Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

What you are describing is a popular misconception of the meaning of the word religion. A revisitation of the definitions and root origins of the word should be sufficient ro remedy aforesaid misconception. Please learn the actual definition of the word religion because I can assure you that it is certainly not confined to theistic belief systems!

well please provide your version of the definition of religion then,

I think the context of the definition I provided is the context in which the original person I commented to was using it.

Many today express an understanding of religion as though it is confined to a mere subset of its true definition. Such limited understanding is further evidence of the faulty application of logic with which our society seems to be deeply afflicted. Such faulty logic is out of accord with the true practice of science.

many words have multiple meanings, If there is a meaning for the word religion that was broad enough to include the scientific method I don't think that definition would be very useful, especially in conversation about theistic claims.

It seems that we have found ourselves in accord here.
Practitioners of other religions are also using practical and theoretical methods in their search for understanding of the true nature and workings of the universe. In this regard the intent of science is no different from any of its competing religions.

except many religious people ignore outcomes that go against their texts, they start with the concept that the bible is true and correct and work from there, that is not a sound pathway to truth.

There may be variances in some of the rituals and holy texts, however, the faith that a scientist invests in his/her rituals of repeatable experiments and sacred doctrine (scientific theories, tabulated measurements, historical accounts etc.) has recognisable synonymity with the behaviour and intent of other religious devotees.

No, there are actually two different uses of the word faith, and the meanings mean different things, But either way its a bad word to use in describing what scientists do.

I find it interesting that you've chosen to overlook my comment about monopolisation of truth and religious bigotry. Could it be that you are able to recognise how closely your attitudes towards science, as compared to other religions, reflect the religious zealotry I've described?

Religions say they have the truth, and will never change because their texts contain the truth.

Scientists are willing to admit they don't have all the answers, they admit they could be wrong and they admit when they are proven wrong. the are not monopolising anything.

 

[rumpole]

Jesus met with Moses constantly while he was leading Israel.

.

What ? Moses, if he existed, lived at least 1000 years before Christ (if he existed)

"Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Jerome gives 1592 BCE, and Ussher 1619 BCE as his birth year.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

 

[FxTrader]

They have all been answered for you. Examples of speciation and increased information have been give. But, arguing with anybody who regards a scientific rebuttal as pointing to a creationist website that from the outset declares that it doesn't use scientific methods to determine what the evidence says but only accepts evidence that agrees with the biblical account of creation is pointless.

I have yet to see you actually address the evidence I have provided you with and show where it is wrong.

Bellenuit, let me say from the outset that I have enjoyed reading your many posts on evolution and your extensive contribution rebutting the faith based arguments of creationists here. However, I believe you have been lured into a trap by holy rollers such as Pav who frequently uses discussion and attacks on evolution as a diversionary tactic. Rather than allow focus on the absurdities of Christian faith in particular and religion in general, he continually shifts the focus onto a critique of evolution which, even if wrong about life's origins, says nothing about the validity or veracity of Christian myth and he knows it. Pav never presents credible (non faith based) evidence for resurrection and other claims yet asserts it exists over and over again. He is the most intellectually dishonest person posting on this thread in my opinion and has outed himself as just another blind faith believer with tales of faith healing thrown in.

Anyone who seriously thinks that intelligent design and irreducible complexity have any scientific credibility will not be able to speak objectively about evolution period - it's simply a dead end. In my view, the focus (and onus) much be placed back on the underpinnings of religious faith itself and the extrordinary claims conjured up from the ether to support it.

I have attached a clip here from a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig (a hero in Christian circles) that is one of the better scholarly demolitions of Christian belief I have heard. The whole debate is interesting but lengthy. For those who care to listen, it's a gem...

 

[cbc]

What ? Moses, if he existed, lived at least 1000 years before Christ (if he existed)

"Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Jerome gives 1592 BCE, and Ussher 1619 BCE as his birth year.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

You know if you guys simply started believing and going to church you would understand all of this.

Don't you ever listen to us.

JESUS IS LORD

JESUS IS GOD

HE WAS THE ONE WHO CREATED THE EARTH

Not some wandering prophet in the Israelie desert which you are saying by what your saying.

He said 'I AM THE I AM' laying claim to being God.

Why do you think that all the Pharasies wanted to kill him? And eventually did.

 

[Value Collector]

Infact, the bible is mainly about Jesus so to say he never actually met any of the authors is a tad strange.

The lady that wrote harry potter never actually met him either.

Jesus first met with Abraham to promise him and Sarah a baby.

Jesus met with Moses constantly while he was leading Israel.

