The age old argument...

[CyberPunk]

of science vs religion. But I just wanted to put it out there. Here's why.

Recently, I got into a minor argument with one of my colleagues over the supernatural. He is hardcore religious man while I am pretty much an atheist. The discussion was simple, does supernatural exist? We touched various points in our discussion: from flying saucers to ghosts to paranormal activities. He then suddenly snaps at me and goes on, "That's the problem with science. It can't explain half the things religion does."

That got me thinking. Is there truth to his claims? Or is it that religion takes the easy way out to explain things which are inexplicable at times?

For the starters, I am not a non-believer, I just don't take everything on its face value. I am open to any thought, even religion, if it can be explained within realms of logic. For me religion is set of rules created to make people believe in something. And belief is important, isn't it? Sometimes this belief can take get us through tough times. However, how much should you believe? When religion is twisted to fit someone's propaganda, doesn't it become harmful?

I respect all religions because I think there are many things you can learn from it. However, it'll take more than some stories to believe in existence of deities or ghosts or supernatural. These ideas are fascinating and sometimes engaging as well. But to believe them blindly would be asinine, wouldn't it? This is not a dig on anyone who believes in religion, just a thought.

So what do you people think? To what extent should one believe in religion? If something is not explicable by science at this time, should we take religion's help to make ourselves believe in that? Also, what kind of experiences have you had where you had to believe one way or the other?

 

[Slash-LN]

One should believe in religion to any extent they want to. As long as they aren't being assholes about it or harming other people based on religion or burning down buildings and stuff.

It works with non believers as well.

We had some people over for dinner tonight and she asked why I don't go to church. And I gave her my reasons and she left it at that. She goes to the same church as my mom and sister and nephew and she teaches at the church's school.

I once had a conversation with my mom about paranormal stuff. In the course of that conversation she conceded that if she believe in angels it would be hypocritical of her to tell me I shouldn't believe in paranormal stuff. Although after being a paranormal investigator for a bit I've become incredibly skeptical of it.

 

[The Butcher]

The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. ...and what that means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads! It 's a ghost!

Mind has no matter or energy, but they can't escape its predominance over everything they do. Logic exists in the mind. Numbers exist only in the mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. It's that 'only' that gets me. Science is only in your mind too, it's just that that doesn't make it bad. Or ghosts either.

Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Law of logic, of mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts.

...we see what we see because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past.

I always think about that whenever ghosts are brought up. Great novel. Anyway, on to the questions posed:


Is there truth to his claims? Or is it that religion takes the easy way out to explain things which are inexplicable at times?

I don't think there's anything to his claim that science can't explain half of what religion can, though that would depend on the religion in question, I suppose. There are a lot of them. Both religion and science seek answers, and because religion does not adhere to the scientific method, one could see that as taking the easy way out. However, if I may follow up the train of thought from that passage from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, humans made up the scientific method, too.

To what extent should one believe in religion?

Not for me to say.

If something is not explicable by science at this time, should we take religion's help to make ourselves believe in that?

No. If you're following the scientific method, you shouldn't fill in the gaps with psuedoscience. That'd kind of defeat the purpose.

Also, what kind of experiences have you had where you had to believe one way or the other?

Suffice to say that the old adage is true, there are no atheists in foxholes.

Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

 

[Mustang Sally]

To what extent should one believe in religion?

To whatever extent your heart desires. If you get comfort from religion and choose to live your life by it's lessons and tenets, I think that's perfectly fine. I'd never dream of interfering with or trying to discredit someone's beliefs.

But forgive me if I choose not to go along with it. One of the folks who posted above said that he was in a discussion during which he was asked: "Why don't you go to church?"

To me, it's a question that needn't be asked, just as I wouldn't ask anyone why they do go to church. Discussions of that nature too often lead to disagreement and argument since the person arguing their religious principles can't prove any of it.....just as science can't answer all questions. When religious folks are arguing matters of faith with non-religious people, the best you can do is agree to disagree.

Is religion supposed to bring us all together? If so, why has so very much of the acrimony that has existed in mankind through the centuries been caused by religious differences? How can religion be called an instrument of peace if so many people look to enforce their beliefs by killing those who think differently?

The Bible consists largely of solid, logical principles for good living, and that's fine. But while I'd never try to interfere with anyone's religious beliefs, I'd ask them to not interfere with my lack of same.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

of science vs religion. But I just wanted to put it out there. Here's why.

Recently, I got into a minor argument with one of my colleagues over the supernatural. He is hardcore religious man while I am pretty much an atheist. The discussion was simple, does supernatural exist? We touched various points in our discussion: from flying saucers to ghosts to paranormal activities. He then suddenly snaps at me and goes on, "That's the problem with science. It can't explain half the things religion does."

That got me thinking. Is there truth to his claims? Or is it that religion takes the easy way out to explain things which are inexplicable at times?

