Mind if I Try to Start a Religious Debate?

[Bluedoom]

Why are only atheism and Christianity (and to a lesser extent, the other Abrahamic religions) being discussed? I'm a Hindu. Different religions mesh with science very differently. In Hinduism, for example, Vishnu appears as ten avatars throughout one cycle of the universe. The avatars that have appeared to this point have a curious correlation with the stages of evolution: aquatic -> amphibian -> land animal -> animal/man transition -> first man -> more intellectual and spiritual stages of man.

So if you want to hold a debate of science vs religion, constraining yourself to Christianity offers a relatively limited scope.

Last statement might be true but Hinduism still suffers from a number of superstitions which fuel the Science vs religion debate anyway(IMO Science cannot 'disprove' any religion's God but it does disprove many superstitions)

EDIT: @Aquaman: I see no harm in not believing in God either, don't understand your point exactly.

EDIT2: Oh I should've known who you were. >_>

Edited May 16, 2013 by Bluedoom

[BBM]

I'm not saying that Hinduism coexists perfectly with science. I'm just offering an example of how different religions mesh differently with science, and therefore even if you could disprove Christianity with science, that wouldn't mean disproving the existence of God.

[Redwall]

The focus has been on the Abrahamic religions because the original post specifically mentioned Christianity; that said, I also think discussion of Hinduism is appropriate for this topic.

[Chiki]

I'm agnostic in the same sense that I'm agnostic about invisible unicorns. I see no reason to believe in such nonsense, but it's impossible for me to disprove it.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Olwen

[Tamanoir]

Why are only atheism and Christianity (and to a lesser extent, the other Abrahamic religions) being discussed? I'm a Hindu. Different religions mesh with science very differently. In Hinduism, for example, Vishnu appears as ten avatars throughout one cycle of the universe. The avatars that have appeared to this point have a curious correlation with the stages of evolution: aquatic -> amphibian -> land animal -> animal/man transition -> first man -> more intellectual and spiritual stages of man.

So if you want to hold a debate of science vs religion, constraining yourself to Christianity offers a relatively limited scope.

Mainly because others religion are less well-known here.

I'm fascinated by the story of religion, and knowing the differents aspects of the religion can tell you a lot about their believers, the times they were created, etc.

I find the Human's Realm more interresting than God's Realm, that's all.

TendaSlime - No offense taken! Some people might be willing to share, others not so much. I'm in the latter category (only my family knows, and they aren't weirded out by it). This should hopefully give you enough of an answer.

I may sometimes be too curious... I'm happy you didn't take it too badly...

[Espinosa]

I think people of most religions who take it any seriously at all have found some ways to either unite faith and science, or simply choose one rejecting another. It's quite interesting indeed how in the Far East people knew all along that the Earth was round, while it took us quite a long time to figure that out.

Conversely, there is heated debate over whether God exists. In that context, evidence is required to prove conclusively his existence or lack thereof. Atheists cannot know definitively God is fake any more than Christians can know definitively he is real. Both sides are arguing from belief (no matter how rational that belief may be), but neither has any proof to support their argument. If we could all agree God was real/fake, that wouldn't matter. Since it's clear we don't agree, it's a matter of belief vs. belief.

The two beliefs are different in that the one of belief is founded upon spiritual experience and usually has a high degree of certainty attached to it. A lack of experience leaves no empirical knowledge of the divine and therefore fails to add much to the discussion besides appealing to the simplest of logic (along the lines of 'haven't seen it so it ain't there'). You can deny spiritual experience much like you can deny, say, a love at first sight or friendship or whatever, which you can easily rationalise in any way you like, but it'll hardly be a sign of superior intellectuality; possibly, just arrogance or stubborness or a concealed offence you once took (because a lot of people just don't care and they don't start any fuss).

[Chiki]

What interests me is how people can be so deluded to accept both evolution and religion. If God created Adam and Eve in his image, what about Homo erectus and so on? There's no room for science to exist with religion.

[Espinosa]

What interests me is how people can be so deluded to accept both evolution and religion. If God created Adam and Eve in his image, what about Homo erectus and so on? There's no room for science to exist with religion.

'In his image' has had a totally different interpretation since the early years of Christianity. It implies the ability to create (something that is said to separate humans from angels, fallen ones included, who cannot create on their own), a free will and, as we later find out, with the capacity to become more similar to God through an effort of will. It cannot have anything to do with appearance as God in Christianity is not perceived as a bearded man.

