[footbeat]

Primateus, on 08 February 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I do agree though that it is just as much of a stretch to be an atheist as it is to believe in God.

Why?

As you can see, I accept science as valid. I also accept God as the creator. I understand that there are cases where the Bible is in conflict with science, and I accept this as I explained above. For me, science is not disproof of God. Science is a pretty good description of how the physical world that God created works on a daily basis, and it is getting better with time. The existence or non-existence of God is not addressed by science since it is not disprovable. We can agree that the existence of God is THE axiom of those who believe in religion and it is merely a trivial assertion of those who don't believe in God. So, the existence of God seems like a much bigger deal than the non-existence of God, and thus, a bigger stretch. But I claim that the truth of any single unprovable assertion is either true or false. And as such, we must treat the existence of God as something abstractly as the letter P in logic. Since P is disprovable, I claim that P is just as much of a stretch of the imagination as not P. What follows from this assertion is just a point of view.

Examples in math are the axiom of choice and the parallel postulate. Neither are provable, but the choice of truth of these axioms leads to different, and equally useful results.

ThinkingMalaz, on 08 February 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

D'rek: I don't understand how you can equate the position of religion and the position of science (which is not necessarily the atheist view, there are plenty of unscientific atheists and christians/theists who accept science) as equally valid positions. Sure I agree with your point that we can't know FOR CERTAIN which side is right, but that does not mean both positions are equally valid. One side (religion) makes completely unsupported and unchangable assertions about the world which can only be accepted on faith. Science on the other hand does it's utmost to provide evidence for it's assertions, and if new evidence comes to light refuting one of it's assertions it is more then willing to change it's assertions in the face of the new evidence. So one side provides actual evidence fo it'd claims and acknowledges it doesn't know everything, whereas the other makes wild claims purporting to explain everything, and all you need to believe them is faith (i.e. asking no questions). To me this seems lazy, and certainly is not as valid as scientific claims. Now I respect the opinions of those who take everything on faith, but that does not mean they are therefore more or equally valid.

btw Science is not in te business of disproving any god claim. It is in the business of trying to understand the world through logic and the scientific method. The fact that this process has debunked a lot of religious claims is a side-effect. If scientists would find proof for the assertions of ANY religion they would acknowledge that. Thus far this has not happened though, and the evidence seems to suggest that even if there is a god it is nothing like those portrayed in our worlds religions and that begs the question whether such a being exists at all.

Again, I believe that faith involved here is either the acceptance of the existence of God or the rejection. The rest of the beliefs are deduced as a consequence of this choice. For one who believes in God, he can accept all of these deduced beliefs, or he can question them. The Bible certainly changes over time through translation and revision. The doctrine of religions gets fleshed out as philosophy and theological discussions progress (or regress if that is your view) and sometimes even changes. But to claim that religion explains everything and never changes is doubly false. If you haven't noticed, the output of theological thinking and philosophy by the various Christian churches is extraordinarily vast, greater than that of the thinkers of ancient Greece. And some of this is highly logical and scientifically directed. I wouldn't categorize this as lazy or non thinking.

And as you say, "that does not mean they are therefore more or equally valid." Amen to that

[Gothos]

footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

If you haven't noticed, the output of theological thinking and philosophy by the various Christian churches is extraordinarily vast, greater than that of the thinkers of ancient Greece. And some of this is highly logical and scientifically directed. I wouldn't categorize this as lazy or non thinking.

No, I haven't really noticed. But this is interesting. Care to back this up?

[Use Of Weapons]

Gothos, on 08 February 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

If you haven't noticed, the output of theological thinking and philosophy by the various Christian churches is extraordinarily vast, greater than that of the thinkers of ancient Greece. And some of this is highly logical and scientifically directed. I wouldn't categorize this as lazy or non thinking.

No, I haven't really noticed. But this is interesting. Care to back this up?

I imagine he's talking about the various logical contortions of thinkers such as Aquinas. The problem with much of the theological thinking from the churches is that they begin by assuming their conclusion, and then try to derive it, rather than (as the Greeks did) by proceeding from axioms and deriving conclusion by following logical progressions to their end. Like when writing a book, it's very easy to reach your endpoint when you know where you're going, whatever your starting position. It's much more difficult to work out step by step what the next step has to be given the existing conditions, and often the conclusion you arrive at by doing so will be surprising. The two processes, while employing similar tools, are not similar in either their approach or their validity.

