[steingar]

I've seen a fair amount of religious discussions here, and just saw this on CNN. Francis Collins is one of the world's top geneticists, and has spearheaded the work to sequence the human genome. He is also profoundly religious, and embodies the idea that one can embrace both science and religion.

[slorider18]

i agree

[sinfuldragon]

I can't see why you can't have logic and hope at the same time. I'm just more of a Karma kinda guy than a big guy in the sky type

[analogbear]

I fully read the article, and I find it interesting that the scientist takes a zero-sum position, a nearly scientific-pose, when accepting faith...It seems, contrary to much in the world of reason, that he is using his faith to justify faith in general...A grevious intellectual error for both a person of science and a person of faith.

There is a great book (again, not a complete work on the subject, there are none, but great none the less) called The Closing of the Western Mind...The Rise of Faith and the Death of Reason in which the story of faith's seeming trump of rational principles is exposited. The Christian faith specifically (because at the time, both Judaism and Islam encouraged scientific investigation), by denouncing every type of scientific inquiry, in an attempt to centralize power, deviated from the intellectual and rational investigative principles of the Ancient Greeks, and proclaimed that faith was above reason...That it trancended reason, when in point of fact it is inferior in every tangible, intellectual, and even emotional way.

Sure, a person has faith, but the faith alone is never usually enough...Even the most devout say they have EXPERIENCED or SEEN evidence of the rightness of their faith, and that is why they feel they can justify their faith...However, this clearly seems more like it is establishing that temporal and physical issues are still the most important pragmatically for all of us. Their mere faith was insufficient until they received some message, sign, or evidence (applicable only to them, sometimes) that the Bible, the Koran, or whatever, was the truth. When challenged, they all retreat to the samr, tired, but I have seen evidence of its truth...God showed me the way...Or, the mere Jesus is the Lord! bullshit of those not even willing to take the poseur-intellectual plunge and tell others what justified their faith, but you know something did...

I think it is great that people have their faiths.

But, who cares? We don't live in times that have lots of ignorant nomads, warlords, serfs, and aboriginal chieftans that would be convinced that natural disasters or coincidences are really the work of a --personal, anthropomorphic, concerned about one species on tiny planet in the whole of the universe-- diety.

Let us all, in the manner best in keeping with the religious-freedom principles that encouraged the first colonists to establish this nation, have our faiths, but keep them to ourselves...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Let us all, in the manner best in keeping with the religious-freedom principles that encouraged the first colonists to establish this nation, have our faiths, but keep them to ourselves...

Let that start with YOU!

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by leelover

Let that start with YOU!

that was really really funny

[slorider18]

here we go again......

[leelover]

Originally Posted by slorider18

here we go again......

what...

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by slorider18

here we go again......

[leelover]

You guys are obviously over reacting.
ABear is a man of reason, and will surely see that he is not somehow outside the scope of those who should keep their beliefs to themselves.


Probably just overlooked that when he posted...

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by leelover

You guys are obviously over reacting.
ABear is a man of reason, and will surely see that he is not somehow outside the scope of those who should keep their beliefs to themselves.


Probably just overlooked that when he posted...

Yeah.... I'm sure he'll see that now that you have pointed it out to him

[slorider18]

you know what....don't play dumb.

[slorider18]

wow, i guess sinful was right. i am slo.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by slorider18

you know what....don't play dumb.

Trust me, I'm not playin!

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by slorider18

wow, i guess sinful was right. i am slo.

we all have our moments

[slorider18]

i'm going to blame my computer, and then my connection speed.

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by slorider18

i'm going to blame my computer, and then my connection speed.

Okay but wasn't it you that said the bit to jeff about the first step is to admit the problem

[slorider18]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

Okay but wasn't it you that said the bit to jeff about the first step is to admit the problem

i just did. it's my computer.

[rideinonair]

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

You guys are obviously over reacting.
ABear is a man of reason, and will surely see that he is not somehow outside the scope of those who should keep their beliefs to themselves.


Probably just overlooked that when he posted...

Funny...I again didn't say anything about what I believed...I absolutely practice this...I have never, in a public/private forum, espoused any particular faith, while most of the critics of my rational/epistemological/philosophical/pragmatic position on spirituality-in-general have been unable to challenge me rationally, historically, or factually, and instead retreat to "faith" without reason.

My perpetual criticism of other peoples' sureness in their faith, and any brief history lesson about the Christian faith leading into the Dark Ages that I may have exposited is not the same thing as my proclaiming what my faith is, and then deriding someone for not believing just like me...Like lots of people here do...It is none of any of your business what I believe, unless, like one member sent, I receive a direct PM asking the question, then I will answer...Otherwise, it is my business...But, if you put it out there (your faith, I mean) don't be afraid of getting it cut off...(insert movie citation here...)

