yhea I should have put in there the difference between the two and how they are conflicting in my head, but I am willing to be religious and logical.
Religion and logic
- Thread starter jessvj
- Start date
yhea I should have put in there the difference between the two and how they are conflicting in my head, but I am willing to be religious and logical.
I have not read this thread, so I'm sorry if this has been brought up.
Since my early age I was firmly convinced that God didn't exist, because as you said, there is a big contradiction between the scientific evidence and religious teachings. I was, and still am a non-believer, but one thing I failed to assess in my conviction was "God" really was and once I did really expanded my views on it.
Y'see,"God" is just an abstract idea to me, it's no tangible reality. "God" is what every believer makes out of Him. It's their personal faith, and it is valid to them on the subjective level, which is something I have no qualms with.
With that I deduced there was no reason for science and faith not to co-exist, because they deal with completely different realms of perception. Science is the empirical, and Faith, or God is in this case the subjective.
Religion, on another hand I see as something different than Faith, although they both come from the concept of God. The difference is that while faith is something that is only yours, religion attempts to push an "objective" understanding which intrudes upon mean realms, including the scientific.
Bottom line, it depends where your faith in God lies - is it in religious teachings of your church, or in your own understanding of "God".
Last edited:
I don't want to distract from the discussion of the OP, so feel free to ignore this/not respond, but this isn't the modern theory of evolution, and the diagram of fish through monkey to man walking is really really misleading.
It is believe (through fossil records) that the genus Homo split off from other apes/monkeys/gorillas millions of years ago. Evolution isn't a line, but rather a tree branch. You don't see those in-between stages of monkeys and man because that isn't how it happened. Homosapians have been evolving separately from other primates since the split. Monkeys don't turn into Gorillas, and Chimpanzees don't turn in to Humans. We all share a common ancestor somewhere in the fossil record, but it isn't a linear process. Rather, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Old-World Monkeys, Homospapians, and the such have all been evolving together on separate branches.
My post really has nothing to do with the discussion so there is no need to further it (although I can open a new thread if people want to continue the discussion) I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions about evolution theory.
S
Shai Gar
@Gloomy-Optimist
There is just one Truth. Scientific Truth.
@Just Me
That's assuming the monkeys themselves didn't evolve. We've proof of the evolution of all animals, Primates amongst them. When considering Hominid evolution, most people only focus on only one of them, Homo Narrans. There is evolutionary history for Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Orangutans as well.
We've all evolved, and the Hominid Family is notoriously violent, We killed off and interbred with the Neanderthals as well as other branches of our family, such as the Hobbits. Like most of our history, we won't find evidence of living examples because we wiped them out. We're notorious for driving animals to extinction, and we war on our own kind with eager bloodlust. Simple reasoning can show why we'd not find them.
There is just one Truth. Scientific Truth.
@Just Me
That's assuming the monkeys themselves didn't evolve. We've proof of the evolution of all animals, Primates amongst them. When considering Hominid evolution, most people only focus on only one of them, Homo Narrans. There is evolutionary history for Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Orangutans as well.
We've all evolved, and the Hominid Family is notoriously violent, We killed off and interbred with the Neanderthals as well as other branches of our family, such as the Hobbits. Like most of our history, we won't find evidence of living examples because we wiped them out. We're notorious for driving animals to extinction, and we war on our own kind with eager bloodlust. Simple reasoning can show why we'd not find them.
Science changes, my friend
If it were already a truth, there would be no need for growth.
S
Shai Gar
Science changes, my friend
Scientific Truth never changes, Scientific Knowledge and Theories change.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Good advice is actually quite true.
And that is pretty much the same definition I was using.
CS Lewis had no problems with believing that every religion had some sort of truth to it. The problem is though, that he believed some religions were further from the truth then the others. In this sense, the religious person can be far more open minded then the atheist, since the atheist must believe that every religion is mistaken at it's core, while I don't have to be stuck to that.
Theory is how knowledge is built and how we further our knowledge. Many things that are taken as fact today, started off as a theory, then it lead to experments, which lead to acceptance.
Actually, those are the core doctrines of the Hindu faith. The Hindu faith teaches that this world is a delusion and that we are stuck into it. The Christian faith teaches that this world is quite real and what we experience in it is also effects us. These are two totally different fundmental aspects of each belief that can't both be true. It is logically impossible.
