[Flipside]

Out and out atheists deny the existence of any Supreme being, agnostics tend to be on the fence, spiritualists tend to be more into a kind of non-sentient deity, often physically embodied by the Universe itself. At least, that's how I've always understood it.

[Bobboau]

I am a Christian.  I am also a man who struggles with faith.  I love science and because of it I have a problem with my own faith.  I know, it's all but an oxymoron, but at least it's honest

This bugs me, science is the studly of the natural world and describing how it works in as precise of terms as possible. Why should the study of the natural world, i.e. reality, conflict with one's faith?

[ShadowWolf_IH]

The easiest before coffee example is evolution vs creation.  and now....coffee before work.

[QuantumDelta]

I am a Christian.  I am also a man who struggles with faith.  I love science and because of it I have a problem with my own faith.  I know, it's all but an oxymoron, but at least it's honest

This bugs me, science is the studly of the natural world and describing how it works in as precise of terms as possible. Why should the study of the natural world, i.e. reality, conflict with one's faith?

Because critical thinking is the enemy of fictional imagination that's indoctrinated as reality?

[Flipside]

I prefer 'Infinite possibilities in infinite diversity'

[QuantumDelta]

*coughs* ;o

[ShadowWolf_IH]

I have read attempts to reconcile science and God and while i applaud the effort, everything i've read comes from either a scientific point of view, or a religious point of view, and thus has left me more confused.  I am as apt to defend science as I am my own faith, depending on which is attacked, and while some will call it wishy washy, or talking out both sides of my mouth, this isn't the case.  At the moment of defense, I believe.  So when I read these books, I read through skeptical eyes, knowing that I will mentally be defending one or the other.  This is why I am seldom seen in these threads.  I've gone toe to toe with Kazan, and with Liberator, and no good came from it.  This isn't a "why bother", this is a "I'm tired of fighting me afterwards."

[Flipside]

Heh, I know, it seems odd borrowing philosophy from the Vulcans, but my beliefs tend to be a mish-mash of stuff I've picked up over the years and felt it chimed with my own ethics

The danger isn't really religion, never has been, it's organised religion, where someone tries to form an over-arching group to moderate how people worship their deity, because then it becomes like a Sports team, you have 'sides' to cheer on, you want your own team to 'win', you try to find more supporters for the club, you have rituals and chants that make you 'one of the team'.

That is the danger in my opinion.

[Flipside]

I have read attempts to reconcile science and God and while i applaud the effort, everything i've read comes from either a scientific point of view, or a religious point of view, and thus has left me more confused.  I am as apt to defend science as I am my own faith, depending on which is attacked, and while some will call it wishy washy, or talking out both sides of my mouth, this isn't the case.  At the moment of defense, I believe.  So when I read these books, I read through skeptical eyes, knowing that I will mentally be defending one or the other.  This is why I am seldom seen in these threads.  I've gone toe to toe with Kazan, and with Liberator, and no good came from it.  This isn't a "why bother", this is a "I'm tired of fighting me afterwards."

Well, even if God does not exist, it doesn't really hurt to have a role-model of a 'Perfect Person' to attempt to live up to. Maybe the secret of 'finding God' is not to look into a book, but to look into ourselves?

[Marcov]

My case seems to be virtually the same as ShadowWolf's. Interesting to know.

[Topgun]

I don't believe in a god, but I figure if there was a god I would be ok as I try to be a pretty nice guy.

[Sushi]

Now the discussion gets interesting.

I tend to think about this whole "Faith vs Science" thing quite a bit. As a pretty religious person (I try, anyway), reconciling what I believe with what I can directly observe (and with what other highly qualified people can directly observe) is occasionally challenging. As Bobboau pointed out, it doesn't come up that often... most of the time, what science says fits nicely with what I believe. Certainly scientific and rational methodologies make good sense to me as well.

Most importantly, for me, truth is truth is Truth. And Truth is something that is obtained piece by piece. Scientific and rational methods, done right, give us more and more little bits, and correct what's already there. I believe the same thing about religious truth: it comes piece by piece, and builds and expands on previous knowledge and understanding. The main difference is that while scientific truth is gained by observation and experiment, religious truth is gained by revelation. They both come in bits that build on each other and previous bits.

And so, it comes down to this: I see all apparent conflicts as just that, apparent conflicts. I trust that once I have a clear enough understanding of everything, it will all make sense. That understanding may not come in this life: it may be something that I will only have access to after I die.

So here's a summary of how I approach this:

1. It is my privilege and responsibility to pursue as much truth and knowledge as I can. It's important for me to learn and understand as much science as I can. It is also critical for me to pursue as much revealed truth as I can.
2. If I don't need to make a lifestyle/behavior choice, then having incomplete/contradictory information isn't a problem. I proceed with the acquisition of truth and knowledge, and trust that the conflict will eventually be resolved.
3. When there is a conflict and I need to make a choice affecting my behavior, I choose to follow revealed truth (when in doubt, go with what God says).