Originally Posted by leelover

Trust me, I'm not playin!

Thank you for admitting it, finally...

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

we all have our moments

We do, and I have more than most ...But, there was nothing in my post that any real person of actual faith could have found offensive or worthy of comment...Must have been the poseur-faithful ...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Let that start with YOU!

Oh, and this was the only part of my whole post you could comment on? What a shame...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Oh, and this was the only part of my whole post you could comment on? What a shame...

Do you not get it that your post is what YOU BELIEVE?

The whole thing is just more of the same stuff you have posted before...well not really I guess. You have changed your definition of faith, but then that is typical of your tactics.

[slorider18]

i just like to poke fun at you. i like to debate for the heck of it, but you often employ too many "isms" than i am not familiar with. but i do not think that science and faith have to exist seperatly. i do think there are cretain scientific "theories" that require just as much faith as any religion since they cannot be proved as well. The only "science" i try to combat is largely of the evolutionary school of thought. science in the observation of the natural world i think is a blast.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Do you not get it that your post is what YOU BELIEVE?

The whole thing is just more of the same stuff you have posted before...well not really I guess. You have changed your definition of faith, but then that is typical of your tactics.

You must be a fool, who obviously still can't read. Stating an opinion is not the same as proclaiming a faith, duh!

If one is to take any idea of faith seriously it must stand apart from mere opinion...And, where in this thread did I define faith? Are you a psychic?

Like most dogmatic religious savants, you mistakenly equate a criticism of faith in general with the proclamation of a faith...You sound like my wife...Criticism is not a declaration...Go back to school you moron. People should be required to test for a baseline intellect to earn a license to speak in public...You would fail. Your inability to do anything but cry foul is very sad...

Originally Posted by slorider18

[i] do not think that science and faith have to exist seperatly. [i] do think there are cretain scientific "theories" that require just as much faith as any religion since they cannot be proved as well. The only "science" [i] try to combat is largely of the evolutionary school of thought. science in the observation of the natural world i think is a blast.

What scientific theory requires the same faith as believing Jesus was resurrected?

Evolution is observable in the natural world.

If you don't see the effects of evolution, you don't read enough...Tons of journal articles get published every year about the evolution of various plants and animals, and the fact that all but a few hundred genes differ between us and chimps ougfht to show us something...Occam's Razor, dude...The most simple explanation is usually the right one...Even the scientist guy who's quote started this thread off (by proxy) didn't claim there was no such thing as evolution...He just thinks evolution is God's method for creating life this way here...I question that last part, both from a pragmatic perspective (who really cares who is right? Start with the really important stuff...Keeping people healthy, vital and alive) and from a rational perspective (there is no evidence of any supreme being, just some intellectual question about the big bang)

There was a big bang...We can look at the stellar fragments, the background radiation, etc...I grant you the causation problem, but there is nothing in ANY of the religious texts, NONE OF THEM that deal with the big bang directly, but all of them dealing, in a human-centered way, about THIS PLANET, and THESE HUMAN FORMS...How pathetic and arrogant (as oxymoronic as that might sound).

What really "caused" the big bang? NOBODY KNOWS!

There are no reputable physicists, scientists or intellectuals who deny that [For the record, right now my wife is watching the bachelor (dvr) so some of my anger is directed at that, not Lee] the big bang took place...Explanations for it are left to the religious, cosmological, and philosophical wing-nuts like us.

But, unlike most religious people, who demand you believe what they do or they tell you that you will go to hell, I will accept ALL faiths as human attempts to explain the cause of the big bang...All equally right and equally wrong.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Sure, a person has faith, but the faith alone is never usually enough...Even the most devout say they have EXPERIENCED or SEEN evidence of the rightness of their faith, and that is why they feel they can justify their faith...However, this clearly seems more like it is establishing that temporal and physical issues are still the most important pragmatically for all of us. Their mere faith was insufficient until they received some message, sign, or evidence (applicable only to them, sometimes) that the Bible, the Koran, or whatever, was the truth. When challenged, they all retreat to the samr, tired, but I have seen evidence of its truth...God showed me the way...Or, the mere Jesus is the Lord! bullshit of those not even willing to take the poseur-intellectual plunge and tell others what justified their faith, but you know something did...

So you are saying that the "person of faith" has experianced something that they believe evidenced a justification in their faith.
Right?

[leelover]

Ok, so now here is something you wrote in the "what is truth" thread, post #84 to be exact.
"The real issue is one of justification.

The Question: Are you justified in your belief that something is true?

If it is a fact in which you purport to believe, that is, if it is as I described facts above -testable- that seems an easy justification for the truth of the belief in it, as your belief is mirrored in nature.

However, if you are talking about an untestable thing, like a father's love for his child, you are really talking about an emotion...The belief that he loves his kid.

