Religious inconsistency question

[v-600]

Hopefully we can generate some sensible discussion from a variety of viewpoints without this becoming a giant flaming session.

Points to consider:
1) Its taken me a few years to realise and confirm that I don't believe there is any form of monotheistic creator god. If you want to call that atheistic, well good for you. I do. However it has started to become tinged with a certain stigma and ironically a "holier than thou" that I would like to avoid in this thread if possible.

2) I'm sorry, but with the distance of the internet your beliefs don't really affect me or the way I live my life. I don't mean that I am sure mine are right and everyone must adopt them because all others are wrong. Just that generally I have enough problems and issues in my life without worrying what other people choose to believe. I'm not going to lose sleep if you believe something different to me. This isn't a thread about trying to dig at people. I accept that everyone will have differing beliefs and I am interested in the view point on this topic that that gives you.

3) This topic is mainly aimed at Christianity for reasons I hope are obvious in the article below. It could apply just as well to many of the worlds religions.

Sorry for the extended prologue but I wanted to make sure I was clear from the start.

Regardless of religion I believe you could put everyone on a scale somewhere between militant atheist - regular athiest - agnostic - christmas and easter church goer - regular church goer - devout believer- religious "holy word of god" fundamentalist (feel free to suggest changes to the labels, there are probably loads missing or in the wrong order. It was just something to help illustrate a point).

I was reading this article earlier Comprehensive map traces 463 of the bibles major contradictions

My initial thought was of Ned Flanders in the Simpsons when his house gets destroyed and he claims he always tried to follow the bible, even the bits the contradict each other. On my scale above I'd put myself on the left. I'm even quite happy to go for a sing song at christmas, but its purely for the social aspect, mulled wine and catchy tunes. I don't have any problem with these contradictions. I will happily accept that different books of the bible were written at different times and by different people with different social ideas to put forward. Its been translated many times and some inconsistencies are bound to occur.

Where would you put yourself on the scale and are you bothered by any disagreements within the bible. I am also very interested in your opinions if you put yourself to the other end of the scale. How do you reconcile these differences with your beliefs?

 

[homebrew2ny]

For me, this is simple. Regardless of what some spoon fed religious sheep think, the Bible was written by man, in part or in whole, off of earlier ancient texts. And with any stories that are told, written, and re-written some more, there will be contradictions, errors, embellishments, and flat out story telling.

Having said all of that, I am a believer in a creator and in fact find that most rational and logical people believe (to varying degrees) in the notion and/or possibility. But with regards to the Bible, I find it best to read as any other ancient compilation of texts and take from it what is meaningful, and that is the perspective of human kind as told by man over the millennia. It really does not matter if it is fact or fiction, agreeable or not, there are some very good stories of human nature that we all can learn from.

Like you, I could care less what anyone else thinks and/or believes. But to throw the baby out with the bath water, as most atheists do, is something akin to ignorance. I simply let my life lessons, experiences, and overall sense of reality dictate my beliefs. I have no need to reconcile others discrepancies, even within the Bible. True perspective, true belief (in anything) comes from within and are NOT based off of what you simply disagree with or do not understand.

 

[sandorski]

When I believed, it was as an Inerrant Bible type Evangelical. For awhile, contradictions were easily ignored, as part of the belief was that there were no contradictions. Anything that looked contradictory was my failure to understand, regardless how blatant a contradiction found.

The first kinks in my Faith, however, was not Biblical contradiction, it was Intellectual contradiction. Some in regards to the Bible's claims and the Reality around us, but between my fellow Believers absolute conviction to being "lead by God" and their contradicting each other.

 

[brandonb]

2) I'm sorry, but I don't really care what your personal beliefs are.

Can't have a discussion if we can't discuss personal beliefs. So I'm going to move forward regardless.


1) The old testament is old. In fact, so old, that most of the stories are found in other mythology. When people branched out over the areas of the world, these stories went with it, and were slowly converted by man into something that meant something to those people. The Jews did the same thing. That is not to say the events didn't happen. But man changed the stories as they branched out across the world and the stories were molded to fit the people who went with them.