He met with many of the prophets in visions.

can you quote a passage where it mentions Jesus in the old testament

Don't you understand that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul were the Authors of the New Testament. They were also the main Characters as well. So to say what you said makes me think that I might need to use small words and mbey repeat myself a few times for you

None of the Gospel authors is thought to be an eyewitness, and none claims to be. There is a broad consensus that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them.

The Gospels were originally anonymous, and names were not ascribed to them until around 185 CE.

 

[Value Collector]

You know if you guys simply started believing and going to church you would understand all of this.

Don't you ever listen to us.

JESUS IS LORD

JESUS IS GOD

HE WAS THE ONE WHO CREATED THE EARTH

Not some wandering prophet in the Israelie desert which you are saying by what your saying.

He said 'I AM THE I AM' laying claim to being God.

Why do you think that all the Pharasies wanted to kill him? And eventually did.

and if you spent more time at the mosque you would understand Islam, understanding a story doesn't make it true.

 

[cynic]

well please provide your version of the definition of religion then,

I think the context of the definition I provided is the context in which the original person I commented to was using it.



many words have multiple meanings, If there is a meaning for the word religion that was broad enough to include the scientific method I don't think that definition would be very useful, especially in conversation about theistic claims.

According to my copy of "The Award Compact English Dictionary" (ISBN 0-86163-109-9):
"any mode of faith and worship"
is an acceptable definition of the word "religion".
Personally I believe that the expression "belief system" (or perhaps "system of belief") is sufficient and in accord with the original definition and intent of the word.
Your efforts to artificially limit the word to theistic claims is a departure from my understanding of scientific method.

except many religious people ignore outcomes that go against their texts, they start with the concept that the bible is true and correct and work from there, that is not a sound pathway to truth.

See what I mean?! I did tell you that scientists were just like religious folk!

Had you not noticed that many scientists are doing the same thing with their (chosen) scientific doctrine?

No, there are actually two different uses of the word faith, and the meanings mean different things, But either way its a bad word to use in describing what scientists do.

Again, (according to my copy of the aforementioned dictionary):
"a taking of what another says or does as true and right"
is a fair definition of the word "faith".
It is also a very apt description of what many scientists do!

Religions say they have the truth, and will never change because their texts contain the truth.

Scientists are willing to admit they don't have all the answers, they admit they could be wrong and they admit when they are proven wrong. the are not monopolising anything.

Do I need to point out the obvious contradiction in these last two sentences?

 

[Value Collector]

According to my copy of "The Award Compact English Dictionary" (ISBN 0-86163-109-9):
"any mode of faith and worship"
is an acceptable definition of the word "religion".
Personally I believe that the expression "belief system" (or perhaps "system of belief") is sufficient and in accord with the original definition and intent of the word.
Your efforts to artificially limit the word to theistic claims is a departure from my understanding of scientific method

.

Ok, so when I use the word science, I am not describing a system of faith and worship, so it is incorrect to say what I am talking about is religion.

See what I mean?! I did tell you that scientists were just like religious folk!

Had you not noticed that many scientists are doing the same thing with their (chosen) scientific doctrine?

No, If the evidence shows that an older idea is wrong, scientists will drop that older idea. They will not cling to it.

Again, (according to my copy of the aforementioned dictionary):
"a taking of what another says or does as true and right"
is a fair definition of the word "faith".
It is also a very apt description of what many scientists do!

My dictionary lists 2 meanings for the word faith

1, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2, strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

the two meanings are not interchangeable.

 

[cynic]

.

Ok, so when I use the word science, I am not describing a system of faith and worship, so it is incorrect to say what I am talking about is religion.

On the contrary, faith and worship are recognisable traits of many (if not all) practising scientists!

No, If the evidence shows that an older idea is wrong, scientists will drop that older idea. They will not cling to it.

The same can be said for many other religious bodies. Throughout history, many religious practices and doctrine have been revised in response to changing conditions and new discoveries. So science cannot claim a monopoly on that point either!

.

My dictionary lists 2 meanings for the word faith

1, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2, strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

the two meanings are not interchangeable.

Again you have chosen to prefer the subset over the whole set! (Such behaviour is out of accord with that of a true practitioner of science.)
Did your dictionary happen to mention the Latin word from whence "faith" derived its original definition and meaning?

 

[Ves]

Did your dictionary happen to mention the Latin word from whence "faith" derived its original definition and meaning?

Do you mean "Fides"? Interesting that the Romans also had a goddess of trust by the same name. Apparently they would sign foreign treaties at a place of significance (in relation to the goddess Fides) so that she would protect them.

