Faith In Religon vs Faith in Science

[honestrosewater]

the statement, "The laws of the universe hold tomorrow as they did today", is impossible to justify.

Do you believe your statement is absolutely true? (I mean the entire statement quoted above.)

No, sorry, I didn't mean for the P's and Q's to keep the same definitions throughout, I was just giving temporary examples.

I'll reread all the posts and wait a while for someone else to jump in here because we aren't getting anywhere.

 

[honestrosewater]

By an observable world (OW), I mean a world knowable by human observation.
By a real world (RW), I mean a world existing independently of an OW.
Can science prove anything about a RW? If not (as you seem to have said), then how can you claim a belief about a RW is a scientific belief? That is, if you have faith that a RW exists, and science cannot prove anything about a RW, how can your faith in a RW be considered faith in science? By faith in science, I mean faith in something science can prove.
It's late, maybe that didn't make sense. I'm trying to take a different approach, but I can't get it into the correct form.
Anyway, Nereid was the first to mention my point:

So far, it seems most posters mean 'belief that scientific theories are accurate statements about reality' (or something like that). If so, then perhaps extending gravenworld's first post may be useful ... as I understand it, a core principle in science is its uncertainty (not just Heisenberg and QM); another is that the theories - even highly successful ones like GR and QFT - do not, in themselves, say anything about 'reality' or 'truth'.

____
Okay, I've edited this post several times and reread your posts several times. I think we were both arguing the same point. :rofl: Sorry, I find that hilarious at the moment.
Just to clarify,
P: What happened today will happen tomorrow.
Q: The sun rose today.
R: The sun will rise tomorrow.
$(P \wedge Q) \Rightarrow R$ is how I would have put the previous propositions together. Anyway, yes, I agree you have to assume P until you can falsify it by observation. Do we agree that an assumption is not faith, science cannot prove anything about a RW, and faith in a RW is not faith in science? If the answer is yes, this was at least an interesting learning experience.
___
Actually, I wouldn't have used "today" and "tomorrow", but something like $t_0\ and\ t_1$ whose meaning wouldn't depend upon the present time.

 

[TENYEARS]

Who says the sun must show itself tomarrow? There may be something sight unseen which could destroy it or us in a moment. It is the arrogance of humanity which believes it understands all things but it does not. Better to be thankful that it rises for now because there may be a day when humanity curses it.

66 percent at the moment. LoL Is there that many people who actually would deny logic to sustain self? Science is not who you are it is what you do. It does not define you you define it. Until you become the thing you observe you will know nothing. What do you really think the trinity is? Father - the conciousness that is, son - all of creation, holy spirit - the power of the movement of the vibration of the universe itself. Until a human can say I am if but for a moment. You will "know" nothing of science. You will have faith and nothing more.

 

[learningphysics]

____
Okay, I've edited this post several times and reread your posts several times. I think we were both arguing the same point. :rofl: Sorry, I find that hilarious at the moment.
Just to clarify,
P: What happened today will happen tomorrow.
Q: The sun rose today.
R: The sun will rise tomorrow.
$(P \wedge Q) \Rightarrow R$ is how I would have put the previous propositions together. Anyway, yes, I agree you have to assume P until you can falsify it by observation. Do we agree that an assumption is not faith, science cannot prove anything about a RW, and faith in a RW is not faith in science? If the answer is yes, this was at least an interesting learning experience.
___
Actually, I wouldn't have used "today" and "tomorrow", but something like $t_0\ and\ t_1$ whose meaning wouldn't depend upon the present time.

I think the post was directed at me? Yes, we seem to have at least partial agreement. I'd like to present a link to an article about Hume, and the problem of induction:
http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html

I think it better presents the ideas I've tried to talk about.

 

[honestrosewater]

There may be something sight unseen which could destroy it or us in a moment.

I agree.

It is the arrogance of humanity which believes it understands all things but it does not.

Well, if I count as a member of humanity, I know that isn't true. If everyone believed they already understood everything, wouldn't everyone ask only rhetorical questions?

Until you become the thing you observe you will know nothing.

I don't really like the trinity example, but it is important to address this concept, IMO. Unfortunately, I don't yet know how to address it sensibly.

 

[honestrosewater]

learningphysics,

The conclusion seems inescapable: Every inductive argument employs UN as a premise, so no inductive argument can ever justify UN.