2) Most of the old testament is based on Jewish racial superiority. Again, like #1, they are writing about how they are the best, and have God on their side. No different than Vikings thinking Odin is on their side. It's a sin to kill. But only other Jews. It's ok to kill a tribe of whoever was on their God given land because God commanded them to kill that tribe. Contradiction, but it's not. The context and scope was different. When you have a group of people who think they are racially superior, they usually think of the others as animals, and they do not have the same basic human rights. Jews are "God's chosen people." Everybody else is sheep, and they are the shepherds. You can see the contradictions that this will cause I hope?

3) When Jesus appeared, he was telling the Jews they are not following God's will, and they are actually doing the wrong things. Are most of these contradictions because of Old Testament vs. New Testament? Jesus might say one thing while the Old Testament might say something completely different, and that is completely relevant, as Jesus went to be the new teacher of Gods will because the Jews have strayed from God and he was trying to correct it. He was saying they had it all wrong. That was why Jesus was sent.

4) I don't have to believe that every word in either testament is divine word. To think it's wrong, been "tainted" by mans word is perfectly ok. But it's the underlying message : As a few used to tell me all the time growing up "Reading between the lines." Meaning catching the meaning of what they are attempting to tell you. Not the literal translation of every sentence. What is Jesus message? To love one another. Stop being selfish. That is God's will. Do I care if he created miracles? Nope. Do I care if his mom was really a virgin? Nope. Do I care if he was betrayed by Judas? It doesn't change his message if I answer yes or no.

 

[v-600]

Can't have a discussion if we can't discuss personal beliefs. So I'm going to move forward regardless.

Edited to hopefully add some clarity. It would have been nice if you decided to quote the whole paragraph which put that short sentence in some context and I thought explained it well enough.

 

[v-600]

2) Most of the old testament is based on Jewish racial superiority. Again, like #1, they are writing about how they are the best, and have God on their side. No different than Vikings thinking Odin is on their side. It's a sin to kill. But only other Jews. It's ok to kill a tribe of whoever was on their God given land because God commanded them to kill that tribe. Contradiction, but it's not. The context and scope was different. When you have a group of people who think they are racially superior, they usually think of the others as animals, and they do not have the same basic human rights. Jews are "God's chosen people." Everybody else is sheep, and they are the shepherds. You can see the contradictions that this will cause I hope?

I think we've wandered a little off topic here from written disparities within the bible to people not doing what those teaching suggest for any number of reasons. Racial superiority could be one of many or no effects at all.

3) When Jesus appeared, he was telling the Jews they are not following God's will, and they are actually doing the wrong things. Are most of these contradictions because of Old Testament vs. New Testament? Jesus might say one thing while the Old Testament might say something completely different, and that is completely relevant, as Jesus went to be the new teacher of Gods will because the Jews have strayed from God and he was trying to correct it. He was saying they had it all wrong. That was why Jesus was sent.

I like this line of thought that suggests that the old and new testaments should be treated as two versions of the same teachings. By that logic we could add the Qu'ran to the end and compile the Newest Testament (Queen Elizabeth 2 version).

I think things of that nature should probably have their own thread though.

 

[LightPattern]

I think we've wandered a little off topic here from written disparities within the bible to people not doing what those teaching suggest for any number of reasons. Racial superiority could be one of many or no effects at all.



I like this line of thought that suggests that the old and new testaments should be treated as two versions of the same teachings. By that logic we could add the Qu'ran to the end and compile the Newest Testament (Queen Elizabeth 2 version).

I think things of that nature should probably have their own thread though.

Going off the title of the thread it's not limited to just the Bible.
You're probably not going to like my following post as it goes into scientific belief, but I think it's important for perspective and I ask an honest question about it that I'm interested in people's answers to.

That's true that some propose adding the Quran more directly to the Bible. It is my understanding that Muslims already accept many Judeo Christian prophets, but they also believe that unlike the Bible that can be translated that the Quran is the literal word of God and as such should not be translated into other languages - that it would inevitably lose something important.

