Poll Does God exist? Is science true ? (Multiple choice!)

[Brycesv1]

The problem arises when the majority population is swayed to believe science takes as much faith as religion, and that "I don't know, and neither do you" is a neutral position.

Agnosticism isn't neutral. It's the "I don't care to learn about what either of you have to say, but I'm superior by virtue of not having done so" option.

i just spoke about this with an agnostic man today... i have to say he was very stubborn to accept facts on any side of the argument

 

[fsci123]

My belief is far from orthodox...
I personally believe that god is made up by humans but does exist...
I dont believe he is a white male with a gray beard siting on a throne but it is possible that he may be the collectiveness of good deeds done by humans which is deservant of some thanks...
Evolution is true and though it may have a lot of pitfalls that we cannot eplain it is true...
Creationist lie terribly which i find so ironic considering major proponents want to please god by their "Proven Facts"...

 

[Linguofreak]

The problem arises when the majority population is swayed to believe science takes as much faith as religion, and that "I don't know, and neither do you" is a neutral position.

Well, the second of those statements is more of a problem than the first. Science does take as much faith as religion: It takes faith that your senses are accurate and that the way the universe is put together is such that two more-or-less identical experiments with more-or-less identical starting conditions will return more-or-less identical results.

The problem comes when people who realize that science takes faith then say "if it requires faith it's worthless", and from that take a "I don't know and neither do you" opinion and call it neutral.

Agnosticism isn't neutral. It's the "I don't care to learn about what either of you have to say, but I'm superior by virtue of not having done so" option.

Well, in the defense of the agnostics, they tend to believe that truth claims lead to hatred for those that disagree with ones truth claims, and therefore believe that by avoiding truth claims they can avoid hating others. So it's the "I'm superior by virtue of not doing things that would lead me to hate" option, or so they think.

The problem is that such an attitude tends to lead to a hatred for people that make truth claims, and there are several hidden truth claims in there that they don't see as truth claims, which makes them into hypocrites. (Which shouldn't be taken as too much of a condemnation: Not being hypocritical on at least one issue in ones life is... difficult).

Now that's not to say that it's always bad to say "I don't know". I'm uncertain of the age of the universe because two lines of evidence that I consider valid are in conflict, and I am uncertain of how to interpret the one that I would generally take as the final authority. But one certainly should not try to claim moral (or any other kind of) superiority because one doesn't know one thing or another.

 

[insanity]

Science does take as much faith as religion: It takes faith that your senses are accurate and that the way the universe is put together is such that two more-or-less identical experiments with more-or-less identical starting conditions will return more-or-less identical results.

The difference is one is that one is testable and lays no claims to absolute truth or certainty. One distrusts the human mind fundamentally, one asserts that the human mind can know fundamental truth.

The problem comes when people who realize that science takes faith then say "if it requires faith it's worthless", and from that take a "I don't know and neither do you" opinion and call it neutral.

The problem comes when people think the know the truth and are willing to ignore or twist shared reality to justify their notion of the truth.

 

[jedidia]

The problem comes when people think the know the truth and are willing to ignore or twist shared reality to justify their notion of the truth.

Indeed, but this is by no means an exclusively religious trait. It is a psychological phenomenon found in (I dare say) everyone, yet in some people a lot more than in others. Those tend to be either people too lazy for self-reflection, to scared of self-reliance or pursuing an agenda in which the admittance of that particular reality would be a major stumbling block. In all these cases it is astonishing how well a mind can hide lying to itself to keep itself together.

Certainly a lot of such people are found inside religion, but a lot of them can be found outside of them, too, so I'd classify this as a general problem of human nature.

 

[Wonderer]

I believe in God and yet I don't trust/believe in any religion.Buddhism would be closest to my likes, but it also has some things that I don't like.

I can't understand how some people see science and religion as opposites.In my view science answers the question "how?" and religion answers the question "why?".

 

[jedidia]

Oh wait. Let's say they would fire-and-brimstone Jesus himself.

Which they did, more or less... just that fire and brimstone weren't so popular until after revelations. The parable speaking most strongly on your point is actually found in matthew 25, although the samaritan can serve as an example too. I always considered that one to be refering to the danger of letting religious laws get in your way to do the right thing, though.

 

[Hmuda]

Here's my view on the two proposed questions:

1) God: I'm an agnostic atheist. I will not say that I'm 100% sure there is no god, but since none of the god-concepts presented to me hold any water, I'm also a non-believer. Wel...there are a few I'm gnostic about, like the old Greek gods, or most of what was written in the Old Testament are bull. But today's mainstream god-concept is so watered down and unprovable that I really couldn't bother. Also: just because we don't know, doesn't mean God did it. There is no shame in acknowleding one's own ignorance, but there is great shame in giving up on fixing said lack of knowledge.

