History Religion of Science: A Brief History

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I offer nothing but ideas and thoughts. I don't want or expect you or anyone else to accept anything. I just expect my thoughts and ideas to be read and thought about with an open mind as I try to do with all of yours; considered and accepted or rejected on their own merits, not rejected out of hand because they have within them the words "God" or "religion."

Oh, I did read them...and they are pretty standard stuff. You seem to be coming from it at the angle of 'religion is just as good as science at what science does'...and since that is patently false, you try to re-label science as just another religion.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
Wuli, I don't take it personally. Admittedly I am slow and hard headed and I admit that I too have a closed mind about some things such as communism and organized religion; but, you only have to hit me on the head with that proverbial 2X4 few times before I open my eyes and mind and start looking around to see what's trying to get my attention.
I have never run across such closed minded people out side of a fundamentalist babtist church before. They profess to be logical and scientific, and 'religiously' follow the scientific method. They must be doing it in brail with gloves on.
Shhhh! Don't laugh too loud. You might wake them up. Nawww, that was stupid of me. we couldn't wake these guys up with dynomite.

I live on a commune in southern Baptist redneck territory. Radical conservative communists are every bit as unreasonable and foam at the mouth as the worst religious fundamentalist. Put 'em all in the same room together and they'd kill each other-- in the names of God and science of course. They are two extremes of the same fundamentalism which can be directly traced to its sources within the welfare states and is well documented.

The more capitalistic the country, the more intensely fundamentalist. The heirarchies of the Catholic church tend to do best in the underdeveloped countries where the disparity between rich and poor, royalty and peasents is pronounced. Calvinism does better in wealthier capitalistic societies where people are encouraged to rise above their social class and the sciences are supported more.

There are at least four hundred definitions of socialism, but for our purposes here I will give a simplified definition. Essentially, socialistic countries are distinguished from capitalistic ones by the fact that the government owns much of the foundations of the economy such as the chemical and energy industries, and provides guaranteed basic support for everyone. For example, they provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. Most european countries are socialist in such respects.

Whereas the US guarantees only a few years of welfare support at around $16,000.00 a year for a family of four, the average in europe is around $22,000.00 a year and is unlimited. In the US, some eighty plus percent of the population is religious while in europe the percentages tend to be reversed. When people feel they can trust each other to provide morality religion looses much of its appeal.

Fundamentalism, both religious and scientific, is notoriously violent and its violence is notably creative. The number one manufactured export of the US is weapons, most of which are developed in time of war. As a result, the US routinely rakes in half the Nobel prizes.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
That's what you guys must love about philosophy and religion...not only can you make up whatever suits you, but you can call others 'close minded' for not accepting your ideas as anything more than your imagination. Science has facts, you have mystic mumblings and myths.

And you apparently have a negative philosophy which contradicts the facts.

 

[Royce]

You miss my point and the point of this thread.
Point 1.
Religion is as good in religious and spiritual matters as science is is good in science and physical matters.
Pt 2.
Both science and religion are valid appropriate fields of study and contemplation.
Pt 3.
Both science and religion are, to us laymen, a matter of trust beleif and faith.
To us laymen who are not the scientist that actually perform the experiments, science is our taking sombody else's word that the facts, evidence and conclusions are true. We believe the scientist without performing the experiments ourselves or actually seeing the evidence with our own eyes. This is belief in science and scientist.
This is faith in science and scientist just as I believe and have faith in God as well as science and scientist. I see no difference in the two in that aspect.
Pt4.
Science is based on evidence and experiment. We accept that evidence as truth.
Religion is based on evidence and experiment but mostly of a subjective manner but is not only rejected but ridiculed, slandered and debased by the very people who claim to have open objective minds.
This is contraditory.
Pt 5. My most important point.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Both are valid legitamate fields of knowledge to be studied and considered

 

[AutisticSavant]

