Religion?

[rgraham666]

Agnostic. To me belief and atheism are two sides of the same coin. The coin of faith. One side says God, Allah to Zeus, take your pick, exists. The other says God does not exist. Both are statements of faith for neither proposition can be proven scientifically or philosophically.

I don't believe in religion though. Religions quickly devolve into ideologies, a source of power for the unscrupulous and comfort from the fearful. Furthermore ideologies are not about being good but about being right.

Anyway, it's not what you believe that is important but how you act.

 

[Thefamiliar]

According to many reputable researchers, the Old Testament may have begun in David's time, about 1,000 BCE. If so, it's no more than 3,000 years old, however, the whole Old Testament may have been written for the most part during the Babylonian exile. Ezra may tell of his mission, and then in Nehemiah, the Jews may have heard it for the first time in the late 500s or in the 400s BCE. It has been tampered with just as the New Testament has.



Again, according to researchers, the Old Testament may have been written to hold the Jewish people together, to give them a national hope as a people. The Jews were, if nothing else, fantastic story tellers, even including a tale of Joshua being set out into a river just as Moses was. The intelligentsia of the Jews in exile in Babylon may well have been the originators of the Old Testament in much the form we have today. The Babylonians were written to have taken the educated, and left the uneducated, thus Ezra in the book of Nehemiah.

It depends on what research you read, watch etc.

There really is no true way to know exactly when, or the reason behind the origins of things that are so old.

At one time we believed columbus was the first to reach america. At one time we couldnt imagine how the egyptians built the pyramids. Though now we have an idea.

All things are ideas, theories, and concepts until a better one comes along. Even science isnt perfect.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It depends on what research you read, watch etc.

There really is no true way to know exactly when, or the reason behind the origins of things that are so old.

At one time we believed columbus was the first to reach america. At one time we couldnt imagine how the egyptians built the pyramids. Though now we have an idea.

All things are ideas, theories, and concepts until a better one comes along. Even science isnt perfect.

We have far more than an idea. We have some very solid knowledge.

Science is a process of enquiry. It does not pretend to have ultimate answers-- it endeavors to come closer to them, but always with reservations.

The only institution that claims perfection is religion. Religeon has influenced our societies to expect solid yes-or-no answers from the pulpit. We demand the same from science as well, and when we get the honest answer "This is true thus far"-- we feel horribly let down and betrayed.

 

[Thefamiliar]

I suppose I should stay out of this thread since I am limitrd and end up with half hearted replies.

I understand that there is a lot of fact to back things up, but as we learn more, and gather more facts we find we must rework things we knew.

Using tree rings to back date things, for instance has now been proven to be unreluable, we cant assume age in this way anymore.

I am thinking more in general terms, as a whole, even religions evolve, change and become different from the original. We cant possibly know, if the bible was originally a story book, or if indeed it actually happened. We dont even know for sure what jesus looked like, to be able to identify his remains without doubt is impossible...

We cant know for sure the true daily lives of the picts or the celts. We can guess by what we see but we have small pieces that paint the picture. As more things surface what was once true is no longer true.

The nature of science is to believe a theory until it is proven wrong, it can take centuries for someone to come along and prove a theory wrong.

Shakespears plays were basedon real events, but purely fictional. If we look hard enough we could take them as fact, there is enough evidence that it could have happened. But we assume because it was a play its all just a story...

Its like that with all life. Science, religion, conspiracy theories, love.

Its all a matter of what one chooses to believe. One mans truth is another mans lie. I forget who said it but there is wisdom in that thought.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Please go back and look for my comments regarding the differences between believing in something and searching for knowledge about something.

Also, the difference between a theory and truth-- especially the capital-T type of "Truth."

The nature of science is to believe a theory until it is proven wrong, it can take centuries for someone to come along and prove a theory wrong.

Nope. The onus goes the other way. A hypothesis has to be proven. Prove it well enough and it becomes a theory. Some theories have taken centuries to be conclusively proven.

The nature of science is to accept a theory that has been proven as much as facts will allow-- accept, not "believe." And all acceptance is provisional. If new facts come to light, the theory will have to adjust.

