People always ask if you can prove that what you believe is factual (which defeats part of the purpose of faith). I never see people explain the significance in knowing. confused
I can imagine a large part of this is explainable by the fact that many think a) religion is stupid and detracts from one's intelligence, b) religion interferes with law, and/or c) religion is somehow an evil entity that must be destroyed for the world to know true peace.
First of all, let's make this clear - proving religion or disproving religion does not mean you prove God or disprove God, because God and religion do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. God is not a name given to any one specific religious gods. "God" is a supreme being, a superior existence that instigated the concept of creation and bears the concept of destruction. Life and death, per se. The beginning and the end. God has always been here, God has always simply been. God always will be. Who or what "God" is is left up to interpretation. This could be anything from the concept of a force to the very God that most of you think of when you hear the word - the Christian God.
Ah, the Christian God. I'll go down the list here. Letter A, religion is stupid. By what model? Science? This seems to be the popular answer to such a question, so allow me to drive that claim into the ground. I cannot say it any better than a fellow agnostic from LJ, so allow me to quote (and keep in mind I have posted this once before; here's to those who didn't have a chance to see it):
Quote:
I often hear people in this community talk about how "religion" scares them (more specifically, the Abrahamic brand) by retorting to the use of claims of social injustice, oppression, hatred, violence - the list goes on. It also supposedly promotes irrational beliefs in "fairytales" and serves as an excuse to remain willfully ignorant and bigoted. And while the fear of religion is all nice and dandy, there is one thing that should be feared more: "science."
It simply amazes me how few people seem to know anything about the subject; I hear statements like "I strongly believe in scientific method!" and it leaves me utterly aghast. What the hell does "believing in the scientific method" even mean? Scientific method is not a belief, an ideology, or a gateway to truth, and most of all scientific method is not an insight into the inner philosophical workings of the universe. Scientific method is, in all its glory, nothing more than a tool - a "belief" in scientific method is on par with a belief in a DeWalt power drill. For analogy's sake, consider the natural behaviors of the universe to be outputs of an invisible machine with invisible parts but visible products. When we drop a bowling ball from the Tower of Piza, we see a visible product (the ball falls), an invisible part (the "gravitational force" acting on it) and an invisible machine (the actual law which governs this behavior.) Science is merely the process of trying to build our own machine to emulate the outputs of the giant invisible machine, and scientific method is merely the tool used to observe what exactly the giant invisible machine's outputs are. That's it. There's no "belief" involved anywhere in the model. Or truth. Or philosophical commentary. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
And yet, "science" is neatly wrapped and packaged for vapid consumerism. Ignorant blokes run about spouting off things like "I don't like religion, I like science!" as if the two had even the remotest of connections; such a phrase makes about as much sense as "I don't like baroque art, but I like hydraulic car jacks." As the scientific process has paved the way for remarkable technological advancement, quality of life improvements, and all-time-high streaks of longevity, its societal benefits have caused its conflation from being a mere tool to a full-blown philosophy. Science has become to many a "pursuit of truth," and one's claiming to believe in its merits it allows a supposed moral high ground - I believe in science, and science is truth because it is empirically tested. Empirical testing allows for nothing more than the repeated refinement and accuracy of our models. It does not generate truth, it generates stuff like this:
There is no "truth" in the Moody Diagram. The Moody Diagram is simply a model generated by testing fluid flows at different velocities in different types of pipes. When an engineer or physicist wants to know how his fluid will behave given certain conditions, he/she uses this table to estimate the Reynold's number. That's it. Moody and his colleagues were not "pursuing" truth when they compiled the chart - they were simply testing different conditions and making observations based on what they saw.
Which leads me to my point: if there is anything science is not, it is a pursuit of truth. The second any scientist claims any of his/her work is truth is the second he/she stops being a scientist. If you take my field of proficiency, for instance, one of the first things stressed to civil engineers is that your applications of physics surmount to little more than assumptions and guesswork -there is always the possibility for things to happen that you do not know about. Our increasing knowledge of material behaviors, soil properties, and all such mechanical studies helps us make these assumptions and guesses more and more accurate, but they never stem beyond being just that; mechanical physics does not speak at all to the "truth" of natural law, it merely exists as a really damn good model that we keep making better and better.