 

[LightPattern]

There are inconsistencies in scientific findings all the time, but that doesn't make people stop believing in science. It just means that the understanding isn't perfect or complete and needs more work. Even atheists have to believe in something deeper then intelligence.
What is your bedrock when your mind is too fuzzy to think straight or you go into shock? Granted those times don't tend to last long, but I find I hold on to my religious faith.

There are people who claim no faith at all who seem to make a religion out of scientific "laws," and have a tendency to treat scientists as some kind of clergy. True scientists themselves acknowledge these "laws" are still longstanding theories that can one day be modified or even disproved and replaced with something else. I have found when I mention this I get fervent denials and sometimes a bit of panic in people's eyes because if they accepted that it would rock their world.

For this perspective to be consistent with my beliefs I obviously don't consider the Bible to be scripture. Just inspiring, with several deeply insightful stories. I find most Christians don't accept the exact same things. Everyone I've ever discussed belief with is not a blind sheep as some describe them, but have differing theories as how the divine works. I would put myself on your scale as Believer but not regular church goer. I consider myself to be a Christian as C.S. Lewis described it. I'm not going to attempt to sum that up in the space acceptable as a simple forum post, but I'll try to answer specific questions if someone has any more then the OP already posed.

 

[sandorski]

There are inconsistencies in scientific findings all the time, but that doesn't make people stop believing in science. It just means that the understanding isn't perfect or complete and needs more work. Even atheists have to believe in something deeper then intelligence.
What is your bedrock when your mind is too fuzzy to think straight or you go into shock? Granted those times don't tend to last long, but I find I hold on to my religious faith.

There are people who claim no faith at all who seem to make a religion out of scientific "laws," and have a tendency to treat scientists as some kind of clergy. True scientists themselves acknowledge these "laws" are still longstanding theories that can one day be modified or even disproved and replaced with something else. I have found when I mention this I get fervent denials and sometimes a bit of panic in people's eyes because if they accepted that it would rock their world.

For this perspective to be consistent with my beliefs I obviously don't consider the Bible to be scripture. Just inspiring, with several deeply insightful stories. I find most Christians don't accept the exact same things. Everyone I've ever discussed belief with is not a blind sheep as some describe them, but have differing theories as how the divine works. I would put myself on your scale as Believer but not regular church goer. I consider myself to be a Christian as C.S. Lewis described it. I'm not going to attempt to sum that up in the space acceptable as a simple forum post, but I'll try to answer specific questions if someone has any more then the OP already posed.

If there are inconsistencies in Science, there won't be for long. Science is about discovering how things work. When it discovers greater detail, previous understanding is adjusted or dropped altogether in favour of keeping with the new understanding.

People "believe" in Science because it repeatedly proves that it works. Everytime you answer your phone, drive your car, or fly in an airplane, it is because Science works that you can be assured that it will do what you expect it to do.

" Even atheists have to believe in something deeper then intelligence."--Umm, really? Can you give an example of what you are trying to say here?

People treat Science as a "Religion"? You get fervent denials because it is a silly assertion. Like I said, nothing in all of history has had the impact that Science has. It alone has worked Miracles and does so every single day. It alone has transformed not only Lives, but the world. No Religion has done anything close to it. I certainly hold it in very high regard, but that is because it has earned that level of respect, unlike Religion which simply demands respect for various nefarious reasons. It is completely unlike Religion by any measure.

 

[Retro Rob]

If there are inconsistencies in Science, there won't be for long. Science is about discovering how things work. When it discovers greater detail, previous understanding is adjusted or dropped altogether in favour of keeping with the new understanding.

People "believe" in Science because it repeatedly proves that it works. Everytime you answer your phone, drive your car, or fly in an airplane, it is because Science works that you can be assured that it will do what you expect it to do.

" Even atheists have to believe in something deeper then intelligence."--Umm, really? Can you give an example of what you are trying to say here?

People treat Science as a "Religion"? You get fervent denials because it is a silly assertion. Like I said, nothing in all of history has had the impact that Science has. It alone has worked Miracles and does so every single day. It alone has transformed not only Lives, but the world. No Religion has done anything close to it. I certainly hold it in very high regard, but that is because it has earned that level of respect, unlike Religion which simply demands respect for various nefarious reasons. It is completely unlike Religion by any measure.

