Do you believe?

[TomOfSweden]

I would never describe myself as religious, but I do have a Christian faith which is pivotal to my life.

I would argue the opposite - that the discipline of science has a very narrow selection of truths which it is willing to accept. If something is not repeatable in an laboratory situation then generally within the scientific discipline it has to be ignored. If something cannot be 'proved' using accepted techniques then it has to be ignored. That is not a judgement of science, just a statement of its nature.

'Religious' people are willing to look beyond that and also embrace what they consider truths which have been discovered in other ways.

cariad

You could argue the oposite, but it would also be false. Here's the link about the scientic method again. I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but that's just plain fact. Why would you find it easier to believe something just because the results are impossible to recreate? That makes to me no sense.

Let's analyse how religious research is done. Because it is done, or you would not have reached your beliefs as they are today. Basically it's based on that you in your head reason about what you think is the most common-sensicle result, right? Or maybe you accept the truths based on a religious authority who did the exact same thing? My point is that there is no way for an external force of person to control the results.

Christians don't deny they need proof to believe. What do you think the miracles in the Bible were about? That was proof. Just not scientific proof. A scientist when confronted with something like the burning bush would have asked themselves, can this be explained in any other way that is measurable.

Our senses are fallible, so we really need some external method of measuring. We simple can't trust what we see or hear as truth. This shouldn't be too hard to grasp. We've all had hallucinations in one form or another in our lives. It's a natural occuring phenonema among all humans.

How do you know that the truths in the Bible have been discovered at all? It could all be make believe. You just don't know. Why is this so hard to accept. I'm not asking you to stop being Christian. I have no quarrel with the tenets of Christianity regarding morals. I'm just asking you to read the Bible criticaly. Maybe the immaculate conception was really about Mary lying about getting laid. It's a much more plausible explanation, isn't it? and that does not retract in any way from the strengths of the ten commandments, but it does question wheather or not we will go to heaven or not.

What is it that you believe religous people are looking beyond? How do you define "religous" since you say you're not while at the same time having a Christian faith?

edit: The authorities in science do not try to convince the world they are right. They do their hardest in helping people disprove their theories. That is how scientific research works. It has a lot more apeal to me than some geezer in a funny hat telling me "it" came to him in a vision.

[TomOfSweden]

It is supernatural stuff, you are quite right. And to accept any degree of 'proof' you have to be prepared to the supernatural. It is a circular argument I know - but not farcical, unless you choose to view it that way. I suspect that if you were given such a proof your response would be either, that is nonsense since you are quoting the supernatural to prove the supernatural or that you agree you don't understand the proof, but since the supernatural does not exist, in your mind, it is merely a case of science not having developed enough to give a natural explanation.

Now you're actually making assumptions that are a bit insulting. If any supernatural force would become proven as true I would accept it in minutes. I believe in science. The thing is that this has in a way happened over and over again in the world. Gravity is a prime example. It was seen as a supernatural force until Einstein came up with relativity, explaning how it could work without needing god.

Just to be perfectly clear on this, I am prepared to believe in the supernatural. I did have religious beliefs when I was young. I know perfectly well what it entails. It passed.

In other words, I am right unless you can prove that I am wrong... Is that not what you accuse 'religious' people of saying?

Except that I didn't make any claims. I used the word assumption. I only introduced another explanation that has equal merit than the supernatural method. Not equal merit as far as proof is concearned, only in a purely mathematical sense.

I strongly object to the statement that religious people treat scientific evidence as a cute option. It is incorrect and potentially offensive.

ok, sorry. I'll rephrase that. Religious people who believe in anything supernatural treat scientific evidence as a cute option.

Smiles - I loved Tom! Follow your own logic.

1. There used to be good reason to believe a god existed. (Will not dispute this)
2. Science has progressed (Agreed - and it has not answered any of the fundamental questions which gave rise to why people believed a god existed.)
3. Today we have more plausible theories... (These are only theories, by definition there is no proof of them...dare I suggest you are playing head games here?)

