Demon Lord Plot Continues...

[Pali]

I'm confused... :confused:

[Malchaeius]

I do not drill people with my religious beliefs or lack thereof for the same reason that I choose not to do so with my political beliefs - there is no need. If you are curious, you will ask. So I am consciously making an effort to withhold any desire, however small it may be, to "preach". To be clear, I consider myself a man of Science and Faith.

I think you are simply incorrect on several of your points Celerity; At best they are misguided oversimplifications.

Faith is not to follow without question. It is fairly healthy to question one's faith. It is what strengthens it or consequently what destroys it; whether that faith is Judeo-Christian, Pagan, or Faith in the Law.

Faith does not simplify ethics - in a lot of ways it complicates matters. The Christian tradition tells of the Messiah interceding on behalf of women of ill-repute and tax collectors (who were just as despised at the time for their work). Or even some of the most interesting ethical and philosophical topics I have ever examined – why would any deity allow evil and suffering to exist? Can the means ever justify the ends?

Furthermore, you would have to be of the a priori conviction that science and those who practice it are completely objective and without personal/political/financial/social biases or prejudices. This is simply not true – and a complete fatuity as well. That is why I find the dichotomy that you create between Faith (although it would be most appropriate to choose Religion instead of faith) and Science as Fascism versus Utopianism to be simply ludicrous.

In the 1920s, Eugenics was considered the science du jour. It followed a simple logic - Science, or simply common sense, had proven that some people were "of better genetic stock" than others. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, id est, moving towards the strongest, capable and most fit members of the human race (a severe misunderstanding of evolutional theory as it implies evolution as moving towards a certain goal or specific end - which it does not) is not just a good idea - it is logical. Therefore, why not breed out the unwanted? The social dregs of society have no right to hold back the rest right? Is this not science?

Let us piggyback on evolutional theory - namely that of social evolutional theory. Individualism, as a matter of philosophical and social thought, did not become en vogue until the 1800s or so. That is to say it is a relatively recent (and Western) phenomenon. That is not to imply anything about its value, but it has become so entrenched an idea within our western societies that we sometimes fail to realize that it is not completely congruent with our evolution. Our brains are hard-wired to seek conformity as a matter of evolution. As humans evolved, those who wanted to be individuals were killed off by other tribes, picked off by animals, or simply starved to death. Humans are, therefore, social creatures by nature - to quote Donne, "No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." As such, to this day our brains will send chemicals that will "make us feel bad" in situations that endanger our social status. Of course, as we get older we can usually override these feelings, but we are never completely free of them or their influence.

I point these things out not to insinuate some sort of flaw in science itself, but instead to show that science or religion is not the true problem - humanity is the culprit. For every act of good will done by science or religion, there is another horror done in its name. This is all done, in my opinion, due to (conscious or unintentional) misinterpretation and/or misappropriation of religious texts or scientific theories. I could be mistaken, but nowhere in the Bible does it say the age of the Earth - someone incorrectly interpreted a number and others took it as truth. Alfred Binet, who is basically the forefather of the modern day Intelligence testing, created his test not to propose a tangible number that can be used to quantify intelligence, but as a tool to find and help special needs children - Lewis Terman had other ideas (that is the reification of intelligence). Islam is a religion that teaches peace - radical extremists feel that it licenses them to commit suicide and acts of terror. Religion and Science are tools - a hammer in the right hand can be used to build, and in the wrong hand it can be used to bludgeon. Ultimately, to lionize one and demonize the other is unbelievably fallacious. They both have their respective places and functions within society, and I feel there is nothing wrong or incompatible with our children having access to both.

[Twinblades713]

Stuff

I love you.

[Pali]

Faith is not to follow without question. It is fairly healthy to question one's faith. It is what strengthens it or consequently what destroys it; whether that faith is Judeo-Christian' date=' Pagan, or Faith in the Law.[/quote']

What you believe may change, but I would argue against faith having any use as an epistemology. It may bring personal resolve, it may give you hope, it may bring upon any number of personality changes or personal experiences... but as a means of determining what is real, I would argue very strongly that a rational (and as close to objective as can be obtained... such is the purpose of the peer review process) examination of evdience is the best way to go about things.

The rest of your post I actually have no objections to. Absolute belief in any idea is far more dangerous than the idea itself. Dogma and intolerance to those holding differing opinions are far greater problems than what epistemology you use. I do happen to think that faith is more likely to lead to these things, because while for you any particular beliefs you hold may be open to questioning, there ARE plenty of people who this is not the case for.

