faith is a useful tool

[Copernicus]

This is true for theists and atheists alike! Science does not delve into the existence or non-existence of God: Religion does!

I disagree. Religion does not delve into this question. Rather, it resists delving into it. That is what exhortations such as "Keep the faith!" are all about. The idea is to resist questioning a belief, even though most people can't help doing that. We are all natural skeptics. Skepticism is essential to our everyday survival, lest we fall victim to every false and deceptive claim that we hear. So believers are provided with elaborate defenses against loss of faith.

Now science does not usually delve into the question of God's existence simply because it cannot examine claims for which no serious evidence is offered. It can examine claims that are verifiable, e.g. whether a particular relic dates back to the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived. So it can try to verify any evidence that is presented in support of a belief in God.

It is neither science nor religion that is best equipped to answer questions about the existence of God. The discipline best suited to answer that question is philosophy.

 

[emiliano]

I disagree. Religion does not delve into this question. Rather, it resists delving into it. That is what exhortations such as "Keep the faith!" are all about. The idea is to resist questioning a belief, even though most people can't help doing that. We are all natural skeptics. Skepticism is essential to our everyday survival, lest we fall victim to every false and deceptive claim that we hear. So believers are provided with elaborate defenses against loss of faith.

Now science does not usually delve into the question of God's existence simply because it cannot examine claims for which no serious evidence is offered. It can examine claims that are verifiable, e.g. whether a particular relic dates back to the time that Jesus is supposed to have lived. So it can try to verify any evidence that is presented in support of a belief in God.

It is simple really, faith is a gift from God, is the way that God assist those in which He have mercy and it is a very useful tool to understand spiritual matter, thing not seen, the invisible things of the kingdom. It seem that you believe that science can destroy religious faith, that is impossible, and my dear fellow this is arguable “It is neither science nor religion that is best equipped to answer questions about the existence of God” God is spirit and faith is the best tool to enquire into spiritual maters, the fact that you use science to prove God non existence is absurd because science belong to the material realm and God to the spiritual, the reason that you don’t believe is because God has not given you the gift of faith, I don’t know His reasons, but he surely does. Are you trying to turn believer away from their beliefs through science or philosophy? The branch of philosophy that answers questions about God is theology not science.
It is neither science nor religion that is best equipped to answer questions about the existence of God. The discipline best suited to answer that question is philosophy.

It is simple really, faith is a gift from God, is the way that God assist those in which He have mercy and it is a very useful tool to understand spiritual matter, thing not seen, the invisible things of the kingdom. It seem that you believe that science can destroy religious faith, that that is impossible, and my dear fellow this is arguable “It is neither science nor religion that is best equipped to answer questions about the existence of God” God is spirit and faith is the best tool to enquire into spiritual maters, the fact that you use science to prove God non existence is absurd because science belong to the material realm and God to the spiritual, the reason that you don’t believe is because God has not given you the gift of faith, I don’t know His reasons, but he surely does. Are you trying to turn believer away from their beliefs through science or philosophy? The branch of philosophy that answers questions about God is theology not science.

 

[darkendless]

It is simple really, faith is a gift from God, is the way that God assist those in which He have mercy and it is a very useful tool to understand spiritual matter, thing not seen, the invisible things of the kingdom. It seem that you believe that science can destroy religious faith, that that is impossible, and my dear fellow this is arguable “It is neither science nor religion that is best equipped to answer questions about the existence of God” God is spirit and faith is the best tool to enquire into spiritual maters, the fact that you use science to prove God non existence is absurd because science belong to the material realm and God to the spiritual, the reason that you don’t believe is because God has not given you the gift of faith, I don’t know His reasons, but he surely does. Are you trying to turn believer away from their beliefs through science or philosophy? The branch of philosophy that answers questions about God is theology not science.

What is absurd here is your claims about a God you know nothing about.

Science does not disprove God, only the foundations God is built around. The creation of earth, the creation of man, the creation of everything is under fire because comprehensive evidence exists to disprove it.

 

[emiliano]

What is absurd here is your claims about a God you know nothing about.

Science does not disprove God, only the foundations God is built around. The creation of earth, the creation of man, the creation of everything is under fire because comprehensive evidence exists to disprove it.