I can see what you are driving at with this discussion, and it's an interesting perspective and one that some people may not have thought about in much detail. I've had similar discussions off this forum in the past.

 

[cynic]

Do you mean "Fides"? Interesting that the Romans also had a goddess of trust by the same name. Apparently they would sign foreign treaties at a place of significance (in relation to the goddess Fides) so that she would protect them.
...

Almost. My dictionary offered the lower case version "fides" which to my understanding is the Latin word for trust.

 

[Value Collector]

On the contrary, faith and worship are recognisable traits of many (if not all) practising scientists!

Can you provide examples of some well known scientists, and explain how what they do could be described as worship

The same can be said for many other religious bodies. Throughout history, many religious practices and doctrine have been revised in response to changing conditions and new discoveries. So science cannot claim a monopoly on that point either!

If you think that religions are as open to new ideas as the scientific community to are crazy, Most religions completely disregard new information if it goes against their book, there was an example earlier in the thread of a religious guy saying if he read in the bible that 1 + 1 = 5, he would believe it, this is what I am talking about.

Again you have chosen to prefer the subset over the whole set! (Such behaviour is out of accord with that of a true practitioner of science.)

your playing word games, I accept there are many meanings to some words. But If I use a word, I am the one the gets to decide which meaning fits the context in which I am using it. for example if I say I have faith my dad will feed my dog while I am away, you can't come along and say I have faith the same way a religious guy has faith his prayers will be answered, they are different things.

Did your dictionary happen to mention the Latin word from whence "faith" derived its original definition and meaning?

it said- Latin fidere to trust

but again it doesn't matter where the word was derived from, meaning can change through usage over the years, and many meanings can exist.

 

[Tink]

Well said, cynic

Also wanted to add, enjoyed your input on the Adam and Eve and ribs/chromosomes in the other thread.

 

[Value Collector]

Well said, cynic

.

Well said

He has done nothing but try and muddy the waters by confusing terms and playing word games.

 

[Tink]

Maybe you should look in a few more threads than just this one

 

[cynic]

Can you provide examples of some well known scientists, and explain how what they do could be described as worship

Einstein, Newton, Hawking just to name a few!

How many scientists do you know of that don't employ some level of mathematics, chemistry or physics in their scientific practices?

Any well known scientist can be seen to have invested belief in a body of scientific knowledge and/or practices. When utilising such knowledge, scientists are demonstrating a level of reverence for said knowledge and the scientific predecessors that contributed to its accumulation.

If you think that religions are as open to new ideas as the scientific community to are crazy, Most religions completely disregard new information if it goes against their book, there was an example earlier in the thread of a religious guy saying if he read in the bible that 1 + 1 = 5, he would believe it, this is what I am talking about.

So now you're attempting to claim that the scientific community holds the monopoly on openmindedness!
Have you already forgotten the intense opposition to Einstein's theories of relativity?

your playing word games, I accept there are many meanings to some words. But If I use a word, I am the one the gets to decide which meaning fits the context in which I am using it. for example if I say I have faith my dad will feed my dog while I am away, you can't come along and say I have faith the same way a religious guy has faith his prayers will be answered, they are different things.

Actually they are the same thing. Both are valid examples of faith. Just as a prayer may or may not be answered, one's expectations of a parent may or may not be fulfilled!

it said- Latin fidere to trust

but again it doesn't matter where the word was derived from, meaning can change through usage over the years, and many meanings can exist.

Certainly. However, this doesn't change the fact that scientists belief and behaviours in respect to science are recognisably synonymous with the behaviours of religious devotees.

 

[Chris45]

Most religions completely disregard new information if it goes against their book, there was an example earlier in the thread of a religious guy saying if he read in the bible that 1 + 1 = 5, he would believe it, this is what I am talking about.

I used to believe that 1 + 1 = 2

Then I read in a book that 1 + 1 = 10, and now I most certainly believe that!

 

[cynic]

I used to believe that 1 + 1 = 2

Then I read in a book that 1 + 1 = 10, and now I most certainly believe that!

Be careful Chris!

You might get accused of playing number games!

Between the two of us we should have numeracy and literacy completely sewn up!

 

[cynic]

Well said, cynic

Also wanted to add, enjoyed your input on the Adam and Eve and ribs/chromosomes in the other thread.

Thanks for that Tink.

During that particular dialogue I was becoming concerned that I might have been the only person to recognise that possibility.

 

[Tink]

Thanks for that Tink.

During that particular dialogue I was becoming concerned that I might have been the only person to recognise that possibility.

Good on you

The Bible has a lot of hidden mysteries.
Who would have thought they would have been talking about chromosomes then, or had any idea.