[footbeat]

Gothos, on 08 February 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

If you haven't noticed, the output of theological thinking and philosophy by the various Christian churches is extraordinarily vast, greater than that of the thinkers of ancient Greece. And some of this is highly logical and scientifically directed. I wouldn't categorize this as lazy or non thinking.

No, I haven't really noticed. But this is interesting. Care to back this up?

Thomas Aquinas. He is the most important theologian and philosopher of Christianity and his works fit the bill. And a recent specific document... google "Dignitas Personae". These are merely two drops in the bucket.

-EDIT: By greater, I was specifically meaning by volume just to point out that Christians DO in fact think. I'm not trying to draw a comparison between the quality or "greatness" of the thinking

This post has been edited by footbeat: 08 February 2011 - 12:51 PM

[footbeat]

jitsukerr, on 08 February 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

Gothos, on 08 February 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

If you haven't noticed, the output of theological thinking and philosophy by the various Christian churches is extraordinarily vast, greater than that of the thinkers of ancient Greece. And some of this is highly logical and scientifically directed. I wouldn't categorize this as lazy or non thinking.

No, I haven't really noticed. But this is interesting. Care to back this up?

I imagine he's talking about the various logical contortions of thinkers such as Aquinas. The problem with much of the theological thinking from the churches is that they begin by assuming their conclusion, and then try to derive it, rather than (as the Greeks did) by proceeding from axioms and deriving conclusion by following logical progressions to their end. Like when writing a book, it's very easy to reach your endpoint when you know where you're going, whatever your starting position. It's much more difficult to work out step by step what the next step has to be given the existing conditions, and often the conclusion you arrive at by doing so will be surprising. The two processes, while employing similar tools, are not similar in either their approach or their validity.

While I agree that the two approaches are not similar, the validity of the applications needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. And in math and science, there are many instances where a proposition or a phenomenon was observed, and then the theory was developed, and then a formal proof produced, so conclusions begin as assumptions in math and science as well.

[ThinkingMalaz]

Ah, I did not express myself clearly at all. Religions as institutions CLAIM they have the one unchangable and undeniable explanation for everything namely [ insert a dogma/theology of your choice here, or as I see things 'God did it']. The fact that individual religions have changed and shifted is true but does not change the fact that the claim is still there. In that the religions do NOT change. I will concede the point that delving into theology is not a lazy option. However no matter how logical or scientific theologians work they cannot get past the fact that they only look for answers WITHIN their own religion (and if they don't they generally are not part of a specific religion, but are deists or pantheists or something like that) which really does narrow down the field in which answers can be found. What they do is interpret and re-interpret a basic set of guiding principles based more often than not on some kind of scripture (Bible, Qu'ran, Baghavad Gita etc.) Two ways one can look at Scripture from a theological viewpoint are either that the Scripture is the literal word of God (or the buddha or Krishna etc.) or that scripture, though divinely inspired, should be read symbolicly.

The problem with the first group is that there is a lot of evidence that directly disputes this claim. Evidence that has not been refuted. The problem with the second group is that they either contradict the scripture itsself (After all both the bible and the Qu'ran state that they are the literal word of God), or can be interpreted in literally countless different ways that all too often contradict each other (the theological split between catholics and protestants in christianity, and the theological split between shi'i and sunni's in Islam are both good examples of this) throwing up the quite reasonable question why, if these books are divinely inspired are they so unclear as to make it possible for two differring interpretations to be so at odds with each other that followers are literally willing to kill each other (Again, Shi'i and Sunni Islam are a great example of this)? It seems to implicate that God is either incompetent, malevolent or non-existant. neither of which seems a particularly pleasant option.

Now I agree that religions have changed through time, but personally I feel that is more because our understanding of the world has changed and the religions were forced to change with it or disbelief what most humans considered to be reality (earth revolves around the sun... Oh no, wait it doesn't) I think that religion has changed and will continue to change due to external pressure. Theologians than do their utmost to find something internal to religion to justify this change. And no matter their internal changes, religions will still CLAIM that they have an explanation for everything (i.e. God) which science most definitely does not.

P.S
I'd like to really emphasize the significant difference between science and atheism. These two are NOT the same thing at all. Atheism is nothing more or less then a lack of belief in god(s) whereas science is a method we use to investigate our world like you said. Science vs Religion is imo a false premise. One is a belief in how the world operates, the other is a way of investigating how the world operates. They are by no means mutually exclusive, though the more fanatic religious people often seem to think precisely that.