You say that as if science and religion are mutually exclusive terms, or as if science and religion are "against" one another.

Seeing the amount of believers that contribute to science day in, day out, your premise is false if that is your premise.

There are also a number of scientists that pray to a personal God and/or attend worship services, and then walk into their labs everyday, do their thing, and go worship their God after work.

I've always wondered why people make this a Science vs Religion debate, when there is plenty of religion in science.

 

[sandorski]

You say that as if science and religion are mutually exclusive terms, or as if science and religion are "against" one another.

Seeing the amount of believers that contribute to science day in, day out, your premise is false if that is your premise.

There are also a number of scientists that pray to a personal God and/or attend worship services, and then walk into their labs everyday, do their thing, and go worship their God after work.

I've always wondered why people make this a Science vs Religion debate, when there is plenty of religion in science.

I say that because the person I replied to is implying it and so are a very vocal and powerful segment of theists in American society.

 

[Retro Rob]

I say that because the person I replied to is implying it and so are a very vocal and powerful segment of theists in American society.

Right, and I was making a general reply as well. Some of science best contributors are/were theists, heck, even Newton was one, and he's one of the smartest men to ever walk the planet.

Generally, people like to assume religion has done nothing for the world (IMO nowadays, we can do better without religious influence), and from a modern standpoint agree with that, but in scientific history, belief in God and having some form of religious routine, helped many men appreciate "the hand of God" which motivated them to study our world.

Just saying, I've never really agreed with science and religion being deeply divided.

Some atheists, IMO, created this rift. They seem to promote the idea that science proves atheism, which automatically disproves religion by default when the evidence clearly shows that science doesn't lead to atheism, nor has science disproven religious beliefs.

Yes, the small and vocal MINORITY is loud, but don't speak for all of us.

My point is that science and religion can have a very good relationship, and over the centuries, generally speaking, it has.

 

[sandorski]

Right, and I was making a general reply as well. Some of science best contributors are/were theists, heck, even Newton was one, and he's one of the smartest men to ever walk the planet.

Generally, people like to assume religion has done nothing for the world (IMO nowadays, we can do better without religious influence), and from a modern standpoint agree with that, but in scientific history, belief in God and having some form of religious routine, helped many men appreciate "the hang of God" which motivated them to study our world.

Just saying, I've never really agreed with science and religion being deeply divided.

Some atheists, IMO, created this rift. They seem to promote the idea that science proves atheism, which automatically disproves religion by default when the evidence clearly shows that science doesn't lead to atheism, nor has science disproven religious beliefs.

Yes, the small and vocal MINORITY is loud, but don't speak for all of us.

My point is that science and religion can have a very good relationship, and over the centuries, generally speaking, it has.

BS.

 

[Retro Rob]

BS.

That's why I said, "IMO".

I don't have anything in print, but the general idea I get from the loudest and more vocal atheists is that they left religion because of science.

 

[Pulsar]

For me, this is simple. Regardless of what some spoon fed religious sheep think, the Bible was written by man, in part or in whole, off of earlier ancient texts. And with any stories that are told, written, and re-written some more, there will be contradictions, errors, embellishments, and flat out story telling.

Having said all of that, I am a believer in a creator and in fact find that most rational and logical people believe (to varying degrees) in the notion and/or possibility. But with regards to the Bible, I find it best to read as any other ancient compilation of texts and take from it what is meaningful, and that is the perspective of human kind as told by man over the millennia. It really does not matter if it is fact or fiction, agreeable or not, there are some very good stories of human nature that we all can learn from.

Like you, I could care less what anyone else thinks and/or believes. But to throw the baby out with the bath water, as most atheists do, is something akin to ignorance. I simply let my life lessons, experiences, and overall sense of reality dictate my beliefs. I have no need to reconcile others discrepancies, even within the Bible. True perspective, true belief (in anything) comes from within and are NOT based off of what you simply disagree with or do not understand.

