Do We Need Faith?

[SalixIncendium]

Religious beliefs are gonna have to change a
LOT before that happens.

Why?

 

[Rival]

The only mainstream religions a “major problem” in are those who proselytize.

Even then, it depends how they do it. The Witnesses here have stands and wait for you to come to them. Many Christians hand out small flyers that you're not forced to take and can ignore. Sometimes, rarely, there are street preachers here but you're not forced to listen to them. Some Muslim groups give out free Qur'ans, which again you can just walk right past and they don't heckle you or anything. Imo as long as you can ignore them, I say let them go about their business.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Such as?

Original Sin.

Kind of critical to Catholic theology, and it depends on the notion that every human being who ever lived is descended from one original pair of humans who committed the "original sin."

The problem is that this just isn't how speciation works.

I wouldn't call that 'anti-science', though. I also haven't come across it a great deal. Hindu/Dharmic groups tend to be localised here and ironically many of our medical staff are from India.

Here too.

But homeopathy is very much anti-science.

Right, so what you're talking about isn't Europe's problem.

Please be sure to lift with your legs as you move those goalposts.

 

[Rival]

Original Sin.

Kind of critical to Catholic theology, and it depends on the notion that every human being who ever lived is descended from one original pair of humans who committed the "original sin."

The problem is that this just isn't how speciation works.

No, you're misunderstanding the point of the Genesis myths. Many Catholics here have believed in evolution for decades now and found it no problem to reconcile with their belief in Original Sin.

Here too.

But homeopathy is very much anti-science.

I never thought of it as that, more as an alternate means some people prefer. Let them to it.

Please be sure to lift with your legs as you move those goalposts.

How am I moving goalposts? My original assertion to you was that this is not a European phenomenon; that most Christians and others here don't see a conflict between religion and science. These people aren't here to cause problems in the first place.

 

[Link]

Salam

We need to be guided. The best guidance comes from God. Then religions and sects vary how they are guided by guidance from God and guidance by humans. Some more astray then others.

In my view, if we cut the middle-men between God's guidance and us, things will simplify very fast. Quran and Ahlulbayt (a) words are meant to be read.

That said, I have more sympathy with atheists, in that, there's no point of religion if we all going to just pick false ones. Guidance from God is not necessary if it's okay to pick false religions.

 

[Audie]

Why?

Seriously?

 

[Audie]

No, you're misunderstanding the point of the Genesis myths. Many Catholics here have believed in evolution for decades now and found it no problem to reconcile with their belief in Original Sin.


I never thought of it as that, more as an alternate means some people prefer. Let them to it.


How am I moving goalposts? My original assertion to you was that this is not a European phenomenon; that most Christians and others here don't see a conflict between religion and science. These people aren't here to cause problems in the first place.

What is seen and what is there are not
necessarily the same thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only mainstream religions a “major problem” in are those who proselytize.

Well, based on their size, Christianity and Islam together represent most "religion" worldwide, and they both proselytize.

I'm not sure I'd agree that non-proselytizing religions aren't a problem, though.

 

[Alien826]

Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good....

But how would you find your way to church?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How am I moving goalposts? My original assertion to you was that this is not a European phenomenon; that most Christians and others here don't see a conflict between religion and science. These people aren't here to cause problems in the first place.

No, your original assertion was that the conflict between science and religion was "phony."

"Phony" and "real, but happens in places where I don't live" are different things.

 

[Audie]

Because myth makes sense of the human experience. It uses archetypes to tell stories meaningful to human beings; myth explains, in a narrative way, why we are the way we are and why the world is the way it is, how we should respond to it and why. Myths are precious stories about human traumas, loves, losses, and so on. They help us come to terms with the aspects of being human that are beyond our ability to comprehend. They give us reasons to be here. Myth also helps keep societies stable; they provide a foundation for why societies are the way they are, what values they have, where they come from, who should rule them. Every culture has a national myth that tells them who they are as a people, that gives them an identity.

Stories are found in every human culture. It would be senseless to throw them out. You cannot replace human experience with a textbook.

I also spoke of 'physicalists', not physicists, who think the world is only made up of material things that can be measured.

As if I need a treatise on the role of myths.

Physicalist. So I was right.
Them physicists don't exist.

Can you identify things that cannot be
in any way be detected?
Faith in such is pretty irrational, a much
prized state of mind, tho, in all religions.

I fail to see value in it.

 

[Rival]

No, your original assertion was that the conflict between science and religion was "phony."

"Phony" and "real, but happens in places where I don't live" are different things.

No, you misunderstand me.

I believe there is no conflict between religion and science.

I agree there are people who think that there is and go about their lives as though there is. I believe those people are mistaken and, as I said, misunderstand the points of both religion and science. Most of the folks are not in Europe.

Such as? Religion and science aren't trying to do the same thing. Folks who think they are in conflict either don't understand this or tend to be ardent physicalists who won't be content until miracles and spirit have been completely taken away, morality deemed completely relative and so on, and the purpose of religion nullified. It is ignorance of the purposes of both religion and science that leads folks to believe the two are at odds. This is like saying mathematics and literature are at odds; they're not trying to do the same thing at all.

