Subject:
|
Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:56:11 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@ioAVOIDSPAM.com
|
Viewed:
|
1761 times
|
| |
|
|
(This wording took me a day to figure out. If I'm going to have Larry spend
his time countering what I say, I'd better say something good. ;-)
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Sproaticus wrote:
> > Waitaminute. So what you're saying, then, is that people you've never met
> > can be trusted in the realm of science, while people you've probably met
> > before in the realm of religion cannot? I have two words to say to that:
> > cold fusion.
> I'm glad you brought cold fusion up. It's a PERFECT example of the
> scientific method and peer review working.
> Let's review: [...]
Oops. :-P I concede your point. Cold fusion was a bad example of the
failing of the scientific method.
The point I was trying to make there was, there are quite a lot of
experiments which, for lack of resources, you *cannot* verify. Nuclear
physics is a *VERY* good example. Arguing against the existance of nuclear
decay will undoubtably bring conspiracy theories into play. I'm not even
going to try, though, because I have no reason to doubt the existance of
nuclear decay. Nor will I argue against microbiology, celestial mechanics,
quantum mechanics, forsenic pathology, etc. for the same reason. I'll just
take them on faith, and accept the personal consequences.
> > Arg. Lastworditis. My point: science is a form of religion.
> Bull. Unless you mean it's a form that has hypotheses (how DO you
> pluralise that?) and theorems that can be verified and that can predict
> useful things.
Lemme get some semantics out of the way: A religion is a set of beliefs and
rules which govern and explain the universe, and has great influence over
your life and the lives of those around you. Faith is *NOT* required for
religion.
I'll repeat that: Faith is *NOT* required for religion.
...Sidetrack:
I'm often amused by the notion of a faith-o-meter next to God's throne
which, if it drops below a certain mark, becomes the heavanly equivalent of
Kryptonite. Baloney. If you'll bear with me a moment for a recursive
argument...
There are many places in the scripture where God's existance is proven to an
individual. That individual's faith diminishes in the face of this
knowledge. Some examples follow: (Old Testament) Moses, when he spoke with
God on the mountain (1), received this knowledge. (New Testament) Peter,
James, and John witnessed the Transfiguration (2) and heard the voice of
God. In Mormon scripture (Book of Mormon), the brother of Jared directly
viewed the hand of God (3). In these cases, belief is irrelevant, being
replaced by knowledge. Conclusion: at least within the realm of
Judeo-Christian religion, faith is extremely useful, but is not required for
the definition of religion.
So: How do we redefine religion to not require faith? It's a set of
beliefs and rules which govern and explain the universe, and has great
influence over your life and the lives of those around you.
...And now back to science vs. religion:
Science, like any other religion, endeavors to answer how the universe
works. For this task, it has a set of beliefs and rules. For those who
subscribe to the scientific method, it has great influence over your life
and the lives of those around you.
So: Those who exercise the scientific method to the exclusion of any other,
worship science as their religion. The chants are a lot different (but
equally boring), and the priests wear slightly more interesting clothing,
but it's still a religion.
Another thing which amuses me is the notion that science and religion don't
mix. I have a great level of respect for the scientific method (don't get
me wrong, please), and I'm pretty much a God-fearing individual. Actually,
everything I've seen tends to prove otherwise -- God in fact uses scientific
principals for the daily terrestrial and celestial chores. Until I see an
argument which conclusively and without uncertainty proves that God doesn't
exist (and I've probably seen them all), I see no reason to include the
teachings of science in religion.
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. Holy Bible, KJV, Exodus 19:3-13
2. Holy Bible, KJV, Matthew 17:1-13
3. Book of Mormon, Ether 1:6
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