I suppose I'm an atheist, though I don't really classify myself that way. I'm perfectly fine with going to church. I'll bow my head, pray, and sing right along with everyone else. I do it because I think others can believe whatever they want, and I'll respect that right to the utmost. I'll even take a flier when a fundamentalist or born-again Christian waves it at me, just to respect what they believe. It certainly doesn't harm me.

What does harm me is beliefs like yours. Most atheists I know don't 'throw the baby out with the bath water'. They understand that some of the lessons in the bible are valuable ones. They are very careful, though, to draw a distinction: you don't need the bible to help you tell right from wrong.

I don't think you meant to come off the way you did, but I think you should re-read your post. Your assumption that most atheists are ignorant smacks of long-standing church exclusionism and elitism. Unless of course you have data to back up your claim.

 

[Pulsar]

That's why I said, "IMO".

I don't have anything in print, but the general idea I get from the loudest and more vocal atheists is that they left religion because of science.

Then they are ignorant of true science, and that shouldn't be a reflection on atheists or science. It just means there are stupid people in the world. There is certainly a group of atheists who heap scorn on religion. It's ironic that they don't realize that they are being just as intolerant as religion teaches a person to be.

 

[infoiltrator]

Religion, doctrine, dogma, and belief, are mutually not exclusive subsets.
People come in an admixture of the above flavors. Some people believe in the absolute law and the rightness thereof. Some believe in circumstance and particular application of rules.
Trying to fit one system over all people = fail.
Trying to live without a moral code leads to the warlord/ganglord disasters of the world.

An atheist discussing religion redefines himself as agnostic. As does accepting cultural mores.

So, to ace the exam of life, act as if there is a GOD, and you wish to make him proud.
I have never found rules perfect, but they do define when judgement is needed.

The poster regarding "jewish superiority," the jewish people have a " covenant" with GOD. Belief is not required. following the "law" more or less is.
Belonging involves being born of a jewish mother.

This is no different than the "superiority" ALL belief groups feel.

 

[Conscript]

Christianity today is Scientology 2000 years from now. As kookie and ridiculous it seems now, after a few centuries of being translated and stories retold, the great prophet Tom Cruise's resurrection could just as easily be believed.



P.s. This goes for all religions

 

[LightPattern]

If there are inconsistencies in Science, there won't be for long. Science is about discovering how things work. When it discovers greater detail, previous understanding is adjusted or dropped altogether in favour of keeping with the new understanding.

People "believe" in Science because it repeatedly proves that it works. Everytime you answer your phone, drive your car, or fly in an airplane, it is because Science works that you can be assured that it will do what you expect it to do.

" Even atheists have to believe in something deeper then intelligence."--Umm, really? Can you give an example of what you are trying to say here?

What is your bedrock when your mind is too fuzzy to think straight or you go into shock? Granted those times don't tend to last long, but I find I hold on to my religious faith.

I don't want to be contentious and claim that I have an atheist answer to my question, tis why I ask it here. Intellect will fail us all at one time or another. Even the most logical of us take actions that sometimes defy logic. Some of those can be excused as falling prey to our baser desires. But other times we act because we believe something - even though it contradicts the evidence at hand. So even though you're defying your intellect your mind doesn't collapse (except in incidents where it does ) and you keep operating. How? What's still holding you up? Simply relying on past experience, even though we've all been driven wrong by past experiences?

People treat Science as a "Religion"? You get fervent denials because it is a silly assertion. Like I said, nothing in all of history has had the impact that Science has. It alone has worked Miracles and does so every single day. It alone has transformed not only Lives, but the world. No Religion has done anything close to it. I certainly hold it in very high regard, but that is because it has earned that level of respect, unlike Religion which simply demands respect for various nefarious reasons. It is completely unlike Religion by any measure.