For the starters, I am not a non-believer, I just don't take everything on its face value. I am open to any thought, even religion, if it can be explained within realms of logic. For me religion is set of rules created to make people believe in something. And belief is important, isn't it? Sometimes this belief can take get us through tough times. However, how much should you believe? When religion is twisted to fit someone's propaganda, doesn't it become harmful?

I respect all religions because I think there are many things you can learn from it. However, it'll take more than some stories to believe in existence of deities or ghosts or supernatural. These ideas are fascinating and sometimes engaging as well. But to believe them blindly would be asinine, wouldn't it? This is not a dig on anyone who believes in religion, just a thought.

So what do you people think? To what extent should one believe in religion? If something is not explicable by science at this time, should we take religion's help to make ourselves believe in that? Also, what kind of experiences have you had where you had to believe one way or the other?

First of all, you can’t be “pretty much an atheist”. That’s like being pretty much pregnant. Atheism isn’t a religion — it’s one of two possible positions to be taken to the proposition “do you believe in a god or gods?” If yes, theism. If no, atheism. There are no alternative paths, and neither answer actually subscribes to any specific religion or belief system — that decision comes later, at least in the case of theism. With atheism, it’s often left at that, because there is no reason to continue your “search”, as you’ve rejected the principle proposition from the onset.

As to your questions, this is a thread that is essentially designed as one giant special pleading argument for the God of the Gaps argument that “allows” science to explain what it can, and fills in the “gaps” with God. The problem with this argument is that God is never actually demonstrated to exist in the first place (the fundamental problem with religion), so the question isn’t “what extent should one believe in religion?”, rather “why should you believe in god or gods in the first place?”

If I told you tomorrow that Pink Fairies exist, and point to a book about Pink Fairies (we’ll call it the Pink Bible) as “proof” of this claim, would you believe me? Worse yet, let's assume that science can explain most of our daily occurrences (it can), but since it can’t yet explain the exactitudes of the origins of the universe, it’s because Pink Fairies actually created it. Would you believe me? If your answer to these questions is anything but a resounding no, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

This is why the fundamental issue with religion is the Burden of Proof, which most theists try to shift, passing the buck, as a means to avoid having to answer the toughest question of all. The person making the [extraordinary] claim is responsible for providing evidence for it, so if your claim is that God exists, and is responsible for everything, then your job is to first demonstrate God actually exists, and then provide evidence to support any and all theories as to how and why he is responsible for everything. It’s not my job to disprove your claim. Just as it’s not your job to disprove that Pink Fairies exist. I’ve failed to provide you with any evidence whatsoever (aside from circular reasoning, by telling you the Pink Bible proves it) to support the idea, so you are under no obligation whatsoever to believe me. The skeptic in you should reject the claim until that evidence is provided. This is why atheism is the default position, and why religion is both learned and unlearned.

One should believe in religion to any extent they want to. As long as they aren't being assholes about it or harming other people based on religion or burning down buildings and stuff.

It works with non believers as well.

We had some people over for dinner tonight and she asked why I don't go to church. And I gave her my reasons and she left it at that. She goes to the same church as my mom and sister and nephew and she teaches at the church's school.

I once had a conversation with my mom about paranormal stuff. In the course of that conversation she conceded that if she believe in angels it would be hypocritical of her to tell me I shouldn't believe in paranormal stuff. Although after being a paranormal investigator for a bit I've become incredibly skeptical of it.

Except that this isn’t actually true. Religion does not “deserve”, or command respect simply because it is. Respect is earned, and needs to continue to be earned. If you ask me, it never really deserved it in the first place, and any respect it did earn (especially Catholicism) has long been lost.

In fact, there’s an entire site dedicated to why this claim is false at http://whatstheharm.net/

Suffice to say that the old adage is true, there are no atheists in foxholes.

Except that that adage is not true, and there are in fact atheists in fox holes.

That adage isn’t even an adage — it’s an insulting aphorism that’s designed to insinuate that atheists are cowards.

Visit http://www.MilitaryAthiests.org, as well as the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org) for more on that.

 

[WBL]

What's wrong with believing that God put science on this earth so that man can use the intelligence and curiosity God gave him so that he can see just how deep, how intricate, how complicate and perfectly harmonious His plan is?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

What's wrong with believing that Pink Fairies put science on this earth so that man can use the intelligence and curiosity Pink Fairies gave him so that they can see just how deep, how intricate, how complicated and perfectly harmonious Their plan is?

Once again, there's a Burden of Proof here not being met. Before I'm even willing to entertain the idea that science, intelligence and curiosity (among other things) are a creation of any god, you first need to demonstrate this being exists.

 

[The Butcher]

Except that that adage is not true, and there are in fact atheists in fox holes.

That adage isn’t even an adage — it’s an insulting aphorism that’s designed to insinuate that atheists are cowards.

Visit http://www.MilitaryAthiests.org, as well as the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org) for more on that.

