Do you believe?

[ElectricBadger]

What all religious people need to understand is that by treating scientific evidence as a cute option in life they are giving nurishment to all the fundamentalists in the world. Humans are social creatures. We tend to believe things we are taught instead of thinking for ourselves.

True, but be aware that science is not all there is to life. Giving up all emotion, belief, and feeling for cold logic may help some things, but is ultimately against that which really makes life worthwhile. Love is not logical or scientific. Beauty cannot be discovered by the scientific method. Joy isn't found in a beaker -- and our attempts to do just that have led to a lot more problems today. This means that yes, we have ugliness and unhappiness too, and hate, but these things, ultimately, are worth the greater experience. I would not surrender the world to pure logic for anything.

[TomOfSweden]

True, but be aware that science is not all there is to life.

ok

Giving up all emotion, belief, and feeling for cold logic may help some things, but is ultimately against that which really makes life worthwhile.

Why does giving up all emotion follow from believing in science? I believe in science and I am a very emotional being. Emotions is not a supernatural force.

Love is not logical or scientific.

Love is only illogical because we don't have all the variables. Love between people can be studied scientifically and that does not retract from how wonderful it is. Besides, I love reading scientific reports. So there.

Beauty cannot be discovered by the scientific method.

Quite correct. Aestetics is one of the very few scholarly branches that do not aply the scientific method. There are many more.

Joy isn't found in a beaker --

Depends if you're into drugs or not, isn't it.

and our attempts to do just that have led to a lot more problems today.

You're going to have to explain that one. Most food we eat today is the result of a wide variety of scientific processes. Not starving I would call a form of "joy". Using condoms allows us to have a lot more sex than otherwise, =science at work creating "joy".

This means that yes, we have ugliness and unhappiness too, and hate, but these things, ultimately, are worth the greater experience. I would not surrender the world to pure logic for anything.

So don't. There's no conflict. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but it sounds to me like you're making a case for the merits of ignorance? I just don't see it. Knowledge is always good, which religious people seem to agree on, or they wouldn't keep reading and analysing their books. The only difference between religious and scientific people is just that religious people have a very narrow selections of truths they are willing to accept, (aka =bad scientists).

It's not that scientists deny the possibility of the existance of god, they're just demanding some proof or even the slightest bit of circumstantial evidence before taking the leap. Doing your damndest to prove a theory as correct is bad science, just like the "Intelligent design" crowd are doing.

The universe is a magical, mystical and wonderful place even seen from the eyes of an atheist. Why fill it with obvious bullshit? Why not not gape in awe over the things that are true? The atheists world isn't a less beautiful place in any way.

[cariad]

I just don't see it. Knowledge is always good, which religious people seem to agree on, or they wouldn't keep reading and analysing their books. The only difference between religious and scientific people is just that religious people have a very narrow selections of truths they are willing to accept, (aka =bad scientists).

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

[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.