Are there any problems with evolution?

[Krok]

It's magic , religion or abstract philosophy - whatever you choose to call it.

Not at all. Although magic and the claims made by some religious people are so similar, they end up being the same thing.

....but it's beyond science - no point in trying to prove it.

Why? If someone claims that his magic influences reality in some way, we certainly can and should investigate those claims scientifically.

I guess you are either a religious person or not.

I guess you either believe that Elvis talks to you or not.

Religion shouldn't enter science and science shouldn't enter religion - they just don't really mix and I can't see any reason why they need to.

I agree and disagree. I agree that religion shouldn't enter science and science shouldn't enter religion. I disagree in the sense that I'm all in favour of studying religious claims by using the scientific method. For example, when a Muslim claims that praying to Allah or Muhammed cures or cured someone with cancer, it should be investigated scientifically. If it were true, it would benefit all of humanity. Study it.

Saying that I believe in both at the same time yet keep them in separate compartments.

Aren't you at least a bit curious on whether your beliefs are compatible with reality?

If my beliefs were not compatable with reality, I would drop my beliefs immediately . Delusion is not a very healthy characteristic or personality trait. It might cause persons to fly into buildings to get 72 virgins after death.

That's why I don't have any "beliefs" in a religious sense.

 

[nnmartin]

I certainly don't believe in miracles in the sense that you can pray and God does things for you - what happens just happens according to the Laws of Physics. However as I've said before I also believe that the Laws of Physics were created by a deistic God, also that there is some kind of afterlife and reincarnation of sorts.

Religion to me is a kind of different abstract reality that I believe in but it doesn't really affect my daily actions.

 

[Krok]

I certainly don't believe in miracles in the sense that you can pray and God does things for you - what happens just happens according to the Laws of Physics.

Then what's the use of praying? The Universe won't listen to what you want.

However as I've said before I also believe that the Laws of Physics were created by a deistic God, also that there is some kind of afterlife and reincarnation of sorts.

Any empirical evidence for this, or is it just what you want to believe because you don't want to accept the fact that, when you die, you're gone? Just like you were before you were conceived?

Religion to me is a kind of different abstract reality that I believe in but it doesn't really affect my daily actions.

So let's see. Whether you believe or not believe or do or don't do any actions, things will not change? Exactly the same whether you believe or not? The Universe will act as it does no matter what you do? Why call it god, as we already have a name for it: The Universe.

 

[nnmartin]

To me there is no point in praying - it is not something I do.

I do however believe that you can tune into God through immersion in nature, meditation, crystals, and reading of scriptures amongst other things.

do you have any evidence that you did not exist before you were conceived?

You are correct in the sense that whatever you do things will not really change - but that isn't a factor that is necessary to believe in and revere God.

God created the Universe and is the Universe at the same time in answer to your last question.

 

[Krok]

To me there is no point in praying - it is not something I do.

Together with scientific studies conducted, which show that prayer does not change anything. So, you’re right, there’s no point in praying, exactly as would happen when there’s no god to hear your prayers.

I do however believe that you can tune into God through immersion in nature, meditation, crystals, and reading of scriptures amongst other things.

What you believe is of very little value. What you can demonstrate is what counts.

do you have any evidence that you did not exist before you were conceived?

Yes, no record of me existing in any way or form whatsoever before my mother fell pregnant. Then she fell pregnant; was pregnant for around nine months (I was lazy and was born 14 days late), and then I was born. Together with what we know about how women fell pregnant and what happens to the sperm and egg-cells, etc. , together with the evidence that children grow in “mummy’s stomach”, all the available evidence indicate that I did not exist before then.

You are correct in the sense that whatever you do things will not really change - but that isn't a factor that is necessary to believe in and revere God.

What anyone believes is not important. It’s what they can demonstrate that’s important.

God created the Universe and is the Universe at the same time in answer to your last question.

Any empirical evidence for this or do you just like your wishful thinking?

 

[nnmartin]

What anyone believes is not important. It’s what they can demonstrate that’s important.

I disagree there.

There are often times when you cannot prove something yet you know it to be true.

For example, if someone is suspected of stealing at work even though there may not be specific proof it's still fairly obvious who it is. If enough people think the same way the person in question may well get fired.

Definitive proof is not always needed , just a belief or faith.

And 9 times out of 10 the suspect does actually turn out to be the thief.