In many cases all we have is theories but a theory isn't the same thing as an unsubstaintiated guess. Gravity is only a theory. But good luck explaining it in any better way than Einstein did. Theories can be better or worse than other theories. It's not head games. Mathematics and predicate logic can be used to prove things. Without a doubt...or until new better evidence comes along for a new better theory.

Why don't you just ask yourself why you believe god exists? That should quickly answer why people seem to need answers to the "fundamental questions". I agree that science doesn't answer them but chances are pretty good that neither does religion. The creationism myth is as much an unsubstantiated guess as a theory. Not only are there other better theories against it but also masses of physical evidence.

I may be wrong here, in which case please forgive me, but I suspect you would guide your children to not believe in the supernatural since there is no scientific proof of it. As someone who does believe in the supernatural, although I would call it spiritual, I find such guidance equally misguided. Children are intelligent beings, they should be presented with the facts - i.e. this is my experience, this is why I believe it, other people say etc - and then left to discover the world for themselves.

Just in case you have not already guessed I do believe in spiritual entities which are alive and very active on earth. I am sorry you are against me because of that belief.

If what you say is true then you display what I would define as good parenting. I have no problems with you telling your children what you believe, only that you don't tell them that it's the only truth.

There's been plenty of research into childrens intelligence and I do think it's valid to say that they are more gullible than adults, (for various reasons), so I do think it's criminal to fill their heads up with undeniable truths.

Why should everything left be scientists?

I think it's better to leave the cutting edge research to the people with the training for it, and then just read their research. I have a degree in formal and symbolic logic. I am better at breaking down problems logicaly than people with no training, (try me he he he). I trust that physisists are better than me at physics and so forth. It's not that everything should be left to scientists but let's not ignore people who probably are better at understanding complicated concepts than we are. Quantum physics requires a degree in maths just to grasp it's basic concepts. That doesn't retract from it's merits at all.

Seeing a only theologically taught priest argue with a scientist about evolution just makes me sad. The priest has no training in it. His arguments are always, (compared to the scientists) stupid, but this keeps going on over and over again.

I agree the words in the Bible and the Koran and other spiritual books can help society - but that rather misses the point about faith. Christianity, which is my faith, and the one I know most about it, is primarily about having a relationship with God, not about following a code of conduct.

Let's pretend that your relationship is really only about you talking to yourself. That what you are doing is vocalising your anxieties and problems to yourself to help you cope with them. Suddenly faith has helped you but without the necesity of a mythical god. To reiterate. You don't know god exists at all. Nobody does. You're just guessing.

Religion exists for a reason and I believe it can help people. Let's just leave the supernatural out of it until we can prove it. Love for instance is an all internal process. You don't need anybody to feel loved. It's all in your head. Because of your religion you have the power to feel loved just like that. It's a great power and capacity you have, but it doesn't prove god exists, only the power of religion.

Science is not optional I agree. But you imply that it is the only discipline which should be used to explain the world works. Why?
cariad

It's the best system we have. Before it we had religion, which is another popular method. It's good to use systems to explain the world because it allows research to be transfered between people. There has been a large variety of various research systems, but the one founded by Imhotep has won out over ther rest for a very good reason. It's the best system for finding flaws. Before displaying your theory you need to prove that you did your best to disprove it. It makes it a lot easier to identify bad science and allows us to easily focus on research with valid results.

[cariad]

Returning to the original question Tom, albeit rephrased. Do I believe in the supernatural – the answer is yes. How I understand the supernatural is via my faith.

Why do I believe in the supernatural – because I have seen too many things which can have no physical or psychological explanation. I agree that does not mean that in the future there may not be one found, I am sure turning on a light bulb and the room flooding with light would have been seen as supernatural at one time, and clearly it is not.

I have been told about a number of miracles – are these the proof you refer to? Are they miracles or is there a physical or psychological explanation for them. My personal reaction is always to doubt. Some I am quite sure are a hopeful figment of someone’s imagination, or sometimes an attention seeking behaviour. Some fall into a grey area, the person concerned is emotionally stable etc etc but there could be a non-supernatural explanation. There is also a third category, cases were for example someone had scientifically evidenced form of an illness, following healing those signs of illness have gone. It could be a miracle, or it be something we don’t yet understand. It could even be a combination.

