Lots of interesting stuff there maximus. Here's my take...
Originally posted by maximus
this i wonder: does a religios viewpoint require proof? even if there is no contradictory proof, but only an absence of proof, is this enough to undo a belief?
It kind of depends on what the "requirement" is for. You ask, does a religious view "require" proof. Normally a sentence might read...
To do X requires Y.
You are asking "is Y required" without stating the "to do X" part. So, it depends on what you're attempting to do with the religious claim.
If you're simply taking comfort in a religious concept, because you like it, then you might decide that, for you, you don't require proof. I personally require proof for what I believe because I believe that truth must be the first and foremost concern, with happiness coming after. Other folks, consciously or not, place happiness above truth.
On the other hand, if you're trying to use a religious belief as justification for the passage (or non passage) of a law or policy, in a society full of people of various different religions, then your religious view DOES require proof. This is because you have now moved beyond your personal preference, into things that affect others and to which they would be beholden too. Therefore, you must make your arguments in the court of public opinion, where proof will be asked for. Without such proof, individuals do not have the right to arbitrarily enforce their beliefs on others.
...in science every term, idea, conclusion must be carefully scrutinized. but in theology, it seems, one does not require proof to make a conlusion about the universe. how is this?
I can tell you exactly how this is...
Throughout much of history, and most notably in the philosophies of the ancient greeks, exemplified by the dialogues of plato and such, there was a belief that, through reason alone, truth could be determined. You'll note that, when reading the arguments of Socrates, that he starts with some observations from everyday life, and then takes the other characters on a long series of if/then propositions. He uses rationality and reason every step of the way, and arrives at a conclusion. Such conclusions were believed to have been "proven" through philosophical discourse. It's all very convincing to the reader, as every step seems to make sense. However, we know now that a lot of Socrates' conclusions about factual matters were absolutely wrong.
How can this be? Well, without getting into logic 101, it's basically because an argument can be 100% VALID and, at the same time, be 100% FALSE. In other words, if your premises are false, you can still construct a logical argument, with a conclusion that logically follows from those premises. There wouldn't be a problem with your logic - just your facts. But the ancient Greeks did not seem to make this distinction. They believed that you could PROVE things by philosophic argument alone. The result would be that Socrates could start out noting things like "fish swim in the ocean", and end up after a time with a conclusion like, "Men have immortal souls" (not a real example but you get my drift).
But, with the coming of the enlightenment, came a highly under-appreciated, yet incredibly significant realization. That was that "argument alone cannot PROVE anything". For proof, you MUST have observed facts (experimental observation). Logic then, may help you make sense of those facts, but that is what distinguishes science from mysticism. Both use philosophy, both use logical argument, both are internally consistent within themselves, but one has a laboratory and the other does not.
Most "philosophic" arguments of religion are based on the pre-enlightenment belief that logical argument and internal consistency alone can prove things. But in the modern world, the religions are recognized as having absolutely no valid proof because they have no data (which, being supernatural, is not even, in principle, possible to collect).
...is this what you call 'faith'? and how far does it go?
As far as wishful thinking and a good imagination takes it.
...can an religious idea ever be shaken from a person, or can the idea or no religion ever be shaken from a non religios person?
Depends on the person and their experiences. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, had no bad experiences with religion, yet rejected it in favor of naturalism and humanism, after many years of careful and open-minded deliberation and research.
...it seems the old saying that faith is the basis of human existence holds true, to some extent. it all depends on where you hold your faith. in the firmament of science? or in the beauty of theism?
I don't believe that it takes faith to believe that which the evidence supports. By definition, that would be the antithesis of faith. Not to say I believe there is NOT a god, because that belief would also take faith. I lack both beliefs. Agnostic? Perhaps. But also atheist, since atheism is technically the "lack of belief in a diety" - it doesn't necessarily include a belief of the opposite.
...or does faith have nothing to do with it? maybe the common grounds we share is nothing more than a search for truth. but still, we must have faith that we will find it.
Not necessarily. The search moves us ever closer, and that's what's important. Not necessarily that there's some imaginary finish line we must reach. The journey is its own reward.
