between them is the devil in the details as it can turn something that is essentially simple into string theory or scientific explanations of synchronicity.

 

[Beren]

questions! less arguing!

leave that for when I've realised the draft

I was going to get all grammar nazi on that post, however I really like the idea that you can realise a draft of something.

I'm afraid I keep on thinking up rather deeper questions than probably belong in an FAQ.
Is religion ever a justifiable reason for a war?
Islam
Is killing people that don't believe in Islam acceptable just because they do not believe? (and before anyone starts I want a good answer to this that is hopefully no.)
Why can't you eat bacon?
When are your religous festivals and what do they mean?

 

[Raz]

I was going to get all grammar nazi on that post, however I really like the idea that you can realise a draft of something.

I would edit my mistake, but since you put it in a nice way I'll leave it lol.

I'm good at realising things

 

[semi-pro waster]

questions! less arguing!

leave that for when I've realised the draft

A lot of the people posting here also post in SC and you expect them not to argue? Pah, that's naivety for you. But for the sake of moving this on.

[Other Religions]
Will you include religions/faiths such as Voodoo or Palo which has various branches that practice 'black' magic (I discovered it yesterday after reading about a serial killer in Mexico)?

 

[Raz]

A lot of the people posting here also post in SC and you expect them not to argue? Pah, that's naivety for you. But for the sake of moving this on.

[Other Religions]
Will you include religions/faiths such as Voodoo or Palo which has various branches that practice 'black' magic (I discovered it yesterday after reading about a serial killer in Mexico)?

Sure, it could be included. ‘The Big 3’ are wholeheartedly against black magic as are other religions, so it would have relevance to certain teachings and laws.

 

[Beren]

Interestingly they mention necromancy as a method of telling the future though. So the bible definitely offers evidence (in a theological way) for the existence of black magic.

Trying to remember exactly where it is but seem to think it was king David that visited a witch, which was one of the reasons it was Solomon who built the temple... but that's from memory so could easily be wrong.

:edit: d'oh it was Saul... and there are mentions of the occult, wizzards necromancy etc all over the old testament, hadn't realised just how many there were! *pats google*

 

[n3crius]

Heres one:

If we are God's creation, why does he watch us suffer, go through pain, and war with eachother?

And here's the answer: why shouldn't he? God might have forgotten about the universe, or he might have better things to do with his time. We might be the result he's seen a billion times before and he's let us float off somewhere.

 

[Chimpdaddy]

Isn't the science vs religon debate really up to interpretation? I suppose if you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, Noah's ark is a true story, and that we don't have a common ancestor with apes, then science has a problem.

My question: Can God be truly omniscient and give humans freewill? I have never heard a good answer to this question.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Hodders]

Some questions that I have seen asked:
[font=&quot]
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?[/font] [font=&quot]I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.[/font]

[font=&quot]Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?[/font]

[font=&quot]I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?[/font]

[font=&quot]A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?[/font]

[font=&quot]Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?[/font]

[font=&quot]Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?[/font]

[font=&quot]I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?[/font]

[font=&quot]My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)[/font]

 

[Jet]

Even if it was proved beyond doubt that God existed why should I support or have faith in him?

God essentially says that if you don't believe in him you will be sent to hell. I.e. if you don't have faith you will have a horrible, excrutiating afterlife. And he says this to everyone.

That said, couldn't you argue that actually believing in God is akin to joining and supporting the Nazi party with the intention of avoiding a concentration camp?

If there is a God, I don't think I'd want to support someone who condemns people who don't believe. I'd rather go to hell, on principle.

 

[iCraig]

Will that principle keep you nice and cool in the FIERY DEPTHS OF HELL!?