Originally posted by Royce
You miss my point and the point of this thread.
Point 1.
Religion is as good in religious and spiritual matters as science is is good in science and physical matters.
Pt 2.
Both science and religion are valid appropriate fields of study and contemplation.
Pt 3.
Both science and religion are, to us laymen, a matter of trust beleif and faith.
To us laymen who are not the scientist that actually perform the experiments, science is our taking sombody else's word that the facts, evidence and conclusions are true. We believe the scientist without performing the experiments ourselves or actually seeing the evidence with our own eyes. This is belief in science and scientist.
This is faith in science and scientist just as I believe and have faith in God as well as science and scientist. I see no difference in the two in that aspect.
Pt4.
Science is based on evidence and experiment. We accept that evidence as truth.
Religion is based on evidence and experiment but mostly of a subjective manner but is not only rejected but ridiculed, slandered and debased by the very people who claim to have open objective minds.
This is contraditory.
Pt 5. My most important point.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Both are valid legitamate fields of knowledge to be studied and considered

1. correct
2. correct
3. wrong
4. correct on first part, wrong on second part
5. wrong

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
You miss my point and the point of this thread.

Better make up your mind as to what the point of this thread is. Your original post suggested the point was that science is a religion, which is patently absurd, however science and religion do have some things in common as I have pointed out.

As for religion being just as good as science, that I believe is patently absurd as well. The most progressive and humane nations in the world today are largely secular. Again, as I have already pointed out, religion has supported the development and rapid growth of the sciences, but at horrific cost. As the world grows steadily smaller it can no longer support the capitalistic and feudalistic systems that support religion.

 

[ahrkron]

A couple comments,

Originally posted by Royce
Point 1.
Religion is as good in religious and spiritual matters as science is is good in science and physical matters.

It seems to me that this statement is basically void.
Every human activity is "good" when evaluated using its own criteria. An extreme example woould be to say that "antisemitism is as good in race-perfecting matters as science is in physical matters".

The only way to break the tautology would be to use a criterion that applies to both... which is where the problem starts.

Pt 2.
Both science and religion are valid appropriate fields of study and contemplation.

Again, in order to treat them on the same footing (and evaluate how "valid" or "appropriate" they are), we would need to agree to a criterion. In principle, such criterion should not be contained on either (or be equally important in both). This is a hard task, since they basically cover all of our experiences (making it difficult to find a criterion outside both of them) from very different perspectives (which makes it hard to find a criterion shared by both with equal importance).

Pt 3.
Both science and religion are, to us laymen, a matter of trust beleif and faith.

I think this is should not be the case.
It is very unfortunate that science education sometimes ends up teaching "scientific dogma", and making people memorize data and "laws".

The very essence of science is the method, not the results. Memorizing free fall equations and the value of g is no different to religion (acceptance based on authority).

The difference comes when a student understands how such equations correspond to reality. When he takes a wrist watch and times a rock falling, either by himself or in a school lab.

Once this happens, it is not any more the same kind of "faith", since then he knows how every step should relate to experiences.

Not only that. Also, if he wants and is interested enough, it is always always possible for him to go to the lab where any chosen piece of science was found and say "show me that what you published is true". People there will most probably be happy to show him the equipment and the records of the finding, and to explain how the conclusions were obtained.

Science classes shoud have a much closer relation to the corresponding labs.

This is faith in science and scientist just as I believe and have faith in God as well as science and scientist. I see no difference in the two in that aspect.

Again, science should not be regarded as a matter of "faith" any more than sports, economy, politics, etc.

There is a level in which all human interaction is a matter of faith (you have to trust the person that says he is your father, the waiter that takes your credit card for a moment, the boy that parks your car at a restaurant, the people that handles your bank account information). This is true of any organized social effort, as science is. This "ground level" of faith cannot be avoided.

However, religious faith is clearly much above this "ground level" of faith.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
This confuses me...your statement is consistant with the idea that religion is either delusion or brainwashing. If you have to believe before you can see it, what is to say that you aren't imagining it out of your need to see it?

But, in Science, on needs to first have faith in the human ability to understand the objective Universe (whose existence they must also have faith in), and only then can they benefit from "proof".

Note: I am not saying that Science is a religion, as I am rather positive it is not (since, in order to be a religion, it would have to have some kind of deity (at least by most definitions of "religion")).