 

[Krok]

Hi nnmartin
It seems as if I have to explain why science works on evidence, not proof. I'll explain why in this short post.

Imagine I told you that I have a whole harem of fairies living next to my fish pond. You can think: OK, maybe, let's investigate.

What you can do is to examine the evidence. You can go and sit next to my fish pond and see if you can find any fairies over there. You can put in a camera to see if these fairies can be detected. Heat detector, laser beams, a dog, anything. You can do all kinds of things to try and detect these fairies. Even look for fairy foot prints in the mud.

If no evidence for the fairies next to my fish pond are detected, you have a good reason to conclude that those fairies don't exist. You can even think that I'm bat **** crazy. But you can never, ever proof that there's no fairies next to my fish pond.

Starting to get the drift? Evidence is used to draw conclusions in science. Not proof.

 

[Krok]

I'll repeat this, as my post disappeared.

I disagree there. There are often times when you cannot prove something yet you know it to be true.

That's why we use evidence. The word "know" normally also indicates "demonstrated to be true". As in, demonstrated with evidence cited.

For example, if someone is suspected of stealing at work....

Be careful. Rather look for evidence.

... even though there may not be specific proof it's still fairly obvious who it is.

If it's fairly obvious, it means that people detected evidence for it.

If enough people think the same way the person in question may well get fired.

Very bad idea. The majority of people have been wrong a lot of times. Rather go for evidence.

Definitive proof is not always needed, just a belief or faith.

Evidence is needed. Not belief or faith.

And 9 times out of 10 the suspect does actually turn out to be the thief.

Evidence normally leads us to accurate conclusions. Unlike belief or faith.

 

[WanderLust]

My main problem is that it doesn't come in pop-up book form for the anti-evolutionists to actually be able to understand it.

 

[painted wolf]

I disagree there.

There are often times when you cannot prove something yet you know it to be true.

For example, if someone is suspected of stealing at work even though there may not be specific proof it's still fairly obvious who it is. If enough people think the same way the person in question may well get fired.

Definitive proof is not always needed , just a belief or faith.

And 9 times out of 10 the suspect does actually turn out to be the thief.

And this is why innocent people get put to death.

wa:do

 

[nnmartin]

Proof, evidence , sources and the like are not required in religion, magic or philosophy. That is the whole point of it - it's what makes it work.

No-one will ever know if it's true or not except perhaps when they die.

Until someone can prove that supernatural beliefs do not exist (which I think is impossible) then the belief and magic of the unknown will continue.

Knowledge of science for all its good can also be a hindrance.

It can be like a dog chasing its tail around.

 

[camanintx]

Until someone can prove that supernatural beliefs do not exist (which I think is impossible) then the belief and magic of the unknown will continue.

I put "supernatural" in the same category and imaginary numbers and square circles, interesting from a theoretical standpoint but lacking any real existence. Until someone can prove that the supernatural exists, I don't see any need to base my beliefs on it.

 

[Krok]

Proof, evidence , sources and the like are not required in religion, magic or philosophy. That is the whole point of it - it's what makes it work.

I doubt that many philosophers would appreciate you bundling them with religion and magic. I think a lot of them would really be banging on your name on their computer screens, or swearing loudly.

No-one will ever know if it's true or not except perhaps when they die.

Just like no-one will know if fairies are true except perhaps when they die. In the meantime you can make informed decisions.

Until someone can prove that supernatural beliefs do not exist (which I think is impossible) then the belief and magic of the unknown will continue.

Keeping on thinking that those fairies in my garden exist, till they are proved to not exist, is not a logical decision and puts you on the same level as those people flying into buildings for 72 virgins. The logical decision is to not believe those fairies exist, until there's verifiable, empirical evidence that they do.

Knowledge of science for all its good can also be a hindrance.

Well, prayer has never produced a light bulb. Science has.

It can be like a dog chasing its tail around.

Only to people who wish magic would work, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[nnmartin]

I doubt that many philosophers would appreciate you bundling them with religion and magic. I think a lot of them would really be banging on your name on their computer screens, or swearing loudly

Think of the theology of Christianity - it's basically a spiritual philosophy.

they are very much linked - religion is like philosophy with a God or two added.

religion is certainly like philosophy if you study and think about it in any depth - inextricably linked.

 

[Krok]

Think of the theology of Christianity - it's basically a spiritual philosophy.
they are very much linked - religion is like philosophy with a God or two added.
religion is certainly like philosophy if you study and think about it in any depth - inextricably linked.

