that's a really good explanation, Dragorion!

Hmm Ok just to keep this thread on topic, still about being atheist isn’t it? J

I’ll tell ya my theory of reality in a nutshell. First of all I don’t believe in a god or gods or that they have any kind of domain over my existence. I dunno, I suppose when it really comes down to it I can’t prove that a god doesn’t exist any more than someone can prove that he/she or it does, it really is a matter of perspective…to an extent. I believe that I can trust my perception and that there are laws of science we can depend on to define, describe, and manipulate our reality. How do I come to this position? Easy! We get results with being empirical. For instance, pray as much as you like, but you won’t invent an atomic bomb like magic. You can build one by understanding how atoms work however. Ah, but then what about divine inspriation you ask?... eh, I call that imagination.

Likewise I’m a writer and I like to write, where does my inspiration come from? Part from random chance, part imagination, part what I have experienced, mix it all together and I get something original and unique. I believe in cause and effect essentially--- and most importantly, that everything, and I mean everything is explainable, quantifiable,and knowable. Sure we don’t have answers for everything now, but eventually, perhaps a millennia from now, we may, or at least be a little bit closer, not that I will be around for it.

To summarize:

I REALLY don’t like the concept of having a higher power having some kind of control over me. Its just creepy! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I am master of my own destiny.

And finally, god is just a something we made up to quell our collective fears of death. Thats what it is. Here we are, stuck on a planet, one of billions upon billions... insignificant.

No I do not think we are created in gods image, rather we created him in ours.

Just my IMO <----

I also think that any way a person can find harmony and contentment in their life, well thats great. Just keep religion 100 feet from science/government at all times, and I'm cool wit that ;)

Secularism is the way of the future.

[ 01-23-2003, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

<font color="plum">Ahhhhhh...but what about Divine Intervention. I have personally seen prayers succeed where science and technology failed. I've told the story before, but the short version is that I faced a life-threatening condition 6yrs ago. I suffered massive internal injury and - through a series of events - had to wait more than 30 hours before corrective surgery could be performed. After the surgery, the doctor asked my wife and mother if they believed in miracles. They replied that they did and he said <font color="white">"That's good - because a miracle is the only thing that will save him now. I've done what I could, but it simply wasn't enough to repair the damage that's been done. I don't expect him to survive past the next 72 hours."</font>

My mom returned to the waiting room in tears and asked everyone there to pray with her for my safety. Total strangers joined hands with my mom and asked God to spare me. I later learned that over 100 people from my hometown were also praying for a miracle on my behalf. However, I was completely unaware of any of this - so my recovery cannot be attributed to "positive thinking".

The bottom line is that our advanced medical technology was not sufficient to save me. Only God's Grace was able to do that.</font>


<font color="plum">I find it comforting rather than creepy. {see above example}</font>

<font color="plum">That's true. We are created with free will. Each of us has the freedom to choose whether we will believe or disbelieve in God, Buddha, Allah, Vishnu, or none of the above. We also have the freedom to take any action or follow any course that we deem best for us. All of our decisions, actions, and choices are our own to make.</font>

<font color=plum>I disagree. Although I'm in no hurry to die, I do not fear death. I have a personal relationship with God that is real - not imaginary, hallucinatory, or chemically induced. I have heard His voice in direct answer to prayers and I have seen His hand intervene in my times of need. This is not just "wishful thinking" - I have gone to God in prayer over different circumstances and seen real, empirical results occur from those prayers.

We are stuck on this planet, but we are not insignificant - at least not to God. ;) </font>

<font color="plum">I agree. Although I don't feel that science and God are mutually exclusive. I believe God designed our world and the universe to operate in an orderly and precise manner. He then gave Man the ability to "discover" these "orderly patterns" for ourselves so that we could better understand how our world works.

Religion in gov't is a horse of a different color. I respect gov't leaders and officials who have strong moral values and convictions....but I would NOT want to see Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell in the Oval Office.