2) Evolution/Big-Bang: do I think they are absolutely true?
No.

Do I think they are the most accurate modles we currently have that explain the beggining of the universe and why do life is in the state it is now?
Yes.

Will I give up these models if a more accurate one arises?
Absolutely.

 

[Nazban]

2) Evolution/Big-Bang: do I think they are absolutely true?
No.

Do I think they are the most accurate modles we currently have that explain the beggining of the universe and why do life is in the state it is now?
Yes.

Will I give up these models if a more accurate one arises?
Absolutely.

Thats exactly the perfect way to see it, it is the most accurate idea that explains our universe AND you are ready to drop that idea IF a more accurate one arises, wish more people on the world followed that same style of thinking:tiphat:

 

[joertexas]

If the building is just a random heap of walls and prefabs, you hardly have problems claiming that the architect either does no longer go here, or has lost his mind.

Also, there is still the question then, which architect you are talking about. While Zaha Hadid is pretty easily recognized, Sir Foster is something for the real architecture fanboys. .

The earth is hardly a random heap. Everything we can see operates in an orderly manner. Yes, things are not quite what they are supposed to be, but the reasons emanate from a different realm (and, yes, there is more to existence than the physical universe).

C.S. Lewis? The Ayatollah of Fantasy literature? Better is relative there. The Green book of Gadaffi is also better if you compare it with the Red Book of Mao.

So, just because he wrote fantasy literature, he was incapable of writing something serious?

JR

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 PM ----------

I believe in God and yet I don't trust/believe in any religion.Buddhism would be closest to my likes, but it also has some things that I don't like.

I can't understand how some people see science and religion as opposites.In my view science answers the question "how?" and religion answers the question "why?".

If I were to talk to a Buddhist (and this is from my own very imperfect understanding of the religion's tenets), I would say that the enlightenment he seeks is found in Jesus - who stated outright that He is the way. BTW, that is *all* I would say

JR

---------- Post added at 11:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------

Further i wanted to report what i've been asked my colleg:

I've asked him, if God has created the Earth maybe 6000 or 8000 years ago, how it is possible, that the light of stars and galaxys, billions of lightyears away, is able to reach the Earth today!? That was the first time that he can't give me an answer of a question! :rofl::rofl:
But i think i know what he will answer me next:
maybe
first possibility: Satan has pushed the light faster than the speed of light
Or,
second possibility: All our measuring of the distance to the stars is wrong, the Earth is flat, and the stars are printed onto a cupola, and also you will fall down from the disc if you are travelling to far away from the coast.

Hail Prope! (I pray that the Probe will never hit the sky dome!)

I can offer two more possiblities:

1. Since God was able to speak the physical universe into existence (He said, and there was...), He created the light from each star, and caused it to spread everywhere else at the same time. So the stars and such would be visible from anywhere.

2. God created time itself, and so He simply advanced the rate at which time passes until the light spread naturally.

The one possibility I can cross off is Satan. He never created anything. He is a created being himself.

JR

 

[Urwumpe]

So, just because he wrote fantasy literature, he was incapable of writing something serious?

No, I mean that he was just copying wildly public domain material for his books - the Bible. Lewis had some missionary zeal there, which sadly makes his stories pretty much boring.

Tolkien was way better in this context, especially his interpretation of religion in the Silmarillion.

 

[insanity]

The earth is hardly a random heap. Everything we can see operates in an orderly manner. Yes, things are not quite what they are supposed to be, but the reasons emanate from a different realm (and, yes, there is more to existence than the physical universe).

How can you be so certain there is more or that this isn't just a random heap? I'll admit that physics, the universe, and life are beautiful and sublime, but I don't need a creator or a supernatural realm to enhance my appreciation of it. The fact that I'm a small mote of dust in an infinite and, to some extent, unknowable universe makes this plane of existence more than enough for me. I love that I can not be certain about 'ultimate reality' because it places the impetus on me to just be a good person instead of worrying about divine retribution or reward for my deeds.

What's more, the sheer ability for me to understand that the same force that makes an apple fall from a tree is the same force that keeps the planets in motion is amazing. I think our ability to rationalize a place in the universe using methodology that recognizes uncertainty but still seeks to build better and better models is what makes our species truly amazing.

However, with all of that said, nothing suggests to me that there has to be something more. Personally, I think harboring hope for a more perfect realm detracts us from enjoying what is great about where we live and from making the changes to improve the conditions on this planet for all life.

