Marijuana.com

Cassius

There is a difference, and a large one. Religion says they have the answers to almost all (if not all) questions, and the person who puts their faith in that is putting their faith in empirically unsupported assumptions (usually hearsay and second-, third- or fiftieth-hand information). Science not only admits that it does not have all the answers, it's first basic premise is that it does not have most answers -- the beginning of science is "I do not know."

Religion starts with the glass full, and any inconsistencies in the milk are ignored as "God hasn't given you full understanding of that scripture yet" or "God works in mysterious ways" or "We can never understand the mind of God." Science starts with the glass empty, and bit by bit tries to determine what it can and what it cannot prove. And like wittgenstotle said, in many areas of spirituality and objective reality determination, it doesn't even attempt to answer the questions because it fully admits the questions are unanswerable to a provable extent.

If you look at the basic rules of science, you get things like "Start by observing, then hypothesize, then ATTEMPT to prove or disprove your hypothesis" and "Observers affect what they're observing just by the process of observation" and "All empirical gathering of information is going to be distorted by the observers perceptions and preconceptions."

When you look at the basic rules of religion, it invariably starts with things like "God is all things good, and all things good are God" and "God is omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible" and "God cannot lie".

You are quite correct here. However you are viewing things from a rather distorted perspective if you don't see the obvious flaw in your logic. You came from a religious background, didn't you? They train you to think "inside the box" and so of course you begin talking about two sides of the coin.

The truth is, there aren't many atheists in the world, especially among scientists or other highly educated individuals. In my opinion, atheism is as ignorant and "blind faith" as religion, and that's what you were pointing out (which is quite correct). The thing you're missing, is that most people who adhere to the "beliefs" of science, NEVER say that they believe God doesn't exist. They say that they CAN'T answer the question of whether God exists. Their belief is that they don't know.

That is called "agnosticism", which is the belief that God's existence or lack thereof cannot be proven or disproven using currently available information. Which is a far cry from "not believing in God". I've been agnostic for a few years, and I'll sum up my beliefs for you:

I don't know whether there is a God or not. I think that there has to be some explanation for how we are here (if not why), and I think that "random convergence of atoms" is probably the LEAST likely explanation. I don't have the answers and I don't think I will ever have them in this lifetime, and so I label myself agnostic. However, knowing what I know of contemporary religions, I recognize that most of them tend to label every "unknown answer" in their life as God without ever defining what God really is except "the sum of those unknown answers".

Again, you are correct, but you aren't seeing the whole story or getting the point that wittgenstole and I are trying to get across. It is true that both "belief systems" have uncertainty in them, because the fact of the matter is that there are questions in life that CANNOT be answered. The difference is that science fully admits this, and when you ask it your "meaning of life" question it says "I cannot answer that." When you ask religion that same thing, it says "Here's the answer, but you'll just have to trust me on its validity."

In sum, I have to conclude (and this is how I've always felt about it although I've not considered it until we had this discussion) that science is not a "belief system" at all. You're not "believing" in certain principles when you talk about science... everything in science is based on some more basic principle. If you bring it down to simplest terms, I guess you could say that everything is based on the scientific method, and so you are believing in that. I suppose it's true, but the scientific method doesn't describe reality or provide any information that you can use to answer any questions. The scientific method is merely a PROCESS to obtain information. I suppose you ARE "believing" that this process works, but this belief has no effect on any information you subsequently obtain. You are free to keep or discard any information you obtain using the scientific method based on the validity of the information itself, and it has very little to do with whether you believe in the scientific method or not.

On the other hand, religion is FULL of assumptions and "base beliefs upon which other things are founded". I'd say that half or more of religion's assumptions about life and the answers to life (INCLUDING the process to obtain information, but not limited to that by any means) are provided no support whatsoever except to propose theory as fact ("this is the way it is, and if you don't believe it you can either find another religion or you can go to hell in ours").

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

 

JTP

I don't think any particular faith, or system of belief, is the best one. I tend to admire those religions and faiths that have proven flexible and adaptable over the ages, while still providing a framework of moral behavior. All of the world’s major religions have proven themselves in this respect. Perhaps not today, but at one time or another the Big Religions have fostered philosophical thought and encouraged enlightenment.

I will gladly acknowledge your point concerning philosophy. I would suggest that philosophy lacks the moral framework of religion, and is therefore less "social" and more “personal”.

I am only stuck on the moral aspects of religion because I credit the social framework they provide with helping to promote civilization.

Cassius

That is something that is usually credited to religion, certainly. And it certainly seems logical that religion promotes moral behavior; in fact, it's sort of an axiom. But I have to ask, is that still true today? Religion is not the only source of moral encouragement, by far. The most obvious example is our system of legislation and the principle of the Rule of Law. Also included are things like philosophy and familial education (many of the people with the strongest moral centers have learned this from their parents and other elders).

