The Science of Religion

[Steve]

Ok first off, even though I run this board, I really don't visit this forum all too often. I'm not an overly religious person - I'm a Catholic but don't attend church regularly. I have been baptised, received first communion and was confirmed, however I believe that one can practice his or her religion in private and is not needed to attend church or read the Bible regularly in order to be a "good" Christian person.

With that out of the way lately I have been reading at a couple of messageboards online that people who do not believe in religion use the argument that there is no scientific proof of a God or other religious principles (specifically Catholic ones). I don't buy these arguments and I think that some people simply try to take an anti-religious argument because they think it's the "cool stance" to take lately.

But anyways my point here is that these people I'm referring to are using a Scientific argument to dispute the ideas of (the Catholic) religion. The whole idea of religion is to have faith in the principles that the church teaches. By definition, faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. So by disputing religions and religious ideas by stating there's no scientific proof is relaly an oxymoron isn't it? If you don't want to believe that's fine, but why look for a scientific explanation for something that you are supposed to have faith in. And if you choose to not have faith, then don't throw out the scientific reasoning as why religion is "dumb" in your eyes. Because that's just not going to cut it in my book.

Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation.

-- Elton Trueblood

Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.

-- Martin Luther King Jr.

[Lunar Shadow]

well put steve

I would just like to state for the record here that I am not anti-religous because it is "cool" it was a long and painful road to get where I am to day and it is not appriciated if anyone trys to down play that or say otherwise.

do people have a right to believe what ever they want? Sure no problem but you better have gotten there honestly trough checking sources and not taking people on their word. Trying to find objective standpoints to confirm what you are looking at buying in to.

if you are in a faith... its yours be happy about it go nuts if it is right for you just remember at the end of the day you need to ask yourself the question do you feel good about yourself and how you are presenting yourself to the world.


than is all

[JulieCitySlicker]

You hit the nail right on the head Steve

[Steve]

And don't get me wrong, I'm not denouncing people who don't believe in relgion or don't have faith. If you are an athiest that's fine by me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. All I'm trying to say is for those who don't agree with religion or with faith in a religion, don't take the science road to defend your position.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

Ok first off, even though I run this board, I really don't visit this forum all too often. I'm not an overly religious person - I'm a Catholic but don't attend church regularly. I have been baptised, received first communion and was confirmed, however I believe that one can practice his or her religion in private and is not needed to attend church or read the Bible regularly in order to be a "good" Christian person.

With that out of the way lately I have been reading at a couple of messageboards online that people who do not believe in religion use the argument that there is no scientific proof of a God or other religious principles (specifically Catholic ones). I don't buy these arguments and I think that some people simply try to take an anti-religious argument because they think it's the "cool stance" to take lately.

But anyways my point here is that these people I'm referring to are using a Scientific argument to dispute the ideas of (the Catholic) religion. The whole idea of religion is to have faith in the principles that the church teaches. By definition, faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. So by disputing religions and religious ideas by stating there's no scientific proof is relaly an oxymoron isn't it? If you don't want to believe that's fine, but why look for a scientific explanation for something that you are supposed to have faith in. And if you choose to not have faith, then don't throw out the scientific reasoning as why religion is "dumb" in your eyes. Because that's just not going to cut it in my book.

Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation.

-- Elton Trueblood

Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.

-- Martin Luther King Jr.

Thats the reason you run the board man!

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

All I'm trying to say is for those who don't agree with religion or with faith in a religion, don't take the science road to defend your position.

why is that steve?

it is a valid argument based in FACT it just all denpends oh how you interpret the facts at hand.

just curious.

[uncertaindrumer]

Depends. If you are using "facts" such as "A man cannot spontaneously regain sight", it is useless to argue from an atheistic point of view. Of COURSE a man cannot naturally, spontaneously, regain his sight. That is why it is a miracle and that is why one would believe it.

But if one can prove, say, that Saint Paul really did not exist... that is a problem! Of course, one CAN'T prove that, but you get my point.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

All I'm trying to say is for those who don't agree with religion or with faith in a religion, don't take the science road to defend your position.

That also kinda goes against me all together considering the definition I subscribe to as far as atheism goes

Atheism: is a state of non-belief of any phenomenon, creatures, deities, demons, objects, and everything that cannot be validated by the basic tenets of science.

[no_fixd_address]

"I address an appeal to all your colleagues in the various fields of scientific investigation: Make every effort to respect the primacy of ethics in your work; always be concerned with the moral implications of your methods and your discoveries. It is my prayer that scientists will never forget that the cause of humanity is authentically served only if knowledge is joined to conscience", the Holy Father said on Saturday, 11 January, as he spoke to those attending the International Conference on Space Research recently held at the University of Padua, Italy. Here is the text of his address, which was given in English .
http://www.cin.org/jp2/jp970111.html

[no_fixd_address]

FIDES ET RATIO To the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the relationship
between Faith and Reason

(thinking required) http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by no_fixd_address)

"I address an appeal to all your colleagues in the various fields of scientific investigation: Make every effort to respect the primacy of ethics in your work; always be concerned with the moral implications of your methods and your discoveries. It is my prayer that scientists will never forget that the cause of humanity is authentically served only if knowledge is joined to conscience", the Holy Father said on Saturday, 11 January, as he spoke to those attending the International Conference on Space Research recently held at the University of Padua, Italy. Here is the text of his address, which was given in English .
http://www.cin.org/jp2/jp970111.html

2 questions no fixd address

1. How does that apply to what I just said?

And 2. Do you have a quote for everything like do you have this big ass folder-o-quotes on your desk top for every topic in the spiritual spectrum?

