Belief (!=)(<>)(=/=) Religion I don't deny there could be a supernatural world that we cannot sense, but I choose to follow the evidence since I am less likely to misled in my search for truth.
Oh definitely. I think Sagan was kind of doing a corollary to it like, "An advanced enough alien is indistinguishable from God".
A single quote is not enough to prove a case. Per the Bible, God created Lucifer fully knowing that Lucifer would become Satan. Why?
He may have been trying to convey that message, but an alien "God" would still have to obey the laws of physics.
And that's not true from a human's perspective because...? Well what a coincidence. So do humans. And just what case do you imagine I'm trying to prove?
Faith is just the early exploration of the spirit. Questions lead to hypothesis which lead to beliefs. In the physical world, those beliefs are easily validated or invalidated by experimentation. The problem with the spirit is that we've been stuck in the hypothesis stage since forever without a means to experiment in an objective manner. This could mean that there is no spirit at all. It could also mean that we have a lot farther to progress, scientifically, than we ever thought. Just as we still don't know everything about gravity, we know even less about our own brains and what makes us 'tick.' (We know a lot, but we still don't even know how much we don't know). I don't think its any less of a 'faith' to state that a god doesnt exist than it is to state that a god does exist. Or that a spirit exists. That is all still deep in the realm of 'we don't have enough information. Yet.' Faith is merely the innevitable result of human curiosity outpacing human perception. Fortunately, we're ever expanding our perception with technology and innovation. We'll figure it out ...as long as we keep trying.
What you have chosen is "blind faith" in order to make a contrast between pure unfounded opinion (religion) and manifestly objective fact (science). Those are both incorrect. In a religious sense, faith is not blind. Anyone who blindly follows a religion is a fool. People do not make drastic changes in their lives on a whim, they don't wake up one day and just take a truly blind leap and commit to a religion. A person whole heartedly follows a religion based on evidence he sees in his own life. Its through personal experience, the experience of others who the individual trusts, and knowledge of the writings and history of the religion. The evidence is not universal and objective to the point it will convince any and every person, but it is still evidence. On the other side, science is expected to be based on objective universally accepted evidence, but it is not without its own "leaps of faith". Not everything is proven, often a hypothesis is believed because there is evidence that supports it but it is not universally accepted. Even theories retain skepticism, and they often fall as more data and knowledge is uncovered. There are fads in science, ideas that come and go partly based on the personalities that support or oppose them. In physics, string theory is one example.
A human, stuck in the material world, cannot perceive God through his natural senses. The devil, by definition, is already a spiritual being, and HAD, at one time, the ability to 'see' and interact with God on a spiritual level. So the kind of faith we are talking about in this thread would not apply to the devil, since he has the objective reality of God's presence before him. Humans, otoh, must approach God by faith.. a different definition than how we are using it here. A human has no natural perception or knowledge of God. His natural senses are inadequate to perceive God, which is why atheism is so common.. they rely ONLY on their natural senses. But there is a spiritual sense, too. It must be quickened, or awakened, in order to perceive God, and this spiritual sense is not objective.. we cannot use material means to measure, test, or corroborate it. But i submit that this spiritual sense, that God has awakened in humans, is not any more reliable as a diviner of truth than our natural senses. IOW, we can be fooled in our natural senses, and even more easily fooled in our spiritual ones. The Christian is instructed to not rely completely on any senses, but to trust in God. That may sound otherworldly, and it is. That is the faith you brought up in james. A balanced seeker of truth uses both his natural senses, AND whatever spiritual insights he has been granted. But not all of the 'truths' that he perceives are empirical and objective. And a wise truth seeker is not dogmatic about the spiritual truths they have perceived, because of the keen awareness of fallibility. We are wrong, in many of our perceptions, and should hold our opinions with a measure of doubt and introspection. Material facts, and historical events can have certainty, and personal Revelation carries a lot of assurance, too. But adamant dogmatism, with only subjective evidence, is inappropriate for a seeker of truth.
