Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Religion and Logic

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bordercollies10)
    At the end of the day, the main role of science is to improve lives (through its various branches such as biology, meteorology, geology etc...) and I don't see why science and religion cannot co-exist (which would pertain to the very valid point made by Safiyyah95 earlier on)...
    ...anyway,

    So you think it makes sense to accept all that biological science has revealed and that supports all of modern medicine but not accept that a fundamental building block of that science (evolution) is valid? Is this religion and science co-existing, or is it a bunch of people being inconsistent in what they believe?


    can you contradict the first-mover arguement?
    I already did. To prove it you need to support the assumptions it makes. Can you?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Safiyyah95)
    I think people need to stop basing their opinion of religions, purely based on what some followers of the religion say or do.
    How else is one to judge religion? What else is valid? Should we judge religion to be charitable because some people do good works? No, because we should not judge religion on the basis of what people do, according to you.

    Because as you can see, people interpret things differently, and wrongly in a lot of cases.
    Who decides which is the correct interpretation? You? Or the chap who disagrees with you?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I'm fully expecting to see.....

    'He created the world around us! How could the beauty and complexity of nature have happened without God!'

    And then I'll giggle.

    No, God exists because by definition He is the greatest thing ever, the greatest thing ever wouldn't be the greatest if it didn't exists would it? So He exists, sorted
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by see-are)
    No, God exists because by definition He is the greatest thing ever
    Says who?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bordercollies10)
    I broought Utilitarianism into the arguement for I beleived that was the result of the actions of the human agents that I mentioned (happiness in the greatest number for the believers). Well, in an indirect way it can be used to argue the existence of God (sure, by chance the people could have been deluded but I fail to accept that because all through history - from cultures all over - people have reported to have been in contact with a deity of some kind - and monotheism seems to have very similar roots all over, especially Christianity and Judism...)
    Well yeah, but I haven't been able to understand how any one of your replies to me has actually related to my initial response to you. In that post, I explained (in over-brief terms) the inadequacies of the watchmaker analogy, and showed the problems with the question you posed: 'why are there still monkeys?'. Nothing you've said to me since has addressed these points.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So you think it makes sense to accept all that biological science has revealed and that supports all of modern medicine but not accept that a fundamental building block of that science (evolution) is valid? Is this religion and science co-existing, or is it a bunch of people being inconsistent in what they believe?



    I already did. To prove it you need to support the assumptions it makes. Can you?
    Have you ever saw evolution with your own eyes? Tell me, what is your basis of belief for such a theory? The chances of that first cell being formed are so incredibly low (not impossible, just so low that I cannot see how such could happen)...
    Well, was everything was and always will be? Is evolution an On-Going Endeavor? I've never saw it happen, have you?
    What do you have to say to that?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Not to believe in superstitions
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Safiyyah95)
    I believe that the evidence in the Qur'an is sufficently convincing. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a Muslim. But if you read it, you might not think that it's convincing. So, I guess choice was the wrong word to use. But what is a choice, is whether you choose to think about the idea of God or if you choose to just say no because you think it's illogical.
    What is it that makes the "evidence" in the qur'an more convincing than the "evidence" in the bible or the rigveda or the avesta? How can you be sure that you have not just been influenced by your upbringing into mistakenly thinking that one source is more valid than the others?
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by see-are)
    No, God exists because by definition He is the greatest thing ever, the greatest thing ever wouldn't be the greatest if it didn't exists would it? So He exists, sorted
    Are you serious? I really can't tell.

    (Original post by bordercollies10)
    Have you ever saw evolution with your own eyes? Tell me, what is your basis of belief for such a theory? The chances of that first cell being formed are so incredibly low (not impossible, just so low that I cannot see how such could happen)...
    Well, was everything was and always will be? Is evolution an On-Going Endeavor? I've never saw it happen, have you?
    What do you have to say to that?
    If an extremely improbable event has to have occurred for us to be here, either we must accept that it happened or find some alternative explanation. Something being improbable does not give you licence to make up whatever **** you like in its place. It may well have happened. As you note, extreme improbabilities are not impossibilities.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is brilliant.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fUYUvvJiW0
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    What does any of this have to do with evolution? I disagree with a lot of this anyway, but GoodBloke has pre-empted me there.
    Evolution suggests that we all, mutually, have a common antecedent in the form of a unicelluar creature of some kind - what gave rise to this crature? Did it just come by accident? How come more just do not happen by accident? If that were the case thn the population of Earth would be exponential as, at first, there would be bound to be more than one if they were caused by a combination of sunlight, water and a few chemicals internal to the sea (which I cannot accept) and to th best of my knowledge, there are BILLIONS of these unicelluar creatures even in a small, backyard pond.
    Please correct me where I ahve misunderstood your arguement. I wouldn't like to resort to a strawman arguement here...
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bordercollies10)
    1. Everything has a reason, even if it is just a reaction to an extrnal stimulus!
    Childish logic that is proven wrong by quantum theory.

    2. Loops imply infinite - there's always going to be something that will stop the loop in its tracks (in computer science, it could be the size of the data structure holding the value of the increment...)
    It doesn't have to be a loop.

    3. A casual chain can only be of infinite length if you can accept that time is infinite (which I can't, because it would contradict my beliefs)...
    No - details could be infinite without requiring infinite time.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bordercollies10)
    A physical phenomenom? It could of been but I can't think of any variables that would of contributed a priori!!
    "I don't get it, therefore God"

    Not a good argument!

    God never screwed up. It's up to you to beleive and accept a doctrine of belief, but from my understanding Christ came to remove us from the reminants of imperfection.
    Creating something imperfect displays an imperfection.