The denials and panicked eyes I described (two incidents come to mind) happened without me mentioning religion once. One was a work friend explaining to me that scientists had discovered a new "law" of the universe. I listened to it, said it didn't seem to quite fit with other scientific principles I knew. He said "But it's a law! The scientists said so!" I then went on to explain that even the "law of gravity" is still just a long held scientific theory. It could be overturned or modified in the future into a new understanding. (some people have tried to do this in their attempts to create anti-gravity) He reacted just as I described.
I will admit feeling that way myself once. When I was in advanced calculus and the professor (who mentioned he was more of an experimental mathematician rather than a proper teacher) explained that in some of the theories he was working on with his peers that even principals as basic as 1+1=2 had to be questioned as some work (with different dimensions? I don't remember) showed that even those basics may not hold to be true 100% of the time. I grant that I wasn't able to follow him after that point, but he swore to the class that he wasn't pulling our chain.

Carl Sagan and several other scientists I respect consider science to complement religion instead of contradict it. Science has yet to answer moral questions for instance. For every answer science discovers it raises more questions. There is always a knowledge gap. If you didn't stop asking those questions at the end of the day and just relax, confident that the universe will keep running without your understanding, one would start being called a "mad scientist" and driven batty.

Getting into metaphysics here (inspired somewhat by Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) your mind uses an analytical knife to slice things into pieces to understand. The thing about that knife is that you can keep using it, slicing into ever smaller pieces, that are ever more invisable & unconfirmable by you, but you have to stop somewhere and just believe in the unseen forces of the universe.
Some (myself included) believe there is intelligence at work in the universe rather then random mashing of particles and waves. I also believe science is a long long way from understanding our human intelligence and I don't think we'll be able to create an AI with convincingly similar intellect to ours within oh.. (puts on futurist hat) at least 40-50 generations.

Now, I'm not claiming that all people or all atheists hold science to the same (or even similar) level as religion. Just that some seem to.

True perspective, true belief (in anything) comes from within and are NOT based off of what you simply disagree with or do not understand.

I agree with this. Science however does not come "from within" and denying the existence of God (proving a negative fallacy) doesn't constitute the core of one's true belief.

 

[sandorski]

That's why I said, "IMO".

I don't have anything in print, but the general idea I get from the loudest and more vocal atheists is that they left religion because of science.

It being your opinion has no bearing on the veracity of it.

 

[homebrew2ny]

I suppose I'm an atheist, though I don't really classify myself that way. I'm perfectly fine with going to church. I'll bow my head, pray, and sing right along with everyone else. I do it because I think others can believe whatever they want, and I'll respect that right to the utmost. I'll even take a flier when a fundamentalist or born-again Christian waves it at me, just to respect what they believe. It certainly doesn't harm me.

What does harm me is beliefs like yours. Most atheists I know don't 'throw the baby out with the bath water'. They understand that some of the lessons in the bible are valuable ones. They are very careful, though, to draw a distinction: you don't need the bible to help you tell right from wrong.

I don't think you meant to come off the way you did, but I think you should re-read your post. Your assumption that most atheists are ignorant smacks of long-standing church exclusionism and elitism. Unless of course you have data to back up your claim.

It's ok to play devils advocate but the bolded is just flat out wrong. So there should be no harm involved. Atheists, in large part, simply discard it all, period. That may not be fact but a all but undisputed opinion bordering on fact.

Mind you, I am not implying they are "ignorant smacks" just most lack the ability to decipher opinion from fact. (especially their own). Oh, and lol at the request for 'data' proving an opinion, just like an atheist to request such scientific and imperial proof for an opinionated debate, lol...

 

[LightPattern]

Then they are ignorant of true science, and that shouldn't be a reflection on atheists or science. It just means there are stupid people in the world. There is certainly a group of atheists who heap scorn on religion. It's ironic that they don't realize that they are being just as intolerant as religion teaches a person to be.

I admired your earlier post. This one I have an issue with.
Are you thinking of the anti-homosexuality edicts of most religions? I can only speak for some Christian teaching, but it is generally to show love to all people. You can still disagree with the way someone acts, while being tolerant of it.
Good religion trains in admirable traits like honor, loyalty, and resilience.
It's true that churches are made up of fallible people, and so they sometimes fail to live up to their principles.

