Does the majority of people who hold a belief make it so? Was the world flat because the majority believed it was? Was the emperor clothed because the majority said so? If everyone around you was a believer, would you believe as well or would you require proof? The point is that proof of anything is in the direct experience. The proof of odor is in the smell, the proof of vision is in the eye of the beholder, and the proof of God is in His vision. If you were blind and without a sense of smell from birth, and your parents and everyone else talked about odors and colors, you would come to believe.....but you would lack direct experience or proof. The proof of the existence of God comes via the practice of faith that leads to direct experience of His vision. That practice of faith is subjective is its nature, but until one has practiced it with complete sincerity and commitment, how can anyone deny that it works? It cannot be intellectually proved incorrect without direct experience, it cannot be intellectually proved correct without direct experience. However, anyone can find out for themselves if they want. Most people know the theory. The labwork is faith.
Stu and Gordon, I am not here to force my opinion of god into your life. It is clearly obvious that both of you are hard-core materialists who are rigid in logic and science -- which is great. However, don't make the false argument that one who practices faith cannot be a good scientist or still faithfully follow scientifically proven protocols. As far as coincidences and experiences (Gordon's post), surely it is true that, given enough time, people and experiences, we will encounter strange coincidences. However, what I think both of you are failing to grasp is that, even if any specific religion is false, people still derive comfort and happiness from them. Is that really so bad? Perhaps mediums like George Anderson are full of shit (which I suspect strongly to be the case). However, if you talk to anyone who pays $1,000 an hour to speak with their dead relatives, they are already pre-biased towards life-after-death. George will then use some very clever cold-reading tricks and make the person feel as if they actually did speak with there dead relative. Many people have come from this session with a much greater piece of mind and have been able to achieve functionality within society because of it. So, while logicians are dancing around "provability," we have people who derive satisfaction and support from something that may very well be false. Now, if you suggest that science has a philanthropic goal through the acquisition of knowledge, and you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to a 60 year old lady that she was indeed wrong, and she had once been suicidal because of it, do you really think that "true knowledge" is going to help her? Do you really want to stand over someone's death bed with a scientific face? Probably most people in this world would ask that you wait in the lobby, because most people really don't want to hear the scientific story of what is taking place while someone is drawing in their last breath. Science is great, but it has an end. Since Sir Bacon and empiricism, science has been one of the greatest methods of obtaining knowledge and one of the least greatest ways of understanding those things that reside outside the possibility of being proven. Science most basic flaw is that it considers all things within the universe to be "knowable" through the scientific method. However, that is just not the case and if you ask any GOOD scientist, "will there ever be anything we cannot prove with science," they will give you a resounding yes for an answer.
What I was saying is that a concept can be accepted by the majority of people even if nobody had "direct experience" with its subject, while you implied that "direct experience" is a must. Then why people think that the world is not flat? I think I devoted fair attention to your analogy with odor. Would you be so kind to explore my analogy? I say that the statement that "the proof of odor is in the smell" may come from the person who experience smell hallucinations. He does have a "direct experience" of smell but it subjective and there is no objective evidence. The same is with the statement that "the proof of the existence of God" is in something whatever it is that only believer possesses. He does have faith, alright. However, without any other evidence of "the existence of God" his faith tips about the state of his mind and nothing else. Whatever "it" you are talking about, this statement is incorrect. For example, I have no direct experience that sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees but my lack of experience does not make it incorrect and, moreover, I can understand that the prove exists.