Not at all. Philosophy is a critical, systematic and rational approach to study general problems. From Wiki, Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument

From the third reference in that article; Anthony Quinton, in T. Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 666:

Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature.

Theology is one of the non-philosophical counterparts mentioned here.

 

[nnmartin]

playing semantics is a risky game - here are 3 definitions I've dug up to show that religion and philosophy can be 'bundled together':

1. (dictionary.com -'philosophy')

5.any system of belief, values, or tenets

Wikipedia

2. Religious philosophy is philosophical thinking that is inspired and directed by religion. Depending on religion, there are different philosophies for each religion:

3. Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy concerned with questions regarding religion, including the nature and existence of God, the examination of religious experience, analysis of religious language and texts, and the relationship of religion and science.


3-0 to Martin methinks!

 

[Krok]

playing semantics is a risky game - here are 3 definitions I've dug up to show that religion and philosophy can be 'bundled together': 1. (dictionary.com -'philosophy') 5.any system of belief, values, or tenets

No. You’re using the definition of philosophy as is used in general, by lay people, not as used by philosophers. I see you didn’t want to quote the number 6 on that list:
</SPAN>

6. a personal outlook or viewpoint

According to this definition, thinking that the referee at an ice-hockey game is incompetent, is also a “philosophy”. You also forgot to mention number 1 on that list:

1.
the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)

That’s philosophy as accepted and practiced by philosophers.

2. Religious philosophy is philosophical thinking that is inspired and directed by religion. Depending on religion, there are different philosophies for each religion:

May I remind you of the sentence you posted in your previous post:

Think of the theology of Christianity - it's basically a spiritual philosophy.

That’s the one I countered. Theology is not philosophy. I never denied or even hinted that there’s not a thing called “Christian Philosophy”. Theology certainly is not “Christian Philosophy”, though.

3. Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy concerned with questions regarding religion, including the nature and existence of God, the examination of religious experience, analysis of religious language and texts, and the relationship of religion and science.

I see you left a very important part out. I wonder why. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion

Theologians, distinct from philosophers of religion, often consider the existence of God as axiomatic or self-evident and explain, justify or support religious claims by rationalization or intuitive metaphors. In contrast, philosophers of religion examine and critique the epistemological, logical, aesthetic and ethical foundations inherent in the claims of a religion. Whereas a theologian elaborates rationally or experientially on the nature of God, a philosopher of religion is more interested in asking what may be knowable and opinable regarding religion's claims.
Other questions studied in the philosophy of religion include what, if anything, would give us good reason to believe that a miracle has occurred, what is the relationship between faith and reason, what is the relationship between morality and religion, what is the status of religious language, and does petitionary prayer (sometimes still called impetratory prayer) make sense?
Going beyond metaphysics, the philosophy of religion also addresses questions in areas such as epistemology, philosophy of language, philosophical logic, and moral philosophy. See also world view.

3-0 to Martin methinks!

If that’s what you think, it’s all-right. Luckily other people can read. You can’t bundle religion and philosophy together. Philosophers really get upset when you do this. Religion certainly is not like philosophy with a god or two added, at all.

 

[nnmartin]

How come when I go into most bookstores there is usually a Religion/Philosophy/Psychology section?

Really they should be in other parts of the store if they are so different.

Perhaps I can make a law claim against the bookshop?

All these things are to do with the mind - we can throw in Spirituality and New Age for good measure.

anyway,i t's all pretty much related though I can see how an absolute atheist philosopher may not like it.

come to think of it the New Age books are usually hidden on a bottom shelf somewhere with the science fiction novels!

 

[nnmartin]

No. You’re using the definition of philosophy as is used in general, by lay people, not as used by philosophers..

talk about moving the goalposts!

The definition of religion by religious people allows for the incorporation of various philosophies into their beliefs.

 

[Krok]

talk about moving the goalposts!

Not at all. The definition of philosophy by philosophers is not the same as the definition of philosophy used by the general public.

It's the same as the definition of the word "science", as understood by the general public,and the definition of science as used by scientists. Hence the general impression amongst a lot of people that "creation science" is science, while it is exactly the opposite of science.

The definition of religion by religious people allows for the incorporation of various philosophies into their beliefs.

Their own, lay person definition of philosophy, that is. It's not philosophy.