The author doesn't say what "justify" means (unless I missed it, and I double-checked), so I can't agree with this. But, yes, I agree regarding the circularity of such an argument.

We accept UN, the claim that our experience is a representative sample of the natural world.

Unless the author means "we" as the person in the example, this is a delightful bit of irony. (At first, I thought the author meant we as "all people".)

It could be that there are two sorts of snow, the cold kind and the warm kind, but that the warm kind only exists on mars.

This actually also points out related problems with
D: In our extensive experience thus far, snow has always been cold.
1) If we define snow as being cold, a substance which isn't cold isn't snow. 2) The author has failed to mention different kinds of properties (color, texture, taste, plasticity, temperature, etc.) and types of sensory information (photic, chemical, mechanical, and thermal). How do we identify snow, or what we suspect is snow, in the first place? Anyway...

Our acceptance of UN* is not optional. It is, in Hume's phrase, a matter of custom or habit; but it might better be called a matter of instinct. We do not reason our way to the principle: we do not accept it on the basis of arguments. Rather, to accept the principle is a natural feature of all human and indeed all animal life.

*(UN) For the most part, if a regularity R (e.g., All Fs are Gs) holds in my experience, then it holds in nature generally, or at least in the next instance.

Yay, I get to enjoy the irony after all! The author is explaining the problem of induction and argues (partially through Hume) "In our extensive experience thus far, all humans & co. have always accepted X. Therefore, all humans & co. accept X. Furthermore, I can experience the basis on which all humans & co. accept X."

But wherever it comes from, it is so deeply engrained in us that we have no real choice about whether to accept it. We can temporarily suspend our intellectual assent to the proposition. But nature will soon reassert itself in us and force these doubts from our mind.

Same as above.

He [Hume] has shown that from a strictly intellectual point of view, there is no real difference between common sense and science on the one hand, and religious belief on the other. In all three cases we find a system of belief based on a fundamental conviction that cannot be justified by argument. The most dramatic way to put the point is to say that Hume has shown that common sense and science are matters of faith.

BTW I actually like Hume and James. Apparently the author equates acceptance with belief. BTW This means all animal life is capable of belief (faith, conviction), by the author's prior statements.
I would define acceptance, as it is used throughout this article, thus: A accepts B if
1) A behaves as if B were true or
2) A assumes B is true or
3) A believes B is true.
1 is there for several reasons, but basically because I can observe behavior. If you don't understand why 2 is there, I'll try to explain it, but I think previous posts already have.

I'm not sure why "for the most part" is included (to what does it refer?) in the author's statement of UN? It's no small matter either- it's the difference between some and all!

I have more to say on this topic, but I'll wait until we are clear on these points to proceed.

 

[Moses]

Tom McCurdy, you ,me and TENYEARS were having a discussion about that there, and once you asked a question to me which i was almost was going to reply, before the thread is "Locked" ...[i do not kow why, but anyhow] and i can plot the asnwer for your question here:

Well, for me blind faith is no-way a faith to me. Yes, i do have a religion, and my faith in that religion is based on proof that i examined it by my mind. The logical way i use is the same as the scientific method, such both originated from the same "mind mechanism in thinking" [not sure if my usage of words is correct here, i was supposed to be native speaker!]

The way i used is: I make sure from the human who claimed to be sent from God that he is trustworthy first, since i will not waste my time listening to a lier about such an issue. Then i saw what he is saying and claims to be from the Universe-Master, while doing this i might accpeted it as "nice" thingy, but i will not accpet it as as True religion from God unless is show me a "miracle" or God-signature, to prove to me that this religion is actually is from God. On this i duild my faith in my religion.

About why other people believe in religion and not following this way, i can say as some people wrongly follow wrong ways in searching/learning/believing or having faith in science, will that effect the correct method or discredit the true correct science, no simply.

Hope the post was not long to read.

 

[Locrian]

Who says the sun must show itself tomarrow? There may be something sight unseen which could destroy it or us in a moment.

Really? Then why are you typing posts on a computer in a room? Why not get out and really live life? Why have a job, a family or responsibilities?

Arguments such as the one quotes are ultimately selfish and hypocritical. If anything might happen, then why aren't you preparing for anything?

