The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
do you call your father, daddy? Do you call your mother, Mommy?
I did, all the way up to 1st grade.
Balancing Skepticism and Faith
- Thread starter attempt5001
- Start date
-
- Tags
- faith skepticism
do you call your father, daddy? Do you call your mother, Mommy?
I did, all the way up to 1st grade.
xterra
So far, so good...
https://www.thesaurus.com/ gives these synonyms for 'myth.'
Of the more common, as opposed to obscure words, I find the ones with an 'x' in front of them more pejorative if they refer to a god of any type, or professed by any religion. (Some, like "folk ballad," don't apply here.)
fable
x fantasy
fiction
illusion
imagination
legend
lore
parable
x superstition
tale
tradition
allegory
apologue
creation
x delusion
x fabrication
fancy
x figment
invention
saga
x fairy story
folk ballad
x folk tale
mythos
x tall story
I believe Minoosh would agree with me that the X-ed words will lead to less-productive discussion. TBD might also.
Honesty compels me, however, to admit to using some of them when the "witnessing" and proselytizing gets too insistent:
-----------
attempt5001,
I agree Thor 2 on the harm Christianity has done, not just in fragmenting its original belief, but in murderous, horrific, inexcusable, organized institutional crimes in the name of its supposed savior. Consider the Inquisition, the expulsion of Jews from many European countries including England, the conversion of non-Christian populations by either physical force or psychological coercion, etc.
You can say "god is love," and you can equally say "the Christian god is hate." Look at the evidence and see where it takes you.
Of the more common, as opposed to obscure words, I find the ones with an 'x' in front of them more pejorative if they refer to a god of any type, or professed by any religion. (Some, like "folk ballad," don't apply here.)
fable
x fantasy
fiction
illusion
imagination
legend
lore
parable
x superstition
tale
tradition
allegory
apologue
creation
x delusion
x fabrication
fancy
x figment
invention
saga
x fairy story
folk ballad
x folk tale
mythos
x tall story
I believe Minoosh would agree with me that the X-ed words will lead to less-productive discussion. TBD might also.
Honesty compels me, however, to admit to using some of them when the "witnessing" and proselytizing gets too insistent:
"Sorry, I don't share your delusions," or
"I'm not superstitious; go bother someone else."
We now return you to your regular ... conversation."I'm not superstitious; go bother someone else."
-----------
attempt5001,
I agree Thor 2 on the harm Christianity has done, not just in fragmenting its original belief, but in murderous, horrific, inexcusable, organized institutional crimes in the name of its supposed savior. Consider the Inquisition, the expulsion of Jews from many European countries including England, the conversion of non-Christian populations by either physical force or psychological coercion, etc.
You can say "god is love," and you can equally say "the Christian god is hate." Look at the evidence and see where it takes you.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
I was informed quite authoritatively that belief or the lack thereof is quite irrelevant to such activities and that the sole cause is authoritarianism.
Because if one were to look at recent evidence, one would come to the conclusion it is those that believe there is no god have industrialized the business of evil.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Actually the discussion is that atheist believe they are skeptics yet are as susceptible if not more to relying on fallacious arguments as the people they mock.
Atheism does not equal skeptic and certainly does not equal critical thinking.
Atheism does not equal skeptic and certainly does not equal critical thinking.
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
No but my sister did.Okay, perhaps it's disrespectful, but not off the hook. It's not like you have a great deal of respect for atheists.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
This is a difficult and very personal topic for me, so I figured an anonymous forum of strangers would be the perfect place to discuss it(actually serious about that).
I grew up in a Christian home and have interacted with a variety of Christian people, groups, organizations in a variety of roles throughout my life. With very few (minor) exceptions, it's been a tremendously positive experience; great family, sincere friendships, supportive and caring communities, people's lives changed for the better time and time again thanks to generous, compassionate and selfless expressions of faith. I think I've experienced some of the best that faith/religion has to offer.
I also am middle-age, have a family, a Ph.D. and am a critical thinker with open eyes/mind to the world around me. As such, there is inevitable (and increasing over the last number of years) tension/conflict between my faith and my skepticism. The former is both foundational and precious to me, but the latter is also essential to my ability to live life and explore and interact with the world-at-large in a genuine way.
I thought I would voice that in hopes there are others here who have a similar experience and would like to discuss it. Thanks.
Hello. Coming in late. I have read the whole thread, and you have already had a good many thoughtful answers.
I might add a few points (much of which you can observe in this thread) : The virtue of individual people is largely independent of their belief systems; there are saints and dicks in all camps.
The path of science is very rewarding if you are not afraid of the truths it reveals.
The path of belief is very rewarding if you avoid the pitfalls of self-righteousness it includes.
The two are not exclusive, just different.
... Good luck.
Hans
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
or anyone at all.
I was naively hoping this might be a thread that would be free of “All atheists are dishonest and nasty”'s personal crusade against “Haters of his/her particular god”. How silly of me.