Now, it's common that some individual becomes obsessed with a pet theory and refuses to give it up despite evidence to the contrary... We see that all the time.

But science is an aggregation of individuals-- much more than individual scientists.

 

[Thefamiliar]

Please go back and look for my comments regarding the differences between believing in something and searching for knowledge about something.

Also, the difference between a theory and truth-- especially the capital-T type of "Truth."



Nope. The onus goes the other way. A hypothesis has to be proven. Prove it well enough and it becomes a theory. Some theories have taken centuries to be conclusively proven.

The nature of science is to accept a theory that has been proven as much as facts will allow-- accept, not "believe." And all acceptance is provisional. If new facts come to light, the theory will have to adjust.

Now, it's common that some individual becomes obsessed with a pet theory and refuses to give it up despite evidence to the contrary... We see that all the time.

But science is an aggregation of individuals-- much more than individual scientists.

Im not debating any particular side of the coin. Your right about theories, hypothises etc. I always did better in english than science. I was groping for the other word, it wasnt coming to mind.
While it may not always stick, I do read and watch shows and all about scientific stuff. I understand concepts like quantum physics, i just cant relate them to others.

I wasnt particularly meaning science was pure belief. But once science declares something proven, it becomes a belief of the masses. For its not proven to each individual, it is passed on by word of mouth. I am not advocating everyone become a scientist. But gravity, for instance is proven to exist, as everyone experiences it the same. They can see for themselves it does indeed exist.

True science takes an idea an experiments with it until it can be proven wrong. Or not factual. I do understand that in science nothing is absolute and things can and will change.But mass mentality and understanding lends itself to incorporate it as belief rather than the true intent.

If I were to walk up to a group of people randomly and start talking science I would get all kinds of beliefs and very little actual experience that is directly related to the subject. Like religion and pholisophy, it would be based on what they hear by word of mouth, rather than true knowledge.

My comment was in regards to mass mentality and individual perception. I didnt intend to debate the validity of science, or imply it was all hogwash. Just as I wouldnt be doing with any form of spiritual beliefs. Its just my perception based on observation and personal experience.

If an individual has not seen something as fact first hand, then in truth they are choosing to believe what they are told. (or not as the case may be) which leads us to discussion and debate in the first place.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

wise guy

I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest that you have a slightly sententious way with words, Stella O. Ever so, so, slightly.

With the ever ever ever so slightly unfortunate tendency to include things like 'science,' 'accept,' 'theory' and 'fact' all within the same chain of logic, and chancing that the use of the word 'fact' suddenly and out of thin air, will justify the apparent connection you are driving at.

But I am equally sure, nay, indeed I BELIEVE - that if they stuck one of those brain scanners onto YOUR head, it would demonstrate pictures of what is lighting up and what is not, quite a bit differently to say, MINE. Not to suggest that you are wrong or anything.

However I am not agnostic about my own beliefs, and therefore I believe that I am right. And I am very very comfortable in that position. In fact, I am 'position positive' on it. And if you condescend to argue with me on this, I believe I shall turn 'position radical' too!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Im not debating any particular side of the coin. Your right about theories, hypothises etc. I always did better in english than science. I was groping for the other word, it wasnt coming to mind.
While it may not always stick, I do read and watch shows and all about scientific stuff. I understand concepts like quantum physics, i just cant relate them to others.

I wasnt particularly meaning science was pure belief. But once science declares something proven, it becomes a belief of the masses. For its not proven to each individual, it is passed on by word of mouth. I am not advocating everyone become a scientist. But gravity, for instance is proven to exist, as everyone experiences it the same. They can see for themselves it does indeed exist.

True science takes an idea an experiments with it until it can be proven wrong. Or not factual. I do understand that in science nothing is absolute and things can and will change.But mass mentality and understanding lends itself to incorporate it as belief rather than the true intent.

If I were to walk up to a group of people randomly and start talking science I would get all kinds of beliefs and very little actual experience that is directly related to the subject. Like religion and pholisophy, it would be based on what they hear by word of mouth, rather than true knowledge.