Good post. There is nothing 'unnatural', in reality, about spiritual perception. If we ARE spiritual beings, it stands to reason that we would or could have spiritual senses. And just because we lack the technology or the knowledge to test or examine this human phenomena, does not mean it does not exist, as a natural facet of humanity. At one time, we did not have the technology to perceive matter, at the nuclear level. Once we acquired that ability, our knowledge of matter & nuclear physics bloomed. It was not that protons, electrons, etc did not exist, we were just too limited in our natural senses to perceive them. In the same way, a spiritual dimension is (or could be) real.. too many humans have attested to that to deny it, categorically. We just don't have the technology or ability to perceive it, through our natural senses. That is part of the dichotomy, in this thread. The natural senses are stuck in the material, and we cannot perceive spirituality through them. This only exposes the limitations of empiricism, as an absolute arbiter of truth. It is woefully lacking, at the spiritual level, because it can only perceive what the natural senses perceive. I could describe a mystical, spiritual encounter with God, and get 2 different reactions. One might dismiss it entirely, just because it is not empirically verifiable. Another might relate, from personal encounters of their own. This is a matter of faith.. belief in something for which there is no empirical proof. But this kind of faith is common to everyone. It might not extend to spiritual dimensions, but it does in other areas of human existence.
There are some things we have personally verified, empirically and by testing, so we understand the inner workings. A cook, for example knows that when certain ingredients are put together and mixed in a specific way, with the right application of heat, a precise outcome results. They know by experience and testing, that inattention to a detail can ruin the dish. That is experiential knowledge. A novice, following a recipe, follows the same sequence and produces the same results, by faith in the author of the recipe. That is imparted knowledge. The novice cook does not know why or how the recipe works, just that it does. Both of these depend on empirical science, but the novice cook also employs faith in the author and the recipe. Some other examples of science, and empirical truth in our daily lives: 1. Flying. We do not need to understand aerodynamics to get on a plane. But we trust that someone did, when they designed the plane. We also trust the pilot, mechanics, and safety inspectors. This is a blend of empirical science and personal faith in the people selling the service. 2. Using an elevator, living in a house, or using any building. We do not need to know snow loads or modulus of elasticity for structural calculations. Someone does, and we trust the engineers, inspectors, and workers that the work was performed to spec. 3. Heat transfer. We know, from experience, that when our local weather patterns are at a particular setting, we need to be prepared. Coats, umbrellas, and other protections from the elements are used to retain or repel heat in our bodies. We don't go traipsing around in the mountains in the dead of winter in shorts and flip flops. And, we don't wear a coat hiking in Phoenix in the summer. When we were children, we depended on a parent or protector to share their knowledge of weather conditions, and we trusted them. Eventually, if we lived, we learned for ourselves about the elements. 4. Medical. This one has both empirical, scientific basis in application, and faith in the people and chemicals used to treat our conditions. There are also herbal and anecdotal remedies that have been around for years, that have no empirical testing or scientific analysis as to 'why' it works, but there is experiential evidence that it does Add to this list, cell phones, tv, gps, radio, automobiles, animal breeding, computer use, programming, and practically every human interaction with scientific principles. We know, by observation and experience that these things work, and we know that some people are experts in their field, understand the science, and are able to use this information to make devices that use the technology. They are not magic or voodoo, but practical, functional devices based on natural laws of science. Most of this is self evident, and we take for granted our own faith in the various interfaces we have with scientific knowledge. These scientific principles are not always for human benefit, but can be used to kill and destroy, as well. Hackers can steal your stuff. Despots can bomb, gas, or shoot you. Criminals use technology as well as do gooders. Science and faith are both there, in most of our actions and beliefs about the world we are in, but sometimes we cannot differentiate between the empirical side of our lives, and the trusting side. Charlatans and deceivers use that confusion against us, pretending 'science' for some obscure claim. Snake oil salesmen and con men use the illusion of science to fool people for some hidden (or not so hidden) agenda.
I love my brother. When we were little I remember him adamantly wanting to have a bonsai tree. One recent Christmas I actually saw some for sale... When he took off the wrapping he could hardly believe his eyes...
Assuming by that you mean physical or material senses, so what? And a human being is not? You're of the opinion that Adam, Noah, Abraham and the prophets didn't do that? And you think that's not true of humans because...? But not because that's all they have. And you figure that doesn't happen when the soul is created because...? Evidently you think the former follows from the latter. It doesn't. And how exactly is he supposed to trust a God whose very existence he can only perceive by a faculty he cannot trust? That passage says nothing about faith, only belief in the ultimate fact. Yeah, I'm sure that woulda worked out great for Christ when He was being tempted by the devil. Your imagination leads you astray - not for the first time, I'll warrant.