Wonder how long it’ll be before “Nothing is real” and “Science doesn’t know everything” arrive to further derail this thread with their personal crusades?
Hope it hasn't totally discouraged attempt5001, I was appreciating and enjoying his/her contributions.
Wonder how long it’ll be before “Nothing is real” and “Science doesn’t know everything” arrive to further derail this thread with their personal crusades?
Hope it hasn't totally discouraged attempt5001, I was appreciating and enjoying his/her contributions.
Last edited:
Sure. One offers intellectual truths of reality, the other offers emotional beliefs of fantasy. Neither necessarily make individual humans better, but one is necessarily better for humanity. The question is . . . which one? I think the answer is blatantly obvious.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Thermal
August Member
I thought 'sky daddy' was a play on 'sugar daddy', referencing getting rewarded.
Mutually exclusive means two things that can’t be true at the same time. Are you claiming that science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive? Mortality and immortality are both true at the same time? How about consciousness being purely brain created as well as being cosmic and eternal at the same time? Are theistic magic and miracles mutually compatible with science?
The fact that science and religion are mutually exclusive is the very reason for this thread!
Last edited:
Looks at Thermal's avatar . . . thinks . . . "I see a theme here".
Thermal
August Member
A variety of services are offered for all tastes and budgets!
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
It's the carrot and the stick. Enjoy eternity in heaven (perhaps with 72 virgins, depending which god you subscribe to, I don't think the women get anything though) or suffer eternal torture, courtesy of the "loving god".
That two things can't be true at the same time doesn't mean that one individual can't consider both true, some of them without feeling much cognitive dissonance (Wikipedia). See Bob Bakker (Wikipedia).
You seem to consider that science represents the belief in mortality and religion represents the belief in immortality, but nowadays some (too many!) believers in science hope that science will bring them immortality. There's a lucrative market for this kind of belief, which tends to be much more expensive than the religious belief in eternal life after death; look at these jerks (Wikipedia), for instance, and most Christians (at least in my part of the world) don't believe in life after death: Only 25% of Danes believe in life after death, 20% believe in JC's resurrection, 48% are non-believers, but 75% are members of the state church! (The last three links to news media in Danish)
Cosmic and eternal consciousness is probably a new-age idea and not theistic, but you are right about science not supporting the idea.
Nor are theistic magic and miracles compatible with science, which is the reason why many people of faith no longer believe in them.
sylvan8798
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,847
Belief in what, though? More and more things that were once matters of "belief" have been replaced by science. Science continues to chip away at the pillars of belief. Of course, some people don't believe science, preferring to continue with their previous, perhaps more comforting, beliefs.
Obviously two things can be true at the same time, but two mutually exclusive things can’t (by definition), and that’s what we’re specifically talking about (please don’t obfuscate). “Consider both true" is inappropriate when two things CAN’T be true at the same time. An appropriate term would be “believe both true” (despite the fact they can't be). That some might not feel much cognitive dissonance, doesn’t mean it applies to them any less in reality.
Science establishes the knowledge of mortality, religion propagates the belief in immortality.
So what? What has that ramble got to do with science and religion being mutually exclusive or not? (please don’t obfuscate)
This isn’t all about your country or your personal crusade. I’m sure there’s as many god believers as “believers in science” world-wide that hope science will bring them immortality. So what? (please stop obfuscating)
"Cosmic and eternal consciousness" is just another way of saying "immortal and eternal soul". More god believers world-wide obviously believe in the magic and miracles of ancient religious texts and myths than don’t. I don't know any that don't.
Last edited:
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
"More and more things"? What things that were once matters of belief in the last, say, 25 to 50 years have been replaced by science? Go back a hundred years if you like. Perhaps the Big Bang theory, developed by Roman Catholic priest Lemaître? It was rejected initially by some scientists as seemingly supporting Genesis. From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang
While having no argument with the Lemaître theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument).
The idea that science is replacing belief "more and more" as the years progress, with belief retreating as science advances, is simply a myth. Outside of the usual suspects, it hasn't happened like that. Any recent examples please, showing the dogma being replaced? Or can we put that particular myth at least to bed?
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,047
Well, health is clearly the most obvious. Thousands of years of prayers have never actually improved the chances of a sick person being cured and no prayer ever has brought lost limbs back or restored the lame.
Modern medicine does.
The other thing that springs to mind is the explanation of natural phenomena. Earthquakes, plagues etc were all thought to be the wrath of (the) god(s) and thus unavoidable. We can now explain them, and in some cases even avoid them.
In the near future even creating life will be something we can do and thus no longer be something only a god can do. Biologically we are close, and who knows what AI might bring?
And of course genetics is slowly showing that sexuality is (at least partly) a genetic predisposition, and since this is the consequence of several genes and expression factors it also explains that human sexuality, like the rest of social mammals, has a spectrum rather than the black/white dogma of most religions.
And of course, the knowledge that in most cases where a religious text tries to explain something (like categorizing animals, or how to combat diseases or natural history) they are just plain wrong.