 

[LightPattern]

Christianity today is Scientology 2000 years from now. As kookie and ridiculous it seems now, after a few centuries of being translated and stories retold, the great prophet Tom Cruise's resurrection could just as easily be believed.



P.s. This goes for all religions

This assumes that religion can't be progressive. (And also that recording technology today is the same as it was 2000 years ago)
That is a commonly held belief, especially when you look at Catholic dogma, but Protestants tend to do better with keeping up with the times.
I believe that good religion harnesses what in the East is known as Chi. I believe this can be developed over time and advance humanity.

 

[sandorski]

I don't want to be contentious and claim that I have an atheist answer to my question, tis why I ask it here. Intellect will fail us all at one time or another. Even the most logical of us take actions that sometimes defy logic. Some of those can be excused as falling prey to our baser desires. But other times we act because we believe something - even though it contradicts the evidence at hand. So even though you're defying your intellect your mind doesn't collapse (except in incidents where it does ) and you keep operating. How? What's still holding you up? Simply relying on past experience, even though we've all been driven wrong by past experiences?



The denials and panicked eyes I described (two incidents come to mind) happened without me mentioning religion once. One was a work friend explaining to me that scientists had discovered a new "law" of the universe. I listened to it, said it didn't seem to quite fit with other scientific principles I knew. He said "But it's a law! The scientists said so!" I then went on to explain that even the "law of gravity" is still just a long held scientific theory. It could be overturned or modified in the future into a new understanding. (some people have tried to do this in their attempts to create anti-gravity) He reacted just as I described.
I will admit feeling that way myself once. When I was in advanced calculus and the professor (who mentioned he was more of an experimental mathematician rather than a proper teacher) explained that in some of the theories he was working on with his peers that even principals as basic as 1+1=2 had to be questioned as some work (with different dimensions? I don't remember) showed that even those basics may not hold to be true 100% of the time. I grant that I wasn't able to follow him after that point, but he swore to the class that he wasn't pulling our chain.

Carl Sagan and several other scientists I respect consider science to complement religion instead of contradict it. Science has yet to answer moral questions for instance. For every answer science discovers it raises more questions. There is always a knowledge gap. If you didn't stop asking those questions at the end of the day and just relax, confident that the universe will keep running without your understanding, one would start being called a "mad scientist" and driven batty.

Getting into metaphysics here (inspired somewhat by Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) your mind uses an analytical knife to slice things into pieces to understand. The thing about that knife is that you can keep using it, slicing into ever smaller pieces, that are ever more invisable & unconfirmable by you, but you have to stop somewhere and just believe in the unseen forces of the universe.
Some (myself included) believe there is intelligence at work in the universe rather then random mashing of particles and waves. I also believe science is a long long way from understanding our human intelligence and I don't think we'll be able to create an AI with convincingly similar intellect to ours within oh.. (puts on futurist hat) at least 40-50 generations.

Now, I'm not claiming that all people or all atheists hold science to the same (or even similar) level as religion. Just that some seem to.



I agree with this. Science however does not come "from within" and denying the existence of God (proving a negative fallacy) doesn't constitute the core of one's true belief.

When my Intellect "fails", what holds me up? This is a silly question. I suppose I make a mistake, have some consequence, and life goes on. Hopefully I learn something from it. My world doesn't come crashing down around me.

Your friend likely just misunderstood or committed a fallacy by appealing to authority. I dunno, people, even myself, have jumped to conclusions all the time and get proved wrong. Pretty much a common experience and part of life.

I'm no Mathematician, but your Professor was likely correct. 2+2=4 in the Reality we are aware of, in other dimensions, who knows? The concept of 2 or numbers might not even make sense in such a reality.

Science itself may not be able to ascertain Ethics, but Intelligence most certainly can. There is no need for Metaphysical input and Religion really doesn't even provide any other than rigid rules. Life requires flexibility that Religion can not adequately address.