[Chiki]

The issue remains. Do Neanderthals have free will? Homo erectus? Australopithecines?

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes. I believe that perpetual motion/free energy/over-unity can be definitively stated to be false because there is mathematical proof that the concept is not possible and empirical observation completely supports that.

But aren't you discounting the possibility of any number of things that could be occurring? Perhaps there is some otherworldly entity that is exhibiting control over man's senses and steering him wrongly.

Yeah... it stopped... because I left... because I was tired of being called "ignorant" just because of my beliefs. -_-'

You were being called ignorant because of your ignorant beliefs.

What interests me is how people can be so deluded to accept both evolution and religion. If God created Adam and Eve in his image, what about Homo erectus and so on? There's no room for science to exist with religion.

Uh, metaphor? Not everything in the Bible is literally true? Pretty easy to make it mesh.

[Chiki]

Uh, metaphor? Not everything in the Bible is literally true? Pretty easy to make it mesh.

Then God doesn't literally exist, neither does Jesus. Why don't we just cherrypick which parts we like!!!!!

[Esau of Isaac]

Then God doesn't literally exist, neither does Jesus. Why don't we just cherrypick which parts we like!!!!!

Way to shift the goalposts. Are you now dropping your earlier argument that no one can be religious and still believe in evolution?

[I.M. Gei]

Nightmare's religious and believes in evolution, for one

fake edit: <Nightmarre> Islam encourages studying and learning the sciences, even

[Redwall]

But aren't you discounting the possibility of any number of things that could be occurring? Perhaps there is some otherworldly entity that is exhibiting control over man's senses and steering him wrongly.

Yes, perpetual-motion devices are not "disproven" in any rigorous sense; their existence would contradict the 1st and/or 2nd laws of thermodynamics, neither of which have been "proven" (though obviously the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo are almost certainly true).

Otherwise, his general point stands. The only fields in which we can "really" prove things are the ones where we make the rules. For example, I can conclusively prove that there are infinitely many prime numbers.

edit: also I wouldn't say Fruit Ninja is ignorant because of his beliefs, but more because of his attitude; I get the feeling he never read the PNAS article I mentioned.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Redwall

[Chiki]

I'm saying that you have two options:

1. Take the Bible literally.

2. Take the Bible metaphorically.

With option 1, the Bible is not compatible with science.

With option 2, it is compatible with science, but you can either take the Bible completely metaphorically or not at all. You can't simply cherrypick which parts you want to find metaphorical and which parts to find literal because by that logic, you can find God's existence metaphorical, and so on. There is no evidence that your cherrypicked part of the Bible is metaphorical, in the same way that there is no evidence for God's existence in the Bible being metaphorical.

BRS, Nightmare might believe in both, but I'm saying that it is not rational.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm saying that you have two options:

1. Take the Bible literally.

2. Take the Bible metaphorically.

With option 1, the Bible is not compatible with science.

With option 2, it is compatible with science, but you can either take the Bible completely metaphorically or not at all. You can't simply cherrypick which parts you want to find metaphorical and which parts to find literal because by that logic, you can find God's existence metaphorical, and so on. There is no evidence that your cherrypicked part of the Bible is metaphorical, in the same way that there is no evidence for God's existence in the Bible being metaphorical.

Why do you have to take all portions of the Bible as metaphors? Nevermind that much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, was composed of relation of morality through classical wordplay and storytelling. Why does this necessarily mean non of it can be taken literally, however? You are saying it is impossible that portions were written intended as metaphors and portions were written intended to be taken literally?

Edited May 15, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Chiki]

You can't simply cherrypick which parts you want to find metaphorical and which parts to find literal because by that logic, you can find God's existence metaphorical, and so on. There is no evidence that your cherrypicked part of the Bible is metaphorical, in the same way that there is no evidence for God's existence in the Bible being metaphorical.

[Rehab]

I have a reverence, that might differ slightly from 100% rational support, for my idea of human progress. A "spirit," if not an "entity," of exploration and compassion. On something perhaps less, perhaps more than a logical level, I think people generally wish to contribute to a better future, and that the act of an individual seeking to push the limits of the way they understand the world around them (by learning, in other words) helps all of us, in the scheme of things.

This assumption is probably part simple lack of knowledge, admittedly, but for lack of a better word, it also feels kind of like [or at least, the first word that comes to mind is] "faith."