From what I see, you are not looking at the basics at all, but only picking and choosing what details that fit your argument and ignore the ones that don't. Hinduism teaches that suffering is a delusion because this world doesn't exist. Christianities answer is quite different because it says the world around us is quite real and the suffering, likewise, is quite real. The core aspects of these two beliefs are quite at odds with one another and both can not be true. The law of non-contradiction tells us this.
The core beliefs of these faiths would say otherwise. The world can not be a delusion and real at the same time, these are two different, core beliefs that can't both be true.
Buddhism doesn't teach in a heaven, it teaches that it is over, the end (at least in pure Buddhism, although some of them teach otherwise). Hinduism teaches that you reach 'nirvina' once you end the cycle of rebirth, and Christianity teaches that you reach heaven based upon the efforts of Christ, not upon your own effects. So no, they are not the same, they are as different from one another as night and day.
I've always heard that big ideas are often lost in the details
That is because big ideas do not hold together if they can't make the details work. The details are just as important for finding the truth as the 'big ideas' are. One needs the other in order to work.
And I have backed my case up with the facts and evidence. I didn't simply 'make it up', I made my case though the evidence. The evidence clearly says that, Hinduism and Christianity can't both be true, one must be true, and the other false or both are false. You can't get around this, the logic simply doesn't work.
The law of non-contradiction would say otherwise, if two different ideas are at odds with one another, they can not both be true. One must be false and the other true or both are false and something else is true. It is logically impossible for two contradictary things to be both true.
Last edited:
And you can be! Evolution can be true and so can Christianity, the two are not at odds with one another at all.
It seems I bailed out of this discussion just in time.
LPOT I just have to say that you completely misrepresented me in your earlier posts. even claiming that I only do research on the internet. seems kinda silly don't you think.
Anyway, I've long since lost interest in this so feel free to have the final word
LPOT I just have to say that you completely misrepresented me in your earlier posts. even claiming that I only do research on the internet. seems kinda silly don't you think.
Anyway, I've long since lost interest in this so feel free to have the final word
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
I'm surprised you stayed with it so far. I bailed as soon as I detected a hint of my views being twisted.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Denying-Evolution-Creationism-Scientism-Science/dp/0878936599"]Amazon.com: Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science (9780878936595): Massimo Pigliucci: Books[/ame]
That book may be relevant to some of the issues you are facing, and I wish I could offer something better, but I don't know of anything more balanced. Truth be told, the whole question about whether God exists, how much that matters, whether God and science are compatible or not is all very complicated. For example, some people argue that science is only a methodological instead of a metaphysical discipline, which means that science can have no baring on whether or not God exists. Others say science disproves God. The philosophy of science is volatile (and yes, science is a philosophy). I personally don't think it matters so much whether God exists, but telling people that makes them angry usually.
Welcome to the forum!
That book may be relevant to some of the issues you are facing, and I wish I could offer something better, but I don't know of anything more balanced. Truth be told, the whole question about whether God exists, how much that matters, whether God and science are compatible or not is all very complicated. For example, some people argue that science is only a methodological instead of a metaphysical discipline, which means that science can have no baring on whether or not God exists. Others say science disproves God. The philosophy of science is volatile (and yes, science is a philosophy). I personally don't think it matters so much whether God exists, but telling people that makes them angry usually.
Welcome to the forum!
Hummm, I said that much of your stuff reminds me of things I run in on the internet (such as your link to POCM, which is a pretty laughable site, all on it's own). Hey, if you want to believe that you were 'misrepresented' go ahead and believe that.
Of course, no examples shown, but hey... assertions are better then actual arguments, right?
If you were using the same definition as I, i.e. "truth is something that is the single correct answer, the only right path, and is something that alone can exist within a realm of possibilities," then your first statement does not follow the same definition.
You need to define your argument. You are not consistent.
Which goes back to my original argument. You cannot prove one religion as "truth" because they all have truth to them, and truth is very much in the meaning the individual gains from it.
Atheism also has truth in that sense, given that atheists tend to believe the scientific truth rather than the religious one.
That doesn't change the fact that theory is not reality, and that facts change as knowledge advances.