And you do? Not only science does not proves the existence or non existence of God. it does not address the question, it is people trying to look smart that use science to preach atheism, I doubt that you can grasp this but what makes people believe in the existence of God got absolutely nothing to do with scientific proofs of the creation of the earth or absence of it. It is a spiritual thing. One thing is for sure you don’t have the tool that believing in God require and only He can give to you, so you will not know in the stated that you are in at present, what should this meant to me? That there is no God because you can’t believe?

 

[darkendless]

And you do? Not only science does not proves the existence or non existence of God. it does not address the question, it is people trying to look smart that use science to preach atheism, I doubt that you can grasp this but what makes people believe in the existence of God got absolutely nothing to do with scientific proofs of the creation of the earth or absence of it. It is a spiritual thing. One thing is for sure you don’t have the tool that believing in God require and only He can give to you, so you will not know in the stated that you are in at present, what should this meant to me? That there is no God because you can’t believe?

No but i do not make claims i cant back up.

What you cannot grasp is that if, and i use the term loosely, if there is a God, you can't abuse him the way you do by attributing human characteristics. God can't do anything, you speak of God as a man, as if he can do things. Thats rubbish Emiliano you're twisting God to found your arguement here. You're doing yourself an injustice by claiming God back's up what YOU have to say.

God would have us believe the world is 40,000 years old. God would have us believe we were created and did not evolve. This is scientific. Science can pretty much bury the bible here. There is no debate. Science and religion mingle somewhat and in each case the religious folk staunchly defend themselves and their God not through evidence, but by throwing in a faith card.

Faith is a tool for destroying human advancement.

 

[Charity]

Faith is a useful tool, yes but so is a hammer it just depends on how you use it...

 

[Falvlun]

And you do? Not only science does not proves the existence or non existence of God. it does not address the question, it is people trying to look smart that use science to preach atheism, I doubt that you can grasp this but what makes people believe in the existence of God got absolutely nothing to do with scientific proofs of the creation of the earth or absence of it.

Nobody is claiming that science can prove or disprove the existence of God. I think what darkendless is saying is that science can test certain claims made about God and/or God's actions. Thus, while one may have faith that the Earth is only 40,000 years old, the vast evidence of scientific study and research has indicated a much older age. The argument for the young Earth relies upon religious belief; the argument for the older Earth relies upon extensive, repeatable experiments.

It is a spiritual thing. One thing is for sure you don’t have the tool that believing in God require and only He can give to you, so you will not know in the stated that you are in at present, what should this meant to me? That there is no God because you can’t believe?

You have stated that we must have faith in order to believe in God, and yet only God can give you that faith. How does God choose to whom he will give this faith? Can he then fault those who do not have faith?

Perhaps you believe that one must first have faith that God will give you faith (the proverbially knocking on the door) before God will dispense said faith. But is this not circular?

I think I would agree with Copernicus here: The question of whether God exists or does not exist can not be answered by science (unless futher physical, measurable evidence presents itself), nor is it answered by religion. What is left? Philosophy. It combines the logic of science with the questions of faith, allowing one to explore the regions neither allows by itself.

 

[danny vee]

The objection is not just to resistance of change of belief. Science also provides us with tools to resist change of belief. The problem with religion is that the method of belief-maintenance relies on irrational means. Scientists do not meet every Sunday to affirm their belief in gravity. They do not praise science every time an experiment yields results. Nor do they exhort each other not to listen to skeptics. People find it unnecessary to thank science after they undergo life-saving surgery. They have no fear that scientific miracles might cease to go their way if they don't appear properly thankful.

Yes, but this argument cannot really be put against believers in God because science in itself is not a being, whereas God is. And people don't have to thank God, and they shouldn't feel afraid of God if they don't. However, people do thank God because they want to thank Him and show their gratitude to Him for helping and loving them. And who says that believers can't listen to skeptics. Personally, I have read many of the arguments by skeptics against the existence of God, but still I believe in Him because of personal experience, and what I have seen, read, heard, and felt.

 

[emiliano]

.

Nobody is claiming that science can prove or disprove the existence of God. I think what darkendless is saying is that science can test certain claims made about God and/or God's actions. Thus, while one may have faith that the Earth is only 40,000 years old, the vast evidence of scientific study and research has indicated a much older age. The argument for the young Earth relies upon religious belief; the argument for the older Earth relies upon extensive, repeatable experiments..