Once you open up your mind to the possible presence of a supernatural element to our world there is more and more which needs an alternative explanation. This I guess is where the ‘faith’ bit comes in. I have considered what I have seen and what I have experienced and decided that there is a clear balance of evidence saying that there is a supernatural element to our world. I cannot prove it, but neither can it currently be disproved.

If some scientific proof were to come along which proved that I was wrong, then I would be stupid to ignore it. But that is proof, not a plausible theory.

You mention a scientist and a theologian discussing evolution, and say you would prefer to listen to the scientist. I suspect that shows your natural preference. I would like to listen to people who have learnt both disciplines, and of those who have, there are people who will argue both ways.

I agree with you that theologians who choose to ignore science are going to come up with a limited to answer to many of life’s questions, but I would not wish to view things only through a scientific perspective. To me they are complimentary disciplines, not opposing.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

Returning to the original question Tom, albeit rephrased. Do I believe in the supernatural – the answer is yes. How I understand the supernatural is via my faith.

Why do I believe in the supernatural – because I have seen too many things which can have no physical or psychological explanation. I agree that does not mean that in the future there may not be one found, I am sure turning on a light bulb and the room flooding with light would have been seen as supernatural at one time, and clearly it is not.

I have been told about a number of miracles – are these the proof you refer to? Are they miracles or is there a physical or psychological explanation for them. My personal reaction is always to doubt. Some I am quite sure are a hopeful figment of someone’s imagination, or sometimes an attention seeking behaviour. Some fall into a grey area, the person concerned is emotionally stable etc etc but there could be a non-supernatural explanation. There is also a third category, cases were for example someone had scientifically evidenced form of an illness, following healing those signs of illness have gone. It could be a miracle, or it be something we don’t yet understand. It could even be a combination.

Once you open up your mind to the possible presence of a supernatural element to our world there is more and more which needs an alternative explanation. This I guess is where the ‘faith’ bit comes in. I have considered what I have seen and what I have experienced and decided that there is a clear balance of evidence saying that there is a supernatural element to our world. I cannot prove it, but neither can it currently be disproved.

I hope this makes sense to somebody because you lost me. Not being able to disprove the existance of god or anything supernatural is not proof of anything. We can similarly not disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, and nobody takes them seriously. Nobody. Their case is just as good as any other supernatural belief.

If some scientific proof were to come along which proved that I was wrong, then I would be stupid to ignore it. But that is proof, not a plausible theory.

The Bible has flaws. Science proves it. Creationism did not take place as described in the Bible. But most Christians only believe in selected parts anyway so never mind that.

You mention a scientist and a theologian discussing evolution, and say you would prefer to listen to the scientist. I suspect that shows your natural preference. I would like to listen to people who have learnt both disciplines, and of those who have, there are people who will argue both ways.

I agree with you that theologians who choose to ignore science are going to come up with a limited to answer to many of life’s questions, but I would not wish to view things only through a scientific perspective. To me they are complimentary disciplines, not opposing.

I didn't say I'd "prefer" to listen to the scientist. What I said was that the scientist can massacre all theories floated by the theologan because he doesn't have a chance. He doesn't have the training to meet the scientists arguments. So priests just don't. Instead they use logical head-games that shouldn't make sense to anybody, (and probably don't because I doubt religious people really listen). It's so extremly frustrating to see it happen, time and time again. The priests arguments can always be killed off one by one, if picked apart by a pro. And scientists are the pro's here.

Theology as a subject that deals more about psychology and sociology than the laws of nature. It's not really their branch to discuss it as a subject. They can only say what the various religious texts say on it. They don't have the training to meet arguments found outside of the box. It's both cruel to the theologan and to the scientist. It's like having a a mathematitian race against Carl Lewis at his peak. Even if the mathematitian will beat Carl Lewis at maths he'll still lose the race.

Try aplying the scientific method to Christianity. Any of the supernatural tenets will run into trouble at once. Most major religions and Science is today very much in oposition to each other.

[cariad]

Bowing, hopefully gracefully, out of the exchange with Tom.

