If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nature)   For once, an article headline poses a question for which the answer is "YES"   (nature.com) divider line 51
    More: Obvious, natural sciences, religiosity, burden of proof, subtlety, religious discrimination, family tradition, Philip Ball, University of Bristol  
•       •       •

4997 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 May 2012 at 9:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-21 09:18:10 AM
Spirituality is and always will be a part of the human experience.
 
2012-05-21 09:23:54 AM

Corporate Self: Spirituality is and always will be a part of the human experience.


Spirituality != Religion
 
2012-05-21 09:25:20 AM
Bracing for maximum trolling...
 
2012-05-21 09:26:52 AM
Religion, probably, but theism, probably not. There's a reason many Enlightenment era thinkers were deists. Then again, the stranglehold the church had over the various European nations at the time also played a role. Disillusionment is a powerful thing.
 
2012-05-21 09:29:18 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Spirituality != Religion


What the article mentions isn't religion, anyways, it's more spirituality.
 
2012-05-21 09:30:42 AM
BEVETS!
 
2012-05-21 09:31:03 AM
I got so analytical, I came out the other end talking to aliens
 
2012-05-21 09:31:22 AM
Is that how you summon him? Is that guy even still around?
 
2012-05-21 09:31:43 AM

Corporate Self: Spirituality is and always will be a part of the human experience.


I would say more philosophy that spirituality. Spirituality still suggests the existance of something "other" that we can't see or explain. I don't believe in supernatural beings or forces, but I do have a philosophical belief as to why we should live moral lives.
 
2012-05-21 09:39:05 AM

Oysterman: Bracing for maximum trolling...


I don't know... there's nothing in the headline itself to indicate that this is a religion thread. If the mods want to get a good religion flame war going, they need to greenlight a more inflammatory headline I think.
 
2012-05-21 09:43:19 AM

StrangeQ: I don't believe in supernatural beings or forces


That's because if they exist, they aren't supernatural, they're just plain natural. It's literally impossible for anything to be both supernatural and in existence. If it exists, it's natural. If it doesn't exist, then.....
 
2012-05-21 09:44:13 AM

StrangeQ: Corporate Self: Spirituality is and always will be a part of the human experience.

I would say more philosophy that spirituality. Spirituality still suggests the existance of something "other" that we can't see or explain. I don't believe in supernatural beings or forces, but I do have a philosophical belief as to why we should live moral lives.


What you're describing is ethics
 
2012-05-21 09:44:35 AM
No survey needed on this one.

Religious belief is all about FAITH - acceptance without direct evidence, and despite logical thought. People who don't believe in God often point out (correctly) that the burden of proof is on those claiming God exists, not on those denying it. However, they're thinking logically, which the religious persons doesn't have to do.

A person of faith attempting to prove their claim would contradict his faith. By definition, a God that can be proven to exist (either by direct evidence or by logical inference) would not be "God"; and a person attempting to do so isn't simply believing without the need for facts or logic.
 
2012-05-21 09:48:54 AM
People can remain on Earth due to the diligence of the Gravity Gremlins. When I turn on a flashlight, it creates a tiny photo-spirit that bundles up the light and quickly flings it into the eyes of nearby people.
 
2012-05-21 09:50:15 AM

Corporate Self: Spirituality is and always will be a part of the human experience.


"Spirituality" doesn't mean anything.
 
2012-05-21 09:54:25 AM

Lernaeus: No survey needed on this one.

Religious belief is all about FAITH - acceptance without direct evidence, and despite logical thought. People who don't believe in God often point out (correctly) that the burden of proof is on those claiming God exists, not on those denying it. However, they're thinking logically, which the religious persons doesn't have to do.

A person of faith attempting to prove their claim would contradict his faith. By definition, a God that can be proven to exist (either by direct evidence or by logical inference) would not be "God"; and a person attempting to do so isn't simply believing without the need for facts or logic.


The odd part to me is that adding the "you're not allowed to think about it" rule is supposed to be some kind of proof of authenticity. Couldn't you just as easily apply this "faith" to any random idea that pops in your head? Somehow "I believe in an invisible super-being that controls everything, but you're not allowed to think about it" is acceptable but "the universe is controlled by an army of gnomes projected 30 seconds into the future, but you're not allowed to think about it" is crazy.
 
2012-05-21 10:01:10 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The odd part to me is that adding the "you're not allowed to think about it" rule is supposed to be some kind of proof of authenticity.


Where does it say you can't think about it?
 
2012-05-21 10:01:15 AM
FTA: "My experience is that it seems to be extreme views of any sort, whether religious or the opposite, that are the real enemy of analytical thinking."
Link

oblig
 
2012-05-21 10:02:34 AM
Let me try that again
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-05-21 10:04:29 AM

bhcompy: LouDobbsAwaaaay: The odd part to me is that adding the "you're not allowed to think about it" rule is supposed to be some kind of proof of authenticity.