New or old earth doctrines do not affect religion at all, and you are trying to prove non existence of God though science, and presenting the Bible’s accounts as a scientific treatise that is not, it simple says that we are created, that the human genome is human and it has always been human, and it will always be human just as God willed, humans have never been any other thing, and God has a plan for humanity, a plan that he is been executed, the how it is been executed is a mystery that interest science and it makes them stand in awe of it design.

 

[emiliano]

You have stated that we must have faith in order to believe in God, and yet only God can give you that faith. How does God choose to whom he will give this faith? Can he then fault those who do not have faith?

How? In a sovereignly/powerful way, he gives it to who he wants, to those that he have mercy on.

 

[emiliano]

I think I would agree with Copernicus here: The question of whether God exists or does not exist can not be answered by science (unless futher physical, measurable evidence presents itself), nor is it answered by religion. What is left? Philosophy. It combines the logic of science with the questions of faith, allowing one to explore the regions neither allows by itself.

And it has, it called Theology and the RCC has the greatest of all time exponents of it, Augustine and Aquinas. what do they used in their inquires?

 

[Scuba Pete]

When religious texts make absurd claims like the earth is 40,000 years old

No text makes that claim. Men try and extrapolate that in a most obscene way. You're trying to hold tribes that had no word for epoch (or the concept) to the same standard as we have? Will you fault Science for starting with four elements that made up ALL of the world? Earth, fire, water and wind? That's absolutely moronic.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm going to let Falvlun and darkendless handle emiliano's objections to my last post. I'll respond to danny vee here.

The objection is not just to resistance of change of belief. Science also provides us with tools to resist change of belief. The problem with religion is that the method of belief-maintenance relies on irrational means. Scientists do not meet every Sunday to affirm their belief in gravity. They do not praise science every time an experiment yields results. Nor do they exhort each other not to listen to skeptics. People find it unnecessary to thank science after they undergo life-saving surgery. They have no fear that scientific miracles might cease to go their way if they don't appear properly thankful.

Yes, but this argument cannot really be put against believers in God because science in itself is not a being, whereas God is...

Well, scientists are people, so I suppose that people could address their prayers of thanks and adulation to scientists. But we all know that the benefits derived from scientific discoveries do not depend on such behavior. The point here is that religion puts in place a lot of methods for blocking the tendency to question belief. The idea that one might offend God by not believing in his existence or paying him respect is part of that thought manipulation process. Science invites just the opposite approach--an invitation to repeatedly test its claims.

And people don't have to thank God, and they shouldn't feel afraid of God if they don't. However, people do thank God because they want to thank Him and show their gratitude to Him for helping and loving them...

I hear this kind of claim from Christians all the time--that they are not trying to manipulate God or curry favor with him, yet they offer thanks as if they had succeeded in doing just that. If humans are not properly thankful among themselves, then they tend to offend those who give gifts and favors. So we have this convention that it is a courtesy to express gratitude and praise in response to gifts. If we don't, then we cannot expect ourselves to remain in good graces with the benefactors. But I suppose that the same motivations are not supposed to apply to social interactions with God. Even though believers often talk about how human behavior offends God, they aren't really afraid of offending him.

And who says that believers can't listen to skeptics. Personally, I have read many of the arguments by skeptics against the existence of God, but still I believe in Him because of personal experience, and what I have seen, read, heard, and felt.

I've got no problem with that. Just as long as you listen and make up your own mind.

 

[darkendless]

No text makes that claim. Men try and extrapolate that in a most obscene way. You're trying to hold tribes that had no word for epoch (or the concept) to the same standard as we have? Will you fault Science for starting with four elements that made up ALL of the world? Earth, fire, water and wind? That's absolutely moronic.

Why is it a common thing to hear people claim the earth is so young? Why do people continually find silly evidence (even on this forum) from the bible to support a young earth?
Science has evolved, backward religious thinking has not.

 

[danny vee]

I'm going to let Falvlun and darkendless handle emiliano's objections to my last post. I'll respond to danny vee here.



Well, scientists are people, so I suppose that people could address their prayers of thanks and adulation to scientists. But we all know that the benefits derived from scientific discoveries do not depend on such behavior. The point here is that religion puts in place a lot of methods for blocking the tendency to question belief. The idea that one might offend God by not believing in his existence or paying him respect is part of that thought manipulation process. Science invites just the opposite approach--an invitation to repeatedly test its claims.



