Here's one for the religious..

[PaliRichard]

The view that religious people hold who claim they can prove their religious beliefs with science.

 

 

 

I don't think the early scientists were trying to legitimate Biblical stories, I think they had strong enough faith that they were true at that time. I think they were trying to prove that God existed by looking for patterns, for proof of a rational design within nature. It's only since we've become sceptical of the Bible and developed more advanced techniques that we can now, for example, look back for scientific proof of a great flood or read the contemporary texts to see how well they fit the Bible stories.

 

 

 

I don't believe there is just one scientific method, there are many methods and these have altered and branched out as our understanding of the world has changed. Each scientist must first design the method of experiment before the experiment can go ahead. The underlying principle I agree, is that data collection is optimised, the experiment is repeatable and the interpretation is as objective as possible.

 

 

 

Well, I'm discussing the impact of western science and philosophy on religion so Christianity most fits the bill in this case.

 

 

 

Because it would mean that there was a rational underpinning to the basic building block of the Universe. Some interpret that as meaning that there was a rational creator behind it.

 

 

 

Because I like to give credit where it's due. Marx and I have come to the same conclusions through our very different life experiences, but seeing as he came first and influenced our culture in such a way that it's influenced me, I'm quite happy to credit him with it and not get too miffed that he didn't subscribe to 'Cavegirlism' when writing his thesis.

 

 

 

Hahaha fair enough.

 

 

 

This is precisely what I meant by you taking a pluralist view- the reductionist view is too simplistic for you because if you subscribed to it, I think it would undermine the basis of your faith or perhaps devalue the breadth of it- it turns the sacred into the mundane. No religious person could fully subscribe to the Marxist view, without it undermining their faith, which is why it was so powerful in undermining the Christian church. You're just being true to who you are and I respect that.

 

For me, I have no faith, I'm able to agree with the Marxist view (with a Cavegirl twist) which is actually far from simplistic if you recognise its social precursers and consequences. I'm glad you seem to like discussing things with me, I hope that's really the case because it often isn't when followed by a 'but'. As I've said, we just see some things differently and for me, that's a good position for an interesting debate.

 

 

 

An extremely sensible approach, but are you certain that what you define as lies, another doesn't perceive as their own truth?

 

 

 

I was trying to explain the basis of Buddhist pluralism here, so it was more of an aside. Yes I agree there's room for all beliefs or lack of (within reason), but I don't hold a pluralist approach to the human invention or design of gods. I agree there's been an evolution of ritual and later organised religion and I agree that once invented gods have evolved themselves, but I hold the view that all deities, at the point of invention, were brought into the world to serve some political purpose- there was a distinct social need that they fulfilled (or they wouldn't be adopted widescale) and I like the fact that occasionally we can discover evidence for that need.

 

 

 

Then you'll be pleased to know (and not to have to hear) that I play my guitar having pretty much zero knowledge of musical theory My perspective isn't about 'real life' because 'real life' can't be applied to the past; cultures, perspectives and behaviours change too radically even over relatively short periods of time (think back to the '70's). My perspective is about interpretation- how do we interpret what we uncover from the past, be it material remains or texts, in the most objective, sensible manner possible given what we know?

 

Perhaps one day someone will come along with evidence that the authors of the bible were constantly high on magic mushrooms and if so, I'll recognise that Freud's argument holds more weight than Marx's and change my opinion accordingly- do you see? It's not a static opinion, not do I present it as infalliable, just as the best I have at present.

 

 

 

Perhaps they just don't understand where their ideas come from enough to elucidate them on the forum? They've been influenced by our culture and their own specific environments and histories but perhaps they don't recognise how exactly. If they actually believe what they're saying then there will be some reason behind it, but if it isn't clear to them why, if they can't refer to specifics, then it could be daunting to try to open up about it on a forum.

 

 

 

I agree, it's a rubbish speaker that would do that and I hope he was pulled up strongly for doing it.

 

Phew, that was a long one- I need a cuppa now

 

and alas it was too long for me to respond to tonight. I'll get back to you on this tomorrow if it's ok?

 

Enjoy your cuppa

[Cavegirl]

and alas it was too long for me to respond to tonight. I'll get back to you on this tomorrow if it's ok?

 

Enjoy your cuppa

 

No problem, have a good evening and speak to you tomorrow

[janie48]

I'm interested to know whether you think there are important differences in Christian beliefs between yourself and the "fundamentalist, dogmatic" Christains to whom you refer; I assume you are an "undogmatic" Christian.