This post has been edited by ThinkingMalaz: 08 February 2011 - 01:19 PM

[Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast]

If I may move away fom Christianity specifically, doesn't the number of religions, each with its own beliefs and God, or gods, itself disprove (to a certain extent) the existance of at least one all-powerful god?

Christianity claims that its God is THE God but then what about all of the other religions who claim that their beliefs are the correct ones? Are they wrong? Or is everyone right (uhh...in which case the belief in one all-powerful god would actually be wrong -- God, I'm starting to confuse myself now (unintentional reference to God...possible blasphemery too ))?

[Bauchelain the Evil]

footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

If you haven't noticed, the output of theological thinking and philosophy by the various Christian churches is extraordinarily vast, greater than that of the thinkers of ancient Greece. And some of this is highly logical and scientifically directed. I wouldn't categorize this as lazy or non thinking.

And then there is Nietzsche who basically says that Christian theology is Plato explained to idiots.

Now of course Nietzsche was without doubt exaggerating, but still it is true that Augustine ( the greatest Christian philosopher until Thomas of Aquinas ) was greatly influenced by Plato.

[D'rek]

ansible, on 08 February 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:

Your premise is flawed. I don't accept that there are only groups A and B. Furthermore, the discussion between A and B isn't even relevant to the question I'm trying to answer. I'm not interested in the chain of causality; I'm interested in a single, specific link. But I feel like I'm repeating myself without making anything more clear, so... I'm not sure what else to say.

Obviously there is more than groups A and B. A and B are the extreme ends of their own cases, and there's plenty of people who subscribe to other explanations or just don't care.

footbeat, on 08 February 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

ThinkingMalaz, on 08 February 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

D'rek: I don't understand how you can equate the position of religion and the position of science (which is not necessarily the atheist view, there are plenty of unscientific atheists and christians/theists who accept science) as equally valid positions. Sure I agree with your point that we can't know FOR CERTAIN which side is right, but that does not mean both positions are equally valid. One side (religion) makes completely unsupported and unchangable assertions about the world which can only be accepted on faith. Science on the other hand does it's utmost to provide evidence for it's assertions, and if new evidence comes to light refuting one of it's assertions it is more then willing to change it's assertions in the face of the new evidence. So one side provides actual evidence fo it'd claims and acknowledges it doesn't know everything, whereas the other makes wild claims purporting to explain everything, and all you need to believe them is faith (i.e. asking no questions). To me this seems lazy, and certainly is not as valid as scientific claims. Now I respect the opinions of those who take everything on faith, but that does not mean they are therefore more or equally valid.

btw Science is not in te business of disproving any god claim. It is in the business of trying to understand the world through logic and the scientific method. The fact that this process has debunked a lot of religious claims is a side-effect. If scientists would find proof for the assertions of ANY religion they would acknowledge that. Thus far this has not happened though, and the evidence seems to suggest that even if there is a god it is nothing like those portrayed in our worlds religions and that begs the question whether such a being exists at all.

Again, I believe that faith involved here is either the acceptance of the existence of God or the rejection. The rest of the beliefs are deduced as a consequence of this choice. For one who believes in God, he can accept all of these deduced beliefs, or he can question them. The Bible certainly changes over time through translation and revision. The doctrine of religions gets fleshed out as philosophy and theological discussions progress (or regress if that is your view) and sometimes even changes. But to claim that religion explains everything and never changes is doubly false. If you haven't noticed, the output of theological thinking and philosophy by the various Christian churches is extraordinarily vast, greater than that of the thinkers of ancient Greece. And some of this is highly logical and scientifically directed. I wouldn't categorize this as lazy or non thinking.

And as you say, "that does not mean they are therefore more or equally valid." Amen to that

Indeed, religion has changed throughout our history, but the same can be said of math and science! The Catholic church no longer calls for crusades against Islam, nor do we still believe the Earth is the center of the universe.