Having exchanged views and I think proven that we will never see eye to eye on this, there is little to be gained by continuing and making this a monotonous thread

Tom, I would love to explore some of the points futher in PM's please let me know if you are interested. I suspect however that it is a discussion which would hold little interest beyond ourselves.

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

Bowing, hopefully gracefully, out of the exchange with Tom.

Having exchanged views and I think proven that we will never see eye to eye on this, there is little to be gained by continuing. Tom, if you would like to explore any of the points which either of us have made in more detail in PM's I would enjoy doing so.

cariad

he he. Just my thought. In real life I'm a very private and discrete person when it comes to my philosophy and political views so I can get a bit carried away on the Internet. I recomend you reading Kirkegaard. A devout christian and a philosopher who did his best to make a case for christianity and the existance of god. If you aply the things I've said here I think it'll give you plenty to think about. He is without a doubt one of the most intelligent people and greatest philosophers who ever lived.

I'm not sure we can explore it further. I am in no position to make any judgement about your supernatural experiences even if you would tell me about them.

I'll just say this. Good luck with being christian. I hope it makes you happy.

[violetgem]

Thanks all for sharing, I didn’t mean for it to turn into a discussion about Religion but I understand why Religion got incorporated. So I am going to just sit back and take in the conversations/discussions and see if a good ghost story pops up.

[dzire2pleeze]

How about just a good ghost violetgem????

[cariad]

Thanks all for sharing, I didn’t mean for it to turn into a discussion about Religion but I understand why Religion got incorporated. So I am going to just sit back and take in the conversations/discussions and see if a good ghost story pops up.

What do you have against bad ghosts?

cariad

[ElectricBadger]

What do you have against bad ghosts?

I think Scooby Doo caught all of those, though, and the few left to run free in the wild were the victims of arctic oil drilling.

[master 327-834-200]

No.

[violetgem]

What do you have against bad ghosts?

cariad

Hmmm, now isn't bad sometimes good.... is that how it goes???

[JimmyJump]

This a logical fallacy BTW:

Logical fallacy number 2:

"Another reason why I am inclined towards believing, is the fact that we, humans, cannot invent something that cannot exist, for the mere mentioning of something, makes it exist..."

You say in the same sentance that humans can make something exist from nothing, (mentioning X -> creates X) while you at the same time deny it.
-Tom

I'm sorry I did not express myself quite clearly: I am starting from the vantage point that there is a "place" where all that can exist already exists, and that we, Humans, can only draw from that "reservoir" to "invent" stuff...

Cheerio

JJ

[violetgem]

Halloween is getting really really close!! Anymore ghost stories/encounters they would like to share!!!! All the posts before have been freaking me out in a good way where shivers go down my spine and I get goose bumps!! Thank you to those who have shared their experiences!!!!

[hugsnkisses]

I believe in ghosts/spirits/etc... actually a rather firm belief at this point too. For years I didn't care or didn't know or wanted proof before I really believed in something. This past year or two has taken me on a journey where I now believe in things without having scientific explanations.... God, spirits, etc... I can't say I have specific stories to share, but I do have rather strong feelings on the topic. I am fascinated with the stories posted here And like some other people said, if you believe in it too, cool.. if not, no big deal... we're all adults here (most of the time!) and everyone has a right to choose what and what not to believe in..

[Tojo]

I was the world's biggest skeptic until I lived in an old hotel more than 100 years old.

I was in my bedroom with a mate on a sunny afternoon, when I was around 19 years old. We heard footsteps upstairs, walking up the passageway- as plain as day. Shot out & could immediately see the only open door- the whole building was deadlocked otherwise, with bars on the windows.

We flew up the stairs determined to catch the intruder- there was no one there.

I had a room upstairs afterwards, once or twice I heard footsteps going up the passageway at night. They stopped outside the door of my room, then moved away. Upon opening the door, there was no one there.

I only stayed there a few weeks at a time, it was owned by my parents, but since then I've sure been a believer.

Tojo

[slaveangel{HM}]

Yes, I believe in them.

[violetgem]

wow Tojo!! I would have been so freakin scared!!!