And where am I going with all this? To be frank, I'm abhorred at the blatant and utter defilement of a once pure and dignified entity. Many draft up science to be some philosophical antithesis to religion, and in the process inject cultural and personal taint into a supposedly objective and chaste methodical system. If those of you who profess to love science so much are actually sincere, learn a thing or two about it before opening your mouth. Stop touting "science" as the provider your whimsical notions of truth and love and justice and equality and whatever other bullshit you fantacize about it producing.
Society does indeed have increasing problems with fairy tales, and I assure you it has nothing to do with religion.
It simply amazes me how few people seem to know anything about the subject; I hear statements like "I strongly believe in scientific method!" and it leaves me utterly aghast. What the hell does "believing in the scientific method" even mean? Scientific method is not a belief, an ideology, or a gateway to truth, and most of all scientific method is not an insight into the inner philosophical workings of the universe. Scientific method is, in all its glory, nothing more than a tool - a "belief" in scientific method is on par with a belief in a DeWalt power drill. For analogy's sake, consider the natural behaviors of the universe to be outputs of an invisible machine with invisible parts but visible products. When we drop a bowling ball from the Tower of Piza, we see a visible product (the ball falls), an invisible part (the "gravitational force" acting on it) and an invisible machine (the actual law which governs this behavior.) Science is merely the process of trying to build our own machine to emulate the outputs of the giant invisible machine, and scientific method is merely the tool used to observe what exactly the giant invisible machine's outputs are. That's it. There's no "belief" involved anywhere in the model. Or truth. Or philosophical commentary. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
And yet, "science" is neatly wrapped and packaged for vapid consumerism. Ignorant blokes run about spouting off things like "I don't like religion, I like science!" as if the two had even the remotest of connections; such a phrase makes about as much sense as "I don't like baroque art, but I like hydraulic car jacks." As the scientific process has paved the way for remarkable technological advancement, quality of life improvements, and all-time-high streaks of longevity, its societal benefits have caused its conflation from being a mere tool to a full-blown philosophy. Science has become to many a "pursuit of truth," and one's claiming to believe in its merits it allows a supposed moral high ground - I believe in science, and science is truth because it is empirically tested. Empirical testing allows for nothing more than the repeated refinement and accuracy of our models. It does not generate truth, it generates stuff like this:
There is no "truth" in the Moody Diagram. The Moody Diagram is simply a model generated by testing fluid flows at different velocities in different types of pipes. When an engineer or physicist wants to know how his fluid will behave given certain conditions, he/she uses this table to estimate the Reynold's number. That's it. Moody and his colleagues were not "pursuing" truth when they compiled the chart - they were simply testing different conditions and making observations based on what they saw.
Which leads me to my point: if there is anything science is not, it is a pursuit of truth. The second any scientist claims any of his/her work is truth is the second he/she stops being a scientist. If you take my field of proficiency, for instance, one of the first things stressed to civil engineers is that your applications of physics surmount to little more than assumptions and guesswork -there is always the possibility for things to happen that you do not know about. Our increasing knowledge of material behaviors, soil properties, and all such mechanical studies helps us make these assumptions and guesses more and more accurate, but they never stem beyond being just that; mechanical physics does not speak at all to the "truth" of natural law, it merely exists as a really damn good model that we keep making better and better.
And where am I going with all this? To be frank, I'm abhorred at the blatant and utter defilement of a once pure and dignified entity. Many draft up science to be some philosophical antithesis to religion, and in the process inject cultural and personal taint into a supposedly objective and chaste methodical system. If those of you who profess to love science so much are actually sincere, learn a thing or two about it before opening your mouth. Stop touting "science" as the provider your whimsical notions of truth and love and justice and equality and whatever other bullshit you fantacize about it producing.