I meant that it was true for me. Notice how I was replying to a question about my own personal experiences. Judging by your interpretation, you're just taking it personally anyway. It was bound to happen in this thread, so it's good that it's me and you and we're getting it out of the way early. I see that statement as saying that when one is looking the Reaper in the eye, surrounded by gunfire, smoke, and death, the prospect of an afterlife seems a whole lot more enticing/reasonable.

I'm well aware that there are plenty of atheists in the military. I've had first hand experience with them and with them getting religious before and during deployment. I was agnostic myself during the experiences I'm referring to and promptly returned to being undecided for years until I was nudged off of the fence. Anyway, thanks for the resources, but I'll stick to having been there and done that.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I meant that it was true for me. Notice how I was replying to a question about my own personal experiences. Judging by your interpretation, you're just taking it personally anyway. It was bound to happen in this thread, so it's good that it's me and you and we're getting it out of the way early. I see that statement as saying that when one is looking the Reaper in the eye, surrounded by gunfire, smoke, and death, the prospect of an afterlife seems a whole lot more enticing/reasonable.

I'm well aware that there are plenty of atheists in the military. I've had first hand experience with them and with them getting religious before and during deployment. I was agnostic myself during the experiences I'm referring to and promptly returned to being undecided for years until I was nudged off of the fence. Anyway, thanks for the resources, but I'll stick to having been there and done that.

Well, "true for me" is a Relativist fallacy, or a version of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, unfortunately. Maybe you have had experiences where other military personnel "found God", but none of that actually proves the existence of any supernatural being, and can be attributed to — like you said yourself — the enticing nature that your death will be met with a second chance.

While I don't doubt your experience, per se, none of what you are saying is actually proof of the existence of an afterlife, a God or gods or anything in between.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

There's no issues in anyone believing in religion, different strokes for different folks and whatever works best for said person works best for said person. Some people need religion to believe in something, some people follow religion simply based on habit, some people have had religion pounded into their head so much that they refuse to believe anything else, some question religion and lastly there are people like me who pay no attention to it as it does nothing for me.

I myself am an Atheist, I don't refute the idea that there could be a god or creator but I refuse to believe in religion. I refuse to believe that if there is a god it has certain rulebook for how one should live and if god did I assume it would get its point across without any refutable evidence.

At the end of the day though it simply comes down to this.... no one actually knows what is in the afterlife, if there is an afterlife, if there is a god(s)/devil(s) and if there is a special place for the good and bad when we die therefore why would one just simply follow it unless it can benefit said person in their daily life? Although I'm not religious I have read some Holy Books in my day and outside of the fact there are some really cool stories in those books there is also a lot of good lessons one could take from those books as well and that's easy to see. On the same token though I'm using the word STORIES because for all we know that's all they are, Green Egg's and Ham teaches people not to judge a book by its cover but I'm not going to worship it and go to church every Sunday because of it either. Yes there are some historical facts in some Holy Books, yes there are some good lessons but when it comes to the supernatural stuff its all speculation and hearsay and there is no real proof to support it. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true, it just means there is no real proof for it and it seems illogical to follow every word of supposedly true story just because someone told you to. It makes sense to question things, if we don't how can we grow as people? If we just follow everything we hear then we essentially become mindless drones, that's why the Dark Ages happened after all. People were forced to think one way and if you strayed from that thought process you got dealt with, often in an extremely brutal way.

The reason I trust Science over Religion is because there is proof and evidence behind its theories. Most of all though, when one of those theories is PROVEN wrong then Science evolves as necessary. It is based on not on speculation, but on testable evidence which can prove/disprove a certain idea, simple as that. It seems logical to follow something that has evidence to back what it says and most of all, doesn't think its always right and can admit when its wrong (something religion has a very difficult time doing). Truth be told, Science is a lot more open minded than religion will ever be and is constantly evolving with the times, with what has been discovered and with all evidence which has been proven over the years.

Whatever a person believes is fine, just be smart about it and be open minded enough to question the bullshit. There's nothing wrong with believing something that can't be proven but when that belief is proven wrong be smart enough to change your line of thinking.

 

[The Butcher]

Well, "true for me" is a Relativist fallacy, or a version of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, unfortunately. Maybe you have had experiences where other military personnel "found God", but none of that actually proves the existence of any supernatural being, and can be attributed to — like you said yourself — the enticing nature that your death will be met with a second chance.

While I don't doubt your experience, per se, none of what you are saying is actually proof of the existence of an afterlife, a God or gods or anything in between.

Who said anything about proof? Certainly not me or the OP. Sorry, IDR, but if you're looking to pick a fight I can't be your huckleberry on this one. I assumed that you and I would be able to handle a conversation of this nature better than most, but considering you want to go in another direction with it, I guess I was wrong. That's what I get for putting my faith in people.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

There's no issues in anyone believing in religion, different strokes for different folks and whatever works best for said person works best for said person. Some people need religion to believe in something, some people follow religion simply based on habit, some people have had religion pounded into their head so much that they refuse to believe anything else, some question religion and lastly there are people like me who pay no attention to it as it does nothing for me.

