Quote:
Originally Posted by Elise
Again, I don't believe mankind can reach a stage of perfection in knowledge, and like you I cannot prove it 100%. I don't believe that absolute certainty exists on its own anyway. Even scientific theories that have been proven are still called theories and the option of error is still considered. Pythagorean Theorem is one of the simplest things ever that can easily be proven and we did it countless times in schools, yet we still call it "theorem". Science does not have 'certainty' in its dictionary.
Precisely. As long as the most fundamental beliefs we have can't rely on logic alone, no other beliefs we have can. Proof is definied as logic establishing that a given claim is absolutely certain. WHat this ultiamtely means is that nothing can be proven until faith is completely removed from the equation, which given the limits of human knowledge is impossible. In the abscence of certainty, one can not claim to truly know anything. Well, I suppoose we can kow one thing. Socrates summed this up nicely by saying, "All that I know, is that I know nothing".
Quote:
I shouldn't have said in my previous post that faith comes "afterwards", because I believe and I mentioned this earlier, that religion is an extension of the natural self humans are born with, you can read back, I agree with you that there is faith in the beginning, also in the middle, the end, and it and science intertwine throughout. We agree that it is impossible to base any beliefs purely on logic, then why do you still look at faith and religion from a logical perspective? Of course faith cannot achieve certainty if you look at it like that, not because faith is lacking, but because everything in science is never certain. For me faith does fill the gaps of science because I don't look at it from one perspective. Faith and science together create absolute certainty.
Faith at the beginning is required. It is absolutely essential to have faith in our fundamental beliefs as human beings. After that, it's no longer required. All beliefs can be built on top of that fundamental foundation with logic alone. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the best way to do it. Faith in an argument is the weakest link, which is why those based most on logic and least on faith tend to be the stronger ones. I have chosen to eliminate all but that most fundamental faith from my system of beliefs to reach the pinnacle of logical strength. Faith is used to fill the gaps logic leaves, but it can not take that logic's place. Faith is very much lacking. Faith fills the gaps in logic in the same way that air would fill in a gap in a bridge. Yes, that space is technically no longer empty, but you're still going to fall through as if it were if you try to cross it. Faith can only reach a false feeling of certainty, true certainty can only be acheieved in the form of absolute logical proof. This is unattainable, therefore true certainty is also unattainable. Humans can never know, we can only believe. Belief is not equivalent to knowledge, and it never will be.
Quote:
I actually agree with your explanation of agnosticism. All the agnostics I met so far don't share your philosophy and I see them closer to non-practicing believers than your case. I think the belief that carries the most burden of proof is atheism, because atheists deny the existence of God and only rely on science as a proof, and science cannot reach absolute certainty. If they think that they don't need proof, or there isn't enough, then this would simply be agnosticism.
The burden of proof lies on whoever asserts their belief as truth. Equally. Science very much functions as evidence, but not absolute proof. Neither side has absolute proof. They can rely only on induction, the strength of evidence for which, as I said earlier, is entirely subjective.
Quote:
I perfectly understand your point. Scientifically speaking, assuming there is in fact no boundaries, no beginnings to time and space, because of an imaginary time cutting vertically through the real time at the point of the beginning of the current universe, by this I mean the point of the Big Bang, it still remains only a hypothesis, I agree that according to reason and logic we wouldn’t really know, although it is a possibility, but why would you then use the word 'believe' when talking about the 'no beginning'?
If I were a perfectionist, technically speaking, I should replace pretty much any instance of the word 'know' in anything I say with 'believe', since we can't have absolute certainty of anything. I can say I only believe there is no beginning, because I can only believe the premises I use to argue that conclusion. As much as I can only believe the premises on which those premises rely, all the way back to that fundamental level of uncertainty. Speaking scientifically and ignoring that fundamental uncertainty, I could say I 'know' there was no beginning, but philosophiocally speaking, I'd know I'd only be speaking a half-truth with the awareness of that uncertainty at the back of my mind.
Quote:
Spiritually speaking, what would you say about all the holy books, all the prophets? It seems to me that the only holy book most people around here are familiar with is the Bible, the one(s) that are known today. There are over 73 religious sects within Islam, yet we all have only one exact book. You said that religion cannot know for sure, just like science. Religion is a matter of personal conviction, but it also has its own perspective that anyone must look through if they are trying to understand it.
