Why do you believe in YOUR religion

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

very true many do not like to feed from the channel that Jesus is feeding .

No, they just don't care to feed from the channel you are feeding.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Well as an engineer I find your scientific method flawed. You assert data where you haven't collected it. If you tout science or scientific methods then I would expect you to live and behave with science and scientific methods. Alternatively I recognize it is hypocricy when a person claims a virtue but doesn't themselves practice it.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think what I find fascinating is that atheists (whether also scientists or not) find it uncomfortable that there are many scientists and engineers that have a religion or consider themselves spiritual or are theists.

I haven't seen much in the way of real science attacking theism. I see a lot of people uncomfortable with theism and using science as the oppositional category, which is in fact unsubstantiated by data/evidence. Which makes their position just as counter-evidential as the positions they claim to oppose.

The theists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God exists.

The atheists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God doesn't exist.

Both claim that their experiences are the accurate ones, and the others are delusional or limited.

Am I the only person who finds this amusing? Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Everyone bickers about the details, and yet the spectre of common human cognition and behavior looms before us all...

I am pleased I had a great holiday with some real reading time!! Hopefully it has allowed me to try and bring more clarity and evolution to my debates here.

I love science. But it is not my "paradigm". I use science as a means to mentally and physically analyse the universe I inhabit. And I see now that in some sense religion is a science. A bad science using often flawed logic propped with dubious symbology as a smokescreen. I concede that often I am fairly interpreted to have a strong bias toward scientific over theological thought I am not a science theist. I am an Atheist.

Science in recent centuries has shown us many tricks of nature and allowed us to use them in ingenious and complex ways. Additionally I know we are animals because I live on a planet of animals. Evolution has so much empirical stature it seems madness to incorporate into any world view a paradigm in which it is not integral. So I use science as a theory that explains an important question to myself; " How did I get here ? "

I do not answer that question with science alone but with my heart and my instinct, entwined as they are, like anybody. But science has seen countless thousands of dedicated individuals add to the human base of knowledge in ways that demonstrably work for each of us all the time. And in this sense I see many of its findings supporting my idea that religion and science are two very different animals indeed. I use science, but mostly I just espouse my own personal philosophy using whatever half baked logic seems right to me. And it can only be half-baked, because I seriously doubt we are really equipped to see the totality of supernature. So I understand the clear limits of science.

The development of theoretical models on the nature of our universe has now proven ideas developed as mathematical models to be measurable and quantifiable into some product that we put to real use in our world. Relativity gave us the Nuclear Bomb and gave us a way to measure the age of the universe amongst many others. Quantum physics has been harnessed to provide a secure method of communication and there are working quantum computers. They, like chaos theory, hint at our next evolution of understanding in how nature (the multiverse) really works. As we talk and debate here there are a few special people that are particularly adept at looking mathematical explanations for how things connect. Most of the theories they work on will be superseded or rejected pretty quickly. Here, where science merges into a mathematical philosophy, is the only place science steps into anything grey. But mostly science unpeels the infinitely complex step by step using logic. That is nothing like religion. To be a theist in any meaningful sense you have to believe in some supernatural element(al) as a creator. Science does not presume a creator. Science is not a religion. And most crucially I as an Atheist do not have a religion called science! Science is a tool my philosophical self utilises to explain what little we can see. I think people choose to 'believe' in some creative element(al) but I see no evidence to support that contention I drum on about it not all having a rationally traceable causation in our species. One that requires no creator. But that is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. Therefore I conclude in reaffirming the statement that the act of trying to say that science defines Atheism or that Atheism defines science is a false one. And is one inherently imposed by the adoption of a creator paradigm. An Atheist is a philosopher not necessarily a scientist. The real debate on Atheism and religion is bound into philosophy. Religion nor science have sole claim to philosophy, that does not make them the same thing.