I myself am an Atheist, I don't refute the idea that there could be a god or creator but I refuse to believe in religion. I refuse to believe that if there is a god it has certain rulebook for how one should live and if god did I assume it would get its point across without any refutable evidence.

That's not atheism. It's more like anti-theism, which isn't the same thing. Like I told CM Yes!, there is no halfway point of atheism. You can't be a "kind of atheist", in exactly the same way you can't be "kind of pregnant". Atheism is the rejection of the proposition of whether or not you believe in a god or gods. If you do not reject the proposition, even in part, you are some form of theist.

At the end of the day though it simply comes down to this.... no one actually knows what is in the afterlife, if there is an afterlife, if there is a god(s)/devil(s) and if there is a special place for the good and bad when we die therefore why would one just simply follow it unless it can benefit said person in their daily life? Although I'm not religious I have read some Holy Books in my day and outside of the fact there are some really cool stories in those books there is also a lot of good lessons one could take from those books as well and that's easy to see. On the same token though I'm using the word STORIES because for all we know that's all they are, Green Egg's and Ham teaches people not to judge a book by its cover but I'm not going to worship it and go to church every Sunday because of it either. Yes there are some historical facts in some Holy Books, yes there are some good lessons but when it comes to the supernatural stuff its all speculation and hearsay and there is no real proof to support it. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true, it just means there is no real proof for it and it seems illogical to follow every word of supposedly true story just because someone told you to. It makes sense to question things, if we don't how can we grow as people? If we just follow everything we hear then we essentially become mindless drones, that's why the Dark Ages happened after all. People were forced to think one way and if you strayed from that thought process you got dealt with, often in an extremely brutal way.

The reason I trust Science over Religion is because there is proof and evidence behind its theories. Most of all though, when one of those theories is PROVEN wrong then Science evolves as necessary. It is based on not on speculation, but on testable evidence which can prove/disprove a certain idea, simple as that. It seems logical to follow something that has evidence to back what it says and most of all, doesn't think its always right and can admit when its wrong (something religion has a very difficult time doing). Truth be told, Science is a lot more open minded than religion will ever be and is constantly evolving with the times, with what has been discovered and with all evidence which has been proven over the years.

Whatever a person believes is fine, just be smart about it and be open minded enough to question the bullshit. There's nothing wrong with believing something that can't be proven but when that belief is proven wrong be smart enough to change your line of thinking.

Bingo.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Who said anything about proof? Certainly not me or the OP. Sorry, IDR, but if you're looking to pick a fight I can't be your huckleberry on this one. I assumed that you and I would be able to handle a conversation of this nature better than most, but considering you want to go in another direction with it, I guess I was wrong. That's what I get for putting my faith in people.

I'm not looking for a fight. Re-read my first response in this thread. I've said from the start, that the OP is essentially one long special pleading argument for the God of the Gaps argument, and that I reject that on principle until God is actually proven to even exist.

The answer to this thread, as the overarching point, really is as simple as what D&T just wrote above (the second half of his post).

Science is a method human beings use as a means to answer questions. It questions everything, tests everything, and forces everything to be demonstrable once a theory is proposed.

Religion is almost literally the opposing pole to this practice. It purports to have the answers already (God), and attempts to answer all the same questions Science (humans) have by basically telling you "don't worry about it — God did it".

Proof is a requirement in a discussion like this. How can you have a debate or discussion of any substance without it? Why would you open the doors to hearsay so wide as to reject the demand for evidence?

 

[Darkshadow1234]

For me. I don't believe or like God. Or any kind of religion. Bc all of it is BS
But I respect those who believe in something.
I respect other people beliefs.
Even though others don't respect my belief.

To me god is someone who is petty, selfish and arrogant. Who watches Mankind suffer and refuse to do anything about it.
If god did exist or cared. The world wouldn't be what it is today. Full of hate, death and destruction.
God doesnt give a shit about human life. If he was real.


In my opinion. I think the world is better off without religion.

That's my opinion

I take science over religion. Anyday

 

[Барбоса]

I would put myself in the position of being an atheist but not a complete anti-theist, because while I do not believe in God or gods, I am fascinated by large parts of what comes out of the worship of such deities.

As to the "what is harm?" argument of belief, I have little problem with what people believe until it changes from a privately held faith to a more public form, informing actions, research and education and in particular with the whole ideas of proselytism and that there can be no morality without religion - actually, that is quite a few things I don't like about religion...

As for the OP, IDR is right in his use of the "God of the Gaps" comment - "We don't know therefore God did it" is not a reasonable position to take if you are going to let your religion direct your day to day life and more importantly you want it to direct the lives of others too. It also opens up the question of what happens to God when one of those gaps is filled with an explanation? That is the "Ever-diminishing God."