To make this short because I'm tired and want to sleep... I'm not so much against religious belief, I'm in favor of skeptical inquiry (and such has led me to believe religious beliefs about the nature of reality to be unfounded). If a religious belief can withstand skeptical inquiry, then it's a rational belief to hold. But I have to wonder how one can possibly question faith through skeptical inquiry and not find that faith lacking... the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot believe despite a lack of evidence and simultaneously believe because of evidence.

[Twinblades713]

You cannot believe despite a lack of evidence and simultaneously believe because of evidence.

Watch me.

[Pali]

Explain to me how you could possibly think something because of X (a lack of evidence) and simultaneously think the same thing because of not-X (evidence). First, the two are mutually exclusive... you cannot have both X and not-X. Second, how is thinking like this in any way a test of your belief? You're basically saying that no matter the result of your test, you will hold the belief. That is not skeptical inquiry, and it is not intellectually honest.

[yxlist]

ok, I lied. Here's another post.

Skeptical Inquiry...

Skeptical - adjective - inclined to skepticism; having doubt.

Inquiry - noun - a close examination of a matter in a search for information

or truth.

basically that's saying you have doubt about finding the truth.

I think that sums this all up

I really think the problem you have is you are looking at this in black and white. It is, or it isn't. You must either believe science, or believe religious beliefs. You can't do both. Unfortunately that's just not true. Perhaps you've heard of a few of these scientists who practiced science and believed in God...

*ahem*

Gregor Mendel. Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics.

Max Planck (1858-1947)

Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.

I think its obvious the two can AND DO go hand in hand, even if you yourself may not understand how. And basically I think that's what everyone is saying, no, we *don't* understand all of it, but we *accept* it. I don't see that in anyway as being ignorant. Lets just say we agree to disagree and not resort to saying things like "its the blind leading the blind" as that is completely unproductive or fruitful.

And I am pretty sure that no one is arguing as you said that faith is an epistemology. Its just what lets us accept our epistemology. A slight difference, but an important one to note.

Take some of these quotes and think on them:

"Skepticism is the beginning of Faith" Oscar Wylde

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." St. Thomas Aquinas

"To follow by faith alone is to follow blindly." Benjamin Franklin

If you can't understand faith, its ok! We don't really get it either, we just sorta 'get it'

[Malchaeius]

That is interesting Pali. I was not sure if you were a Skeptic or an Empiricist, or a combination of the two.

Explain to me how you could possibly think something because of X (a lack of evidence) and simultaneously think the same thing because of not-X (evidence). First' date=' the two are mutually exclusive... you cannot have both X and not-X. Second, how is thinking like this in any way a test of your belief? You're basically saying that no matter the result of your test, you will hold the belief. That is not skeptical inquiry, and it is not intellectually honest.[/quote']

A little thing called Quantam Physics.

[Pali]

That is interesting Pali. I was not sure if you were a Skeptic or an Empiricist' date=' or a combination of the two. [/quote']

I'm a combination. Primarily what I need to accept a position is that it can be tested and retested, and preferably in ways in which one person is not the sole arbiter regarding what the results mean. Empirical testing combined with the peer review process provides that better than anything else I've heard of. EDIT: Unfortunately, religious beliefs tend not to be testable, so you've got no way of figuring out if you're wrong, and in most of the cases where they are testable they've been shown wrong (such as, oh, a global flood in the last several thousand years).

A little thing called Quantam Physics.

Quantum physics has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion and you know it. Silly demon.

basically that's saying you have doubt about finding the truth.

Yes, exactly. No idea should be immune to doubt. Everything should be tested. And retested. And tested after that. And when an idea fails those tests, it should be modified or discarded, not held on to. And yes, many great scientific minds have also been religious. So what? A lot of those great minds have been flat wrong on many things... to use Malch's example, Einstein never accepted quantum physics, which experiment after experiment has shown to be correct. And to paraphrase another quote that YOU might think about... "Smart people are very good at defending beliefs they arrived at via non-smart reasons." I know Dawkins has used it, and I fully agree with him... no matter how much someone may aspire to it, no human has a purely rational mind. We all fall victim to illogical thought in various ways, no matter how good we are at applying logic to other areas.

And if faith is not the epistemology you are using to arrive at the conclusion that your religious beliefs are right or that a god exists, what is?

[The Professor]

Hey, when I die, maybe I will let you guys and gals in on this secret, until then, just continue to "debate".