 

[Royce]

Wuli and all, I apologize. My last post was in response to Zero's last post which at the time was the last one visible to me. Apparently we were writing our replies at the same time and yours was posted before mine. I had not yet read it when I posted myreply. I should have shown the quote to which I was replying. Again, sorry about that.
Now to reply to all of you.
I do not think that science is a religion. That is absurd as wuli says. My original post was a parody, humor, or at least my feable and apparently poor attempt at humor. My one and only purpose at the time was to show the absurdity of the position that so many others have taken in other threads in this forum that science is solely based on fact, experiements and physical evidence; and, the any and all religion being based solely on faith is illogical, foolish and stupid. A minor point at the time was that they totally reject as nonexistant or lies or delusions the centuries of philisophical debate, the millions of testimonys and witnesses of religios and spitual phenomina. All saying that we have NO evidence.
The other point came about and were developed though out the response to the many reponses in this thread.

ps
I firmly belief that though a parody there is some truth in everything I wrote in the original post. Obviously none of it were whole truths but half truths at best. Thats why I thought it humorous. Obviously if I have to explain the humor, the piece is not humorous.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce


ps
I firmly belief that though a parody there is some truth in everything I wrote in the original post. Obviously none of it were whole truths but half truths at best. Thats why I thought it humorous. Obviously if I have to explain the humor, the piece is not humorous.

Try the general board, pal...humor gets lost everywhere else!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
And you apparently have a negative philosophy which contradicts the facts.

Show me a fact, just one...something conctrete...please!

 

[kat]

Originally posted by wuliheron

The more capitalistic the country, the more intensely fundamentalist. The heirarchies of the Catholic church tend to do best in the underdeveloped countries where the disparity between rich and poor, royalty and peasents is pronounced. Calvinism does better in wealthier capitalistic societies where people are encouraged to rise above their social class and the sciences are supported more.

There are at least four hundred definitions of socialism, but for our purposes here I will give a simplified definition. Essentially, socialistic countries are distinguished from capitalistic ones by the fact that the government owns much of the foundations of the economy such as the chemical and energy industries, and provides guaranteed basic support for everyone. For example, they provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. Most european countries are socialist in such respects.

Whereas the US guarantees only a few years of welfare support at around $16,000.00 a year for a family of four, the average in europe is around $22,000.00 a year and is unlimited. In the US, some eighty plus percent of the population is religious while in europe the percentages tend to be reversed. When people feel they can trust each other to provide morality religion looses much of its appeal.

I think your numbers for welfare in the U.S. are too high. The last study I reviewed concerning this had U.S. family of four at under 6k a year, and under 10k if you are including supplemental food stamps.
Also where are you getting a 20% religious-80% non-religious figure for Europe from?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by kat
I think your numbers for welfare in the U.S. are too high. The last study I reviewed concerning this had U.S. family of four at under 6k a year, and under 10k if you are including supplemental food stamps.
Also where are you getting a 20% religious-80% non-religious figure for Europe from?

The statistics for welfare I obtained from Utne magazine, which is not likely to inflate such figures. However, I have heard them criticized as not accounting for differences in cost of living.

The non-religious/religious statistics was a mistake on my part. I ment to say Fundamentalist/Nonfundamentalists. Recent statistics gathered show a clear progression and preference for Fundamentalist religions in the most capitalistic countries, less fundamentalist ones in less capitalistic countries, and Atheism in communist countries. In other words, the more capitalistic and classist a country, the more religious.

If you want, there are also a number of interesting statistics correlating crime and religion as well. However, religious statistics and how meaningful they are admittedly difficult to tabulate. One study of people in the US claiming to attend church regularly, for example, demonstrated they often lie about such things.

Here is one of the better websites I know of on the subject:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/atheism.html#related

They claim there are an estimated one million atheists in the US and 18 million in europe.

 

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Royce
...Presumably apples didn’t fall from trees prior to Newton’s discovery of gravity or surely someone else would have noticed a few thousand years earlier...

[?]

Einstein... discovered first Special and then General Relativity by proving that everything was relative doing away with most of Newton’s work...

...Schrodinger... invented or discovered Quantum mechanics by putting a cat in a box with a “diabolical device’...

Now of course everyone understands Relativity the gist of which seems to be that no one can tell how fast he is going unless he looks out a window and no one canever know what time it is even if they look out the window as all of their clocks will be wrong. He also did away with Newton’s gravity by showing that space was bent, twisted and deformed by matter and everything tended to run down hill as a result.

Dare I go on?

Good Goddess almighty. Someone needs to hit the books.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Considering at least eighty percent of the US alone is religious, evidently a great deal.