Actually, I would have no problem with people going back to the beliefs of early Christianity in that God took his place at the very top of the hierarchy in the Heavens and was responsible for the creation of everything but did not interfere in day to day runnings of the universe.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I would put myself in the position of being an atheist but not a complete anti-theist, because while I do not believe in God or gods, I am fascinated by large parts of what comes out of the worship of such deities.

As to the "what is harm?" argument of belief, I have little problem with what people believe until it changes from a privately held faith to a more public form, informing actions, research and education and in particular with the whole ideas of proselytism and that there can be no morality without religion - actually, that is quite a few things I don't like about religion...

As for the OP, IDR is right in his use of the "God of the Gaps" comment - "We don't know therefore God did it" is not a reasonable position to take if you are going to let your religion direct your day to day life and more importantly you want it to direct the lives of others too. It also opens up the question of what happens to God when one of those gaps is filled with an explanation? That is the "Ever-diminishing God."

Actually, I would have no problem with people going back to the beliefs of early Christianity in that God took his place at the very top of the hierarchy in the Heavens and was responsible for the creation of everything but did not interfere in day to day runnings of the universe.

I would, because it still doesn't demonstrate that God to have ever existed, but I'd appreciate it a whole helluva lot more from a socio-political perspective, in that you wouldn't have to worry as much about the influence of religion in social practice and political policy — specifically education and law-making.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

There's no issues in anyone believing in religion, different strokes for different folks and whatever works best for said person works best for said person. Some people need religion to believe in something, some people follow religion simply based on habit, some people have had religion pounded into their head so much that they refuse to believe anything else, some question religion and lastly there are people like me who pay no attention to it as it does nothing for me.

I myself am an Atheist, I don't refute the idea that there could be a god or creator but I refuse to believe in religion. I refuse to believe that if there is a god it has certain rulebook for how one should live and if god did I assume it would get its point across without any refutable evidence.

At the end of the day though it simply comes down to this.... no one actually knows what is in the afterlife, if there is an afterlife, if there is a god(s)/devil(s) and if there is a special place for the good and bad when we die therefore why would one just simply follow it unless it can benefit said person in their daily life? Although I'm not religious I have read some Holy Books in my day and outside of the fact there are some really cool stories in those books there is also a lot of good lessons one could take from those books as well and that's easy to see. On the same token though I'm using the word STORIES because for all we know that's all they are, Green Egg's and Ham teaches people not to judge a book by its cover but I'm not going to worship it and go to church every Sunday because of it either. Yes there are some historical facts in some Holy Books, yes there are some good lessons but when it comes to the supernatural stuff its all speculation and hearsay and there is no real proof to support it. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true, it just means there is no real proof for it and it seems illogical to follow every word of supposedly true story just because someone told you to. It makes sense to question things, if we don't how can we grow as people? If we just follow everything we hear then we essentially become mindless drones, that's why the Dark Ages happened after all. People were forced to think one way and if you strayed from that thought process you got dealt with, often in an extremely brutal way.

The reason I trust Science over Religion is because there is proof and evidence behind its theories. Most of all though, when one of those theories is PROVEN wrong then Science evolves as necessary. It is based on not on speculation, but on testable evidence which can prove/disprove a certain idea, simple as that. It seems logical to follow something that has evidence to back what it says and most of all, doesn't think its always right and can admit when its wrong (something religion has a very difficult time doing). Truth be told, Science is a lot more open minded than religion will ever be and is constantly evolving with the times, with what has been discovered and with all evidence which has been proven over the years.

Whatever a person believes is fine, just be smart about it and be open minded enough to question the bullshit. There's nothing wrong with believing something that can't be proven but when that belief is proven wrong be smart enough to change your line of thinking.

Pretty much this.
Agreed 100%

Ill take science over religion anyday.

God is dead. If he ever existed.

Whatever floats your boat.
All I can say.
Believe what you want.
I'm not gonna judge you.
I'm open.
But I refuse to follow religion.

If god did exist.
Why doesnt he show himself

 

[Барбоса]

I would, because it still doesn't demonstrate that God to have ever existed, but I'd appreciate it a whole helluva lot more from a socio-political perspective, in that you wouldn't have to worry as much about the influence of religion in social practice and political policy — specifically education and law-making.

But if belief in God (or gods) can be relegated such a non-interfering role then that belief becomes completely harmless - like pixies, fairies and ghosts - and to my mind should therefore be left alone.

People can get the benefits they get now from faith (well, some but not all) and society/science does not have to suffer because of it.

Science should have no problem accepting (although not accommodating) such a form of faith.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

But if belief in God (or gods) can be relegated such a non-interfering role then that belief becomes completely harmless - like pixies, fairies and ghosts - and to my mind should therefore be left alone.

People can get the benefits they get now from faith (well, some but not all) and society/science does not have to suffer because of it.

Science should have no problem accepting (although not accommodating) such a form of faith.