Belief then, really takes rationality --testable facts, reason, etc.- out of the equation. Belif is irrational. Harder then, to prove, but that is fine, as long as a justification can be found for your faith in the truth of something.

So, for someone else to take that faith in the father's fatherly love seriously the father must be able to do one of two things to justify that faith:

1-He must be able to point to behavior, that establishes the Justificationfor faith in that love (I spend lots of time with him, he wants to spend even time with me, he tells me he loves me, etc); or

2-He must be able to describe the object of his faith (perhaps outlining the characteristics of the nature of his son, for whom he has the love).

These requirements, if one or another is not met, necessitate a finding of untruth...Or really call into question an individual's faith.

You cannot have faith in something you do not know, cannot fathom, or can not describe.

You might say you have faith in some truth, but I would argue that you cannot have faith in something the essence of which you cannot know, because without knowledge of a thing you believe to be true, there is nothing to attach your faith to.

Without an understanding of the sense of the object of faith, he word faith then becomes the most patronizing, disingenuous, and valueless platitude ever uttered."

It sounds to me like you are saying here that there is no way a "person of faith" can justify their faith.
So what is it? If they believe because they have "faith" that is "justified" that is not right, they should have faith in faith according to you post referenced above in this thread. But then if you look at the post in the "truth" thread, you say that that very act is "mere emoting".
Makes no sense.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

You must be a fool, who obviously still can't read. Stating an opinion is not the same as proclaiming a faith, duh!

If one is to take any idea of faith seriously it must stand apart from mere opinion...And, where in this thread did I define faith? Are you a psychic?

Like most dogmatic religious savants, you mistakenly equate a criticism of faith in general with the proclamation of a faith...You sound like my wife...Criticism is not a declaration...Go back to school you moron. People should be required to test for a baseline intellect to earn a license to speak in public...You would fail. Your inability to do anything but cry foul is very sad...

Thanks for your unsolicited opinion of my abilities once again. I know that this is important to you and your style of "debate", so go ahead, swing away!

"If it makes you happy..."

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Thanks for your unsolicited opinion of my abilities once again. I know that this is important to you and your style of "debate", so go ahead, swing away!

"If it makes you happy..."

By posting a reply to my comment, you are soliciting my opinion...What are you, a retard? Hey! Retard! Try reading a retarded book! Wait, you do that exclusively already...

You can't debate, you know fairly little about not very much, you are incapable of responding thoughtfully to anything that challenges your faith or expresses an opinion that differs from your little comfort zone, you cloak your ignorance in faith, you first insult me, and then you get mad when I insult you back? Blow me, dickweed.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

So you are saying that the "person of faith" has experianced something that they believe evidenced a justification in their faith.
Right?

No, what I am saying is, that a person who claims to be of faith, requires some personal justification (not an epistemological justification, as that requires an ability to explain the nature of the thing to which you will attach the faith --the attachment issue; and an attempt to justify it to another --the relating issue-- All faith, in a religious sense, fails the epistemological justification because there is no way to justify the faith in a an all powerful all knowing being, because only human terms and experiences can give the context for discovery...Really insufficient if God does exist) in a disingenuous way, not in any real sense...No person of faith, if asked about their faith, is going to say, "No, I have never seen evidence of my faith around me, but I believe anyway." C'mon. But that kind of personal justification is not the same as justification as a term of art in epistemology. Deal with the attachment and the relating issues. Perhaps rationalizing is a better word than justification when dealing with the personal sphere rather than the attempt to share one's faith with others...Believe what you want, but if you wish to proclaim it TRUE, it better stand up to a test for truth. Otherwise, it is not faith, it is mere opinion masquerading as faith.

I was just trying to elucidate the fact that even religious people look to the natural world for support of their beliefs(as insufficient as philosophers may find that support, in a generalized sense), and that the lesson I feel is most important from that looking to the natural world is not support for any particular faith, but is really support for the pragmatic "Who cares? Deal with this world, don't settle for salvation."

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

It sounds to me like you are saying here that there is no way a "person of faith" can justify their faith.
So what is it? If they believe because they have "faith" that is "justified" that is not right, they should have faith in faith according to you post referenced above in this thread. But then if you look at the post in the "truth" thread, you say that that very act is "mere emoting".
Makes no sense.

I didn't see this post...Sorry.

No, there is no faith for faith's sake...I wasn't criticising the attempt to justify one's faith (I may find many of them insufficient to be called true or any kind of real faith) although I might think of this as rationalization (see above-my poor use of language). I viewed the issue here as a look to the natural world, and ultimately the rational world of science, by the faithful, to justify their faith; and that this really ought to show that a shift of the focus in life from the intangible religious stuff, that creates nothing but conflict, to the corporeal world of interpersonal relationships (instead of some ethereal supreme being and his decrees).