Eighty percent in US still believe in mythology? This is well behind of other idustrialized countries.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Many a religous person would disagree. They have seen evidence of the splendor of God, and you too would be perfectly capable of seeing that evidence if you would only have faith.

Interesting twist.

If you see an apple falling down, the the only thing which prevents you from seeing the evidence of apple falling up (in the direction of heaven) is the faith that apples fall up, not down.

As soon as you get strong faith that apples fall up - you start seeing them falling up everywhere.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Eighty percent in US still believe in mythology? This is well behind of other idustrialized countries.

That's a conservative estimate, and the vast majority of them are fundamentalists. You know, religions that say women are inferior to men, evil must be fought by all means possible, etc. A good percentage of the Atheists I know in the US are just as fundamentalist, but with different beliefs. Ted Kazinsky, the unibomber, was an atheist who believed technology is evil. Others I know believe capitalism is the source of all evil, but most seem to believe religion is the source of all evil. Evil is perhaps the most destructive myth ever invented.

 

[FZ+]

Evil is perhaps the most destructive myth ever invented.

Indeed. Both I fear modern society has long developed an addiction to the premise of a simplistic system of good vs evil, them vs us. It would be very hard to break such a thing, which is ingrained in so much of world culture.
Then again, it is reassuring that not every atheist is an unibomber..

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by FZ+
Indeed. Both I fear modern society has long developed an addiction to the premise of a simplistic system of good vs evil, them vs us. It would be very hard to break such a thing, which is ingrained in so much of world culture.
Then again, it is reassuring that not every atheist is an unibomber..

According to some statistics, atheists in general are peaceful, law abiding citizens in comparison to the religious. That's not to say Atheism doesn't have its own drawbacks, especially fundamentalist atheism. Just that many of the arguments put forward in favor of religion are highly questionable.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you have to believe before you can see it, what is to say that you aren't imagining it out of your need to see it?

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that most of the experimental evidence for scientific concepts relies on believing other scientific concepts? For instance, how can we take the missing electron neutrinos as evidence that neutrinos have mass without believing the theoretical derivation of the laws of neutrino mixing? How can we take the redshifted light from distant galaxies as evidence of universal expansion if we don't first believe General Relativity is right? And how can we take any scientific experiment evidence for anything if we don't first have faith in statistical reasoning?

 

[FZ+]

Maybe we don't have faith in statistical reasoning, but simply conclude that one theory has a larger consistency with the data than the alternative? Hence we don't believe our current system of knowledge to be true, we simply state that it fits the data best out of all the known possibilities?
Does that make sense?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by FZ+
Maybe we don't have faith in statistical reasoning, but simply conclude that one theory has a larger consistency with the data than the alternative? Hence we don't believe our current system of knowledge to be true, we simply state that it fits the data best out of all the known possibilities?
Does that make sense?

Does it ever, there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that most of the experimental evidence for scientific concepts relies on believing other scientific concepts? For instance, how can we take the missing electron neutrinos as evidence that neutrinos have mass without believing the theoretical derivation of the laws of neutrino mixing? How can we take the redshifted light from distant galaxies as evidence of universal expansion if we don't first believe General Relativity is right? And how can we take any scientific experiment evidence for anything if we don't first have faith in statistical reasoning?

Yes, you are wrong. You've mentioned this before (as have others). The experiments, observations, calculations - all of the evidence - of all scientific theories are available to you if you choose to look at them. So no, you do NOT need to rely on belief in order to get up to speed on science. It may be a lot to learn, but you can learn it if you choose to (and are smart enough).

Contrast that with religion, for which there IS no evidence for you to investigate on your own.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, you are wrong. You've mentioned this before (as have others). The experiments, observations, calculations - all of the evidence - of all scientific theories are available to you if you choose to look at them. So no, you do NOT need to rely on belief in order to get up to speed on science. It may be a lot to learn, but you can learn it if you choose to (and are smart enough).
________________________

Where ,pray tell, are we going to learn it? From books, other people,
in classrooms? That will still be taking someone elses word for the truth. Faith that they are telling the truth and giving us fact that they themselves got from some other source. Unless we individually perform every experiment that has ever been done and perform all the valid and invalid math maniplulations that has been done ourselves we are still relying on the word and integrity and accuracy of others. That is we believe them without visible proof the we our selves have collected. That is an act of faith. Nothing wrong with it. Its unavoidable but it is not the almighty logical physical undeniable absolute truth that all of you make it out to be.