That's true, but I should clarify — when I say I'd have a problem, I just mean from the perspective of proof, not the perspective of potential harm. I completely agree that if you are essentially taking the Deistic stance of a God having created the universe and left it to its' own devices, for all intents and purposes, that belief is in fact harmless, because religion and worship of that deity is no longer a requirement. If there is no religion, then no religious laws ever come about. It's win-win from a moral and humanitarian perspective, even if the principle belief is false, or unverifiable.

 

[smizzy]

I cannot make a convincing argument for one side or the other; this is beyond my capability. Really though, it's an overwhelming topic. Religion is what a large percentage of the world's population lives for; every action taken is done so with mindfulness of the religion. To many, God or a god has revealed himself to them.

Science really does give me any answer I'm looking for - to an extent. It doesn't explain the uncanny, master design of the interconnectedness of the world and consciousness (or at least the attempts to explain it do not satisfy me) and several other phenomenons.

There's also a lot in the Bible that does not satisfy me either. Churches can be manipulative and in certain cases can push for their own ideas and interpretations.

Personally, I was raised Christian, so this is what I've always knwon. My grandfather is a pastor. One of the biggest influences on my life is my now late youth pastor. However, I still have a lot of doubt. My faith is not very strong and I do not live my day to day life based upon my belief in God, but I still haven't given up fully believing that there is a God responsible for everything, and to be honest, I have yet to be presented with evidence that there truly is, and or could be, no god.

Faith's complex. I certainly have a harder time explaining my beliefs than I do analyzing baseball, Dean Ambrose, or a rap album.

 

[Барбоса]

I have yet to be presented with evidence that there truly is, and or could be, no god.

And you never will. You can be provided with evidence of what certain things are made of, how things evolved, how the planets are where they are. Some day we might be able to explain the Big Bang and what came before that. You can refute the actions, meanings and teachings attributed to God by man.

But, in the end, religion is above all of that. For believers, faith comes before proof. The indescribable, undefinable God can never be truly proved not to exist.

That is the beauty of the system of religious belief and whomever created it all those millennia ago as a means of control - the goalposts are movable and yet somehow indescribable.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

When it comes to religion vs. science, you'll find unstable fanatics on both ends of the spectrum. Christians sometimes get ridiculed at times because of some of the very un-Christian acts of its past that seem to go against everything it teaches, such as the Crusades and the so called Holy Inquisition. These are not exactly things to be proud of and there are numerous people who've claimed to be doing the will of God while committing atrocity in his name.

On the other side, there are some scientists who're so preoccupied with whether or not they're able to achieve something through science that they often don't stop to ask themselves whether or not they should even if they can. When the first atomic bomb or chemical weapons were created, scientists essentially opened Pandora's Box by creating something with the potential to wipe out everyone. As a result, the world's sitting on a powder keg, wondering when, rather than if, nations who're viewed as hostile to the west like Iran develop such weapons themselves.

When you try to use the Bible to explain science, you're gonna fail miserably because the Bible isn't a science book. The problems come when people try to use the Bible to attempt to explain things scientifically. When you try to use science to explain matters of faith, you fail miserably because science is all about what you're able to see, touch or figure out mathematically. I've noticed when proponents of either attempt to use each to explain the other, you can see them become unhinged. There are some Christians who view that everything in the Bible, every single word, comes directly from God and will get royally pissed off if some refute that. There are some scientists who firmly believe in scientific fact that will become downright unhinged if presented with something they can't verify through science. The existence of a soul, for instance, is something that befuddles some scientists. Some believe that people who're brain dead, yet are still kept "alive" through artificial means, are examples of people who's souls have left their bodies. Is there any way to prove that? No, not at all. Is there any way to disprove that? Nope, can't say that there is.

For instance, the notion of Earth being created in 6 days is viewed with derision by a good number of people these days, even some Christians. At the same time, there are also people, believers & non-believers alike, who don't believe in the Theory of Evolution because, even to this day, it's a theory that hasn't been definitively proven. While it's a widely accepted theory with a lot of evidence to support it, it remains just that: a theory that has yet to be genuinely, truly, 100% verified.

Of course, science and Christianity both have made positive contributions to life ranging from improvements in technologies and medicines that are able to make life easier, save lives, extend them, etc. using the stories of Christianity, the fundamental beliefs and messages to shape societies and behaviors. Some of said contributions from both sides can be twisted and subverted for other means but, unfortunately, it's just how things are. The human element is one common denominator in that we're a race of screw ups. We have a tendency to take anything positive and helpful, twist it around somehow and use it as a means of ultimately hurting one another. While it's true that religion has been a huge platform and foundation for war countless times, science has created the tools allowing us to go to war and kill each other more efficiently countless times.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

When it comes to religion vs. science, you'll find unstable fanatics on both ends of the spectrum. Christians sometimes get ridiculed at times because of some of the very un-Christian acts of its past that seem to go against everything it teaches, such as the Crusades and the so called Holy Inquisition. These are not exactly things to be proud of and there are numerous people who've claimed to be doing the will of God while committing atrocity in his name.

