Do We Need Faith?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I mean that is that ethics of religion should influence the people who are in government. And when I say the ethics of religion I mean it's derived fairly from the Founder of that religion, and not a distortion thereof.

If you mean something like religious people putting pressure on government to do away with Roe vs. Wade, I don't mean that.

I mean any ethics that can't be justified without religion. Our government should be guided by ethics, full stop, without having to resort to "religious" ethics.

A government that represents all people should be respectful of all citizens. Religion is not common to all citizens in any country, so religion is an inappropriate basis of government in any country.

 

[Truthseeker]

True. My concept of faith has a clear and precise definition, not just an abstract collection of words designed to sound like they're filled with wisdom, when in actuality they convey no real clarity.

'The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds'? Is this a clumsy attempt to say that a person should have faith in people who say little and do much? If so, then I have to conclude that 'he whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his life..' is a clumsy way of trying to say that it's better for such a person to die than to go on living, since 'his death is better than his life' COULD be interpreted to mean that in death he'll be rewarded with a better existence than he had in life.

It's far from a workable definition of what it means for someone to believe something on faith.

Never mind. I think we have been confusing faith with belief, they are not the same thing.

All the evidence for belief in a Messenger of God is not something that can demonstrated like in a mathematical proof, or a scientific experiment. There is also an inner evidence that is not evident to everyone.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

My fault. You misunderstood. When I said, "All questions can not be answered by science." what I meant was that if something is a question then it can not be answered by science. What I shouldda said was "No question can be answered by science". We can compute sunrise to many decimal points but there is virtually no practical benefit.

Do you mean like the question;
Is the reason the sun appears to rise because of the rotation of the planet,
or because a god did it?

Surely you understand that the science that makes it possible to predict sunrise to many decimal points….is the same science that enables the computers, phones (smart or otherwise) internet, satellites, instant global communication, refrigeration, modern medicine,
etc., etc., etc., not just the sunrise, yes?

Do you really not consider these things to be a practical benefit?

 

[Truthseeker]

The same sentiment is in the Bible, the Jewish Tikkun Olam and many other places.

Yes, I know a similar concept is in the book of James in the New Testament. I don't know anything about the Tikkun Olam. I need to look that up:

Few Hebrew idioms are so well known in the American Jewish community as “Tikkun Olam”, “repair of the world.” The term is understood in modern America as the idea that Jews are called upon to make the world more just, peaceful, tolerant, and equal, through acts of charity, kindness, and political action.

Well, I must say you well versed in religion.

 

[Truthseeker]

mean any ethics that can't be justified without religion. Our government should be guided by ethics, full stop, without having to resort to "religious" ethics.

A government that represents all people should be respectful of all citizens. Religion is not common to all citizens in any country, so religion is an inappropriate basis of government in any country.

As to your first paragraph, you are treading in dangerous ground. I don't believe that ISIS was justified by justly derived religion, and with those without any religion it could be just as bad or worse. Also how about the ethics of the communist state in the Soviet Union?

As to the second paragraph, I mean the ethics derived from religions, not the religions themselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

As to “evidence”.

Evidence is “physical”, and evidence is either (A) a sample of natural phenomena or its natural process (eg nature), or (B) a sample of physical phenomena or its physical processes (eg anything manmade, such as technology or engineering, like car or computer).

Evidence is physical in that it can be “observed” in some ways, sometimes “directly”, at other times, “indirectly”.

Where did you get those definitions of evidence?
There is nothing in the dictionary definitions of evidence that says that all evidence is physical.
There is no requirement that evidence needs to be physical.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

The points being evidence are something “physical” that can be observed or detected, as well as measured, analyzed and recorded evidence.

That is true if we are talking about physical things. Evidence of physical things in the physical world is physical, but evidence of spiritual things is not physical.

Why am I telling you this, you may ask.

I have given you all these examples about evidence and methodology of observing evidence, is that evidence are physical, even when we cannot directly sense them with our human sensory perceptions.

So, what I wanted to ask you, what physical EVIDENCE you have “for God”, Trailblazer?

There is no physical evidence for God because God is not a physical being....
The only evidence for God is the Messengers God sends to earth. They are physical as well as spiritual, since they have a twofold nature.