Some people think knowledge is so insubstantial - until it comes to their bank accounts. Some people think science is so fallable - until they need a bigger hard drive. Some people love to critique things they don't understand - until they need them.

Not only does the above post contain a rather disgusting philosophy, but it contains blatant straw men. Humanity believes it understands all things? I don't know which humanity he's talking about, but no one I've ever met thinks they understand all things. I'm more disturbed by tenyears need to tell me what I think than I am about any supposed fallacy of science he proposes.

The original post in this thread cites a post made by tenyears that was unoriginal, made little sense and was nearly uninteligible until a moderator cleaned it up. The question this thread hangs around isn't particularly deep, either. I'm not saying it isn't worth asking, I'm saying the answer is short and simple. It is almost entirely wrapped around how you define faith - and as I expected, little work is actually spent defining it. While there are some interesting social issues concerning how much scientists take particular axioms for granted, these haven't even really been discussed.

I cannot help but to shake my head and think "Only in the philosophy forums..."

 

[honestrosewater]

Really? Then why are you typing posts on a computer in a room? Why not get out and really live life? Why have a job, a family or responsibilities?

I agree with TENYEARS on this. Saying that something is possible isn't the same as saying it's probable. It's possible to flip a coin 1000 times and get all heads, isn't it? Does that mean it's probable?
How did you get the authority to say what is or is not "really" living life or what things people must value?

It is almost entirely wrapped around how you define faith - and as I expected, little work is actually spent defining it.

If defining faith is short, simple, and will go most of the way towards answering a question which you claim is not not worth asking, why did you not define faith?
I don't see how you can claim that little work has been spent defining faith. Did you actually read all the posts?

I cannot help but to shake my head and think "Only in the philosophy forums..."

How is your post not selfish and hypocritical?

 

[russ_watters]

Arguments such as the one quotes are ultimately selfish and hypocritical. If anything might happen, then why aren't you preparing for anything?

That's not the way I would characterize it: for me, its simply a matter of probability. The odds of an unseen object hitting and destroying the sun tonight while I sleep are so remote as to not be worth considering.

Though I guess the hypocritical could come in when TENYEARS puts more stock into such an unlikely event than in something that is more likely (like his monitor working when he switches it on). To continue to deny the success of science while using it goes beyond even hypocritical - its laughable.

 

[learningphysics]

learningphysics,
The author doesn't say what "justify" means (unless I missed it, and I double-checked), so I can't agree with this. But, yes, I agree regarding the circularity of such an argument.
Unless the author means "we" as the person in the example, this is a delightful bit of irony. (At first, I thought the author meant we as "all people".)

Yes, I agree the use of "we" and extending the argument beyond the first person to all people is ironic.

BTW I actually like Hume and James. Apparently the author equates acceptance with belief. BTW This means all animal life is capable of belief (faith, conviction), by the author's prior statements.
I would define acceptance, as it is used throughout this article, thus: A accepts B if
1) A behaves as if B were true or
2) A assumes B is true or
3) A believes B is true.
1 is there for several reasons, but basically because I can observe behavior. If you don't understand why 2 is there, I'll try to explain it, but I think previous posts already have.

The definition above is fine with me.

I'm not sure why "for the most part" is included (to what does it refer?) in the author's statement of UN? It's no small matter either- it's the difference between some and all!

The "for the most part" is included because although we generalize, we still accept exceptions... (ok by "we" I mean "I" lol... and I make the guess that others have the same experience as me)...

For example when I drop an object... I believe it will fall to the ground. But I still believe that exception is possible... for example someone may come along and catch it before it falls...

Or I believe that when I drive my car onto the highway, there'll be other cars there... although there have been a few situations when I haven't seen any other cars...

And so on...

By regularities the author is not referring to "fundamental laws of the universe" but the regularities we perceive day to day...

 

[learningphysics]

That's not the way I would characterize it: for me, its simply a matter of probability. The odds of an unseen object hitting and destroying the sun tonight while I sleep are so remote as to not be worth considering.

Though I guess the hypocritical could come in when TENYEARS puts more stock into such an unlikely event than in something that is more likely (like his monitor working when he switches it on). To continue to deny the success of science while using it goes beyond even hypocritical - its laughable.