As to the

Quote

One side (religion) makes completely unsupported and unchangable assertions about the world which can only be accepted on faith. Science on the other hand does it's utmost to provide evidence for it's assertions, and if new evidence comes to light refuting one of it's assertions it is more then willing to change it's assertions in the face of the new evidence. So one side provides actual evidence fo it'd claims and acknowledges it doesn't know everything, whereas the other makes wild claims purporting to explain everything, and all you need to believe them is faith (i.e. asking no questions). To me this seems lazy, and certainly is not as valid as scientific claims. Now I respect the opinions of those who take everything on faith, but that does not mean they are therefore more or equally valid.

part, you are not seeing things from the faith side. As far as the physics of it all, they of course simply say "because that's how God did it", but that is not the only answer for them. For them it is a given that god(s) did it however we keep discovering ("Oh, there was a giant asteroid? I guess that's just how god(s) wanted to do it". They are more interested in exploring the divine will and reasoning of such things.

The "science" side explores the mathematical rational for how things work and are unconcerned with non-scientific motivations for the actions or deeper ("divine") meanings to it.
The "faith" side takes the mathematical rational as a given and explores why god(s) would do things that way and what deeper meaning it could mean.

The extreme "faith" people see the scientific pursuit as pointless because god(s) could have made the world with completely different physics for us without changing a thing, but their divine meanings or messages are unique and worth discovering.
The extreme "science" people see the faith pursuit as pointless because it renders everything tangible to a simple "god(s) did it", but the physics of the world explains true causality and structure of the universe.

Believing that one side's pursuit of knowledge is less important, less rational or more facile than the other side is a clear indication that you lean more towards the latter side, though it is not to say you are the extreme end of the axis.

[ThinkingMalaz]

Quote

part, you are not seeing things from the faith side. As far as the physics of it all, they of course simply say "because that's how God did it", but that is not the only answer for them. For them it is a given that god(s) did it however we keep discovering ("Oh, there was a giant asteroid? I guess that's just how god(s) wanted to do it". They are more interested in exploring the divine will and reasoning of such things.

The "science" side explores the mathematical rational for how things work and are unconcerned with non-scientific motivations for the actions or deeper ("divine") meanings to it.
The "faith" side takes the mathematical rational as a given and explores why god(s) would do things that way and what deeper meaning it could mean.

The extreme "faith" people see the scientific pursuit as pointless because god(s) could have made the world with completely different physics for us without changing a thing, but their divine meanings or messages are unique and worth discovering.
The extreme "science" people see the faith pursuit as pointless because it renders everything tangible to a simple "god(s) did it", but the physics of the world explains true causality and structure of the universe.

Believing that one side's pursuit of knowledge is less important, less rational or more facile than the other side is a clear indication that you lean more towards the latter side, though it is not to say you are the extreme end of the axis.

That is nice and very postmodernistic view. It looks good on paper too. both sides are equal cause no-one really knows the truth. It works nicely in theory, but goes wonky in practice. The scientific method has been demonstrated to prove tangible results that can be verified whereas the explanations based on religion are neither tangible nor verifiable. So when conflict arises between the two, let's say a scientiffic discovery contradicts a basic religious tenet the only answer based on observance of of what we perceive as reality, science is the only one of the two that can say anything verifiable and testable about it. hence putting them on even footing as valid explanations really does not work for me.

Now there is of course a possibility that all we perceive as reality is not real at all. It's the reason why must always keep asking questions. However living your life on that premise will not get you anywhere. The only real truth you learn is that everything is possible. That does not mean everything is plausible. By your reasoning Intellegent design is as plausible as the theory of evolution because there is the possibility that both sides are right. Which makes no sense to me at all.

I like postmodernism in moderation, One should always be open to other possibilities, but the more extreme version you are arguing for is not my cup of tea. It is not a useful position in any sense, because basically since anything is possible nothing is worth investigating (since it might not even be real) I prefer to accept the reality I observe around me as real.

[Aptorian]

[Primateus]

HAHAHAHAHA

[ThinkingMalaz]

I second that

[Orlion]

Couldn't say it better myself, bravo Colbert! My main problem with what O'Reilly is saying has nothing to do with personal belief: he wants to win a discussion without a discussion. He doesn't want to consider that different reference frames will show a motionless Sun, or that one might view a tsunami as a miscommunication in tidal forces. He doesn't say, "Yes, the tides are caused by the moon, but I believe God is the ultimate beginning" like you would expect if that's what he meant. In that case, we could have said "ok, that's cool, disagree but that's as far as we can go." Instead, he calls stating that "grasping at straws" and attacks the person (hence, the "pinhead" remark). If he really just wanted to say, "Atheism requires as much faith as belief" he could have just said that, he doesn't need to get full of himself and look down on everyone he disagrees with,