You said: "Evidence is physical in that it can be “observed” in some ways, sometimes “directly”, at other times, “indirectly”." Well, God can be observed "indirectly" through His Messengers.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Sure tides can be predicted but we can't predict the waves on the tide. This would make an enormous impact on apparent sunrise if the observer is in a trough between waves.

*Sigh*
Now I’m starting to get embarrassed for you.

Tides and waves are different things.
Tides tables are used to reliably forecast tides.

Marine forecasts include not only include the heights, but also the periods of “waves”, “swells”, and “Seas”.

Without getting to far into the weeds;
Waves are caused by local weather winds…
Swells are caused by distant weather winds…
Seas are the combination of wave heights and swell heights in combination when superimposed on each other.

Of course by now, you must know what makes these measurements realtime feedback possible…
Do I have to say it? Hint: It ain’t religion.

You do understand that boats ride on top of waves and swells….both through the troughs and the peaks, yes?

I stand corrected. We really do know everything finally. Homo omnisciencis has always believed we know everything but the last thing we learned was the last thing there was to know. What's the score of tomorrow's big game?

I never said we know everything.

I will say, that in order to learn new things and understand the world we live in and the nature of reality, that science is our as of yet best method that mankind has devised to reliably, consistently,
unambiguously, verifiably, precisely, and objectively accomplish the task.

Religion is among the worst.

Where do you get the best loaf of bread?
Who is the cutest girl?
Is Shakespeare or Proust the better writer?
Baseball or football?
Etc.
Science doesn’t answer questions like that….
But, neither do religions.

No one ever sailed inside a whale to the moon either. I don't see your point. How does science or technology affect the appropriateness or truth of religion?

I have no idea what this is in reference to.
Perhaps your getting crossed up with other conversations?

 

[Trailblazer]

I never said we know everything.

I will say, that in order to learn new things and understand the world we live in and the nature of reality, that science is our as of yet best method that mankind has devised to reliably, consistently,
unambiguously, verifiably, precisely, and objectively accomplish the task.

Religion is among the worst.

*Sigh*

Religion makes no claims to understand the nature of physical reality. Physical reality is the domain of science and science is the method we use to know about physical reality. Religion is about moral virtues and the spiritual reality that lies beyond the physical reality.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...”
Paris Talks, pp. 141-143

From: FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Where do you get the best loaf of bread?
Who is the cutest girl?
Is Shakespeare or Proust the better writer?
Baseball or football?
Etc.
Science doesn’t answer questions like that….
But, neither do religions.

No, those are neither the domain of science or religion, they are just a matter of subjective personal opinion.

 

[cladking]

Makes decisions on logic consistent with good outcomes and improvement in ourselves a d the commonwealth;

And for what reason are refrigerators, and most other appliances now made so they are no good after a few years? How does this help the economy or the consumer? How does pumping foods and meat up with sodium tripolyphosphate and water help anyone except the thief selling water at $4 a pound?

What is happening anywhere that is good for all people and not just the few?

 

[cladking]

So nothing, then. You didn't rebut or try to rebut the claim that faith has given man no new knowledge.

Read it again!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cladking]

Tides and waves are different things.
Tides tables are used to reliably forecast tides.

Marine forecasts include not only include the heights, but also the periods of “waves”, “swells”, and “Seas”.

Without getting to far into the weeds;
Waves are caused by local weather winds…
Swells are caused by distant weather winds…
Seas are the combination of wave heights and swell heights in combination when superimposed on each other.

Of course by now, you must know what makes these measurements realtime feedback possible…
Do I have to say it? Hint: It ain’t religion.

You do understand that boats ride on top of waves and swells….both through the troughs and the peaks, yes?

I stand corrected, we really do know everything.

I'll have to find a new term to describe our species since my old one is inappropriate for a species that really does knows everything. Homo omnisciencis.

I'm sorry for causing you so much embarrassment.

 

[sun rise]

Ahh, i see... no meaning to life unless you want to count continuing life.

Life is an accident of nature. There is little point in it on the scale of the universe.

I would find it very hard to function with that belief. Even as an atheist I thought life had meaning.

 

[Trailblazer]

And for what reason are refrigerators, and most other appliances now made so they are no good after a few years? How does this help the economy or the consumer? How does pumping foods and meat up with sodium tripolyphosphate and water help anyone except the thief selling water at $4 a pound?

What is happening anywhere that is good for all people and not just the few?

