147 replies to this topic

[Timonthy]

can't comprehend science/logic/reality, or want an easy explanation for everything?

Let's get serious.

Religion, the paranormal etc. are very convenient explanations for confusing things in our lives.

The ability to create illogical and unsupported explanations is one that we all posses. Any person can dream up their own fantastic solutions to things that may be otherwise explained by more logical means.
The only things that have ever been proven have been through scientific means. And once they're proven they don't seem as special anymore to the people who believed otherwise.

So:

Is it taking the easy way out by believing in religion or otherwise?

Does it make life easier neglecting evidence and blindly following unsubstantiated beliefs?

Are people just not willing to accept that the truths in science etc. are hard to understand and that we will never understand everything?

I'm willing to accept that there may be more to life, and if so I'll shake God (that's any God, belief system, or otherwise) by the hand at heavens gate, congratulate him on his ongoing grand deception, and he'll accept me for who I am because he will appreciate I've lived logically and had no evidence to support his existence.
It's actually pretty amazing to consider how insignificant we are in relation to everything that we know exists. And everything that we know, our knowledge of the extent of the universe, could be worth but a grain of sand in relation to what's really out there.

There are answers for everything. But we will never find them all.

Can you appreciate that everything could be possibly explained logically?

Edited by Timonthy, 09 June 2012 - 04:39 AM.

[Royal]

I don't believe we will ever be able to logically explain the existence of the human soul.

[Timonthy]

Royal, on 09 June 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

I don't believe we will ever be able to logically explain the existence of the human soul.

Yeah that concept is definitely far beyond us!

[Imaginarynumber1]

Royal, on 09 June 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

I don't believe we will ever be able to logically explain the existence of the human soul.

I wasn't aware that the someone had actually found a "human soul" for it to be explained as anything other than fantasy.

[_Only]

Imaginarynumber1, on 09 June 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

I wasn't aware that the someone had actually found a "human soul" for it to be explained as anything other than fantasy.

They haven't, so continue believing it is a fantasy.

[Arbenol68]

As with everything, I don't think it's as simple as that.

A particular colleague of mine is a young earth creationist. Recently he came out with a comment that I found really funny at the time. He said "I don't trust scientists. They're always changing their minds". But thinking about it, all he was doing was expressing a very human need. The need to have a definitive answer. Religion provides this, and clearly he felt that this gave religion the edge over science. He couldn't recognise that when scientists modify their theories, this is actually a strength of the process. He could only see it as inconsistent and therefore unreliable.

In answer, I don't think people are religious because they can't comprehend science. I think they're religious because religion provides an answer. (And purpose and meaning - as well as other things - before anyone jumps in to correct me).

What interests me more is those Christians who do accept scientific findings. Those that accept modern cosmology, evolution and so forth. It seems to me that these things are incompatible with basic Christian beliefs. The belief in a perfect creation, the fall of man and Christ-given redemption. These things don't seem consistent with man emerging from purposeless interactions of matter.

[Imaginarynumber1]

_Only, on 09 June 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

They haven't, so continue believing it is a fantasy.

I will. Unless, of course, you can show me a soul?

[Royal]

Imaginarynumber1, on 09 June 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

I wasn't aware that the someone had actually found a "human soul" for it to be explained as anything other than fantasy.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     I take it you've never been in love or witnessed the birth  of you're child.

[Slave2Fate]

Royal, on 09 June 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

I take it you've never been in love or witnessed the birth  of you're child.

Even though both things evoke a strong emotion (a chemical process coupled with basic human instinct), that doesn't by default suggest the presence of a soul.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Royal, on 09 June 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

I take it you've never been in love or witnessed the birth  of you're child.

I've done one of those (multiple times), but I don't see how that has anything to do with a soul. Can you produce one for me?

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 09 June 2012 - 06:06 AM.

[Royal]

Imaginarynumber1, on 09 June 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

I've done one of those (multiple times), but I don't see how that has anything to do with a soul. Can you produce one for me?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Congratulations,and no I cannot produce one for scientific scrutiny. But its still there.

[Timonthy]

Arbenol68, on 09 June 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

As with everything, I don't think it's as simple as that.

A particular colleague of mine is a young earth creationist. Recently he came out with a comment that I found really funny at the time. He said "I don't trust scientists. They're always changing their minds". But thinking about it, all he was doing was expressing a very human need. The need to have a definitive answer. Religion provides this, and clearly he felt that this gave religion the edge over science. He couldn't recognise that when scientists modify their theories, this is actually a strength of the process. He could only see it as inconsistent and therefore unreliable.

In answer, I don't think people are religious because they can't comprehend science. I think they're religious because religion provides an answer. (And purpose and meaning - as well as other things - before anyone jumps in to correct me).

What interests me more is those Christians who do accept scientific findings. Those that accept modern cosmology, evolution and so forth. It seems to me that these things are incompatible with basic Christian beliefs. The belief in a perfect creation, the fall of man and Christ-given redemption. These things don't seem consistent with man emerging from purposeless interactions of matter.

To me also it seems too much of a contrast. And whenever I have seen anyone try to explain the two co-existing, they just put forward convenient exceptions, however these also contradict the original argument.

Modern day, it is very hard for religion to change (aside from dropping traditions). It would have been a feat in itself having people believe you spoke 'the word of the Lord' back in the day, but now seemingly impossible - especially to have a widespread effect.
The only things we see are examples of further exceptions such as that: 'alien life would be part of God's creation' - traditionally this would have not worked, however modern religion is having to bend to fit logic as we learn more.

[Timonthy]

Royal, on 09 June 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

I take it you've never been in love or witnessed the birth  of you're child.

Strength of emotion is not evidence of the existence of a soul. There is no evidence, it's just another strange concept...

[Imaginarynumber1]

Royal, on 09 June 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

Congratulations,and no I cannot produce one for scientific scrutiny. But its still there.

So you have no evidence of a soul and you cannot produce one. In fact, no one can produce one and no one can provide evidence of one. I think it's pretty safe to assume that something with no empirical evidence isn't real. Like the giant turtle upon whose shell the Earth rests, right?

[Slave2Fate]

Imaginarynumber1, on 09 June 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

Like the giant turtle upon whose shell the Earth rests, right?

Yeah, apparently it's turtles all the way down.