[no_fixd_address]

Quote:

2 questions no fixd address

1. How does that apply to what I just said?

Your definition of atheism is self destructive, and dishonest.

Science points the honest investigator toward belief in a creative and thus supernatural being. There are critics who will insist that science will one day resolve the issue of the origin of matter, energy, and order. Just as science has progressed over the centuries to explain phenomena such as shooting stars, locust plagues, and microscopic parasites, some hardened atheists believe science will explain away creation and the need for God.

Yet there is a fundamental difference between such localized concepts and the natural laws dictating entropy and the conservation of matter and energy. The latter form the basis of all modern scientific research and the principles of logic. Spontaneous order or creation would nullify all scientific observations and conclusive theories relying on causation. The world would be a chaotic and unintelligible place without the basic laws of nature.

The very methods used to "disprove" natural laws would be rendered useless. It is impossible for humans to grasp a being which defies the natural laws which govern the way we perceive and understand reality. Science can tell us much about the origin of creation, but will never be able to explain it in natural terms.

Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.

The atheist persists in demanding that God reveal himself while denying all possible forms of communication as invalid. Miracles are dismissed as unexplained events, theists are engaged in self-deception, even personal spiritual inclinations are nothing more than psychological phenomena. In Jesus' parable, Abraham said, "If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead." Science will always hint at, but will never conclusively prove, the existence of God. All experiential and objective evidence can be dismissed as incomplete by those who choose not to believe.

Atheists, for their part, claim to be the supreme rationalists. Only they are able to manipulate reason properly. They say that the full use of reason can come only when one abandons any notion of God. What they don't volunteer-what they probably don't realize-is that atheism is less an intellectual position than a consequence of mental and moral lapses. It has no answers to life's problems.
More at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9502fea3.asp

Quote:

And 2. Do you have a quote for everything like do you have this big ass folder-o-quotes on your desk top for every topic in the spiritual spectrum?

dam close

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501fea1.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403clas.asp

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by no_fixd_address)

Your definition of atheism is self destructive, and dishonest.

Science points the honest investigator toward belief in a creative and thus supernatural being. There are critics who will insist that science will one day resolve the issue of the origin of matter, energy, and order. Just as science has progressed over the centuries to explain phenomena such as shooting stars, locust plagues, and microscopic parasites, some hardened atheists believe science will explain away creation and the need for God.

Yet there is a fundamental difference between such localized concepts and the natural laws dictating entropy and the conservation of matter and energy. The latter form the basis of all modern scientific research and the principles of logic. Spontaneous order or creation would nullify all scientific observations and conclusive theories relying on causation. The world would be a chaotic and unintelligible place without the basic laws of nature.

The very methods used to "disprove" natural laws would be rendered useless. It is impossible for humans to grasp a being which defies the natural laws which govern the way we perceive and understand reality. Science can tell us much about the origin of creation, but will never be able to explain it in natural terms.

Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.

The atheist persists in demanding that God reveal himself while denying all possible forms of communication as invalid. Miracles are dismissed as unexplained events, theists are engaged in self-deception, even personal spiritual inclinations are nothing more than psychological phenomena. In Jesus' parable, Abraham said, "If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead." Science will always hint at, but will never conclusively prove, the existence of God. All experiential and objective evidence can be dismissed as incomplete by those who choose not to believe.

Atheists, for their part, claim to be the supreme rationalists. Only they are able to manipulate reason properly. They say that the full use of reason can come only when one abandons any notion of God. What they don't volunteer-what they probably don't realize-is that atheism is less an intellectual position than a consequence of mental and moral lapses. It has no answers to life's problems.
More at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9502fea3.asp

dam close

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501fea1.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403clas.asp

I notice you are pulling all your sources from CATHOLIC web sites gee no wonder they say what you want them to everything you just sited was written by a catholic. Have you cross referenced that?? Did you personally read anything from the opposite viewpoint? Anything at all? Like oh Richard Carrier or anyone else?? Please tell me you did. A simple yes or no will suffice.

I have read articles similar to the ones you are sighting and I have read articles by atheists, and by people who decline to state what they are it is called having a balanced yoke you a catholic of all people should know about that.

[Steve]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist)

why is that steve?

it is a valid argument based in FACT it just all denpends oh how you interpret the facts at hand.

just curious.

My point is that if you want to try to discredit religion don't use science. The whole point of religion is to have faith - to not have concrete answers for certain questions and ideas, but to just believe. I'm saying this in general too, being very broad. One can nitpick small details to the very end of life if you wanted to. In general, you'll have to use something more than science to change my views.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist)

I notice you are pulling all your sources from CATHOLIC web sites gee no wonder they say what you want them to everything you just sited was written by a catholic. Have you cross referenced that?? Did you personally read anything from the opposite viewpoint? Anything at all? Like oh Richard Carrier or anyone else?? Please tell me you did. A simple yes or no will suffice.

I have read articles similar to the ones you are sighting and I have read articles by atheists, and by people who decline to state what they are it is called having a balanced yoke you a catholic of all people should know about that.

Yes, because only atheistic sources can be considered credible... I mean, THEY are not biased.

Give me a break, Jester. You haven't exactly dug up Christian viewpoints on things.