My comment was in regards to mass mentality and individual perception. I didnt intend to debate the validity of science, or imply it was all hogwash. Just as I wouldnt be doing with any form of spiritual beliefs. Its just my perception based on observation and personal experience.

If an individual has not seen something as fact first hand, then in truth they are choosing to believe what they are told. (or not as the case may be) which leads us to discussion and debate in the first place.

I getcha. I hope you don't mind me offering you the missing words?

And I totally agree with you about public perception. My theory is that humans have a need for knowing things. And when we can't actually KNOW something, we make shit up-- invent something so as to satisfy that need. That's belief. Problem is, belief is such a good substitute for knowledge, so satisfying-- that we very often refuse to replace the belief even though we have the replacement right at hand...

 

[Thefamiliar]

I don't mind at all, and I don't offend easily either. I know I am wrong about some things or am not always effectively communicating my thoughts. I certainly don't mind having to clarify my thoughts either, for sometimes it still teaches me something about myself.

I actually enjoy a little perception friction, it feeds discussion. Lol But no, I certainly did not feel attacked or personally put down by your post, and in fact I think its informative and may be just the thing another or others may need to think about. Generally speaking ofcourse, there may even be lurkers who opt not to post.

Thank you for taking the time to respond indepth and thoughtfully. It is appreciated.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's all right then.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I getcha. I hope you don't mind me offering you the missing words?

And I totally agree with you about public perception. My theory is that humans have a need for knowing things. And when we can't actually KNOW something, we make shit up-- invent something so as to satisfy that need. That's belief. Problem is, belief is such a good substitute for knowledge, so satisfying-- that we very often refuse to replace the belief even though we have the replacement right at hand...

Actually its conjecture or hypothesis.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Actually its conjecture or hypothesis.

I agree-- Either one of those would be more accurate.

 

[Athalia]

Science is a process of enquiry. It does not pretend to have ultimate answers-- it endeavors to come closer to them, but always with reservations.

That is a crucial point. Somewhere, long ago, I read some scientist (Asimov? Sagan? Gould?) who declared that a truly successful scientific experiment is one which raises more questions than it answers. His point was that no true scientist is looking for ultimate answers, only more efficient and productive ways to ask the questions. That's where the learning happens.

This concept is diametrically opposite to faith-based religion, which by definition looks for dead ends to inquiry, in my experience.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That is a crucial point. Somewhere, long ago, I read some scientist (Asimov? Sagan? Gould?) who declared that a truly successful scientific experiment is one which raises more questions than it answers. His point was that no true scientist is looking for ultimate answers, only more efficient and productive ways to ask the questions. That's where the learning happens.

This concept is diametrically opposite to faith-based religion, which by definition looks for dead ends to inquiry, in my experience.

Exactly!

it's also opposite to the public's faith-based vision of scientists-- like Mr. Spock, who investigates for a couple of minutes and then makes a flat statement of unquestioned authority.

 

[jehoram]

That is a crucial point. Somewhere, long ago, I read some scientist (Asimov? Sagan? Gould?) who declared that a truly successful scientific experiment is one which raises more questions than it answers. His point was that no true scientist is looking for ultimate answers, only more efficient and productive ways to ask the questions.

It's good to see you posting again, Athalia!

Maybe it's from that same source that I heard something along the lines of:

The end point of religion is when there are no more questions to be answered.

The end point of science is when there are no more questions to be asked.

The point being, of course, that we will never arrive at these end points.

(And, Stella, I think that Mister Spock would be out of character if he stated anything as a flat truth. Instead, he'd probably say, "I calculate a 97.6534% probability that..." But because it sounds so scientific, the rest of the crew would accept it as "unquestioned authority.")

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's good to see you posting again, Athalia!

Maybe it's from that same source that I heard something along the lines of:

The point being, of course, that we will never arrive at these end points.

(And, Stella, I think that Mister Spock would be out of character if he stated anything as a flat truth. Instead, he'd probably say, "I calculate a 97.6534% probability that..." But because it sounds so scientific, the rest of the crew would accept it as "unquestioned authority.")

Fascinating!