I'd argue that in both cases, they were fulfilling "His" commandments. If the Bible is the infallible, inspired word of God, then you, nor I, nor anyone, are anyone to challenge or interpret it in any way (since we’re all fallible), and yet the Bible is chock full of immoral commandments to kill and maim in the name of God. I don't need to list them. I'm sure you're well aware of exactly what I'm talking about. Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, Chronicles and more are essentially schematics for "justified" genocide, rape, murder and human sacrifice.

Who are you to question “His” will?

On the other side, there are some scientists who're so preoccupied with whether or not they're able to achieve something through science that they often don't stop to ask themselves whether or not they should even if they can. When the first atomic bomb or chemical weapons were created, scientists essentially opened Pandora's Box by creating something with the potential to wipe out everyone. As a result, the world's sitting on a powder keg, wondering when, rather than if, nations who're viewed as hostile to the west like Iran develop such weapons themselves.

When you try to use the Bible to explain science, you're gonna fail miserably because the Bible isn't a science book. The problems come when people try to use the Bible to attempt to explain things scientifically. When you try to use science to explain matters of faith, you fail miserably because science is all about what you're able to see, touch or figure out mathematically. I've noticed when proponents of either attempt to use each to explain the other, you can see them become unhinged. There are some Christians who view that everything in the Bible, every single word, comes directly from God and will get royally pissed off if some refute that. There are some scientists who firmly believe in scientific fact that will become downright unhinged if presented with something they can't verify through science. The existence of a soul, for instance, is something that befuddles some scientists. Some believe that people who're brain dead, yet are still kept "alive" through artificial means, are examples of people who's souls have left their bodies. Is there any way to prove that? No, not at all. Is there any way to disprove that? Nope, can't say that there is.

Difference being, science is a practice that is constantly evolving and willing to re-define its’ own definitions. Religion is principle that cannot be questioned, because it functions on a platform of infallibility. Once you remove that pillar, the whole temple crumbles. So when science gets something wrong, it corrects that wrong. Conversely, when religion does, it will go to the ends of the earth to justify it. This is how Sharia Law can still exist in a “modern” society, or why women are not treated as equals in American culture, for example.

For instance, the notion of Earth being created in 6 days is viewed with derision by a good number of people these days, even some Christians. At the same time, there are also people, believers & non-believers alike, who don't believe in the Theory of Evolution because, even to this day, it's a theory that hasn't been definitively proven. While it's a widely accepted theory with a lot of evidence to support it, it remains just that: a theory that has yet to be genuinely, truly, 100% verified.

Dead wrong. And I feel we've been over this before.

This nonsense gets perpetuated left and right because Theism is failing from the onset to understand what the term "theory" actually means.

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Of course, science and Christianity both have made positive contributions to life ranging from improvements in technologies and medicines that are able to make life easier, save lives, extend them, etc. using the stories of Christianity, the fundamental beliefs and messages to shape societies and behaviors. Some of said contributions from both sides can be twisted and subverted for other means but, unfortunately, it's just how things are. The human element is one common denominator in that we're a race of screw ups. We have a tendency to take anything positive and helpful, twist it around somehow and use it as a means of ultimately hurting one another. While it's true that religion has been a huge platform and foundation for war countless times, science has created the tools allowing us to go to war and kill each other more efficiently countless times.

What a twist this is, trying to sneak in religion as a helpful hand in scientific advancement. There’s been no greater wall to the spread of information, the process of question, and the advancement of science in the last 10,000 years than religion. By miles, and miles, and miles.

 

[CyberPunk]

As to your questions, this is a thread that is essentially designed as one giant special pleading argument for the God of the Gaps argument that “allows” science to explain what it can, and fills in the “gaps” with God. The problem with this argument is that God is never actually demonstrated to exist in the first place (the fundamental problem with religion), so the question isn’t “what extent should one believe in religion?”, rather “why should you believe in god or gods in the first place?”

I think I phrased my question wrong. The notion of 'to what extent' comes from the notion of someone who believes in religion but still would accept facts when presented with evidence. I said I am 'pretty much an atheist' because while I don't believe nor seek existence of any deity, I still observe some religious rituals due peer pressure.

My question is actually based on the belief in God of Gaps. Why should we have that belief? I am from a country where religious fanatics can be found everywhere. While the modern society is more accepting of atheism here, the notion of non-existence of god is still disregarded to a large extent.

Science is based on facts and verifiable theories. Unless something is verifiable, I refuse to believe in that. What perplexes me is the notion of religion being able to explain things that are unverifiable at this time. People take refuge under the shadow of religion to avoid the hard questions. I don't have anything against them because, as I said earlier, to have faith is good. It lends you resolve to sometimes go through difficult times. However, I refuse to put my faith in something that is unverifiable and has no evidence of existence.

In my mind, there is no real difference between religion and fiction. I mean, aren't they same? Belief in god is no different than belief in Superman, at least to me. However, if someone wants to believe existence of Superman, just to put his/her mind at ease, is it totally wrong? That's where the objectivity goes out the window. It then depends on opinions.