Originally, before governments developed, people lived in loosely-knit communities as tribes or villages. Religion was the FIRST to encourage moral behavior, and perhaps it IS responsible, in a large part, for all the other subsequent developments of humanity that expounded on the philosophy. However, today with the other available methods of teaching our children to be morally centered, are the lies (okay okay, assumptions) of religion really necessary? Why not just tell our kids the truth, that (1) we don't have all the answers, (2) we're very unlikely to have them within our lifetimes, and (3) anyone who says they have the answers is in all likelihood either selling something or deluding themselves?

JTP

Hell yeah ^, don't think I am some kinda "thumper", I haven't seen the inside of a church for over 6 years. I don't trust "law and order" to teach morality. I rely on morality to direct "law and order". And, sure, I think parents can teach morality to their kids. BUT, that morality does not spring forth from the muck of random thoughts. I would feel comfortable with crediting religion with 90% of what we would consider "moral" as a society. So, any morals passed on by our contemporary culture are still a result of organized religion.

4mer_smoker

JTP, one can appear as "moral" simply by acting rationally. As a species, it is of our best interest to promote our survival. Humans are social creatures, so we thrive in societies. The most logical way to promote the well-being of a society is to care for and love those who live in the society. If a society is built on a foundation of benevolence, then it can function quite well without a religion, government, or forceful authority. Call it Karma or call it the Golden Rule if you want to, but it's simply the logic that acting upon another with goodwill directly causes that person to be inclined to act upon others as such. No religion necessary.

 

JTP

That is a nice thought, however as soon as human culture has progressed past the hunter/gatherer societies there has never been a "society based upon a foundation of benevolence". If you know of one please let me know.

4mer_smoker

Who's to say that the reason for there not being a rationally loving society is because of hindrances of logic such as religion and forceful government? Both of these institutions force conformity of thought, effectively retarding rational evolution. You know, people are still evolving, right? To my knowledge, we haven't hit a brick wall and we are still communicating with each other, learning more and more, enhancing our ability to reason for ourselves through the reflection of the empirical experiences of others. This is the information age, communication is evolving, and science is based on the gathering of information. Religion, on the other hand, is based on assumptions. So you don't think we can evolve beyond the need for religion and forceful authorities to a more logical existence?

JTP

So you don't think we can evolve beyond the need for religion and forceful authorities to a more logical existence?

Nope, I think as long is man (and women) are around there will be religion.

...science is based on the gathering of information. Religion, on the other hand, is based on assumptions.

Science is also based upon assumptions. Science is also not mutually exclusive from religion. Nor does believing in religion prevent the practice of science. How many "fathers of science (or math)" were religious people?

Who's to say that the reason for there not being a rationally loving society is because of hindrances of logic such as religion and forceful government? Both of these institutions force conformity of thought, effectively retarding rational evolution. You know, people are still evolving, right?

Because history tells us so. We developed as we developed. There is no use speculating otherwise. I have a hard time even speculating ancient man sitting around the cave thinking "scientifically". How do you figure early man to know any of our basis assumptions? Like "the earth is round" when they haven't even discover the wheel. The first thing early man did was creat explanations for their environment. Like a "Sun" god or whatever.

Stephanie S.

JTP, Judaism is based upon benevolence. Every day is about mitzvah's, for many Jews, throughout the world. Many who have witnessed the constant turmoil in Israel may disagree with me, and I can't help but understand the disagreement. Still, it is my sincere beliefe and the belief of I think a good majority of Jews that Jusaism's foundation is all about "Doing the Right Thing" out of love for others.

From Judaism 101: Traditional Jews give at least ten percent of their income to charity. Traditional Jewish homes commonly have a pushke, a box for collecting coins for the poor, and coins are routinely placed in the box. Jewish youths are continually going from door to door collecting for various worthy causes. In many ways, charitable donation has taken the place of animal sacrifice in Jewish life: giving to charity is an almost instinctive Jewish response to express thanks to G-d, to ask forgiveness from G-d, or to request a favor from G-d. According to Jewish tradition, the spiritual benefit of giving to the poor is so great that a beggar actually does the giver a favor by giving a person the opportunity to perform tzedakah.

This is a great site that explains alot about a religion not based so much on blind faith as it is just doin what's right.

To me, one of the most attractive and beautiful things about Judaism is that blind faith and belief in G-d are not requirements. There is not hellfire and damnation in Judaism, as I see it. It's all about free will to make good choices.

peace

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)

wittgenstotle

i've got a good question for you JTP-

Why does greek philosophy survive and why doesn't Greek religion?

why isn't greek mythology taken as seriously as greek philosophy is nowadays?