Yes they're are differences as I am sure you are well aware, but I don't see the necessity in discussing those differences on this thread topic.

And I don't think I am dogmatic in the way most people would interpret the expression..

 

.

[Waldo]

Hi Waldo.

 

The way I understand this is that we all have some morally binding view- e.g. that we all agree that torturing a baby is objectively morally wrong- even if some felt it was right, their subjective views may exist but it is not binding for the rest.

 

Hello.

 

Ah, does the fact of the majority subjectively considering a thing to be moral and right, actually make that thing objectively moral and right?

 

For example, if the majority of people considered torturing babies to be moral behaviour; would that make it objectively moral?

 

Naturally, I'd find that kind of thing extremely repugnant; but, is that because I've been conditioned by the social context within which I exist, or is it something else?

[Clown Shoes]

I met him in a cafe in Amsterdam.

[carosio]

Yes they're are differences as I am sure you are well aware, but I don't see the necessity in discussing those differences on this thread topic.

And I don't think I am dogmatic in the way most people would interpret the expression.. .

 

I don't think I suggested you hold a "dogmatic" stance, perhaps the opposite. I would have thought that science is relevant as regards these differences (post 1), and am disappointed that you have not been eager to champion and commend your corner of Christian belief, as opposed to the "dogmatic" side of it.

[Cavegirl]

Yes they're are differences as I am sure you are well aware, but I don't see the necessity in discussing those differences on this thread topic.

And I don't think I am dogmatic in the way most people would interpret the expression..

 

.

 

For what it's worth Janie48, I don't think you're dogmatic at all, in fact I think you're one of the nicest and one of the most open minded of the people I've met on this forum.

[janie48]

I don't think I suggested you hold a "dogmatic" stance, perhaps the opposite. I would have thought that science is relevant as regards these differences (post 1), and am disappointed that you have not been eager to champion and commend your corner of Christian belief, as opposed to the "dogmatic" side of it.

Then I'm sorry but you will have to remain disappointed because much as I would like to be, I am not qualified to speak with any authority on science.

 

My previous replies were responses to those comments made by other posters in which I gave a little detail about what I do know.

 

Not discussing the subject any further doesn't have to imply that I have no interest in science on some level, in fact I take quite a lot of interest in science/religion discussions and debates, as well as reading the odd book and various articles on the subject.

 

I have yet to come across anything that disproves the existence of God, and without wishing to sound smug about it, I'm not expecting to.

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2013 at 23:09 ----------

 

For what it's worth Janie48, I don't think you're dogmatic at all, in fact I think you're one of the nicest and one of the most open minded of the people I've met on this forum.

Thankyou Cavegirl that's a lovely thing to say, though not entirely deserved I don't think.

 

The feeling is mutual, and one more thing I havn't failed to notice about you, is that you are obviously very intelligent with so much knowledge, but never condescending.

[carosio]

For what it's worth Janie48, I don't think you're dogmatic at all, in fact I think you're one of the nicest and one of the most open minded of the people I've met on this forum.

 

I agree, my reference to dogmatism was not towards Janie, although I think she is careful not to reveal too much of why she follows her particular brand of religion in order to avoid the inevitable criticism.

 

Some people are reluctant to explain what leads them to believe certain things, particularly when their cherished religious beliefs are challenged.

[janie48]

I agree, my reference to dogmatism was not towards Janie, although I think she is careful not to reveal too much of why she follows her particular brand of religion in order to avoid the inevitable criticism.

 

Some people are reluctant to explain what leads them to believe certain things, particularly when their cherished religious beliefs are challenged.

If I was afraid to be challenged I wouldn't have continued to participate in these discussions, and anyone who is familiar with me from these type of threads will know that I have been challenged on many occasions, to the point that at times I have been utterly frustrated when not being able to supply answers to probing questions as has often been apparent in my attitude

 

My faith means enough to me to not deter me from continuing to subscribe to these type of discussions, be it only to pass the odd comment from time to time in response to some criticism of religious belief with an inclination to sometimes defend attacks on religion, but that's only when I see what I perceive to be misrepresentation or misunderstanding, because I value much of what they offer.

Actually I can be one of organised religious severest critics when it comes to some issues, which hasn't always gone down too well with some church members in past experience.

 

What religious denomination I belong to is really quite irrelevant.I have a connection with the Church of England and Catholic religions and know much about both, but church worship is not the main priority in my life.