Where does it say you can't think about it?


Lernaeus: A person of faith attempting to prove their claim would contradict his faith. By definition, a God that can be proven to exist (either by direct evidence or by logical inference) would not be "God"; and a person attempting to do so isn't simply believing without the need for facts or logic.


You are allowed to praise, worship, pray to, or curse God. But you aren't allowed to really think about him, otherwise you contradict "faith".
 
2012-05-21 10:12:55 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: bhcompy: LouDobbsAwaaaay: The odd part to me is that adding the "you're not allowed to think about it" rule is supposed to be some kind of proof of authenticity.

Where does it say you can't think about it?

Lernaeus: A person of faith attempting to prove their claim would contradict his faith. By definition, a God that can be proven to exist (either by direct evidence or by logical inference) would not be "God"; and a person attempting to do so isn't simply believing without the need for facts or logic.

You are allowed to praise, worship, pray to, or curse God. But you aren't allowed to really think about him, otherwise you contradict "faith".


Again, where does it say that? The Bible? The Qur'an? The Torah? Is this the stance of the Pope? I see people saying things but providing no proof that these things exist.
 
2012-05-21 10:17:04 AM

bhcompy: Again, where does it say that? The Bible? The Qur'an? The Torah? Is this the stance of the Pope? I see people saying things but providing no proof that these things exist.


I don't think the Bible has an appendix in the back providing definitions for words like "faith", but it is generally defined as "belief without proof" or "belief without evidence". Hence, any attempt to contemplate evidence of God is an attack on "faith".
 
2012-05-21 10:17:35 AM
The authors, who are based at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, are clear that they aren't pronouncing on the value of religious belief, nor suggesting that such beliefs are inherently irrational (let alone that they're untrue). 'We're just saying', they seem to insist.

Haaaa!
 
2012-05-21 10:23:24 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: bhcompy: Again, where does it say that? The Bible? The Qur'an? The Torah? Is this the stance of the Pope? I see people saying things but providing no proof that these things exist.

I don't think the Bible has an appendix in the back providing definitions for words like "faith", but it is generally defined as "belief without proof" or "belief without evidence". Hence, any attempt to contemplate evidence of God is an attack on "faith".


No, it's not an attack on faith. Many questions regarding faith and his abilities were asked of Jesus. Those asking the questions were not smote for doing so. You're jumping to a conclusion that you've provided no basis for. No where have I seen it claimed that faith must be completely blind and unchallenged.
 
2012-05-21 10:30:06 AM

bhcompy: No, it's not an attack on faith. Many questions regarding faith and his abilities were asked of Jesus. Those asking the questions were not smote for doing so. You're jumping to a conclusion that you've provided no basis for.


If "faith" is belief without evidence, then investigations into evidence of God is detrimental to "faith". The basis is both the definition of "faith" and history. Copernicus and Galileo learned the hard way what happens when you apply logic and observation to something that was supposed to be in God's domain.

No where have I seen it claimed that faith must be completely blind and unchallenged.

First commandment.
 
2012-05-21 10:31:28 AM
To those who think the answer is `no`, please rationalise your religion.
 
2012-05-21 10:45:28 AM
truthmovement.com
 
2012-05-21 10:47:29 AM
images.sodahead.com
 
2012-05-21 10:47:34 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: No where have I seen it claimed that faith must be completely blind and unchallenged.

First commandment.


Has nothing to do with challenging your faith.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: If "faith" is belief without evidence, then investigations into evidence of God is detrimental to "faith". The basis is both the definition of "faith" and history. Copernicus and Galileo learned the hard way what happens when you apply logic and observation to something that was supposed to be in God's domain.


The difference is Galileo and Copernicus weren't investigating God, they were investigating something else that offended a few people who claim to represent God.

Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic Saint and considered one of the greatest rolemodels for Catholic priests, argued that God was proven in Summa Theologica, and went on to provide his proof of existence as well as his description of the nature of God. He questioned his faith and provided his own definitive answers, which he disseminated through his writings. His doctrine is the basis for teaching Catholicism, as officially established by the papacy many years ago.
 
2012-05-21 10:48:16 AM
It's turtles all the way down.
 
2012-05-21 10:50:13 AM
api.ning.com
 
2012-05-21 11:55:44 AM
www.nature.com

When did Tom Petty dye his hair black?
 
2012-05-21 12:34:38 PM
bhcompy

Does nobody else find it hilariously ironic that bhcompy is being such a stickler for cited proof regarding claims made against the doctrine of invisible sky wizardry?
 
