SCIENCE VS RELIGION

[FrankChurch]

Ben, didn't know you were religious.

The thread is called Science Vs Religion, which would be like calling a thread, Running vs bug collecting. Two separate avenues. Science is based on anomalies, always updating, religion is about more esoteric topics, things that belong in what creates poetry or why you respond to a certain song.

Science is what science is, religion is what it is. You cannot use science to disprove or to prove God since you cannot put God in a petrie dish. You either have a conscious decision to believe in something greater than you or you do not. It's hard to explain my belief in God. I believe it. I feel God gives me ethics.

[Rick Keeney]

We now return you to the land of hyper-generalized horse hooey.

[Lori Koonce]

Hey Frank

Truth, beauty and whole host of other esoteric things are believed in by a lot of people who don't happen to believe in your version of god. You expect me to respect you and what you believe in,when the hell are you going to give me the same damned courtesy?

[FrankChurch]

You didn't give Barber the courtesy when he said to respect both sides.

[Steve Evil]

Running vs bug collecting.

Hmm. . .maybe that should be a thread! Welcome back Frank.

[Moderator]

You didn't give Barber the courtesy when he said to respect both sides.

Yeah.

Most people are hellbent on telling me where they were wronged, but get very upset when I point out the drama goes both ways.

Just saying'.

[Lori Koonce]

Frank

Show me where I've been disrespectful to You or barber. Your last post was filled to the brim with generic ideas about atheist thought systems. If Ezra or I had done that to Christians or Christianity you'd have pitched the same fit for the same reason

What the hell makes you and your believe system so superior to me and mine that you can think you should get special privileges? Barber never gets my wrath because he doesn't present himself better than I am an you often do.

[Rick Keeney]

I believe Rick suggested a forum where we can air grievances without necessarily taking hte moderator to task (which I think we can all agree is unproductive at best, and disrespectful for certain.) Maybe that's a good idea.

[Ezra Lb.]

Barber wrote

There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking the questions if you listen to the answers and do not criticize the person giving them to you. Believers are often correctly accused of arrogantly asserting the primacy of their beliefs. I would assert the same is true of the atheists who, rather than simply nodding and walking away, strongly charge those who believe with not paying attention to reality.

You are seriously saying that religion is beyond criticism? Really?

As I've told my friend Susan K. Perry, even the claim and use of the term "rational" by atheists immediately cloaks anyone with a religion in "irrational" clothes.

Yes I privilege rationality over irrationality? You don't? Really?

I personally don't believe in Islam or Christianity. As such, I don't bother trying to prove or refute either of them, and certainly don't spend much time defending myself or attacking the beliefs of others. What I do criticize is the hypocritical assertions on both sides that the other isn't listening.

I consider it a responsibility as a thinking human being to speak out against dangerous or destructive or even foolish ideas. To be silent is to be culpable. Beliefs have consequences. We're not arguing in an ivory tower here. There's nothing hypocritical about my views.

They are, but neither side accepts what the other is saying.

And, by definition, cannot.

Which is just an admission that not all points of view can be reconciled. To many questions there are right answers and wrong answers. Not all roads lead to Rome. There is either a god or there is not. How can you know? Well one way is by recourse to evidence. If there is another way I'd like to hear it.

I want to believe as many true things as possible and not believe as many false things as possible. And no I don't respect anyone who doesn't share this point of view. Why should I? I just feel lucky to be able to speak out without getting burned at the stake. It hasn't always been that way. It's not that way now for much of the world.

[FrankChurch]

I criticize bad ideas all the time, like bad views about Islam without knowing the full history. The point is that all sides have people with loopy ideas and use fundamentalist values to protect their carrion.

------------

There is quite a difference between saying that religion got me off drugs and saying God told me to kill a bunch of kids. If Ezra cannot see that I don't know what to say.

Most of my heros are atheists. That seems pretty simple but people miss it.

[Ezra Lb.]

You guys are swarming me. But oh how I love the swarm!

There is quite a difference between saying that religion got me off drugs and saying God told me to kill a bunch of kids. If Ezra cannot see that I don't know what to say.

I see the difference Frank because by my frame of reference there is no such thing as metaphysical evil or good but only acts which can result in outcomes which we may label evil or good. I have a utilitarian or consequentialist ethic. And these acts are motivated by the personal psychology of the person who took the action. I see no evidence otherwise.

However from the frame of reference of a Christian believer, who believes that God speaks to people and motivates their actions, yet nevertheless rejects calls for evidence to demonstrate that this is true, it seems to me there is a real philosophical problem. Let me explain.

Take two people who believe that god has spoken to them and motivated them to act. One believes god told him to take his money and build a hospital for children. The other believes god told him to take an Uzi down to the nearest Burger King and kill everybody in the place.

How do you explain to a dispassionate observer which believer had the authentic revelation other than by personal preference?

You can’t appeal to personal experience. Both are equally convinced of the reality of their experience.

You can’t appeal to scripture. There are instances in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament of god appearing to people and instructing them to do both beneficial and destructive acts. Helpings and killings galore.

You could appeal to consequences but that’s what I do. No revelation required.

So let’s say you give up and admit it will be necessary to provide some evidence for your claim to make a distinction between the two. What evidence would that be? The first thing you have to do is show some evidence that god speaks to anybody at all. You think one of them is wrong. If so, why can’t they both be wrong?

Do you see the problem? If so I’d love to hear your solution. If you don’t see the problem then I’d love to hear why you don’t think it is a problem.

[Rick Keeney]

You guys are swarming me. But oh how I love the swarm!

There is quite a difference between saying that religion got me off drugs and saying God told me to kill a bunch of kids. If Ezra cannot see that I don't know what to say.

I see the difference Frank because by my frame of reference there is no such thing as metaphysical evil or good but only acts which can result in outcomes which we may label evil or good. I have a utilitarian or consequentialist ethic. And these acts are motivated by the personal psychology of the person who took the action. I see no evidence otherwise.

However from the frame of reference of a Christian believer, who believes that God speaks to people and motivates their actions, yet nevertheless rejects calls for evidence to demonstrate that this is true, it seems to me there is a real philosophical problem. Let me explain.

Take two people who believe that god has spoken to them and motivated them to act. One believes god told him to take his money and build a hospital for children. The other believes god told him to take an Uzi down to the nearest Burger King and kill everybody in the place.

How do you explain to a dispassionate observer which believer had the authentic revelation other than by personal preference?

You can’t appeal to personal experience. Both are equally convinced of the reality of their experience.

You can’t appeal to scripture. There are instances in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament of god appearing to people and instructing them to do both beneficial and destructive acts. Helpings and killings galore.

You could appeal to consequences but that’s what I do. No revelation required.

So let’s say you give up and admit it will be necessary to provide some evidence for your claim to make a distinction between the two. What evidence would that be? The first thing you have to do is show some evidence that god speaks to anybody at all. You think one of them is wrong. If so, why can’t they both be wrong?

Do you see the problem? If so I’d love to hear your solution. If you don’t see the problem then I’d love to hear why you don’t think it is a problem.

I think you're on the wrong website, Poundman.

[Ezra Lb.]

Maybe you're right.

[Rick Keeney]

Maybe you're right.

I was referring only to this line of conversation.

You're asking questions that many Christians struggle with. I think a theologian would give better, more meaningful answers than I can.

[Steve Evil]

------------

There is quite a difference between saying that religion got me off drugs and saying God told me to kill a bunch of kids.

Of course. The main difference is the choice made by that individual. I've never denied that religion can bring out the best in some people. I've maintained however that this probably has more to do with the quality of the individual than the quality of the religion. . .