Apologise have no time to check or punctuate this post


tao

[Amica]

Hi Sherry,

I am a Muslim. For me, Islaam was the first faith I was introduced to and people who I grew up with considered themselves Muslims (even though many of them, like me back then, were not practicing Islaam).
In my teens, I was a bit confused. I read about many religions and met people from different backgrounds. But, the more I tried to get to know other than Islaam, for some reason, did not 'click' with my soul. The harder I tried to understand some religous/belief concepts about other religions, I would always end up with piles of questions and conclusions about things that did not make sense (for me personally).

Then, I started looking back to Islaam--to where it all really began for me. The more I read pro and against Islaam and its teachings, the more I leaned towards it. The more questions I had, the more answers Islaam seemed to provide. Suddenly, the faithful Muslims in my life and the sayings of wisdoms they gave me made sense. I began feeling more confident about the way I understand my life, my existance and everything that has happened to me.

But I am not done yet. Islaam is like a life's work. To understand it, you can never just read the Holy Qur'an, learn to perform the prayers and feel that you have graduated with a highest degree. You must continue studying it and practice it in the quiet of your own soul. I personally can literally feel the positive diffrence between who I was when I experienced spiritual confusion, and today when I feel more clarity and focus in my life. Plus the ever expanding knowledge that Islaam has brought into my life.

[Celeritas]

I do not "believe" in my "religion".

I *suspect* my *philosophy* to be the right way for me to approach life.


I feel the universe is analogous to an infinate organism. Endless repetition of an elegant pattern. I don't presume to know for a fact that there is a higher *quality* to the universe, I simply trust that there is. I choose not to attempt to define these things because I feel it is disrespectful in a sense to put words to an infinate and intangible universal conciousness.

and I must second the assertions that science is merely a tool. when a scientist publishes a paper for peer review, 1. it is merely inferences and observations based on evidence. 2. the scientist, by publishing, is very much asking others to test his results, attempt to verify them multiple times thereby lending credibility to the data.

science is a tool to understand the physical. religion and spirituality address the inner world of spirit and emotion.

and hi everyone by the way, i'm a n00b-E. =)

[Celeritas]

I do not "believe" in my "religion".

I *suspect* my *philosophy* to be the right way for me to interpret life.

I visualize the *universe* to be analogous to an infinate organism of which we are a part. And that our actions effect this organism is analogous to the electrochemical impulses in the body that are imperative to sustaining life. I don't presume to define the *universe* as sentient and sustaining, I merely trust that this is so. And to push any further definition in my opinion, would be disrespectful to said state of being.

And I must second the assertion that science is merely a tool.

A scientist who publishes findings for peer review is

1. Merely stating inferences and observations based on the available gathered data. They don't use the term "theory" lightly.

2. Very much asking to be proven wrong because rigorous analysis is scientifically pure.

Science is a tool to further our understanding of the physical. Religion and spirituality address concerns of the inner self. They don't mix. They can peacefully co-exist at a distance, but they are nowhere near the same thing.

[Celeritas]

my posts got all screwy and I tried to post the same idea a couple of times...whoops! many apologies my friends.

[juantoo3]

I don't know what it is about your initial posts and the moderation censors, but it keeps triggering.

I've brought it up for the admins attention, but for now you might not want to keep quoting yourself...it will only get hung up again.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No, they just don't care to feed from the channel you are feeding.

very true

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And I see now that in some sense religion is a science. A bad science using often flawed logic propped with dubious symbology as a smokescreen.

Yet it is a professor who grades your absorption that has the power to help you remove your smokescreens... that NO textbook ever will.

I will mirror your comment: I see how science is a religion. A faulty religion that helps the adherents to prop themselves up with duplicitous definitions and assertions as they utilize it to fake an understanding of self and their relationships with others.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Celeritas

Science is a tool to further our understanding of the physical. Religion and spirituality address concerns of the inner self. They don't mix. They can peacefully co-exist at a distance, but they are nowhere near the same thing.