I hear this kind of claim from Christians all the time--that they are not trying to manipulate God or curry favor with him, yet they offer thanks as if they had succeeded in doing just that. If humans are not properly thankful among themselves, then they tend to offend those who give gifts and favors. So we have this convention that it is a courtesy to express gratitude and praise in response to gifts. If we don't, then we cannot expect ourselves to remain in good graces with the benefactors. But I suppose that the same motivations are not supposed to apply to social interactions with God. Even though believers often talk about how human behavior offends God, they aren't really afraid of offending him.



.

I think that the reason that God wouldn't want us overly testing His existence is because believing in Him can help us. However, I don't think that there is any sort of objection to questioning the truth of things, and I don't think anyone should be condemned for questioning something. Someone who searches for answers very often finds them, and it is up to us to decide which way we go, believing or not, and seeing both sides of the argument is the best way to do it. I've taken a look at both sides and made a decision.

I think that one of the main reasons that people thank God, and feel a need to express their gratitude, is because they think that God expects loads from them. Many people especially in the Middle Ages, also had fear of going to Hell driving their actions. This is why I think it's important for believers to see that thanking God out of fear of what happens if you don't is not a good reason to go thank God. I personally thank God because of the gratitude I feel to Him, for His love. And if I didn't thank God, I don't think His love would be any less.

 

[Falvlun]

New or old earth doctrines do not affect religion at all, and you are trying to prove non existence of God though science, and presenting the Bible’s accounts as a scientific treatise that is not

emiliano, I will repeat what I wrote before, since you must have missed part of it:

Nobody is claiming that science can prove or disprove the existence of God.

You are attacking a position no one is actually holding. Science doesn't actually prove or disprove anything. It only gives the most likely explanation based upon the data available, obtained through a rather rigorous process. As more data is accumulated, positions are reevaluated. Because the process of data acquistion is never done, science really can not say anything is 100% without-a-doubt true.

Furthermore, science doesn't deal with the existence or non-existence of God. It can't, as there is no quantifiable, objective evidence.

It can, however, research the physical world and its properties.

Now, I agree with you: In itself, an old Earth paradigm does not destroy Christianity. Evolution does not destroy Christianity.

However, since Christians have incoorporated certain beliefs into their theology, such as a young Earth or fully created humans, the recent discoveries of science may begin to undermine the faith of believers. (ie, If my pastor was wrong about claim A, perhaps he is also wrong about claim B).

it simple says that we are created, that the human genome is human and it has always been human, and it will always be human just as God willed, humans have never been any other thing, and God has a plan for humanity, a plan that he is been executed, the how it is been executed is a mystery that interest science and it makes them stand in awe of it design.

You have just said that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, and yet you are making a scientific claim based upon it.

How? In a sovereignly/powerful way, he gives it to who he wants, to those that he have mercy on.

So, God gives faith to those he chooses. You did not answer my other questions. How are those of us without faith ever supposed to come to God, since faith seems to be a necessary trait of believers?

And it has, it called Theology and the RCC has the greatest of all time exponents of it, Augustine and Aquinas. what do they used in their inquires?

Augustine and Aquinas were philosophers, certainly. However, they were not working from a blank slate: To them, God existed. There was no question.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Science has evolved, backward religious thinking has not.

Your bias is showing. Should we judge all science based on the guy who is convinced that he can use water instead of gasoline in his car? Then why should we judge all religion on a few?

The crux of the matter is simple. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. Belief in God is not based on logic, truth or science. Only whose who hold on to backward scientific thinking hold this to be true.

 

[darkendless]

Your bias is showing. Should we judge all science based on the guy who is convinced that he can use water instead of gasoline in his car? Then why should we judge all religion on a few?

The crux of the matter is simple. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. Belief in God is not based on logic, truth or science. Only whose who hold on to backward scientific thinking hold this to be true.

Yup my bias.
'
Belief in God is based on nothing but superstition and is a hinderance to the human race.

 

[DallasApple]

Faith is always a useful tool..Always.

Love

Dallas

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Belief in God is based on nothing but superstition and is a hinderance to the human race.

I have to disagree.

God is based on a mythology, which is based on an experience that is common to humanity.

Anything is a hindrance when its taken to an extreme, and that can include scientific concepts.