If you're logically limited, then yes, it is quite logically impossible. Fortunately, though, we can remember that what is real and what is delusion is actually a highly debated philosophical topic, and that really, in both cases, the world ends up coming down to human perception. What is "real" is actually what is perceived as the same by the majority of people. What is a "delusion" is something that is perceived as real, that actually isn't. So, when you consider that perception rules the realm of reality, a delusion can actually be quite real. It all comes down to how you define it for yourself. Either way, good luck proving which is "true" there, as it has not been done yet.
You limit yourself too much.
Check above. Even contradictory things can be reconcilable if you understand them on a deeper level. Reality and delusions are sometimes very much the same.
Either way, you're stuck on this one philosophical aspect of religion that would be impossible to prove unless you can see beyond the normal scope of human perception, or you were dead. This doesn't much help your original argument about finding a single truth, given the difficulties in doing so in this situation.
Night and day are only different if you can only see with your eyes. Really, though it may seem like everything is different, nothing is changing but the way the world is facing. You're limiting your perceptions.
"Heaven" is the achievement of the end of suffering, in any religion. Although in Christianity you must reach it through Christ, it still involves emphasis on spiritual enlightenment. They are not so different.
If you're planning a dinner party, you're right. But, the main goal of all religions are essentially the same, and, though the details of each are different, they all serve the same basic purpose.
Think of it as a destination. There are endless routes, and if you have a different starting point from another person, it would make sense to take a totally different route. Those are the details. No matter what, though, you still end up at the same place.
And I backed my case up with evidence and logic as well. And I most certain can get around it, with sound logic to boot. "Evidence" and "facts" do not automatically make your argument totally valid; "facts" and "evidence" can be very easily manipulated, and can just as easily be incorrect. In fact, unless you provide me with several reputable sources that back up your argument AND fully explore the contradictory evidence as well, I probably won't care much about how many "facts" you have unless you have the logic and critical thinking to back it up.
You have "facts." Now start being a little creative with your thinking. You perceptions remain immature, and you remain stubbornly arrogant.
That only works if the statements are EXACTLY contradictory. The way you word your argument, how you look at the phrases involved, how you view the various aspects; all these things make seemingly opposite things reconcilable. What may seem completely opposite might not be opposite at all. Pain and pleasure can be the same at times, and love and hate can exist in tandem. The law of non-contradiction works great in concrete applications, but not so much in the more abstract world.
Um, no. It was an established scientific fact, just like the idea that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the Earth. Science used to believe that the body ran on humors, man could not fly, and the sound barrier could not be broken. Science has consistently gotten it wrong and revised itself. It's still going through this process every day.
However, the most important part about science isn't what it gets wrong, but what it doesn't know. The point to science is discovery. Assuming that we fully understand everything is counter to the scientific process. It's only been in the last couple hundred years that humanity has become aware of germs. It is preposterous to assume that there were no germs until we as humans discovered them. There is still a great deal about this universe that we do not understand and have not discovered. Just like the effects of germs, there is a great deal we are aware of, but have no idea how it works... like life. Science still can't define what causes it, only point at the systems that operate while it exists. Science can't create life. Does the fact that science doesn't understand it right now mean science can never discover this? Of course not.
The next frontier is the spiritual, and science has already begun researching these phenomena. And just like any early scientific movements, there are going to be a lot of crackpot theories (due to all the NTPs, hehe) that have to be proven wrong before the theories that have value can truly be focused on. Life, the human mind, and the spiritual connections between us, each other, the universe, and possibly the divine will be mapped out before science is finished. This is a simple fact of the nature of science. Science will never stop until all that is unknown is known. It can't. Human curiosity will never settle for less.
Do you believe that is true that I'm not being consistent or is that simply one truth of many?
That is sort of like saying that there is no wrong answer to a math problem because all the answers are using math to solve them. For example:
2+2=5
They got the 2+2 part right, but the answer was missed. Sometimes that is how it works. The steps maybe correct, but the answer is wrong. Likewise, the answer of '5' would be closer to being right than '6'. That is just how the truth sometimes is, some of the steps might be right, but the answer is wrong or likewise, they steps might be totally backwards, but they somehow got the right answer.
I have noticed that a number of atheist tend not to know as much about science or philosophy, as they like to let on.
The truth does not change, merely what we believe the truth is changes. That is a huge differences.