"What I was saying is that a concept can be accepted by the majority of people even if nobody had "direct experience" with its subject, while you implied that "direct experience" is a must." Practically speaking, direct experience is at the basis of all proof, even mathematical proofs. I am speaking practically, not engaging in the strict rules of logic for the sake of playing an intellectual game. If you are looking to play word games with logicians, look elsewhere. "Then why people think that the world is not flat?" Some of us have flown around the world. That those who have not seen it for themselves believe the experiences of others, and puts them in the category of believers. They have a faith of sufficient proof to go about their daily business. Every time anyone gets in their car, they employ faith. Faith that the steering wheel will work, faith that the brakes will work, faith that other drivers will not run into them. Practical faith is a feature of daily living. "I think I devoted fair attention to your analogy with odor. Would you be so kind to explore my analogy? I say that the statement that "the proof of odor is in the smell" may come from the person who experience smell hallucinations. He does have a "direct experience" of smell but it subjective and there is no objective evidence. The same is with the statement that "the proof of the existence of God" is in something whatever it is that only believer possesses. He does have faith, alright. However, without any other evidence of "the existence of God" his faith tips about the state of his mind and nothing else." How do you know you are not dreaming right now and that you aren't making all of this up? How do you know that you aren't having a hallucination right now? I have played all those games many years ago. Useless, and impractical. There is a big difference between practical discussion and theory. If you want to go towards logical discussions based in logical games, I'll pass. "Whatever "it" you are talking about, this statement is incorrect. For example, I have no direct experience that sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees but my lack of experience does not make it incorrect and, moreover, I can understand that the prove exists." You are having a direct mental experience, but perhaps not a direct practical experience. Pure math exists as pure math---independent of practical proof, and lacks practical applications until it can be put to use in daily life. When applied to daily life it become practical math, as the applications are practical. Faith seems impractical for those who live without it, but for those who practice faith, those faithful ones have come to experience the practical benefits. Once again, anyone can gain the proof of the existence of God, just do the labwork. The lab is the human heart, and the tool is the sincere and humble application of faith.
Yeah, but who says that the sum of all angles in a triangle is always 180 degrees? What about non-Euclidean geometry? The universe is non-Euclidean -- it is only our very limited local perception that leads us to believe that 180 degrees is the sum of all angles in a triangle.
Aphe, I am not a rigid hard core materialist you make an assumption (again !) Look at what you said again please, "However, don't make the false argument that one who practices faith cannot be a good scientist or still faithfully follow scientifically proven protocols. " Where I have I said that "one who practices Faith" cannot make a good scientist or can't follow science? Aren't you putting words in my mouth here? I have never said that a religious or any other faith should preclude anyone from being good at anything. I do however feel that over zealous determination that one faith must be right above all others does fly in the face of the most worthy of scientific controls and scrutiny I actually feel I have some good points on religious beliefs worthy of debate, but I find it near impossible to discuss as the Religious are unable. It appears their faith is fragile. Well fine, then all I say is do not go around insisting that it is the only correct one or that everyone must adopt it otherwise the TRUTH is hell awaits. That is Preposterous ! Option777 insists his experience is only experienced by faith. His faith is attached to his belief in God. "but until one has practiced it with complete sincerity and commitment, how can anyone deny that it works?" Well I do. I deny that it works. I deny it works for the humanity that it doesn't work for. So now what ? Do They go to the moral lower ground. Are they to be arrogantly patronized and called deficient. ? Yet they too may make excellent scientists. Or rather it may be perfectly valid to question what exactly this faith consists of. Quite possibly it is this all encompassing faith that is faulty in its concept and practicing. If it cannot be understood by moral, rational, thoughtful, responsible, people , then perhaps it isn't what Optional777 says it is. And Perhaps furthermore this faith should not be used to judge or value the rights and wrongs of Cloning if it cannot stand up to scrutiny. A belief which cannot be questioned or scrutinized (the type simply promises something which is abstract) I have found generally tend to usurp words and phrases to attach themselves to, when in fact the meaning is nothing to do with the authenticity of their claims. I mentioned this before. Option used Cause and Effect. Examine that relationship to faith or / and religion and it falls to bits. There is a desire in defence of such faiths to turn all notion of rationality on its head. Look how Optional uses the word Faith to mean EVERYTHING we need to have some confidence in. "Every time anyone gets in their car, they employ faith. Faith that the steering wheel will work, faith that the brakes will work, faith that other drivers will not run into them. Practical faith is a feature of daily living." When in fact driving your car has little to do with Faith in the context. FAITH IS: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny or (primary usage I think!) Complete confidence in a person or plan etc or Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person. Now when I drive my car ,none of those come to mind. I certainly do not have faith that the next driver wont crash into me. I don't expect or anticipate that to happen because of all the controls and codes of correct conduct that are applied by others in the manufacture, laws, directives which govern transport. The word Faith is out of context and used wrongly in an attempt to attach credence to a weak religious point. I have strong beliefs and faith. I believe they are stronger than religious beliefs and religious faith. Mine are no less valid than Options777. Only to him - as his are to me. Difference is, I do not make promises of Rewards or insist that following mine must be true. Just two reasons out of many why I consider my beliefs and faith to be meaningful, fulfilling and more relevant.