I've seen enough people who practice religion rigorously and still have an open mind towards other facts. I've seen the opposite as well. That's why my question was about 'to what extent.' As someone stated earlier, which I believe as well, belief is good till it starts hurting other people. The problem is too many people on either side of the spectrum go on a conflict. Religion should never be the tool for propaganda. Unfortunately, it has exactly become that. If you had to read few books from different religions, you'll find most of them being pretty same. I believe that science and religion can coexist peacefully. To quote Einstien:

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I think I phrased my question wrong. The notion of 'to what extent' comes from the notion of someone who believes in religion but still would accept facts when presented with evidence. I said I am 'pretty much an atheist' because while I don't believe nor seek existence of any deity, I still observe some religious rituals due peer pressure.

So does most of the Western world. Look at Christmas. It’s actually the most secular holiday in the U.S., celebrated by nearly the entire population who eagerly anticipate it every year for a variety of reasons — Jesus “being born” on that date probably near the bottom of it.

There’s nothing wrong with observing religious rituals, per se. It’s in the how and why that matters. Going to your cousins’ wedding in a church, for example, or celebrating Christmas, etc. are all completely fine, even for the most hardened of atheists to participate in because they are ultimately of no harm, and often sources of joy despite their religious roots.

My question is actually based on the belief in God of Gaps. Why should we have that belief? I am from a country where religious fanatics can be found everywhere. While the modern society is more accepting of atheism here, the notion of non-existence of god is still disregarded to a large extent.

You shouldn’t, because it, like faith (more on that in a moment), is a cop out response, and a rejection of—for lack of a better term—work rate in gathering new evidence to determine demonstrable answers. Барбоса noted earlier it’s not a reasonable position to take if you are going to let your religion direct your day-to-day life (especially if you want it to direct the lives of others as well), and from a logical perspective falls victim to a concept called the “Ever-diminishing God”, when science actually fills a gap you had already filled with “God did it”.

But ultimately, it’s a cop out response, because is simply asserts that a being that has not been demonstrated to even exist is responsible for things we yet to have a demonstrable answer for.

Science is based on facts and verifiable theories. Unless something is verifiable, I refuse to believe in that. What perplexes me is the notion of religion being able to explain things that are unverifiable at this time. People take refuge under the shadow of religion to avoid the hard questions. I don't have anything against them because, as I said earlier, to have faith is good. It lends you resolve to sometimes go through difficult times. However, I refuse to put my faith in something that is unverifiable and has no evidence of existence.

No, it isn’t. As Richards Dawkins once said, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” In short, it is in a lot of cases, the willful ignorance of evidence, or lack of evidence, so as to keep believing the story. In nearly every walk of life, that evidence or lack of evidence would change your mind in a heart beat, but with religion, less so, because “faith” is made out to be the virtue it isn’t.

In my mind, there is no real difference between religion and fiction. I mean, aren't they same? Belief in god is no different than belief in Superman, at least to me. However, if someone wants to believe existence of Superman, just to put his/her mind at ease, is it totally wrong? That's where the objectivity goes out the window. It then depends on opinions.

Of course it isn’t, but that isn’t to say it is virtuous either. The more you believe something that is false, the more likely you are to believe other false things, especially if those things potentially contradict your belief structure. Look at American politics as an example of that. Look at this very thread, with Jack-Hammer’s response including that line about evolution “only being a theory”. You know why he thinks that? Because he’s religious, and because his religion has actively denied evolution because of the irreparable damage that truth has on the “truth” that the Bible puts forth. In fact, it directly contradicts it with verifiable, demonstrable evidence — something the Bible lacks in spades.

At the end of the day, you should want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible [Matt Dillahunty]. That is virtuous. Not faith, which is the figurative ear plug solution to truth.

I’ve seen enough people who practice religion rigorously and still have an open mind towards other facts. I've seen the opposite as well. That's why my question was about 'to what extent.' As someone stated earlier, which I believe as well, belief is good till it starts hurting other people. The problem is too many people on either side of the spectrum go on a conflict. Religion should never be the tool for propaganda. Unfortunately, it has exactly become that. If you had to read few books from different religions, you'll find most of them being pretty same. I believe that science and religion can coexist peacefully. To quote Einstien:

I’d argue that belief is harmless until it starts hurting other people, not “good”. “Good” is a qualifier we’d use to determine measurable benefit — like health, happiness, etc. An apple is good because it’s been scientifically proven to be of benefit to the human body through nutrition and energy consumption. Religion can be good, when it does good deeds, but is too closely connected with hatred, intolerance, close-mindedness and willful ignorance for me to ever define it as good. Again, just to clarify, someone who is religious can clearly be good, and even a particular parish or religious organization can themselves be good by doing good deeds, but the religion itself? Well, I’d imagine what good it is pales in comparison to its combined history of hatred, bigotry, ignorance and bloodshed.