[HouselessRogue]

One of the great things about this country is that you are guaranteed the right to hold differing views without being blacklisted or punished in any way. My thinking socialism has some good ideas or that no deities exist does not disqualify me as a citizen of this country in any way... if it did' date=' I wouldn't want to be one anyways.[/quote']

That is simply not true. The religious right blacklists everyone. Openly practice satanism or "marry" someone of your same sex and adopt a kid. I think you will quickly find yourself blacklisted.

[Pali]

That is simply not true. The religious right blacklists everyone. Openly practice satanism or "marry" someone of your same sex and adopt a kid. I think you will quickly find yourself blacklisted.

Well, yes, the reality of the country's a bit different than the ideal of it. I was simply pointing out that Mali's post was about as anti-American as you can possibly get.

[Nightmare_from_hell]

Is anyone else amazed that this thread has actually stayed quite civil? I was just thinking how in "the old days" this thread would have been locked down A LONG time ago... glad to see we as a player base have learned civility in our discussions at least.

HOPE DOES LIVE!!! (Even if the torments still do... )

[Mali]

Isn't anecdotal evidence enough for you Pali? I could tell you some stories about God.

[Deykari]

It will never be possible to prove whether God exists or not. Proving that gravity existed and that we are the result of evolution doesn't prove that there isn't a 'God'. I personally do not worship a religion/deity at all, however I am open to the possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent entity of some description could exist (just not as interpreted by 'mainstream' religion) simply because we CANNOT, EVER, prove such an entity doesn't exist. It is impossible.

Dey

[Pali]

Isn't anecdotal evidence enough for you Pali? I could tell you some stories about God.

If it were, I'd believe in the Abrahamic god as well as a few dozen others, faeries, werewolves, Bigfoot, alien abductions, magic, vampires, reincarnation and past-life memories, ghosts, a universal consciousness that can be tapped into via meditation... and a whole slew of other things.

So no, anecdotal evidence isn't enough for me. Personal experiences (even my own) are not enough for me. You fool yourself far more often than most people realize... you see things that aren't there and hear sounds that never existed on a daily basis, or you misinterpret what you did see/hear to be something it is not. Your perceptions are altered by your preconceptions... an M&M can be an incredible pain reliever if you sincerely think you're taking an aspirin. Five people can see the same car accident and have different descriptions of what happened. To use IUTBS's earlier example of the human eye, which to him seems to be too well-done to be put together by natural processes, I am amazed more by the incredibly numerous imperfections than the parts that work right.

[Pali]

It will never be possible to prove whether God exists or not. Proving that gravity existed and that we are the result of evolution doesn't prove that there isn't a 'God'. I personally do not worship a religion/deity at all, however I am open to the possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent entity of some description could exist (just not as interpreted by 'mainstream' religion) simply because we CANNOT, EVER, prove such an entity doesn't exist. It is impossible.

Dey

You cannot prove that Klingons don't exist either. That does not make thinking they do rational. That you cannot prove the negative does not make assuming the positive the right choice. What should be adopted is the null position... in this case, the agnostic atheist position, which is basically "I don't know, so I've got no reason to accept deities as existing and should not make the assumption that they do." I of course cannot be certain that no gods exist, but until I've got reason to think they do, I'm going to think they likely don't and shall act accordingly. The same goes for ghosts, alien abductions, vampires, Klingons, and John Edwards' abilities to speak to the dead.

[Deykari]

I never said I believe that they do exist because there is no proof that they don't. I am simply open to the possibility that they could exist, which is what I think you are saying too.

What I was getting at, is that I do not believe in X but I cannot say that X does not exist for sure if I cannot prove it. I do not believe in God, but I am not completely against the idea of a God existing, I would simply require adequate proof to show that there is a God.

I do not believe Klingons exist either, but I cannot say for sure that they don't, because somewhere out there, it is entirely possible, however unlikely, that Klingons do exist. I will continue to believe that they don't though, until shown otherwise.

As a general rule of thumb, I too act and live my life as though there are no deities, or whatever and never ever pay the thought of there being God a thought at all unless a debate like this is raised by another.

Dey

[Pali]

Which makes your position exactly the same as mine.