2012-05-21 12:36:33 PM
My convention is this: yes, I could take your outrageous claim about the self-incarnated Judean prophet-Godhead, who was brutally executed and resurrected, on faith. Doing such requires other things though. It's not a free association where I accept your testimony and personal anecdotes, followed by readings in a compiled book you claim was divinely inspired by said Godhead, and go about my day. Now I have to follow the rules laid out in this book, rules which receive arbitrary emphasis by your sect, and different emphasis by others. Then there's the apologetics, the theology, the catechism, rituals and finally worship. That constant demand that I be worshipful of your Godhead, who incarnated himself and got himself executed for me, supposedly, to forgive me of things I hadn't even been around to do. Additionally I can technically ask questions about all this, but the organization with which I associate will ignore, dismiss or even outright supress my questions, and be obtuse regarding their answers.

I'll get to go to heaven if I believe, so you say. Even though this heaven can't be located anywhere in the cosmos. All I have to do is deny my own reason, supress my thoughts, deny myself certain pleasures, grovel before the invisible deity and thank him that I even exist every day, but especially on Sunday.

What a deal.

Still, I think I'll pass.
 
2012-05-21 12:37:36 PM

NateAsbestos: bhcompy

Does nobody else find it hilariously ironic that bhcompy is being such a stickler for cited proof regarding claims made against the doctrine of invisible sky wizardry?


The hallmarks of an apologist.

"No they weren't supressing, they were demanding better evidence!"
 
2012-05-21 12:55:35 PM

NateAsbestos: bhcompy

Does nobody else find it hilariously ironic that bhcompy is being such a stickler for cited proof regarding claims made against the doctrine of invisible sky wizardry?


Turnabout is fair play, is it not?

/devils advocate, not religious
 
2012-05-21 01:27:35 PM
quickwrestlingnews.com
 
2012-05-21 01:43:17 PM

RepoManTSM:


Jeez, finally
 
2012-05-21 02:09:46 PM

bhcompy: Religion, probably, but theism, probably not.


According to the primary technical paper (doi:10.1126/science.1215647), though several studies used other scales (ten item intrinsic religiosity, three item belief in supernatural agents, and a new intuitive religious belief scale), simple degree of belief in God looks to be one of the items empirically measured as affected.

bhcompy: Is this the stance of the Pope?


In the neighborhood. There's a lot of subtlety in the Catechismal position; but, the official stance is that "believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit" -- thus, use of human natural reason cannot achieve the end in itself. Contrariwise, human natural reason can be used to examine matters, with the expectation it will provide some illumination; it's just theologically insufficient.

Protestants vary more.
 
2012-05-21 02:28:40 PM

bhcompy: NateAsbestos: bhcompy

Does nobody else find it hilariously ironic that bhcompy is being such a stickler for cited proof regarding claims made against the doctrine of invisible sky wizardry?

Turnabout is fair play, is it not?

/devils advocate, not religious


Not really. Burden of proof and all that.
 
2012-05-21 02:32:51 PM

abb3w: In the neighborhood. There's a lot of subtlety in the Catechismal position; but, the official stance is that "believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit" -- thus, use of human natural reason cannot achieve the end in itself. Contrariwise, human natural reason can be used to examine matters, with the expectation it will provide some illumination; it's just theologically insufficient.


That doesn't say that you cannot challenge to prove your belief("But you aren't allowed to really think about him, otherwise you contradict "faith"" as the poster stated), as Aquinas did, it merely states that they believe that belief itself is granted supernaturally. While Aquinas was condemned by some religious officials for his views and work as heresy, the church itself(or, rather, the papacy) has backed him up. Saying that you are mentally incapable of something doesn't mean you are unable to try because it would be heretical to do so, which is what the poster is saying apparently.
 
2012-05-21 02:34:58 PM

NateAsbestos: Not really. Burden of proof and all that.


I never claimed that the invisible sky wizard existed, merely asked for something that someone said "by definition" exists. If something is "by definition", then it would mean that there is an authoritative source giving said definition. You should reread what you have read.
 
2012-05-21 02:55:56 PM

Lernaeus: A person of faith attempting to prove their claim would contradict his faith. By definition, a God that can be proven to exist (either by direct evidence or by logical inference) would not be "God"; and a person attempting to do so isn't simply believing without the need for facts or logic.


Bullshiat. Complete and utter bullshiat. That is not how religion originated nor is it how it is perceived by the majority of its modern believers.

The earliest account I know of a scientific experiment is, ironically, the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal.