_____________________

Contrast that with religion, for which there IS no evidence for you to investigate on your own.

____________________________

You are doing just exactly what I'm complaining about 3 thousnand years of study, debate and writings don't exist? Go to any library in the country and look at the religious and the philosophy section. Then tell me that we have no evidence or are you really that blind and biased that you cannot see anything but what you want to see.
Which is exactly what you accuse us religous people of being. Read the post in just this one thread and see how many time it is claimed that science has all the hard physical evidence and relion has none.
Possibly you will detect a biased unfounded attitude. It is not just you its all of the scientific community.

 

[Royce]

Zero, I hate to admit it but your right. Humor does get lost here as well as a number of other things.

I am going to say this one time and then I'm through beating my head against this brick wall and am going to move on.

The scientific, community has no PROOF either, not personally nor collectively about most of the modern theories. There is no PROOF that SR, GR, or QM are complete or wholly correct. That is why they are theories. We have evidence that supports some of what the theories imply but no complete proof. we can not even understand much less explain what we have learned about QM. It is still bound up in the Great Mystery, we can only speculate. That is not PROOF.

 

[Alexander]

Royce, it sounds like you don't understand how science works. At all.

Do you have any education/ experience in science? (particularly in physics - GR, SR and QM - because you sound like an expert in these fields)?

Russ and FZ seem to know much more about physics than you do. Why don't you listen to those who knows the object of discussion better?

So, what is your area of knowledge/expertise and how much expertise in physics do you have?

 

[FZ+]

Alex: Royce is partially right. It is not possible really to have evidence that GR etc is wholly correct. We can say that it matches all our evidence to date, but we can't speculate on whether we have taken all possible evidence. Because we can't say the GR etc is complete or wholly correct, we continue to test it any way we can. But scientific proof is not the same as a complete proof - scientific proof is about the balance of available data, as we know in science that nothing is proved beyond doubt.
But we can gain understanding or explanation through science.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+

But we can gain understanding or explanation through science.

But we can gain understanding and explanation through religion also.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
But we can gain understanding and explanation through religion also.

No, you really can't. Not understanding of physical processes.

 

[Royce]

I'm not sure I agree, Zero, but I won't go into that. FZ+ did not limit "understanding or explanation" to physical processes.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I'm not sure I agree, Zero, but I won't go into that. FZ+ did not limit "understanding or explanation" to physical processes.

Of course you don't agree. Anything real contained in religion is coincidental, or irrelevant to the point of religion.

 

[FZ+]

Royce: I didn't say "only science". I simply refute your iimplication that science does not bring knowledge or understanding, which is frankly nonsense.

we can not even understand much less explain what we have learned about QM. It is still bound up in the Great Mystery, we can only speculate.

This is very wrong.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+
Royce: I didn't say "only science". I simply refute your iimplication that science does not bring knowledge or understanding, which is frankly nonsense.


This is very wrong.

Of course it is wrong and I did not mean to imply that. I'm as much a science buff as anyone here. I was refuting the science KNOWS anything as absolute truth, is completely fact based and has a monopoly of fact, truth, understanding and explanation.
Many seem to think that religion or spiritually is pure myth, belief in absolutes and is purely faith based and has no evidence or reason to support anything it says. Any evidence that a religionist may give is immediately dismissed as delusion, lies or can be explained by science.
Just as Zero tried to explain healings as lies and spontaineous remission. Spontaneous remission is not an explanation. What caused it? Could it possibly be faith or prayer? I don't know.
I am willing to say I don't know and realize that ther are more things going on than can be explained by science only. "They" are not willing to admit that that there is anything that is not science.
That to me is being closed minded and just the opposite what any real scientific thinking person should be.
I am not really as devout or dedicated or zealous as my writing and responses may make me appear. I am that devoted to trying to keeping and open mind and judge each new bit of knowledge or information on its own merits. I am not always successful. I too have prejudices and blind spots.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Sorry for this late response, I was absent for
a few days.

Originally posted by Royce
No, science is not religion, despite the fanatics and zealots, but it is to us laymen and the public including students of science a system of belief. Belief in science and scientist that is, at least to us, without visable proof. We are taking someone elses word for it. Yet we call the scientific proof. That my friend is FAITH, faith in science and scientist.

