Oh, good. We can't invest belief in it, then.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?
- Thread starter Jeremiah
- Start date
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I don't understand. What do early humans or animals have to do with anything? We're talking about the difference between believing in something without evidence and reasoning it out.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Well, of course this all depends on the subjective terms "good" and "bad". That's why this is quite a bit different than believing that something exists. You can believe a song is good or bad, but that's not close to believing that something exists or doesn't.
Yes, you said it yourself. They're value judgements, not conclusions about the existence of something. Although generally it's good to have a reason for saying "This is bad" rather than just "Because I think it is".
Morality is based on a code of conduct that's conducive to living in societies.
OK, your first sentence is unnecessary. Whether or not that's the case is irrelevant. Hope and faith are different things, and hope is not a form of faith. You don't even have to believe something exists or will exist to hope for it. I hope there is a big pile of money in my car when I go out to it, but I don't really believe there is. Hope is not belief without evidence because it's not even belief. It's desire. That's why it's irrelevant.
I'll try again. If you use the correct definition of "evidence" and "faith" your quibble is meaningless, unwarranted and irrelevant.
The question is not whether there is greed and such. the question is how much. Obviously that stuff still exists, but how are we compared to 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago? Western culture is a lot better off than in centuries past.
Not at all the thread is what is more important to humankind faith or reason. If I am correct humans have been around a lot longer than the scientific method has been around. We actually firgured out a lot of stuff before even writting.
You can prove all of this was done by reason without faith I assume.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
The scientific method has been around as long as humans' ability to reason. It wasn't called that in the beginning, but it was there. Can you think of something that might have been figured out by faith? How do you figure something out with faith?
I can't think of any advances that weren't the result of reason. Can you think of any that were the result of faith?
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
"Taken a certain way" or intentionally perverted?
If a masochist takes the golden rule to mean, "I like pain, so I'll treat others the way I want to be treated and inflict pain on them!" then obviously there's a problem. Not only is this person masochistic, they are stupid.
If a masochist takes the golden rule with a sense of intelligence to understand that not everybody has their desires, then there won't be a problem.
Far more problematic for the golden rule are political and religious ideologies than the silly masochist example. If one nation feels that everyone should have communism because it's the best system, and begins to forcibly spread their communism for the greater good, then that's a problem. If one nation feels the same about capitalism, then that's also a problem. If someone wants to forcibly spread their religion because they want to save people (because they themselves want to be saved), then it's a problem.
outhouse
Atheistically
it been stated to you correctly and your statement is flase in my opinion. Your talking about a thought proccess.
No we did not. before written language we knew very little.
how can you deny the advancements in medicine, and knowledge is beyond me
we went from cavemen to landing on the moon.
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
If a masochist takes the golden rule to mean, "I like pain, so I'll treat others the way I want to be treated and inflict pain on them!" then obviously there's a problem. Not only is this person masochistic, they are stupid.
If a masochist takes the golden rule with a sense of intelligence to understand that not everybody has their desires, then there won't be a problem.
Far more problematic for the golden rule are political and religious ideologies than the silly masochist example. If one nation feels that everyone should have communism because it's the best system, and begins to forcibly spread their communism for the greater good, then that's a problem. If one nation feels the same about capitalism, then that's also a problem. If someone wants to forcibly spread their religion because they want to save people (because they themselves want to be saved), then it's a problem.
The Golden Rule does require logic and common sense. It also requires an awareness of the social contract. I guess each society has its own social contract.
Language was created in faith alone. There was no reason to why they called something something. I'm sure at first many people called the same things differently. They agree on one term. This was repeated over and over again. All science is based on communication an language. Can you prove that we specifically reasoned the names of everything.
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
Intelligence did not launch to bomb, stupidity did; it was not reason, but lack of reason. War is stupidity and madness to its max, and while science did give us the knowledge to build the bomb it was this stupidity and madness that put the bomb together and used it.
The problem is not that people are being too rational, it is that they are not being rational enough. Wars stems largely from ignorance and confusion. The remedy is education and intellectual enlightenment. To stop giving our money to idiot warmongers and start giving it to teachers.
Last edited:
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
"Language was created in faith alone."
Language was not created by faith. The formation of language is innate to us, it is biological, this means it came about by natural selection and evolution.
Last edited:
Really and where does this come from and how does it explain all the different languages and different names for everything. A rose is called a rose because of evolution.
I know a little evolution but not now how it produced a specific language please enlighten me.
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
It's called a library, go there and check-out a book on linguistics. Then actually read the book.
Last edited:
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Let's add some stuff. Is it better to be reasonable or faithful? I'm faithful that the world ain't reasonable.
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
Let's add some stuff. Is it better to be reasonable or faithful? I'm faithful that the world ain't reasonable.
" I'm faithful that the world ain't reasonable."
There is plenty of supporting proof for that; you don't need faith to draw that conclusion.
Good response for when you don't know, but we have the internet today. I'll take a stab. Evolution gave us the ability to communicate like all animals and gave us the ability of speech; however, it had nothing to do with the words we used. It has nothing to do with the formation of specific languages.
Rock for example could have happened when Joe the caveman stubbed his toe against a large black thing Larry his buddy heard him yell RACCCKKKK! and so be it the large black thing became a rock. I guess evolution could of caused Joe to stub his toe and then it created his ability to yell and Larry's ability to listen. You could probably prove it was evolution darn it.
So when did language begin? At the very beginnings of the genus Homo, perhaps 4 or 5 million years ago? Or with the advent of modern man, Cro-magnon, some 125,000 years ago? Did the neanderthal speak? He had a brain that was larger than ours, but his voice box seems to be higher in his throat, like that of the apes. We dont know.
There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.
1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a childs mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from gestures.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.
6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (Im with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!
There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.
1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a childs mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from gestures.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.
6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (Im with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
"Good response for when you don't know,"
I just don't want to waste my time, because I don't really think you care about linguistics. That's why this will be my last response on this mini discourse.
"but we have the internet today."
A web-page pales greatly to a 300 or 400 page book on the subject.
"Evolution gave us the ability to communicate like all animals and gave us the ability of speech;"
Human language is nothing like the communication of other animals. Humans are able to communicate in ways no other animal can. It is unique.
" It has nothing to do with the formation of specific languages."
It has already been shown that humans are physiological disposed to the formation of language. "Specifics" are just arbitrary.
"Joe the caveman"
My guess is language predates "cavemen". We may even have had primitive language before we were even human, and by natural selection it has become more able and sophisticated.
Last edited:
The question was what has faith given us that reason had not. A lot of language is faith based or even worse just random. Without it reason would be greatly hampered. As in all things faith and reason are intertwined.
We can always move up a few years and evaluate the reasons behind the written word. It is varied way to much for reason to be the excuse.