There is a difference between accepting induction, and pointing out the irrationality of it...

The use of probability here is still use of induction...

In the past, the probability of the sun being destroyed was remote... therefore the probability of the sun being destroyed in the future is remote...

There continues to be the assumption that the universe will be the same tomorrow, that it was today...

I accept this assumption... I'll live by it every day... But I have to intellectually point out that there is no logical justification of it!

 

[Locrian]

That's not the way I would characterize it: for me, its simply a matter of probability.

Yes, that is exactly the point. Those who suggest that science is flawed because of its assumption of causal relationships are making a fundamental mistake, because science never argues that this assumption is anything but, and what's more those same people make the assumption every day.

It is all built around a cheesy straw man argument that says that society thinks it knows everything, science thinks it has all knowledge etc, etc.

 

[Locrian]

How is your post not selfish and hypocritical?

Aprarently you aren't sure what the definition of those words are. We need less of that in this thread.

Can you show me where I presented an argument for a philosophy that I felt was superior but clearly did not follow? Tenyears is not just pointing out that something is possible, he is using that as an argument for why something else is flawed, and to do this he requires that this argument of possibility is not just true, but meaningful.

 

[honestrosewater]

Locrian,
You made claims which didn't make sense to me so I asked for clarification. I didn't mean to offend you. Can you answer any of the questions I asked?

Aprarently you aren't sure what the definition of those words are. We need less of that in this thread.

Fine, will you help me/us to understand?

Can you show me where I presented an argument for a philosophy that I felt was superior but clearly did not follow?

Is that your definition of hypocrisy?

 

[TENYEARS]

Locrain, my arugment stands why do you comment on a purpose and a post you obviously do not understand? I know the answer already so a response is not required only to make you think or not which would be more of the same. Science is not flawed as long as it follows it's own rules. In that case it is the best you can do. It does not have to be right but for the most part conforms to what is witnessed. It still does not mean that it is not based on faith because it is. Dictionary definition please. It is the same with religion for those have not had direct experience. It is faith.

 

[Moses]

Locrain, my arugment stands why do you comment on a purpose and a post you obviously do not understand? I know the answer already so a response is not required only to make you think or not which would be more of the same. Science is not flawed as long as it follows it's own rules. In that case it is the best you can do. It does not have to be right but for the most part conforms to what is witnessed. It still does not mean that it is not based on faith because it is. Dictionary definition please. It is the same with religion for those have not had direct experience. It is faith.

I have a comment on what you have said, but before that: Can you clarify to mean what do you mean exactly by "Direct experience", Thx.

 

[quantumdude]

I vote "maybe a little".

The one similarity I see between the two neither has propositions that can be known to be true with certainty, but they both have propositions that can be known to be false with certainty.

Beyond that the similarity ends. Scientific propositions are held to be true tentatively, and it is actually expected that they will be found false. And the standard for justification of hypotheses is repeatable demonstration under controlled circumstances. Religious propositions, on the other hand, are held to be true permanently. The most significant difference is that religious propositons serve as their own justification in the eyes of the religious. So the truth or falsity of all other propositions is judged in light of dogma.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is a difference between accepting induction, and pointing out the irrationality of it...

The use of probability here is still use of induction...

In the past, the probability of the sun being destroyed was remote... therefore the probability of the sun being destroyed in the future is remote...

There continues to be the assumption that the universe will be the same tomorrow, that it was today...

I accept this assumption... I'll live by it every day... But I have to intellectually point out that there is no logical justification of it!

I might point out that you logically jusified it quite nicely. You will never have any better information by which to judge than the history of things. Maybe you meant there is no proof, which is true. Such is life . . . we can never know anything for sure except how it has been in the past and how it is right now.

 

[Moses]

Dudes, there is some people who accpet one way of proof, and reject others ways becuase it is not "fitting their mode". I admit it, i cannot make anybody "see" who the dog sounds like, or he can "touch" how the apple taste like.

Still, the faith should be build on a proof, blind faith to me is nothing, some people have a disputive way that they do not doubt to reach a result, but they doubt for the sake of doubting and they find this cool. If you show them a proof using the mind, with other tools, they would say: We will not believe until we see and touch what claimed, and IF and IF you make them see and touch that thing, they would say: Actually we are now in an illusion enviroment, sorry you proof is invalid.