Science does not (at least we probably can't prove it)
uncover absolutes. Science makes LIKELY conclusions.

Likewise, scientists and scientific texts are NOT
absolute sources of credible scientific data, they
are LIKELY sources of credible scientific data.
The simple difference is that faith regards unlikely
things.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Royce]

Yeah, Drag I agree and some religious sects absolutely believe in absolutes but not all or even most. Read around in the Physics Forum as well as here. We all are saying "I believe" when talking about physical sciences. This indicates to me that both science and religion are belief systems. Since you nor I can perform experiment on particle accelerators we have to take others words for what they find. This is have faith in them and science.

 

[drag]

Actualy, when I speak of science I say "think"
rather than "believe" because of the simple
difference I indicated above(unless I'm not
certain about my info).

Peace and long life.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by drag
Actualy, when I speak of science I say "think"
rather than "believe" because of the simple
difference I indicated above(unless I'm not
certain about my info).

That's a pretty fine distinction. They can mean the same thing or nearly so depending on how they're used. I see and concede your point and it's a good one. I could, however say the same thing about religion but I don't think that it would be quite as valid.

 

[Royce]

First, let me say that I was raised in a not particularly religious or devout family of protestants. As an adult I was babtized by and a member of a free will babtist church. As a young adult I was an atheist or agnostic depending on the day. I have been facinated by science since I was seven or eight and someone explained that the stars were other suns but far away. I have been a student of science ever since. I believe in science and the scientific method but I believe also that; "There is more under the stars, Horatio, than is dreampt of by your philoaophers."

We seem to be going around in circles here, repeating our positions over and over again. I am amazed at the reponse to the original post and that it has gone on so long. Thankyou.
Mentor, I think it's time to close this thread and move on.

 

[wuliheron]

Obviously beliefs are thoughts and thoughts can be beliefs. The real distinction, imo, is an attitudinal one. As Lao Tzu said, "Belief is a colorful hope or fear." The Pale Buddha said something similar, "The past is only a memory, the future is only a dream."

 

[Royce]

Obviously! I can not hope to change your thoughts or your believes, nor my own for that matter, I can only hope to change your or my atitudes about our thoughts or beleives. Well put, wuli, Thank you.
(It of course was obvious to me only after you said it.)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Yeah, Drag I agree and some religious sects absolutely believe in absolutes but not all or even most.

What?? Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by russ_watters
What?? Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.

Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute.

Shall I post the entire Apostles Creed? Pretty much EVERY belief in EVERY religion is based on faith. Again, that's part of the definition of religion.

A few:

God
Garden of Eden
Noah's ark
Noah's age
Moses
10 Comandments
Prophet Isaiah
Virgin birth
Resurrection
Heaven
Hell
Satan
Burning bush
Speaking in tongues
Soddom and Gamorrah (badly spelled)
Transmutation (Catholic communion)
Jonah

Clearly the list is endless.

 

[Royce]

Faith is not an absolute. Islam and Judeo-Christian are only two religions amoung how many(?) that have one absolute, that God is. Off hand I personally don't know of any others. I am not an expert however.

 

[Alexander]

So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false.

 

[Royce]

Quoted from Alexander
"So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false."

_______________________________

Only according to your personal truth, logic and facts. Since I don't and can't accept your personal beliefs as my own, we disagree.
Our disagreement is fundamental and can not be reconciled. There is therefore no point is discussing this further. We simply agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Alexander]

Of course, you can disagree with anything and everrything. Say, you may disagree that 2x2=4. And we all respect that. Opinion is something which is private and we don't have right to change it.

I was talking about accepted definition of truth as according to dictionary (truth = what complies with observed facts). By THIS definition science is true and religion is false.

ONLY by THIS commonly accepted definition of truth. In no way I try to say that by your own, proprietary definition of truth it shall be the same.

In fact, by selecting very different definition of truth (let's then call it "truth" to distinguish from commonly accepted definition) it can be vice versa - religion can be "true" and science can be "false".

 

[Royce]

Okay, Alexander, Suppose I say that a number of religion events, phenomena or miracles have been seen, documented, verified and colaborated. Would you then accept it as fact=truth?