    Is there eveidnce for a soul? I do not know, but try to pinpoint a region of the brain that produces intellect. Oftentimes we can regard the brain as a computer, but what is a computer?
    1) a computer parses input
    2)a computer follows the algorithm to provide an outnput
    3)an output is given
    Neurology can explain the existence of religion far better than religion can explain neurology. In other words, we can explain why religion developed (and, incidentally, we are getting to the point where we can have a damn good crack at most things neurological), but religion can only give these wishy-washy subjective statements about intelligence and emotion, backed up by no evidence.

    In short, lets turn to Searle's Chinese Room arguement whereby a person is locked in a room with no knowledge of the Chinese langauge. His role? To follow the algorithm that tells him how to accpt ANY input in English and translate that to Chinese...
    ...at the end of the process, all you will get is a verbatim, static translation which may not make much sense at all to even a Chinese speaker (for eample som words can have more than one defintion in english) but the point still remains valid. The solution is to use semantic nets whereby concepts can be referred to (as the surrounding lexical components can be taken into account) and a more dynamic translation can be had - but the computer will never learn anyhting new (can computers program themselves using AI? Even if they could, you still run the risk of data structure overflows, paradoxes/conditions that could cause the computer to crash etc...)...
    Evidence? Just because computers can't speak perfectly now (and, actually, I think they've got it down quite well) doesn't mean they can't in the future. But this is just an example of pathetic subjectivity that doesn't actually hold any value.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Childish logic that is proven wrong by quantum theory.



    It doesn't have to be a loop.



    No - details could be infinite without requiring infinite time.
    I don't believe something can come to be without some sort of reason (could you provide an example whereby Quantum Physics contradicts me?)...

    Even if something occurs once, it still counts as recursion (and at what point does a process change? A person who crosses road A every morning will still be considered to cross that road A if they were to wear a red jacket as oppose to a blue jacket one morning - but what if the person was to change? Would the process still be the same hence still being caught within an unbroken loop?)

    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    What has your religion taught you than science and secular morality would not have done?
    No doubt there are plenty of such things. Only trouble is you would consider any such thing to be untrue by definition.

    For example, Islam teaches a Muslim that eating pork is wrong. Science and secular morality would not have taught that. But precisely because science and secular morality would not lead anyone to think that eating pork is wrong, you would say that eating pork is not wrong and therefore this is not an example of religion teaching anything that is true that could not also have been taught by science and secular morality.

    Am I wrong?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    No doubt there are plenty of such things. Only trouble is you would consider any such thing to be untrue by definition.

    For example, Islam teaches a Muslim that eating pork is wrong. Science and secular morality would not have taught that. But precisely because science and secular morality would not lead anyone to think that eating pork is wrong, you would say that eating pork is not wrong and therefore this is not an example of religion teaching anything that is true that could not also have been taught by science and secular morality.

    Am I wrong?
    Not necessarily by definition, more by practice. If there were a good reason not to eat pork, then no-one would eat pork. But there isn't any good reason as far as I am aware, so only the superstitious minority refuse to eat pork.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bordercollies10)
    What do you have to say to that?
    I point out that the inconsistency and lack of sense in you not believing in evolution (despite the overwhelming evidence reported in its favour by scientists, and the existence and efficacy of modern medicines which were developed in large part because of what evolution has taught us) because you can't see it with your own eyes but believing in gravity which you also cannot see, and believing in a supernatural creator which you also cannot see.

    I add that evolution has nothing whatever to do with the origins of life.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    "I don't get it, therefore God"

    Not a good argument!



    Creating something imperfect displays an imperfection.



    Neurology can explain the existence of religion far better than religion can explain neurology. In other words, we can explain why religion developed (and, incidentally, we are getting to the point where we can have a damn good crack at most things neurological), but religion can only give these wishy-washy subjective statements about intelligence and emotion, backed up by no evidence.



    Evidence? Just because computers can't speak perfectly now (and, actually, I think they've got it down quite well) doesn't mean they can't in the future. But this is just an example of pathetic subjectivity that doesn't actually hold any value.
    Good implies a moral judgement...
    ...but what else do you dclare the attribute of the causer of all things caused whilst being unchanged itself to?

    Well, perhaps AI would be developed one day but that would mean doing away with the computer architcture used to run your iPhone siri or your Honda Assimo - which is a robot - and starting afresh (as the Chinese room analogy will still remain true) and acctually seeking to build a machine that would start drawing in information from its senses from birth and using that to build an indispensable map of reality (which can be contextually cued by its cognition, which theologically is the soul that becomes coupled with the matter of the body, and used to come up with a fight-or-flight response to the detcted stimuli!)...
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    No doubt there are plenty of such things. Only trouble is you would consider any such thing to be untrue by definition.

    For example, Islam teaches a Muslim that eating pork is wrong. Science and secular morality would not have taught that. But precisely because science and secular morality would not lead anyone to think that eating pork is wrong, you would say that eating pork is not wrong and therefore this is not an example of religion teaching anything that is true that could not also have been taught by science and secular morality.

    Am I wrong?
    Yes, religion teaches plenty of arbitrary rules which lead to nothing but a decrease in people's freedom to live and enjoy themselves which science and secular morality do not. Happy?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I point out that the inconsistency and lack of sense in you not believing in evolution (despite the overwhelming evidence reported in its favour by scientists, and the existence and efficacy of modern medicines which were developed in large part because of what evolution has taught us) because you can't see it with your own eyes but believing in gravity which you also cannot see, and believing in a supernatural creator which you also cannot see.

    I add that evolution has nothing whatever to do with the origins of life.
    You have to take science on with your faith then, don't you?
Updated: July 3, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.