If anyone is attempting false argument jeez, In the rational reality of existence I wonder how the Egyptians coped when all the time that axiom 5 was problematical. So they shouldnât build the pyramids and they must therefore understand that they donât exist Strewth. Give me strength
Albert Einstein on: Religion and Science Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? A response to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers' Club of New York City. Published in The Christian Register, June, 1948. Published in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1954. Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion." As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach. As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals. more at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einsci.htm regards wild
Ok, you didn't say that -- I take it back. So you agree with me that people of faith can practice good sound science. Great! Now aren't you over-generalizing here? Who are you referring to? Are you grouping all people that are religious under a specific group that is unable to have a worthy debate? What is the debate about? You and I both know that debating god is futile, since there is no specific scientific testable proof that he must exist or cannot exist. It would be a circular debate. Did you ask every one of a religious background about their faith and come to this glaringly stereotypical view that people of religious are of fragile faith? For one who speaks for science, you sure did skip about 4 steps of the scientific process. Preposterous by who's standards -- yours? What if they're right? Wouldn't that be bad news for people? However, most people of the Christian faith are mistaken about hell because the translation from Hebrew to Greek made a very big mistake. Someone mistook "EON" to mean "ETERNITY." There is no such thing as eternal damnation in the Christian religion, but most Christians don't know this important but mistaken piece of information about their own religion. Again, what scientific process are you using to come to the conclusion that it doesn't work? Who does it not work for? To whom are you referring? What is your hypothesis? I want a clear concise hypothesis -- not some idle guesswork on your end. If one practices faith, how can that practice be faulty if they are merely practicing something in which they believe? What people? Atheists? Perhaps the Pope is only making the Catholic position known so that people who practice that particular religion are clear as to the Church's views on cloning? Since I am not Catholic, the pope's views have no affect on my own faith or practice thereof. Optional777, I hate to say it, is absolutely right. Unless you take the time out each morning to go through a scientific process to assure your vehicle is in perfect working order, you are relying on faith that it will not break down or cause an accident due to malfunction. We put this faith in the engineer's who design the car -- in the government regulatory agencies that make sure that the car passes certain requirements as well as placing faith in other drivers being able to operate their vehicles in a competent way. There is no way I can prove through science that the roads will be clear of drunk drivers within the city on a Saturday night, so I must resort to faith that I will be able to deal with that situation if it were to occur. The very essence of driving a car implies that the benefits one obtains from the use of a car will be more substantial than the possible negative repercussions of its use. Each time we step foot within a car, we become a possible statistic -- but since I am unable to test the millions and billions of possible parameters that must exist for me to drive safely from point A to point B, I must place faith "somewhere" where there is an absence of scientific knowledge or TESTABILITY. How do you know that Optional777's faiths are weaker than yours? Isn't that entire statement just pompous? You are basically saying that everyone of organized religious faith is weak while your egocentric personalized faith is superior? Just because you have specific life experiences that help you to formulate a specific faith viewpoint doesn't mean that your faith is any more or less relevant than mine or anyone else's viewpoint.