Sorry, but this is simply a fancy way of trying to get around the problem of the two contradictary world views. If the world really is a delusion, why are you wasting your time here? This discussion is merely a delusion and you should spend your time doing something else. Should you not? See what the problem with this view is? There is no reason to believe that this world is a delusion, is there? Second, the world can not be a delusion and not a delusion at the same time. The two are contradictary to one another and can't both be true. Three, everybody uses logic, to some degree or another. When you take a test in school, what is one of the tricks you can use to increase your chances of getting a right answer? You look over the answers and see what answers are obviously false, what ones can be true, and what ones are more likely true. This, in essence, is using logic. Finally, you talk about human perceptions and it comes right down to this... if everything is a delusion? How do you know what you know, is what you know? How do you know that the truth that the world is a delusion, is not, in itself, a delusion? It is a self defeating truth because it would say you can't know anything, at all, even that the truth is that there is no truth! Self defeating statements can't be logically true, can they?
Not at all, I look at the possible and work from there. As I pointed out above, if the world is a delusion, than how do you know that the world is a delusion? Can that be a delusion too? See the problem yet with such a system? It is, self defeating and can't hold up under it's own weight. That is what happens with extreme skepticism, everything comes apart. So if anything, my view is far from limited because it's not self defeating, but can logically substain itself.
So you're saying that 2+2 can equal anything you want it to? Tell that one to your math professor and see how far it gets you, ok?
As I said above, you can do quite a bit by working just by working out the logic. The view that the world is a delusion, is self defeating. If the world is a delusion, is that a delusion too? How do you know where the delusion stops? It is self defeating and self defeating things, can not logically support themselves. You might as well say the answer to 2+2 is orange in such a system. Again, that is what happens when you follow this logic to it's conclusion, everything (including itself) is wrong.
AS I said above, far from it because if anything, I am eleminating the impossible and looking out at the possible. In essence, I have a test before me and I am going though it and elemating the obviously wrong answers and looking closer at the answers that seem more right. This view is far more open because you are trying to make it sound as though, all the answers are right, when they are not. Likewise, my system is not self defeating because you are having to say that my view is 'wrong' and yours is 'right'. Yet, didn't you just get done saying that every path is true? Like I said, your system is self defeating and can't stand under it's own weight.
Ummm no because in the Hindu system, it is though your own efforts that you finally can free yourself from the endless cycle of rebirth. In Christianity, is though the efforts of Christ, that your sins are forgiven. Like I said, two totally different views that both can't be true. It is logically impossible.
Ummm no, I have already shown this is simpy false. The goal of Hinduism is to rid yourself of the endless cycle of rebirth and enter nirvina. The goal of Christianity is to accept Christ as your personal savior and to live our life in accordance with Christ. The goal of Judism is to follow the Torah and live your life in accordance with the law. See the problem yet? These systems are all contradictary and can't all be true.
This is sort of like saying that you can get to the store that is north of you, by heading south? No. How about East? No. How about west? No. How about going straight down? No. What about straight up? No. What is the best, and fastest way to reach the store that is north of you? Like it or not, not every route will take you to the store and if you believe that is how it works, go for it and see how far that gets you.
As I showed above, your arugments are self defeating and don't work up in reality. I have showed my case is valid logically and factually. You can not get to the store that is north of you, by heading east, west, south, up, down, etc. You get there by heading north. Likewise, you do not find what religion is true and false by saying they are all true, you find it by exploring them and following their logic to the end. Not all of them can be true, so one must discover if one is true or if none are true because not all of them can be true. As for my sources, you can eaisly go and look up the 'law of non-contradiction' and see what it says. It's a very old rule that dates right back to the days of Aristotle and Plato, it's nothing new or made up and is an idea that has existed for centuries.
AKA, I should start to agree with you? Is that what it means to be 'creative'? I'm sorry, I don't really care about being creative or not, I care what is true and if you think your arguments can hold water, I assue you that they wouldn't last a day in a university setting. Such ideas that 'all paths are true' do not work well in reality at all and are, self defeating.
Too bad that the law of non-contradiction does not say that pain and pleasure are opposite, people say that. Here is what the law of non-contradiction is.
Last edited:
I have noticed that a number of theists do not know as much about Scripture or theology as they like to imply.
(Etc., etc.)