[ShadowWolf_IH]

I have read attempts to reconcile science and God and while i applaud the effort, everything i've read comes from either a scientific point of view, or a religious point of view, and thus has left me more confused.  I am as apt to defend science as I am my own faith, depending on which is attacked, and while some will call it wishy washy, or talking out both sides of my mouth, this isn't the case.  At the moment of defense, I believe.  So when I read these books, I read through skeptical eyes, knowing that I will mentally be defending one or the other.  This is why I am seldom seen in these threads.  I've gone toe to toe with Kazan, and with Liberator, and no good came from it.  This isn't a "why bother", this is a "I'm tired of fighting me afterwards."

Well, even if God does not exist, it doesn't really hurt to have a role-model of a 'Perfect Person' to attempt to live up to. Maybe the secret of 'finding God' is not to look into a book, but to look into ourselves?

The crux of the matter here though is a "perfect person".   By looking into ourselves we find OUR definition of that person.  Each of us will have a different definition, because much like your beliefs, we all become a mish mash.  I do believe that we are the sum of our experiences.  I also believe that we are creatures of change by necessity, and yet we resist that change in the name of comfort.  It seems to me that because we are constantly experiencing, we are constantly changing.  Because of this our beliefs are changing as well.  Our vision of a perfect person is changing.  As we grow through our experiences, our "vision" of God himself changes.  The perfection is forever morphing, slowly, but inevitably.  I used to have a good deal of moral gray area, but not so much anymore, things have changed, I've changed, now, it's either right or wrong.  Even they are subjective though, and differ from person to person.  Mind you these are not facts, but my truths.  Which brings us to:

Now the discussion gets interesting.

I tend to think about this whole "Faith vs Science" thing quite a bit. As a pretty religious person (I try, anyway), reconciling what I believe with what I can directly observe (and with what other highly qualified people can directly observe) is occasionally challenging. As Bobboau pointed out, it doesn't come up that often... most of the time, what science says fits nicely with what I believe. Certainly scientific and rational methodologies make good sense to me as well.

Most importantly, for me, truth is truth is Truth. And Truth is something that is obtained piece by piece. Scientific and rational methods, done right, give us more and more little bits, and correct what's already there. I believe the same thing about religious truth: it comes piece by piece, and builds and expands on previous knowledge and understanding. The main difference is that while scientific truth is gained by observation and experiment, religious truth is gained by revelation. They both come in bits that build on each other and previous bits.

And so, it comes down to this: I see all apparent conflicts as just that, apparent conflicts. I trust that once I have a clear enough understanding of everything, it will all make sense. That understanding may not come in this life: it may be something that I will only have access to after I die.

So here's a summary of how I approach this:

1. It is my privilege and responsibility to pursue as much truth and knowledge as I can. It's important for me to learn and understand as much science as I can. It is also critical for me to pursue as much revealed truth as I can.
2. If I don't need to make a lifestyle/behavior choice, then having incomplete/contradictory information isn't a problem. I proceed with the acquisition of truth and knowledge, and trust that the conflict will eventually be resolved.
3. When there is a conflict and I need to make a choice affecting my behavior, I choose to follow revealed truth (when in doubt, go with what God says).

This is a parting of things for me, and a place where I am comfortable with science and faith (I really hate to use the word religion).  I think of a most convenient split when studying either.  In science we search for fact, certain facts will have an effect on us.  In philosophy of faith, we search for truth, which will have an impact on us.  Because my mind tends to wander, (as is evident in my writings), I end up in a place where the two cannot easily coincide.  The fact of Science, vs the truth of Faith.  Galileo was excommunicated iirc, and if not, I do know that he had serious battles with the church.  I forgot where I was going with that (but I have an excuse, last week I put in 63 hours at work, not including the hour travel time in each direction, and this week I am topping off about 74 hours), i'm just really exhausted.

Anyway, the core of things is a battle of oranges vs apples.  Using fact to explain truth.  It really gets to bug me, especially when I actually do have clarity of thought on something, and wonder why the hell others don't get it.  Judaism/Christianity and Islam for example.  Similar faiths, but with enough differences to create unto them separate truths.  The fact is though, that Abraham was told that both his sons would found great nations.  From Isaac sprang Judaism.  From Ishmael sprang Islam.  Both can trace back to Abraham, so why are we warring with our brithers?  Which of us if any is the Prodigal's son?  And why the hell are we looking for a political solution to a faith based conflict?  Why is there a faith based conflict to begin with?  Maybe because of man's inherent fallibility copulating with his vanity to produce a sense of correctness in truth, all the while ignoring the simple fact that we are brothers.  Again this is my truth and not to be taken as fact. 

There really was a point to this whole mess of nearly incoherent thought.  It's a simple point.  Man writes the teachings.  Man will invariably subject the reader to his opinions, even if unwittingly.  In the Greek Lexicon, which is a forerunner to the Holy Bible as we know it, God didn't have gender.  But as a product of a male-centric society, we have Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.  Man giving his opinion in God's text book. There are fundamental truths held within the pages of the Bible.  There are also scientific inconsistencies.  So if this makes any sense at all, you see my problem with reconcilition of the two.  If it makes no sense, then chalk this post up to the ramblings of a man half blind with sleep dep.