The people of Israel are wavering between Jehovah and Baal, so Elijah announces that he will conduct an experiment to settle it - quite a novel concept in those days! The priests of Baal will place their bull on an altar, and Elijah will place Jehovah's bull on an altar, but neither will be allowed to start the fire; whichever God is real will call down fire on His sacrifice. The priests of Baal serve as control group for Elijah - the same wooden fuel, the same bull, and the same priests making invocations, but to a false god. Then Elijah pours water on his altar - ruining the experimental symmetry, but this was back in the early days - to signify deliberate acceptance of the burden of proof, like needing a 0.05 significance level. The fire comes down on Elijah's altar, which is the experimental observation. The watching people of Israel shout "The Lord is God!" - peer review.

And then the people haul the 450 priests of Baal down to the river Kishon and slit their throats. This is stern, but necessary. You must firmly discard the falsified hypothesis, and do so swiftly, before it can generate excuses to protect itself. If the priests of Baal are allowed to survive, they will start babbling about how religion is a separate magisterium which can be neither proven nor disproven.


Religion's Claim to be Non-Disprovable
 
2012-05-21 02:58:55 PM
Is this the thread where we all say that we'd be better off without a bunch of people using systems to be better people (religion) but then say that the best way to do that is to use another one (atheism)?
 
2012-05-21 04:01:48 PM

Marine1: Is this the thread where we all say that we'd be better off without a bunch of people using systems to be better people (religion) but then say that the best way to do that is to use another one (atheism) lazy trolls like me congregate en masse?


i698.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-21 06:14:01 PM

Marine1: Is this the thread where we all say that we'd be better off without a bunch of people using systems to be better people (religion) but then say that the best way to do that is to use another one (atheism)?


Atheism is a system? Like not eating soup is a system?

/ Apathiest. I don't give a flying fark what you believe (or what you have to say about it, or about what I do or don't believe). I care how you behave toward others. For myself, I find I feel better about things if I behave as if karma applies.
 
2012-05-21 08:39:57 PM
And when his humble TV servant
With humble white hair
And humble glasses
And a nice brown suit
And maybe a blond wife who takes phone calls
Tells us our God says "It's okay to do this stuff"
Then we gotta do it!
'Cause if we don't do it, we ain't gwine up to hebbin!*
*Depending on which book you're using
at the time, can't use theirs it don't work it's all lies
Gotta use mine
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night
Every day
Hey, we can't really be dumb
If we're just following *God's Orders*
let's get serious
God knows what he's doin'
He wrote this book here
An' the book says:
"He made us all to be just like Him"
so
If we're dumb
Then God is dumb
And maybe even a little ugly on the side
 
2012-05-21 09:23:22 PM

miscreant: Oysterman: Bracing for maximum trolling...

I don't know... there's nothing in the headline itself to indicate that this is a religion thread. If the mods want to get a good religion flame war going, they need to greenlight a more inflammatory headline I think.


Looks like you were right
 
2012-05-22 10:28:04 AM

bhcompy: That doesn't say that you cannot challenge to prove your belief("But you aren't allowed to really think about him, otherwise you contradict "faith"" as the poster stated), as Aquinas did, it merely states that they believe that belief itself is granted supernaturally.


True. On the other hand, "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith" means "the results of your thinking can't contradict faith... and if they do, they're wrong."

But the thinking per se isn't inherently in conflict, in and of itself from the Catholic stance.

bhcompy: Saying that you are mentally incapable of something doesn't mean you are unable to try because it would be heretical to do so, which is what the poster is saying apparently.


Yeah. There may be some Protestant sects that act that way. A bit of Googling finds a quote "Calvin is thus an incompatibilist of the transrational type: faith is not against, but is beyond human reason". Not sure how accurate it is.

dionysusaur: Atheism is a system?


Only in ambiguous use. The term is used both to refer to the isolated philosophical position, and to refer to the rationalist secular humanist scientific/technological progressive belief cluster anthropologically predominant in the West. It's a dumb and sloppy shorthand; Randite Capitalism and Sino-Soviet Communism still have their adherents, but only get the press when being held up as straw men.
 
2012-05-22 02:49:38 PM

dionysusaur: Marine1: Is this the thread where we all say that we'd be better off without a bunch of people using systems to be better people (religion) but then say that the best way to do that is to use another one (atheism)?

Atheism is a system? Like not eating soup is a system?

/ Apathiest. I don't give a flying fark what you believe (or what you have to say about it, or about what I do or don't believe). I care how you behave toward others. For myself, I find I feel better about things if I behave as if karma applies.


It's a system in that it recommends using certain methods to become a good person, namely, doing so without appealing to the divine. I know it's not a religion.

As a Christian, I agree with you on the slashies. We're nowhere near evolved enough as a society to get to nit-pick people on just how they get their morals. Get them from reading books? Good. Get them from reading the teachings of Jesus or Buddha or Hillel? Also good.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report