[Twinblades713]

Similarly, I have no proof that God does or doesn't exist. But I choose to believe he does. To reiterate, I choose to believe a good, kind God exists. Call it optimism. I don't see anything illogical, scientifically unreasonable, or unethical about this choice, though I do think it's VERY interesting how we've all boiled this down. I think yxlist said it earlier, and I said it earlier before that: it's completely reasonable to believe in both God and science and in fact, that's nearly the point. I love science, maybe not science class, but science, yes.

Yay God/the progression of the human understanding of the world.

[Zrothum]

For me, there is a difference in believing something exists, and KNOWING something exists. If you need to believe in god, or a god, or whatever, to make your life mean something, or to give you a reason to be a good person....more power to you. But don't try and tell me that it's your way or the highway, and that you KNOW god exists.

That's my pet peeve with religion. Keep your ish out of my nose.

[Mali]

If it were, I'd believe in the Abrahamic god as well as a few dozen others, faeries, werewolves, Bigfoot, alien abductions, magic, vampires, reincarnation and past-life memories, ghosts, a universal consciousness that can be tapped into via meditation...

Man, I bet you don't even believe in the tooth fairy. All you got to get is a little faith in your heart.

[Pali]

Man' date=' I bet you don't even believe in the tooth fairy. All you got to get is a little faith in your heart.[/quote']

As far back as I can remember (around 8, plus or minus a year), I did not believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny (yes, my parents told us the stories and that they were real at that age still... I just didn't believe them). By the time I was 11 or 12, I realized that I did not believe in the Christian god, and by 13 I was an atheist (didn't know the word at the time though... I read a lot at the time, but you'd be amazed how rarely the word atheist appears in popular fantasy or Star Trek/Wars ). At 14 I had my first evolution vs creationism debate in biology class (me and one other against about a dozen with another ten just watching). Quite simply, faith has never been in my nature.

I've been at this for a while, in other words, and I can tell you that not a single argument given here in favor of theism is one I haven't encountered before. It's why I've responded so much... I basically already know what I'm going to say, so it takes less time to say it. And in case it is unclear to anyone... I am attacking only your beliefs, not you as a person. We disagree. That's a good thing. If everyone agreed on everything, life would be very boring.

EDIT: Still, I do not think faith to be a useful way to decide what is real and what is not. Any walk through an insane asylum shows that strength of belief does nothing to change if the belief is correct or not. And to be a little more relative to this discussion, look at all the faith-based beliefs that have been found to have ZERO bearing on reality. The Earth being flat. The Earth being the center of the universe. (These were incorrectly mentioned before as being beliefs based on science, but that is incorrect... they were based on philosophy more than anything else, and certainly not a pattern of observation, testing, and accepting "I don't know yet" as an answer.) There having been a global flood. The Earth being 6000 years old. Humanity having sprung from a single couple. Epilepsy and other illnesses being caused by demonic possession. I could go on and on here... faith, when it has been able to be challenged by skeptical testing, has fallen short incredibly more often than it has come close to being right, which is exactly what you'd expect if beliefs were just being picked at random.

[Malchaeius]

Sorry my friend, but you are just plain wrong on several of the things you attribute to faith-based beliefs. Furthermore, we are returning to the fallacy of "look at all the things they believed that have been wrong" to disprove and discredit.

The Earth being the center of the universe, Geocentrism, is quite old. However the Ptolemaic model, proposed by Roman mathmatecian/astronomer Claudiaus Ptolemy, that was later refuted by the Copernican heliocentric model, was the most widely accepted version. The fact that the Church supported the Ptolemaic model does not make it a faith-based creation as it seems you are insinuating. It was a creation of science and not religion.

The Flood Story is a common story that has been found through many different civilizations. While I admit I am not completely current of the findings from the research, it was my belief that research - fossil records and whatnot - have shown evidence corroberating a global flood.

We could also get into the sheer ridiculous scientific beliefs behind mental illness that were believed as recently as ten years ago, but that would prove unproductive - as I stated before, it is a fallacy of argument to attempt to disprove someone's current belief system by showing the areas where they were wrong before. In the same manner that it would be utterly ridiculous to refuse to believe in medical treatment on the basis of the horrible treatments that medicine once employed.

Skepticism also cannot adaquetely answer the question of the existence of a higher being specifically because that is not an area that is falsifiable. The only cogent point, therefore, is that faith should not be used to explain science. Faith then, perforce, can only be used to explain that which lies outside the realm of science. Ultimately, this means, at least to me, that one can still be a skeptic while holding a belief in a higher being.

Anyway. I should be asleep.

[yxlist]

I feel like all of Malch's post are thesis statements for a master's degree