 

[sun rise]

"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"

"Blind Men and the Elephant"

There's an awful lot of effort by religions
to rail against science. Why, you even see it in
this very forum!

This absolutist comment is typical of some atheists lumping the ideas of some religious people into a denunciation of all religions. It is neither logical nor correct and in fact at least one logical fallacy applies.

Are we talking about faith or are we talking about religion? The OP title question mentions faith, but the OP makes no mention of it.

Good question. They are different.

 

[gnostic]

I think most of the major problems with some religions are when they get involved in politics.

When they gain political powers they have the tendencies to impose their religions upon others. Inequality then become a problem, socially, legally, politically.

They tried to get involve in your culture, social life, and tried to undermine education, especially in sciences.

Here, you see some of them trying to use or plant false information about science (misinformation), using propaganda.

Powers corrupt. So mixing religions and politics is a terrible combination, because it is a recipe for oppression.

 

[Nimos]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

From what you have written here, I'm not convinced that you have really examined what science is or at least not understood it. Because it is almost complete nonsense.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."

That is not an argument for science, we don't inherently need science for anything, besides achieving and expanding personal goals. Before science saw the light of day people still managed. When we were living in caves, people still managed.

We need food and water to survive or we die, we don't need science or religion.

An argument for science is related to achieving other things and not science itself, knowledge being the primary goal and to make life improvements in most cases. The reason we need science to achieve these things is due to the method it uses, which helps to give us an objective answer.
Religion doesn't make use of any methods for sharing "knowledge", which means whether the information comes from an old scripture or I wrote something related to the supernatural in this very post and claimed it to be true. There is no way for you or anyone else to prove me wrong.

Science doesn't do bad things, the knowledge gained from it can be used to do bad things, no different than you taking a stick from the ground and slamming it into something so it breaks, which you couldn't do with your bare hands. Using that knowledge you can go hit someone in the head with it and cause severe damage. The knowledge of you have figured that out is not bad, you making use of it to hurt others makes you bad.

So there is no such thing as good or bad science, except if we are talking in relation to the method. If you use it and manipulate your results or ignore others etc. then that is bad science.

Comparing religion and science in the generalized way you do, makes no sense. One is science the other is religion. They work within completely different areas. Faith has no place in science.

 

[firedragon]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

Yes. We need faith. Atheists have a lot of faith in a lot of things, like theists do. It's just a despise they have for the word faith that's making them deny. It's because the prophets of atheism on the internet use it derogatorily.

I am not endorsing blind faith.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I was moved to make this thread in response to a question raised by an Atheist.
"Since there is so much confliction [contradictions] in religion, why not get rid of all religion?"
That's an interesting question in more ways than one.
First, it reminds me of the foretold attack by the collation of nations, on all religion... starting with Babylon the Great - the World Empire of false religion.
Second, it highlights the flawed thinking Atheism promotes.

My response to the question though, is this.
Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?
Of course, I don't think that is a reasonable proposal, but just showing the flaw in the reasoning.

I'm sure that Atheist would argue, "...but we need science. We don't need religion."
Really? We need both. well, at least in the understanding of religion in the context promoted in the question.
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?
Even bad religion has done some good. ... but good religion has done much good... perhaps, I dare say, more good than science.
However, good science and good religion has done quite a lot of good. So both are needed. Though, it is evident to me that if good science were to go, good religion would still be a force for good.... lasting forever, but take away good religion, and...

People require faith if they are desperate to hold onto a belief but have no good evidence to do so or even when faced with good evidence of the contrary. People who have good evidence for their beliefs require no faith. .

 

[Audie]

"Blind Men and the Elephant"



This absolutist comment is typical of some atheists lumping the ideas of some religious people into a denunciation of all religions. It is neither logical nor correct and in fact at least one logical fallacy applies.



Good question. They are different.

As if I remotely said they are all the same.

If you have to stretch that far to paint
yourself as one of Superior understanding
you achcieve the opposite.
Just a tip, for future attempts.

 

[Audie]

No, you're misunderstanding the point of the Genesis myths. Many Catholics here have believed in evolution for decades now and found it no problem to reconcile with their belief in Original Sin.


I never thought of it as that, more as an alternate means some people prefer. Let them to it.


How am I moving goalposts? My original assertion to you was that this is not a European phenomenon; that most Christians and others here don't see a conflict between religion and science. These people aren't here to cause problems in the first place.

Everyone sez they understand genesis

 

[vulcanlogician]

Since there are so many conflicting ideas.... not to mention, unknown, and wrong conclusions in science, why not get rid of science?

Because when science figures out it has the wrong idea, it changes its claims. Isn't that neato?

For the record, I think "getting rid of religion" is a terrible idea. Sure, there are interpersonally destructive aspects to religion. But there are some positives too. Some people find it indispensable. It would be wrong to take it away from them. Removing religion's power privileges that it's enjoyed for centuries has been done and is still being done, and that's good enough for me.

Besides, religion is fascinating. The world would be more boring if we got rid of it altogether.