So because we can think of more questions after answering some we can never answer all questions? This is silly also. The reason it raises new questions is not because something has been added to the Universe(seems like you may be implying this), but it is because our gained Knowledge focuses our ability to ask these new questions. As an example: If John asked his dad a week ago "Why do you shift the car into D to go Forward?", that's a reasonable question, if he asked the same question 500 years ago it doesn't even make sense. More specifically to Science, often a range of possibilities are known, but the range is so great that asking certain questions would be premature. As more answers are gained, the range is narrowed and questions then can be put forward for investigation.

You seem to advocate that the pursuit of Knowledge is pointless, even absurd. Even Scientists have been stumped at times and given up, deciding that the answer was beyond Human Understanding and the result of Divine Intervention. Even Sir Isaac Newton ended up in that position when he couldn't account for Gravitational Effects of multiple bodies through Mathematics. He declared it unknowable, but 100 years later the answer was discovered by someone else. What most certainly is pointless is merely giving up. We may come to a point of not being able to know certain things, but we moist certainly will not know certain things if we simply throw our arms in the air and not pursue answers.

 

[LightPattern]

When my Intellect "fails", what holds me up? This is a silly question. I suppose I make a mistake, have some consequence, and life goes on. Hopefully I learn something from it. My world doesn't come crashing down around me.

We're not connecting on this. I think writing is failing here. Could be the forum format's fault. Some ideas take whole books to sink in (whether you end up accepting or rejecting them). But it's more likely my writing ability.
Sorry.

I'm not talking about when you answer a test question wrong, or make a simply incorrect assumption. I mean when you're so off kilter - could be drunk, though I've never been that drunk; could be completely broken hearted finding the person you've loved for years has utterly betrayed you; maybe suddenly being homeless - that now you don't know which way is up.

I'm no Mathematician, but your Professor was likely correct. 2+2=4 in the Reality we are aware of, in other dimensions, who knows? The concept of 2 or numbers might not even make sense in such a reality.

Science itself may not be able to ascertain Ethics, but Intelligence most certainly can. There is no need for Metaphysical input and Religion really doesn't even provide any other than rigid rules. Life requires flexibility that Religion can not adequately address.

You can build on religion's rules with other mental (spiritual?) constructs. These can address lifes issues where the religious basics you've been taught don't reach.

So because we can think of more questions after answering some we can never answer all questions? This is silly also. The reason it raises new questions is not because something has been added to the Universe(seems like you may be implying this), but it is because our gained Knowledge focuses our ability to ask these new questions. As an example: If John asked his dad a week ago "Why do you shift the car into D to go Forward?", that's a reasonable question, if he asked the same question 500 years ago it doesn't even make sense. More specifically to Science, often a range of possibilities are known, but the range is so great that asking certain questions would be premature. As more answers are gained, the range is narrowed and questions then can be put forward for investigation.

I'm not suggesting new knowledge ("new" to science) adds to the universe itself.

I don't believe that as humans we can hold all of the universe (all the answers) in our minds. I think it will require a post humanity. Whether this post humanity will be achieved through purely scientific or some other means I don't know. (How about a religion about cybernetics that achieves the greatest advances in modified human intellect :awe

You seem to advocate that the pursuit of Knowledge is pointless, even absurd. Even Scientists have been stumped at times and given up, deciding that the answer was beyond Human Understanding and the result of Divine Intervention. Even Sir Isaac Newton ended up in that position when he couldn't account for Gravitational Effects of multiple bodies through Mathematics. He declared it unknowable, but 100 years later the answer was discovered by someone else.

Zen and the Art... that I mentioned does profess the idea of Colleges being "Churches of Reason" and that they can be absurd, yes. That doesn't make it all pointless.
I think the pursuit of knowledge is an admirable one. Without it, I wouldn't be able to log on to this forum to converse with you! One of my favorite projects to watch is the Human Brain Computer Interface (BCI).

I think that the achievement of religious ideals can also be advanced with more knowledge. Scientific pursuit is not pointless, it's just not the only valid way of thinking about the world. I find spirituality in general, and religion in particular, add a richness to life that would be absent without it.

What most certainly is pointless is merely giving up. We may come to a point of not being able to know certain things, but we moist certainly will not know certain things if we simply throw our arms in the air and not pursue answers.

Agreed.