This is bad, baaaad! :grumpy:

 

[TENYEARS]

As for the sun not being there tomarrow do I believe it will be yes. Do I "know" at this point no. Am I comfortable with that belief yes. It does not deny that a black hole could come sight unseen or a massive amount of matter being added to the sun via reltive object(s) or there is something else which can happen which I discovered when I figured out what gravity and matter is.

Direct experience is the day I witnessed God, it is also my visions and some other experiences which I have not relayed on this forum. It includes my realization of gravity and that which occurred for two days afterward. If you were to take just one vision I had and plot the points of potentiallity vs it's probability you would be quite stunned. One aspect of one vision alone has occurred only once in 12 years of interaction. Other aspects of the same vision would raise the probability of such events to come true that your jaw would it the floor. While one is experiencing these things and afterward one is in total awe. You can't believe what is happening is happening and yet it is and you knew it would. Even the other experiences one in particular, it is "yea! I did it I finally did it!".

I will directly challange any credible college to prove that which I know is invalid. I will also if they provide one piece of simple equipment proof that I am not talking out of my hat. Just proving that precogniction alone is a reality in itself proves a host of other things. In fact it proves it all. Do you know why? Can any of you deduce why if precognition is a reality that a host of other things are also true?

 

[quantumdude]

Let's stick to the topic. Visions and personal theories of gravity aren't it.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a difference between accepting induction, and pointing out the irrationality of it...

The use of probability here is still use of induction...

In the past, the probability of the sun being destroyed was remote... therefore the probability of the sun being destroyed in the future is remote...

There continues to be the assumption that the universe will be the same tomorrow, that it was today...

I accept this assumption... I'll live by it every day... But I have to intellectually point out that there is no logical justification of it!

Why isn't induction itself a logical justification for it?

 

[FZ+]

Maybe a little.

Ideally no. Ideally, science should be always accompanied by the provisor that everything we think we 'know' is probably wrong. Ideally, any sort of 'faith' in science should be really an unfaith, a sort of temporary ceasefire where we say that ok, this is the best we have, right now.

Realistically, once something like relativity ends up being proven so many times, we end up taking its truth for granted. To build up another level of detail, we begin to ignore the bottom layers, and we do need a sort of faith that our background is fully solid. And on a basic scale, we do exhibit a faith - which all philosophies exhibit - that we are in fact justified in thinking that science tells us something reasonable about the universe.

 

[TENYEARS]

Relgion let us say metaphyical truth which is a God which is not separate from ourselves, one that does not think outside of ourselves and yet is concious. The concept of heavean and hell soul spirit, angels and other aspects of religous reality are seen by those who have gone before us and built a foundation of realization. That is what humanity does with so many things. Even with simple decisions. A personal saying of my own which has never been said before is "Decisions are what we make when we don't know what we need to do." It is not only interms of decisions but understanding. If you understand what decision is to make? The course is followed by nature of the path you fought hard to understand. To commit without actual knowlege/experience is faith/belief/trust. These are not bad things and yet sometime they are are they not?

 

[loseyourname]

P: What happened today will happen tomorrow.
Q: The sun rose today.
R: The sun will rise tomorrow.
$(P \wedge Q) \Rightarrow R$ is how I would have put the previous propositions together.

I'm being a bit of a stickler for logic here, but stricly speaking, that hypothetical conditional is not deductively true due simply to the truth of its antecedent and its consequent. If you state it in argument form, you get simply P AND R, therefore Q. Stated as such, the truth value of Q is independent of the truth values of P and R. It requires a different formulation of the propositions to produce a valid argument form. So let's start over.

What happened today will happen tomorrow.
The sun rose today.
Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

First we'll restate this as:

For any x, If x happened today, Then x will happen tomorrow.
s happened today.
Therefore, s will happen tomorrow.

Where x is the general propositional variable and s is "the sun rose." We will use H to mean "happened today" and T to mean "will happen tomorrow." We can now translate to:

For any x, If Hx, Then Tx.
Hs.
Therefore, Hs.