Science is not making these products, manufacturers are making them. They make them to break down after a few years so consumers will buy more of them. It helps the economy because people buy more but it does not help the consumer who has to shell out the cash for a new appliance every few years...

My appliances are all the same as the age of the house, 1986, and I never had any problems with them.... same with my old cars which are 1986 and 1999 Hondas.

But most people don't think like me, they want new stuff.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I tend to think it's because I know how they work. I also know that if you understand theory then invention just "arises in your mind like a lily from the Nile". Math shows a simple manipulation of logic can create great complexity. Who could imagine that 2 + 2 could lead to such grandeur despite the fact there aren't two of anything at all in existence because no two things are identical. Math is quantified logic manifested as an abstraction (yes, you heard it here first).

If God exists I have no doubt He is further manifestation of logic or the origin of logic and reality.

Even the invention of hypothesis and experiment have many aspects of being a parlour trick but it's really technology that is on autopilot. New experiment leads many to the same creation.

In ancient science the process was described as "Knowledge > Understanding > Creation". Reductionistic science tends to hide its metaphysics from most practitioners. In part because anomalies cause dissonance and discomfort but mostly because it is based on simple axioms and experimental interpretation is is always paradigmatical. We don't even know if we don't understand how it works. Many people believe science works on "intelligence" but I seriously doubt there exists a referent for this word.

Yes! Technology arises like magic. It arises in individuals which are the basis of all life, all thought, and all creation (unless there are Gods).



Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You didn't even comment when I said we know the tiniest fraction of everything that exists and now you just blithely state that the origin of life is the only thing we don't know!!!!!!! I guess this rules out that we'll have a debate.

Actually, you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you don’t. Comparing them to “parlor tricks” is glaring proof.

Who could imagine that 2 + 2 could lead to such grandeur despite the fact there aren't two of anything at all in existence because no two things are identical.

My, my, going with equivocations now, eh?
Not worth the time.

I’ll skip the non coherent stuff and bald assertions…

What is this “ancient science” of which you speak?

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You didn't even comment when I said we know the tiniest fraction of everything that exists and now you just blithely state that the origin of life is the only thing we don't know!!!!!!! I guess this rules out that we'll have a debate.

Sorry, I’m afraid I’ve been short on time and just sort of skimming the posts that aren’t directed at me.
I’m assuming you’re referring here to post #138 which was directed to @gnostic I believe?
( I understand; one might occasionally get crossed up when responding to multiple people on a forum at times.)

Let me break this to you gently. We know less that 10 ^ -1.000.000.000 of everything there is to know. We may no less than 1% (even far less) about fundamental forces and processes. Our species is blinded by its knowledge. I call us "homo omnisciencis" because we think we know everything. In time all Peers will be proven wrong about all things. Those who kowtow to Peers are either ignorant about a subject or have no clue how and why science actually works. Spoiler alert: it's experiment.

Allow me to rebut.

Ignoring the further evidence of not understanding the way science works, and wondering if the “Peers” being referred to has something to do with the peer review process involved when publishing in science journals?
I’ll ask from where, if not the ol’ wazoo, did you pull those numbers?

I presume the gist here is that you are of the opinion that mankind (perhaps particularly those that “believe in” and “trust” science?) is under the impression that they have everything figured out, but are sorely mistaken?

I’m afraid I can’t accept your numbers due to dubious provenance, but I’ll gladly agree there’s tons of stuff we don’t know.
And often when we learn new things, we discover more things we were not aware of and uncover new mysteries to attempt to solve.

That being said;
We’ve come a long way since the emergence of logical thought and the scientific method.

Far further and far faster than when we were stuck in the quagmire of when superstitious mindsets and religious dogmas ruled the day, and accepting “God did it” as the final say.

now you just blithely state that the origin of life is the only thing we don't know!!!!!!!

You need to work on your reading comprehension…

I said:

As to how life arose/arises…. science is working on it.
One of the last gaps for God to hide in, for the moment.

“One of the last gaps for God to hide in”
NOT
“The origin of life is the only thing we don't know!”

That”s just straight up misrepresenting what I said.
I’ll be generous here and go with your doing it inadvertently.
Please try to refrain from doing it again.