[Flipside]

The crux of the matter here though is a "perfect person".   By looking into ourselves we find OUR definition of that person.  Each of us will have a different definition, because much like your beliefs, we all become a mish mash.  I do believe that we are the sum of our experiences.  I also believe that we are creatures of change by necessity, and yet we resist that change in the name of comfort.  It seems to me that because we are constantly experiencing, we are constantly changing.  Because of this our beliefs are changing as well.  Our vision of a perfect person is changing.  As we grow through our experiences, our "vision" of God himself changes.  The perfection is forever morphing, slowly, but inevitably.  I used to have a good deal of moral gray area, but not so much anymore, things have changed, I've changed, now, it's either right or wrong.  Even they are subjective though, and differ from person to person.  Mind you these are not facts, but my truths.

That's why it's better to have a flexible belief systems than something fixed in the form of a set of books and rituals. As you grow and your perspectives change, you start to see the world in a different light, things like 'Morals' and 'Responsibility' have no imperical measurement system, only your own interpretation of it, they are a collection of Social, Personal and Familial imperatives that are imposed on you from without. But the thing is, as you age, those imperatives alter, your Social life changes, you move from being a child in a family to the parent in one etc, and all this effects your outlook on the world around you.

I think all but the most phsycopathic murderers have a 'justification' for what they have done, they try to tie actions that they know go against their own internal moral imperatives by constructing a web of excuses that they feel over-ride them. If they did not know that what they had done broke their moral code, they wouldn't feel a need to justify it. So looking inside yourself to find God isn't a risk, so long as you accept that you will never ever truly find Him, you can only aspire to be a better person in the hope that brings you closer. To use a line from Tron:Legacy, perfection is always right there in front of us, and yet we can never achieve it.

As long as we can accept that, and be brave enough to change our views over time, to realise that nothing is set in stone then there is hope. I suppose you could almost look at it like the Second law of Thermodynamics and Entropy, the moment things stop changing, it's the end.

There was a wonderful quote by Pratchett that went something like "We say that God created Man in His image, that's 100% right except for one minor juxtaposition...."

[ShadowWolf_IH]

Actually, I think more of the Chinese riddle:

When you seek it, you cannot find it.

I love how with the absence of a few people, we can all be teacher and student at the same time in these threads, and not be a combatant.

[WeatherOp]

As a Christian, I never get the argument that God mellowed out from the Old Testament to the New. If anything he became even more stricter. Love and Grace is more emphasized(although it's far from not being shown in the old testament.) however I cannot think of a finer line than accepting Christ and or accepting Christ. God revealed his Law in the Old Testament and it had some very harsh consequences, however just realizing what God gave at the Cross and the consequences there are just un-fathomable.

[Mars]

As a Christian, I never get the argument that God mellowed out from the Old Testament to the New. If anything he became even more stricter. Love and Grace is more emphasized(although it's far from not being shown in the old testament.) however I cannot think of a finer line than accepting Christ and or accepting Christ. God revealed his Law in the Old Testament and it had some very harsh consequences, however just realizing what God gave at the Cross and the consequences there are just un-fathomable.

Where in the Old Testament is anything shown that resembles love? I can think of King David weeping for his and Bathsheba's child, I can think of Isac weeping just before he was to plunge the knife in Jacob. That is all.

What father condemns his son for seeing his nakedness, as Noah did.
What father sends his daughters out to be raped?
What daughters rape their father in his sleep?
What father sacrifices his daughter to keep his promise to an uncaring God?

[Marcov]

I've recently read Hosea, which quite emphasizes love.

Sadly though, based on my interpretation God's love is usually towards Israel "only". The OT God is quite one-sided, though that's just my current view.

[Luis Dias]

As a Christian, I never get the argument that God mellowed out from the Old Testament to the New. If anything he became even more stricter. Love and Grace is more emphasized(although it's far from not being shown in the old testament.) however I cannot think of a finer line than accepting Christ and or accepting Christ. God revealed his Law in the Old Testament and it had some very harsh consequences, however just realizing what God gave at the Cross and the consequences there are just un-fathomable.

Where in the Old Testament is anything shown that resembles love? I can think of King David weeping for his and Bathsheba's child, I can think of Isac weeping just before he was to plunge the knife in Jacob. That is all.

What father condemns his son for seeing his nakedness, as Noah did.
What father sends his daughters out to be raped?
What daughters rape their father in his sleep?
What father sacrifices his daughter to keep his promise to an uncaring God?

Given all that, what kind of god will force you to love and accept the hearsay word that some bloke you never met is actually god himself, and that you must follow said bloke, with the new formed threat of "everlasting fire" if you do not?

Love me as I love you "Or Else"?

I am firmly in the camp that thinks that the new testament jumps to a whole new level of sadism and plain evilness, while painting itself with the yellow smug smile of "love and tenderness". It's perhaps the ultimate peak of "Passive Agressiveness" that I have ever seen:

"Go ahead, punch in my face... I even offer you my other!

Look how meek I am, how passive, how good!

(Just you wait until you die, you piece of S...1"#!"#%!"#%), you will burn FOREVER if you don't go down on your knees for me!"


That's my view, anyway.

[Marcov]

- Deleted message -