Though I'm not certain how to classify the things I'm thinking and feeling in relation to each other, I think I might be almost kinda sorta quasi-religious in this "faith," that the actions people take tend to lead towards a better future, and to an ultimately positive impact on what will come after them, even if that action is more something for others to learn from than something that led to another's material benefit. And I have "faith" that every attempt made to benefit others ultimately helps to pay that goodwill forward to a better future, even if it happens very slowly and even if there are starts and stops and incidents of "one step forward, two steps back" along the way.

I guess I kind of equate that "spirit" with a metaphorical belief in the existence of a universal good/truth, or a "God." So that idea of a fully

metaphorical reading of the bible at least sounds possible to me.

for my part, anyway

Edited May 15, 2013 by Rehab

[Espinosa]

Nobody's cherrypicking anything. The original books of the Bible written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Ancient Greek reveal very specific meanings that are impossible to render in most modern tongues without losing connotations originally present, hence the discrepancies between different translations. However, the message has been delivered in an unchanged form since the beginning in (traditional) Christianity, so there was nothing that was 'accidentally' decided at a later time on a whim (you have plenty of people trying to prove the opposite however).

You are right in saying that being rational is important; however, by now we have found out the hard way that reason, too, has its limits. The concept of rationality is relevant within Christianity as well, so it is important to distinguish between, say, the well-educated views of the Pope and the superstitions of an old lady from the countryside who will pray to/invoke the Christian god, Wotan, inanimate objects and many other entities without really feeling the contradiction. You haven't attempted to understand this problem, but superstition is something religion attempts to combat no less than science claims to.

Mostly though, I find science and religion's supposed contradiction a ridiculous notion as the former was directly borne from the latter and exhibits the same exact characteristics. Christian spirituality, if you ever inspect that, is the most materialistic thing ever if you look at the practical application of all the teachings.

The issue remains. Do Neanderthals have free will? Homo erectus? Australopithecines?

Your fellow contemporary human beings will often argue that they do not have any free will. What will you do about that I wonder?

[Chiki]

Nobody's cherrypicking anything. The original books of the Bible written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Ancient Greek reveal very specific meanings that are impossible to render in most modern tongues without losing connotations originally present, hence the discrepancies between different translations. However, the message has been delivered in an unchanged form since the beginning in (traditional) Christianity, so there was nothing that was 'accidentally' decided at a later time on a whim (you have plenty of people trying to prove the opposite however).

What does this have to do with taking facts as metaphors that have nothing to do with translations?

Your fellow contemporary human beings will often argue that they do not have any free will. What will you do about that I wonder?

1. What do you define as free will?

2. Why don't neanderthals have free will? They had a larger brain capacity than we do.

[Espinosa]

The Gospel texts make it clear enough what should be taken metaphorically, what literally, and what you can't quite extract the idea from using logic so that it requires experience of living out your life in the church.

The parable of the prodigal son and other parables are clearly metaphors and their characters could not possibly exist; the events and stories were told so as to be understood by the recipients of the message. Nevertheless, the ideas behind them are more or less transparent. But when you read, for instance, Corinthians 6:9, you know fairly well that what is said should be taken quite literally (you might wonder what the 'kingdom of God' refers to, but that is addressed elsewhere).

But then you have something like John 9:2-3.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

We can understand the question and, no doubt, relate to the issue of human suffering and the search for its meaning, but the study of text alone will not provide an adequate understanding of what the answer conveyed; you can only live out your life and learn, hopefully ask if given the chance. However, we do understand very clearly that suffering does not necessarily befall the sufferers due to their sins or even those of their ancestry. So the people who asked the question most likely made sense out of it; so can we.

I see free will primarily as the ability to choose, most importantly, between good and lack thereof. I see no reason why our ancestors would not function in essentially the same way as we do now.

[Esau of Isaac]

You can't simply cherrypick which parts you want to find metaphorical and which parts to find literal because by that logic, you can find God's existence metaphorical, and so on. There is no evidence that your cherrypicked part of the Bible is metaphorical, in the same way that there is no evidence for God's existence in the Bible being metaphorical.

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that it is impossible for any given text to contain both literal and metaphorical contents?

[Rehab]

Nobody ever wants to talk about my dumb notreligion, dang it

[Esau of Isaac]

It's because it's not intolerant enough :\

[Rehab]

I'm trying so hard not to add yo fuck Quebec tho, man to the mission statement right now, you don't even know.

So hard.