Scientific conclusions and faith have different criteria for "truth."

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I see how science is a religion. A faulty religion that helps the adherents to prop themselves up with duplicitous definitions and assertions as they utilize it to fake an understanding of self and their relationships with others.

Science can be used that way.

[Celeritas]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Yet it is a professor who grades your absorption that has the power to help you remove your smokescreens... that NO textbook ever will.

I will mirror your comment: I see how science is a religion. A faulty religion that helps the adherents to prop themselves up with duplicitous definitions and assertions as they utilize it to fake an understanding of self and their relationships with others.

science is not about the self. pure science has nothing to do with the "self". there are no "duplicitous definitions in science, more like conceptions that exist in of themselves as a challenge, saying "Prove this idea wrong. if you try and succeed you have thankfully eliminated faulty science, if you try and fail, you have provided another rock for the concept to stand on."

science is nothing more than a tool. it has no metaphysical repercussions. science provides no moralistic or spiritual guidelines. in fact in many cases it raises moralistic questions but does nothing to answer them. example: you work to develop nuclear power because you wish to provide and energy source. but nuclear power is EXTREMELY dangerous. but it's not, never has been and never will be the responsibility of science to solve these kinds of paradoxes.

and it is NOT the professor who grades the absorbtion into the sciences. the professor gives you the tool called science. if your ideas and theories and hypotheses don't fit with what is taught, the very nature of science calls for you to test both the scientific establishment and your own ideas, subject them to immence scrutiny. though often when professors get old, they tend to putter around in the lab as opposed to work.

I call your attention to our most famous physicist Albert Einstein. a patent clerk. not a professor. in fact he could not get a job as a professor during his most prolific year. why? because his science was pure. observation, experiment, and analysis to the exclusion of all else.


to compare science to religion is to compare apples to oranges.

science is a process. a method.

[Celeritas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Scientific conclusions and faith have different criteria for "truth."

yes. very true. faith requires one thing, science requires another. are you implying that they cannot peacefully co-exist? because they can and do. and i'm not speaking of creationism here either. I have a faith of my own. I believe in a very specific spiritual ideal, that being a passive one, but is a spiritual one nonetheless. this has nothing at all to do with my scientific study.

a good book on this subject is the Meaning of it All: thoughts of a citizen-scientist by richard p. feynman.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I'm happy for anybody's good thing. If you like your religion that's great...for you. I find religion completely unnecessary. I find organized religion to be a repository of patently ridiculous nonsense. Utterly stupid, anachronistic crappiola that by all rights should have been disgarded centuries ago. But that's just me.

Chris

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I'm happy for anybody's good thing. If you like your religion that's great...for you. I find religion completely unnecessary. I find organized religion to be a repository of patently ridiculous nonsense. Utterly stupid, anachronistic crappiola that by all rights should have been disgarded centuries ago. But that's just me and you and....



tao

I'm happy for anybody's good thing. If you like your religion that's great...for you. I find religion completely unnecessary. I find organized religion to be a repository of patently ridiculous nonsense. Utterly stupid, anachronistic crappiola that by all rights should have been disgarded centuries ago. But that's just me.

[Bandit]

Freedom from religion is way more awesome & beautiful than any freedom of religion will ever know.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Celeritas

yes. very true. faith requires one thing, science requires another.

The problem I see with having faith and science as opposites is that either faith has been twisted into a self-willed belief rather than being the faith in the will of another, or that science has been twisted into a self chosen practice that can teach or prove everything rather than simply being the fruit of those who will teach and learn from each other. Perhaps both... it seems like those who see the two as opposites think merely in terms of a self-willed belief or practice.

I submit the smartest most evolved scientist growing up all alone on a deserted island will gain no more knowledge than a caveman who will be lucky if he ever discovers fire... and to be free of the religion of others requires the solitude like that of one growing up all alone on a deserted island. Definitely not opposites... very similar.