In my case, spirituality is a meaningless term. I have no awareness above and beyond the five senses and my logic. I don't beleive anybody else does either, they simply percieve things they can't understand using them, and imagine another sense to help themsleves try to make things fit in a way that makes sense to them. Only logic can create certainty, other things like faith, and perceptions may offer an illusion of certainty, but it's only an cheap imitation of the real thing. Illusory knowledge brings me no comfort, no happiness, no sense of understanding, so I do away with it.
Quote:
The Quran mentions some scientific facts that science only discovered in the 20th century. The Quran is over 14 centuries old, still mentions the fact that the universe has been expanding, the age of the universe (and it disagrees with Christian Creationists), how the level of Oxygen decreases when ascending in the atmosphere, the benefits of some foods like honey, the movements of the planets, night and day, there are more, but my point is; when a 21 century old science offers me a hypothesis at its best and religion offers me scientific facts that once didn’t exist according to science, I would, by reason, understand that there is a superiority to religion in a way. Of course I still don’t know everything, no one does, but the evidence given to me by religion is enough for me to trust it. It is my choice, you may disagree, but we all take responsibility for our personal choices. There are many other aspects, like historic, literature, but since we are discussing science the scientific examples are the ones I am mentioning.
There was actually a great deal of scientific knowledge in imes long past. Most of it was destroyed by an age of stupidity caused by some religions. Particularly christianity, who supported the flat earth geocentric universe long after people knew they were full of shit, but being religious leaders, they slowly but surely drew people back into believing nonsensical beliefs that we'd outgrown long ago. But religion isn't really to blame for that, just the ignorant, fallable human beings running them. Hell, Imhotep figured out more about modern medicine in the 27th century BC than we knew thousands of years later after the age of stupidity hit. After that, we spent ages just trying to get back to where we were. So I mean the scientific knowledge was there long before many of the religions practiced today, it only makes sense that a few of them happened to remember it.
Quote:
I believe in miracles. People don’t believe in something like religion and prophets unless they see extraordinary actions that defy the laws of the universe. The list of miracles is endless in all Abrahamic religions and they all go back to the same source. You may argue with me saying that you personally haven’t seen it with your own eyes, again that is a pure scientific logic, the cycle is endless, I would think of myself as stubborn if I keep insisting on incomplete evidence looking at the subject matter from only one perspective.
I've never witnessed anything that defies the laws of the universe. Pretty much any time in recorded history which people can actually say they KNOW happened, anybody who thinks they have go back, look at things more closely and objectively, and find out that our understanding of the laws of the universe were simply incorrect, and that the 'miracle' was just something we didn't know about, but makes perfect sense and is completely normal now that we do. I don't believe in miracles. You'd think if they really happened all that often, at least one would've happened near somebody with a video camera by now, wouldn't you? Also, the fact that the frequency of 'miracles' plummeting coinciding with the expansion of scientific knwoledge and the invention of the camera seems to be a bit more than coincidence to me. The strength of evidence is ependant solely on the credibility of that evidence. If we don't know if a premise is true or not, we can't infer any truths from it. Until a miracle occurs in a way that is clearly observable, testable, and nobody can deny its occurence, we have no logical basis for believing they happen at all.
Quote:
Moreover, the practice of any religion or faith brings incredible spirituality and peace of mind that creates the evidence in how you feel rather than what you see. We have more than our eyes to understand our universe with, because eyes and logic and science are all limited.
Spirituality, peace of mind and emotions are all well and good, but they do absolutely nothing in the way of establishing truth or knowledge. They don't function as evidence of any strength at all. In any logical argument, they are completely and utterly irellevant. Gold is limitted. We have more minerals than gold in the world too, however tin and iron are not of equal value. The same is true of logic and the senses. Our senses and logic have the highest 'value' in terms of establishing truth, whereas faith, spirituality, and peace of mind have virtually none. Both can be equally fulfilling, and can help people live good fulfilling lives, however only the senses and logic are valuable in arguments.
Quote:
Religion is not just an organisation of preachers, I don’t really know what you are referring to, but I believe that God is the only judge of me, if I don’t want to be preached it’s my choice, religion is not an organisation, it is your set of spiritual beliefs inside your heart, if you have them. I already explained the logic behind having different religions, I agree with you that some are created by man, but the Abrahamic ones are not, they all go back to one source, again it's not about labels, but the idea of belief.
I will stop for now, I'm tired.
I'm assuming that bit was referring to my last post, which was more an attempt at answering Alpha's question of what religion is outside of a means of answering the big questions. Outside of that, it really isn't much of anything. Stripped of beliefs which answer the big questions, all religion's left with is preachers, buildings, and labels. None of hich do I see any significance in. This why when talking about religion, I'm only interested in the cosmogeny.