Does Science have a better explanation on things compared to divine inspiration and revelation?

[UntemperedSchism]

Schrodinger made up that experiment because he thought the idea was hilarious.

I don't think he expected people to take it so seriously.

Heh. Fair enough, but that's the funny thing about ideas; once they're out there, they tend to get used.

 

[PolyHedral]

Why am I not supposed to apply the same mentality to faith, which is infinitely riper for confusion and has no scientific methodology with which to explore?

Because if you did actually question everything, it's unlikely you'd have faith in the first place?

 

[Photonic]

Heh. Fair enough, but that's the funny thing about ideas; once they're out there, they tend to get used.

Isn't that the damned truth...

Einsteins research that ultimately led to the creation of atomic weapons for instance. He certainly wasn't pleased about that.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Because if you did actually question everything, it's unlikely you'd have faith in the first place?

So, just so I can wrap my head around this, me admitting that I don't have an answer that i would accept, as a non-believer, to every question about the experiences I'm having, is somehow bad because...why?

It doesn't jive with your experiences thus far of most Christians being absolutists on issues of faith?

Or because I'm simply not allowed to use the tools and verbiage of reasonable thought when discussing something you find unreasonable?

I just don't see how there's a valid gripe here.

 

[Skeptisch]

Second, there isn't a scientist on the planet, atheist, religious or somewhere in between, that would agree with that statement.

Not so fast, there was at least one who agrees:

“It means nothing to be open to a proposition we don't understand”.
Carl Sagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

 

[PolyHedral]

So, just so I can wrap my head around this, me admitting that I don't have an answer that i would accept, as a non-believer, to every question about the experiences I'm having, is somehow bad because...why?

It doesn't jive with your experiences thus far of most Christians being absolutists on issues of faith?

Or because I'm simply not allowed to use the tools and verbiage of reasonable thought when discussing something you find unreasonable?

I just don't see how there's a valid gripe here.

If you have faith, as most Christians put it, then you believe something to be true that you cannot back up with reasoning.

Why isn't that thing being questioned?

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Not so fast, there was at least one who agrees:

“It means nothing to be open to a proposition we don't understand”.
Carl Sagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

Looks like you got me. But I'm going to go ahead and say that Sagan, while brilliant, was talking nonsense in this case. Newton likely didn't understand gravity when he conceived of it; it was through first being open to the concept, and then exploring it and refining it and testing it as thoroughly as possible. The same goes for evolution, the strong and weak nuclear forces, relativity etc.

The process by which we understand new things always starts with an openness to try, explore and learn about things we don't already understand.

Sagan came up with a blanket statement that sounds terrific on it's face, but is meaningless in practice and flies in the face of centuries of scientific understanding.

Well done.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

If you have faith, as most Christians put it, then you believe something to be true that you cannot back up with reasoning.

Why isn't that thing being questioned?

To be clear; it is. I've said a few times that I can't answer a question that I'm trying to explore for myself. When and if I ever develop an answer, I'll be happy to share it. Why is my faith called into question because I don't think in absolutist terms? Why is, "I don't know," suddenly an unacceptable response?

Would you rather I make up a pat answer that can be dissected and comfortably discarded?

Also, faith can be explored and backed up with reason and logic. It's physical evidence that faith lacks, not thought or discourse. Those it has in abundance.

 

[Skeptisch]

The process by which we understand new things always starts with an openness to try, explore and learn about things we don't already understand.

I guess you know some Atheists who are also reputable scientists, who had a personal experience they can not talk about? And today they have some kind of religious faith?

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Isn't that the damned truth...

Einsteins research that ultimately led to the creation of atomic weapons for instance. He certainly wasn't pleased about that.

Neither was Oppenheimer, who built the bloody thing. How does his quote go?: "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

There's an idea getting away from you...

 

[UntemperedSchism]

I guess you know some Atheists who are also reputable scientists, who had a personal experience they can not talk about? And today they have some kind of religious faith?

1. Again, it's not that I can't talk about it, it's just that I don't know what to say about it that would be remotely convincing to someone who has no context for it. I had no context for it a few months ago. It was a very subtle, very profound shift in the way I think; not unlike when I first learned physical objects are made up of almost as much empty space as they are matter. It was a life altering realization, and one I very much doubt I'd be able to effectively communicate to someone who didn't have the same knowledge, without phasing my solid arm through them.

2. I do have a friend who's a chemist; he was an atheist his entire life and rediscovered his faith in Judaism in his mid thirties. Now he waffles back and forth between faith and agnosticism. But that's not the point and addresses none of the issues I brought up with the quote.

3. You've ducked the question a couple of times now; what exactly is wrong with having faith but not being certain? Where exactly did I lose the right to say, "I don't know? Is it by the sheer virtue of the fact that I have faith? Does that deny me access to the conventions of civil discourse?

I'd really love an answer that isn't just you quote mining and being glib.

 

[Skeptisch]

You've ducked the question a couple of times now; what exactly is wrong with having faith but not being certain?

Absolutely nothing, it may be better than blind faith. However it still tends to show that ones brain is wired for faith rather than reason. Also, please do a little research of your own on what you are trying to say here. Maybe you will find a scientist that actually agrees with you and that would be a step in the right direction, wouldn’t it?

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Absolutely nothing, it may be better than blind faith. However it still tends to show that ones brain is wired for faith rather than reason. Also, please do a little research of your own on what you are trying to say here. Maybe you will find a scientist that actually agrees with you and that would be a step in the right direction, wouldn’t it?

Agrees with me on what? That scientific discovery comes from opening yourself up to things which are possible but of which you have limited or no understanding? Does that really need confirmation?

Discovery implies a tacit lack of previous knowledge; I don't need consensus to make that case.

 

[Skeptisch]

Discovery implies a tacit lack of previous knowledge; I don't need consensus to make that case.

Well said!

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.”
CS
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
CS
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
CS

Having a personal experience override reason and evidence appears deep nonsense to many.
It was nice getting a little inside into a brain like yours.
Take care.

 

[darkendless]

Faith seems to always be about context and when it is accused of being illogical or unreasonable its always a case of "well you're not looking at it right" or "you don't understand."

Rather convenient for those who have weak reasoning for their faith.

 

[Orias]

Faith seems to always be about context and when it is accused of being illogical or unreasonable its always a case of "well you're not looking at it right" or "you don't understand."

Rather convenient for those who have weak reasoning for their faith.

One who has a greater understanding of faith would realize that everyone uses is equally, because everyone has faith in our words and how they communicate intent. This is were deception comes from

 

[doppelganger]

One who has a greater understanding of faith would realize that everyone uses is equally, because everyone has faith in our words and how they communicate intent. This is were deception comes from

You're in good company with that assessment.

"In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things -- only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word . . .I am afraid we are not rid of God, because we still have faith in grammar."

- Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Well said!

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.”
CS
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
CS
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
CS

Having a personal experience override reason and evidence appears deep nonsense to many.
It was nice getting a little inside into a brain like yours.
Take care.

I'm going to assume, given the general tenor of our conversation, that the "getting...inside a brain like yours" comment was not mean to be complimentary lol. I now feel a bit more ashamed of my own inhumanity to theists when I was in your shoes

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Rather convenient for those who have weak reasoning for their faith.

I'd say it's decidedly inconvenient. I'd love to be able to explain, concretely, why I now believe what I believe. I can't yet, and I'm unwilling to just guess or make blanket assertions, so I don't try to explain it.

 

[Storm]

Whoa... I'm gone one day and you people post 6 PAGES? Forgive my laziness but I'm not reading all that right now.

Penguin, if I ask you nice, will you link me to your latest argument?