The fact that religion is such an ingrained trait of humanity is proof in itself. Throughout all of recorded history, a belief in God has been a fundamental aspect of human life at the individual and societal levels.
Not really. The fact of the past prevalence of belief in the supernatural is just a manifestation of the human need to find explanations for what is percieved. The fact is that belief on superstition declines as science advances. And the simple fact that there has been literally thousands of gods proves that no one god can or religion can be correct without all the others being wrong.
Faith is the fundamental vessel for humans to convey a truth (virtually of any kind including science). Humans lack the capability to have a direct contact to a truth or fact. They thus under most circumstance will have to put faith in a "middle man" to get to a truth. That's how faith works in this reality. For an example, 99.99% humans don't explore into the evidence of the existence of black holes. Only our scientists (less than 0.01% humans) do the job and for the rest of humankind to believe with faith. 99.99% don't need evidence to get to the truth that black holes exist. All they need is faith in our scientists works. Science is about a very narrow and specific set of truth. This specific kind of truth can be repeated for humans at any point of time to examine them repeatedly to get to a conclusion. You have had a million meals in your life time, yet you can evidence none of them. Science can do nothing about your meals eaten either, simply because they are not facts which can be repeated. Under most circumstance faith remains the only way to approach such a kind of truth. Say, if a reporter from CNN (it's about the credibility of the "middle man") recorded down what you ate in a particular meal, then we can get to what you ate that day by putting faith in what the reporter said. History is basically composed of such a kind of reporter testimonies. History is comprehendable to us simply because it is about the recordings of human activities thus lying inside our comprehension. Religion is rather the recordings of supernatural activities thus may go beyond our common sense and comprehension. In the end, what worth examining is the credibility of those eye-witnesses accounts, instead of evidence. Even so it's difficult, as difficult as examining the credibility of the authors of history written, say, 2000 years ago. The question left is why should a god as a super being avoid encountering humans. He should face us and to lead us instead of of hiding behind. We may not have the ability to approach him but he should have all the ability to approach each of us. So what worth examining is if a god of a religion has a clear and strong motive to hide behind humans on earth. In Christianity, God doesn't show up because humans need faith to be saved. God thus only shows up to those chosen prophets as witnesses (the "middle man") and for the rest of humankind to believe with faith then to be saved. Of course, if the god has a strong reason to hide behind, the only way left for humans to approach such a god is by faith! The next extra question is thus how well this god has made use of faith itself as a vessel of conveying truth?!
That there have been multiple religions and gods is not the point. The point is that humanity has an ingrained drive for religion. Throughout all of human history, religion has been a major if not pre-eminent component of every society. It transcends geography, economics, education, power. The degree to which a particular society believes in religion fluctuates, it always has. It loosely follows short term economic prosperity - in prosperous times religion wanes, in difficult times people turn to religion. But religion never goes away completely, and it always returns. The USA is highly educated and has a high quality of life, its population has access to more information than any other society in history, yet 80% believe in god, 56% believe in the God as described in the Bible. (this cites and links to a pew survey) https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...ve-in-god-what-americans-mean-pew-survey.html
Partly correct. There is still a spiritual component to human nature. While atheists are free to believe we are all ambulatory meat computers responding to biochemical programming and of no more value than our component parts (i.e. mass murder could be a logical solution to suffering and famine) but others, including myself, believe there is more to existence than what we see in front of our noses. That doesn't mean I believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale or that "God" created Adam and Eve, but it does mean I think there is more to human beings than being a meat computer.
The claim that all atheists believe we are just ambulatory meat computers is beyond contemptible. Be ashamed at your inability to make intelligent contributions to the discussions.
OMG! Are you saying some atheists believe in a soul? Dude, if that's true, then they aren't atheists. If I'm wrong, then specify how I'm wrong. If a human being is soulless, then isn't it equivalent to an ambulatory rock?
Sorry but your phony dichotomy between the soul and ambulatory meat computers just doesn't cut it. Nice try though. Before continuing you might want to define " soul " since thst appears to be your alternative of choice.
LOL. Sorry I offended all the atheists who want to believe there is no such thing as the supernatural but want to believe we're not ambulatory meat computers responding to biochemical programming from birth to death.