Allow me to clarify:
The “God of the gaps” argument is an “argument from ignorance fallacy” where in one assumes that any “gap” (lack of solid scientific evidence) means “God did it” because science doesn’t show otherwise.
You know, like;
God caused earthquakes - until geology and plate tectonics came along….
God sent hurricanes - until meteorology came along….
God made all the animals - until evolution through natural selection came along…
God threw lightning bolts - until understanding of static electricity came along….
God makes the sun rise in the morning - until…
You get the idea.

Science as shown over and over again, that things once thought to be things “God did” happen naturally and we understand the “mechanics” of how they work and no god is needed.

Thus, because science hasn’t yet provided the full understanding of how life began on earth religious adherents cling to the old “you don’t understand it, therefore it must be God” claim.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

A hundred years ago most people answered to their conscience but these have been going away just as fast as faith. I seriously doubt these trends are coincidental!

Still a non sequitur….

I do find it rather humorous that you equate people having a conscience to having faith though.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

And if you missed it I pointed out that almost all new discoveries are made by amateurs with little telescopes. This is because the professionals and big telescopes aren't sweeping the sky but looking for specific things. A body large enough to cause all new life on earth is as tiny as 200 miles across and might not be seen until it is quite close.

200 mile diameter bodies can be seen with a telescope weeks before they hit but only if you're looking where they are. They can quite easily sneak up on us through coincidence alone.

Again your lack of understanding here is embarrassing.

Let me help you out here.
Click on this….and maybe learn something.
Asteroid Watch

 

[Dao Hao Now]

And for what reason are refrigerators, and most other appliances now made so they are no good after a few years? How does this help the economy or the consumer? How does pumping foods and meat up with sodium tripolyphosphate and water help anyone except the thief selling water at $4 a pound?

What is happening anywhere that is good for all people and not just the few?

And what does science have to do with any of this?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I stand corrected, we really do know everything.

I'll have to find a new term to describe our species since my old one is inappropriate for a species that really does knows everything. Homo omnisciencis.

I'm sorry for causing you so much embarrassment.

Maybe if your going to make claims about things you have little to no understanding of….do at least a smidge of research?

You keep claiming that we are incapable of doing things that in fact we do routinely.
When your shown that, you go all passive aggressive.

I’m happy to learn new things, aren’t you?
I try to learn new things everyday.
If I’m ignorant of something (especially if I believe the contrary) and someone leads me to learn more about a subject…I’m grateful!
Particularly if it helps me correct any misconceptions or incorrect beliefs.

And once again nobody (especially myself) ever said “we know everything”.
If that were true, it would get boring with nothing new to learn.
However, I certainly can see why anyone should deny what we DO know.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Religion makes no claims to understand the nature of physical reality. Physical reality is the domain of science and science is the method we use to know about physical reality.

In truth, many religions (probably most?) make claims of the origin of the world and often sundry claims (i.e. people rising from the dead, people living in whales for days, the sun and moon stopping in the sky, rainbows being a message from god, gods causing the sun to rise, etc.)
all directly in contradiction of known physical realities.

Actually, my conversation with @cladking started after my reading this quote:
“The concept that there is no God because the planet rotates revealing the sun every morning is far less supportable than the concept that God makes the sun come up in the morning.”

And

“Perhaps reality is unfolding in ways we can't predict because we lack both the equations and the ability to quantify most of the variables.”

When I pointed out the precision that science enables us to predict (in this case pertaining to our knowledge of the rotation of the planet and the movement of celestial bodies through space) solar eclipses and compared it to the religious concept of a god making a sun rise;….we were off and running.

Religion is about moral virtues and the spiritual reality that lies beyond the physical reality.

I’ve never seen credible evidence of anything “that lies beyond the physical reality.”
So please excuse me if I don’t accept that claim.

Perhaps you could enlighten me of credible evidence I’m unaware of?

I’ll refrain from critiquing the quote you posted here, since I realize they are not your words.

I did notice you highlighted a section that I didn’t notice to be highlighted in the link you provided.

Might I presume that, in your opinion, I should pay special attention to those words in particular for any specific reason?

No, those are neither the domain of science or religion, they are just a matter of subjective personal opinion.

I agree with you here 100%.

 

[ChristineM]

I would find it very hard to function with that belief. Even as an atheist I thought life had meaning.

Depends what you mean my meaning, doing the best i can is meaningful.

But in the grand scheme of things life is just a natural accident on a small lump of rock situated about the middle of the (current) western spiral arm of our galaxy which is one galaxy among about 2 trillion other galaxies.

What is the meaning of life to the universe?