Using symbolic connectives, the argument form is:

1. $(x)(Hx \Rightarrow Tx)$
2. $Hs$
$\therefore Ts$

We can then prove the validity of this argument by the following two steps:

3. $Hs \Rightarrow Ts$ From line 1 by Universal Instantiation
4. $Ts$ From lines 3 and 2 by Modus Ponens

This is the only way to capture the inner logical structure of the propositions, by virtue of which the conclusion "The sun will rise tomorrow" becomes deductively valid.

 

[3mpathy]

in response to page 3( I'm fashionably late as usual :P )

you guys kept arguing about something and tried to prove yourself with logic. it went something like: i can prove that the sun orbits the Earth becuz of math and science and equations. but could you have a infinite regression on proofs? where do you draw the line on what requires a proof, to say that this is a absolute truth and not just some flaw from what we humans see.to say that there are no unknown weird things that humans (don't know about)/( haven't experienced) is kinda of hypocritical. saying logic proves 1 thing but not another possibility. I am not saying that there is anything out there that could destroy the sun or stop the Earth from revolving around it, but that there could be. where do you get the FAITH to say that you are right and nothin will destroy the sun tommorrow? from probablity? prob is based on human perception and if this "thing", whatever it is, is unknown to humans how do you then say that is isn't probable? i agree with TenYears on this one, and also HonestRoseWater on the fact that ambiguity is , while mabye not my biggest or only enemy, it sure is a big one.

 

[honestrosewater]

loseyourname,
Okay, thanks.

For any x, If Hx, Then Tx.
Hs.
Therefore, Hs.

is a typo, right?

3mpathy,
Yes, ambiguity is exactly why we haven't settled the question yet. Defining faith doesn't settle the question if the definition is ambiguous. We seem to have settled on "belief without justification" as the definition of faith, but still haven't clarified what belief and justification mean.
The talk about assumptions, provisions, tentative belief, etc. has gone towards clarifying what belief means, the talk about observation, verification, logic, etc. towards clarifying what justification means.
As others have pointed out, we're also taking the question to mean more than face value. Presumably, faith is faith regardless of the object. Most of the posts have assumed the question to be about justification.
Did anyone read all of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/? Our question is exactly what it discusses- belief and justification.

 

[chound]

You know hinduism is mostly a mixture of science and religion. It used religion to propogate science. For eg. You r supposed to worship trees and animals. This prevented people from killing them. It says that neem leaves will bring godess to ur house. Neem is very good for health. It has virucidal effect. So many wonders are there in hinduism. Its basically science for the lay man. You can't tell everyone about the chemical composition of various products, the reactions with the body and so on. So instead indians used faith in god to promote this. Dont you think they were brilliant?

 

[JPD]

You know hinduism is mostly a mixture of science and religion. It used religion to propogate science. For eg. You r supposed to worship trees and animals. This prevented people from killing them. Dont you think they were brilliant?

Interesting. Has anyone told the beavers?

 

[russ_watters]

You know hinduism is mostly a mixture of science and religion. It used religion to propogate science. For eg. You r supposed to worship trees and animals. This prevented people from killing them. It says that neem leaves will bring godess to ur house. Neem is very good for health. It has virucidal effect. So many wonders are there in hinduism. Its basically science for the lay man. You can't tell everyone about the chemical composition of various products, the reactions with the body and so on. So instead indians used faith in god to promote this. Dont you think they were brilliant?

No, I think that had little, if anything, to do with science. Its akin to Native Americans worshiping nature - that doesn't mean they understood anything about how it worked.

 

[KaneOris]

SOMEWHAT:

If knowledge is only belief because you don't know anything you believe it then like you believe in religion you believe in science, except the two are on different levels, science has an extreme amount of backing to it, that's why i believe yes it follows the same concept as having faith in religion but they are two different things.

 

[owl3951]