Society does indeed have increasing problems with fairy tales, and I assure you it has nothing to do with religion.
With that in mind, I'd like to remind everyone that religion, including a lack thereof, is nothing more than an opinion - once you use it as a model for facts, you engage in argumentum ad ignorantiam. Antitheists are especially prone to this logical fallacy. Religion is not by fact "stupid" and those who are religious are not by default unintelligent. In your opinion, they very well may be. But a claim such as "ur stopid god isnt real" neither reflects your opinion as just an opinion nor serves as proving your point - it does quite the opposite.
Anyway, I digress from the subject, that being whether or not God's position as "real" or "fake" matters in the long run. Letter B - does religion interfere with the law? In many countries, yes, both directly and indirectly. Indirect religious influence is less obvious, of course, but still fairly evident. However, are these influences solely religious in nature? For instance, abortion and gay marriage. Opposition to both is often viewed as a religious stance, but neither are exclusively religious in nature, so it's impossible to state that both oppositions exist only because of religion. Furthermore, I'm not sure I understand what's so bad about religion being a partial model for law anyway. Most laws established by religion (emphasis on most) are morally or ethically sound. In any case, what else do we base laws on? That's right - opinions on how things should be run. It doesn't matter which way you cut it, the basis by which we create or enforce laws is about as logical as the next proposed basis. It's all established on emotions and subjective rationality, perhaps even a little cultural relativism. For those of you who complain that because you don't believe in X god or religion, you shouldn't be subject to religious rule, where do you draw the line? Take out the religion factor. Pretend those laws have nothing to do with religion. Now what do you blame? What do you get to pin these laws on so as to claim they don't apply to you?
Religion is, in fact, often used to control others. But this is not a practice only known to religion. Every single civilisation in the history of mankind has used some form of method to control the people. Without order, you can't have civilisation. Religion's effects on your life mean very little considering without religion there would still be rules by which you must follow.
Lastly, letter C - that if religion was out of the picture, the world would be a better place. First of all, it's impossible to know this. Coulda-woulda-shoulda issues can't really even apply because they can't be proven. But for the sake of the conversation, let's apply it anyway. Many wars and deaths and otherwise heinous crimes have been committed in the name of God and/or religion. However, religion is not particularly to blame here. Human beings are animals and we are often driven by the most basic of instincts. Instigating war, killing, and otherwise harming others are not religiously exclusive acts. You see them all throughout history regardless of the religious views of those involved. My point is that even if religion was out of the picture, these things would still happen. Even worse, people would find something else to blame for it.
A random point: even if you were to disprove religion, people would still believe it. Seriously, think about it. It's futile. Horrible and benevolent acts in the name of God will not disappear if God is to be disproven, so to assume that if God and religion were deemed false it would solve all the world's problems is to be irrationally dull about the subject. In my own opinion, of course.
I've brought these up only to finally suggest that religion isn't detrimental. All in all, religion and God may very well be concepts conjured up by humans. They also might not be. But why does it matter so much to the point where people will insult each other over opinions? Each opinion is not particularly as valid as the next, but they are all still opinions. Who cares who's right? You can't know for sure anyway, and as long as you're happy in your beliefs, others' beliefs should be none of your concern. You're neither better nor worse than others because of your religious views, so when you imply otherwise, be it through conversion attempts or through simple "no u" arguments, you're implying that there is room for improvement, which thus implies that your views are the model for such improvement. This is untrue.
I can only deduce that people ask others to prove/disprove God's existence 1) knowing it can't be done and 2) assuming that the result (or lack thereof, I should say) will somehow give them a remote amount of personal satisfaction. I can imagine this satisfaction allows them to believe that they have somehow accomplished something worth being proud over, much like a child would be after they conjured up some clever "your mum" retort and managed to get the last word.
I encourage everybody to explain this to me if they feel otherwise, though. I am genuinely curious as to what the significance is of asking an unanswerable question.
This is not meant to be an anti-atheistic or anti-theistic discussion in nature. It is, however, meant to be respectful. CAN WE DO IT? ED couldn't.