If I were to talk to a Buddhist (and this is from my own very imperfect understanding of the religion's tenets), I would say that the enlightenment he seeks is found in Jesus - who stated outright that He is the way.

So your religion is the truth and 'the way' but you admittedly don't have a deep understanding of others? How can you be sure your path or your god is more correct than others? Many religions have central figures who claimed to be 'the way', surely not all of them can be entirely accurate. A person born and raised Hindi might disagree about Jesus being 'the way', just as you (who comes from a judeo-christian background) is certain that the Semitic god is the truth. Instead of trying to proselytize, why not seek to find common-ground as human beings and put aside theological differences.

 

[Quick_Nick]

The argument that Earth is too perfect is one of the poorest arguments in my opinion. Of course it's perfect for life as we know it. If our planet wasn't just right, we wouldn't be here to question it. (but maybe some aliens would instead be amazed at the wonderful world their god created, with such a wonderfully methane-rich environment)

 

[joertexas]

So your religion is the truth and 'the way' but you admittedly don't have a deep understanding of others? How can you be sure your path or your god is more correct than others? Many religions have central figures who claimed to be 'the way', surely not all of them can be entirely accurate. A person born and raised Hindi might disagree about Jesus being 'the way', just as you (who comes from a judeo-christian background) is certain that the Semitic god is the truth. Instead of trying to proselytize, why not seek to find common-ground as human beings and put aside theological differences.

It isn't *my religion*. Religion is man's idea of God, and I don't believe the way I do because I've been convinced by rational argument that what I believe must be the truth.

Everyone insists on being convinced by argument - we all want to test God to prove Him correct before we believe. It doesn't work that way. It never has worked that way, and it never will. I have no interest in arguing with a Hindu, a Muslim, or even a Catholic. Argument willl never convince anyone - theology is worthless in the end.

What matters is that I simply be a witness to what God has done for me, personally. I have experienced things that no one can explain away, and even that is not ultimately why I believe. I have have seen people healed, I've seen them turn their lives around, and that is only the beginning.

Further, I understand that God touches people of all faiths. I don't profess to understand it, but I do know that Gods loves all of us equally. Therefore, I have no need to debate with anyone. In the end, the truth will be made plain to all.

JR

 

[andysim]

If there is a God then he gave me the power of reasoning. The power to make up my own damn mind about the world I see around me. Religion has been responsible for so many wars and lost lives, it has a lot to answer for. Its been forced on people for many many thousands of years and its time to stop.

Believe what you want and be happy with it. It maybe that we are just an accident in the deeps of time and never to be repeated but I do not brush aside the possibility of a higher being. As for the afterlife? well I dont remeber a single thing from before I was born so why should there be anything after I die?

 

[Hmuda]

Many religions have central figures who claimed to be 'the way', surely not all of them can be entirely accurate.

My favorite quote regarding this argument from a podcast I listen to regularly:

All of them cannot be true. But all of them can be wrong.

 

[jedidia]

Argument willl never convince anyone - theology is worthless in the end.

Not true. Argument can't convince everyone, but there have been people that have converted to a religion based on argument. The mentioned C.S. Lewis was one of the most prominent, but I should suppose not the only one.
I agree however that logical argument isn't the usual means by which someone can come to faith.

One thing you seem to have gotten completely wrong is that theology is only about argument. Apologetics are only a (rather minor) branch of theology. Theology deals majorly with who god is, not with proving him.

 

[joertexas]

Not true. Argument can't convince everyone, but there have been people that have converted to a religion based on argument. The mentioned C.S. Lewis was one of the most prominent, but I should suppose not the only one.
I agree however that logical argument isn't the usual means by which someone can come to faith.

One thing you seem to have gotten completely wrong is that theology is only about argument. Apologetics are only a (rather minor) branch of theology. Theology deals majorly with who god is, not with proving him.

Okay, I will agree to a point that theology deals with who God is. However, that is still of little use as a means of finding Him. God is a spirit, and He draws us to Him by spiritual means, not by appealing to our intellects. Once He has reached us, then the theology can help us understand, but not before.

JR

 

[Ghostrider]

Oh, give credit to the Creator. I think She appeals to our intellects alright. What is the Universe if not a giant, exciting riddle within a mystery which we're kinda supposed to unravel?

 

[jedidia]

However, that is still of little use as a means of finding Him. God is a spirit, and He draws us to Him by spiritual means, not by appealing to our intellects.

In my expierience, God aproaches different people differently. For me it was by compassion and intelect mostly, I'm not too good in the spiritual or mystical departements.