I believe that we make the same mistake in this discussion for which we condemn those who believe with blind faith. We are accepting a particular slant on what "faith in religion" means from a source we view with scepticism. Further, we do not account for our own, perhaps unresearched, biases. You may normally expect a leaning towards the material or pragmatic view of the universe from a science forum. Maybe a little of the Heisenberg Principle takes effect in such discussions.
There must be a reason that, until recently, the major civilizations of the world were denoted by their religious affiliation. Western civilization was Christian. The Mideast was Islamic (which, by the way, is NOT older than Christianity). We had Buddhist and Hindu civilizations. And so on.
I think the difficulty stems from two unrecognized concepts: 1) There is a vast difference in a Faith at its inception and for several centuries following, then there is at its maturity. 2) Faiths are generally founded by a Central Figure who directs humanity on two levels: the spiritual and the earthly.
I can find no fundamental difference in the spiritual teachings of the major Faiths of the world. The differences that can be traced to the Founders of these Faiths have to do with earthly direction. For instance, Moses permitted divorce, Christ did not, Muhammed did. And I think what keeps these Faiths divided well after they no longer inspire and uplift is the fact that clergy need to maintain a separateness to maintain power and control.
Clearly the social laws and teachings of any of these Founders are meant to last but for a time, and to be replaced as needed by the succeeding Founders of the next Faiths. Further, I do not see these Founders being in conflict one with another. The Christ never said He was the only way to heaven, altho at His time He was, perhaps, the clearest and most direct route. Moses said of the Christ, "He will be like me." "He will be the same as myself." "He will be the same as I am." One of the first things the Christ did was to honor Moses. Christ spoke of others to come.
So what clearly happens is that a Faith has its seasons: spring (birth), summer (growth), harvest (attains the goals its Founder desired) and winter (continues on after it is doing more harm than good). Winter is caused by clergy needing the Faith to survive, and by some need in humanity--not endorsed by any Founder--to make themselves special, chosen, set apart and above the rest of humanity.
My perspective is that the Founders have all instructed the same type of investigation into truth we now call the scientific method. They were unafraid of serious and intense search into Themselves, Their lives and Their teachings. The concept of not investigating, of having to "believe what you know ain't so" (Mark Twain) comes from the winter time of a religion, when clergy, powerless to create good, unable to inspire the human heart to strive for spiritual worth, unable to explain or perfect the realities of a world that has progressed beyond its knowledge, attempts to stamp out investigation.
Mohammed appeared in the 7th century A.D. Christianity has been in its winter ever since. Similar to Judaism when the Christ appeared in what we now call the Holy Land (home of four major religions). Was Moses bad because His followers, wishing to maintain authority and position, rejected Christ? Do you see anywhere where Moses Himself instructed people to believe INSTEAD of learning? No.
So the concepts of religion that seem to cause revulsion in today's scientist are actually the same concepts that cause revulsion in the Founders of Faiths. One of the main differences, of course, is that it is this blind dogmatism that gets these Founders persecuted, tortured, reviled, exiled, and martyred. They hate what you hate. Without realizing, you, as a proponent of rational thought, and believing based upon conscious knowledge, are propagating one of the major tenets of the Founders of Religion. What you cast behind you is not Religion, but churches, superstitious sects, mindless ritual, worthless rites, power-hungry clergy. It is no more the fault of the Founders of these Faiths that Religion deteriorates into this black hole of the spirit than the atom bomb was the fault of Relativity. Humanity can corrupt anything.
There is still at least one religion that believes you cannot know without investigation of truth. It also believes one of the greatest tools of humanity is science, and that science must be fostered at every opportunity. Perhaps there are more religions such as this.
A word on miracles. Miracles have nothing to do with Religion. They are not, and were never intended to be, a proof of anything. You do not see any Founders of Faiths telling anyone, "See? I can do this, so you must believe me." Universally, the Founders of Faiths made little of their miracles, encouraged their followers to tell no one, and never spoke of them Themselves.
My guess is that most everything that has to do with true Religion has nothing to do with the churches you have grown to distrust and reject.
Just like Religion needs to change with the times, science, too, must update itself as knowledge grows. Failure to do so is the same as a religion turning into a church. This does happen in science. Scientists form their own sort of clergy, and control power, funding, publication and the like. There is no human endeavor we will not chisel down from its ideal form. So Science in the ideal is similar to Religion in the ideal, and science deteriorated is as religion corrupted.
Thus, there is no other answer to the poll than "very much."

 

[loseyourname]

loseyourname,
Okay, thanks. is a typo, right?

Yeah, that's a typo. It should read "Therefore, Ts." Sorry about that.

 

[Sabine]

i chose not @ all for the following reason, faith in science needs poofs , evidence, logic.
but faith in religion is beleiving without seeing, and this is make us different, this is what "JESUS" wanted in the first place,he could proove that he existed but i won't make any sense we'll all believe in him and then what? what will happen?