I believe in freedom of choice and I respect every person's decision to accept or reject religion as they see fit. If you have found harmony and contentment in your choice, I am happy for you. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

Wasn't the Bible written in about 800 AD or something?

I don't think it was written in the time that everything actually happened...

And THAT's what makes me sceptical - in the hundreds or thousands of years between the story told in the Bible and the time it was written down, a lot could have been lost... Exagerration, misunderstanding... try playing chinese whispers for a couple of centuries and see... ;)

Wow...
I can't believe I started all this with my Squirrel example !

I just want to come back on one little point :
This is false. They do. Bonobos (another species of big ape) do that even more. They even do bl*wj*bs (that can be ONLY for pleasure) !

Though, concerning the Squirrel point, there was the original point :

Before assuming what happens when a human being dies, did ou guys ever take a guess about what does happen when a squirrel dies ?

And this is a real question !

What does happen to this tiny cute little life that suddenly stops ?

--==* What does happen when a Squirrel dies ? *==--

If we can clearly answer that, we will make a huge step in the understanding of the meaning of life.

Oh, I meant to say this before... I think that if a creature has the capability for intelligent thought and/or the ability to distinguish between wrong/right (or good/evil), then that creature has a soul...

[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:

Quote:

... But science is constantly changing it's position on this ...

Maybe, and why not ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

I have seen posted lots of things about the 'scientific attitude'. I am the daughter of a scientific researcher, I have had a high-level scientific education, and to me, the main aspect of the right scientific attitude is to stay humble and open-minded at all times.

IMO, the scientific quest for knowledge goes like this : you have to complete a puzzle, of which you only have some pieces. So you make a hypothesis that fit with all the pieces you have in hand FOR NOW. BUT, when a new piece is found, you have to check if it still fits with the hypothesis. If it fits, then the hypothesis is still valid (and I don't mean it is The Truth, but it is a likely picture, and it is usable). If not, then you HAVE to make a new hypothesis where all pieces fit. And the new one will be closer to The Truth - but not The Truth itself ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Scientific know many many centuries will pass before we have all the pieces, if it ever happens. Does this mean they should not try to interpret the pieces they have in hands, but only keep on collecting facts until all the pieces are here ? Now that would be a waste of intellingence, wouldn't it ? ;)

About human evolution. The facts are the numerous bones and stone tools and holes in the earth, collected over the years. The current evolution trees proposed by the scientists are just propositions. BUT these hypothesis include all the facts currently available. And many scientific disciplins have been put to contribution, to establish these trees : paleontology, anthopology, geology, statistics, genetics, sociology, ... Is that wise to discount all that intelligence ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

ABout God. I am an agnostic rather than an atheist. I didn't yet encounter any evidence that would convince me that He exists. My current hypothesis is that He doesn't. But I keep an open mind. If a new fact came up, I am perfectly ready to change my mind. [img]smile.gif[/img]

BTW Leonis, 95 % of shared genes still makes us closer DNA-cousins to Chimpanzees than to bananas ! ;)

--==* What does happen when a Squirrel dies ? *==--

Doesn't his Squirrel God take him to the heaven of squirrels ? http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon16.gif

<font color="plum">On the campus where I went to college, it usually meant the power would go out in the dorm - at least for a brief period. That's because the squirrels there did not commit suicide by jumping on sharpened acorns - they did it by jumping onto transformer boxes.

But for the more serious aspect of your question, when a squirrel dies - it dies. End of story. God did not create the animals in His image. In fact, Genesis clearly states that He made all the animals, yet still felt something was "missing". That's when he decided to make a creation in His own image.

Unlike all the other creatures of the Earth, he gave Man a soul, so that Man would understand and realize who God was and would seek a relationship with Him. This is an attribute that NO other creature shares.

<font color=yellow>Moraine</font> - As for the Theory of Evolution, I have no problem with the concept that man has evolved over the centuries. There is obvious proof that evolution has played a role in the Development of man. However, there is still NO conclusive proof that Evolution is responsible for the Creation of Man.

Chimpanzees may be very similar to humans, but science has yet to produce an irrefutable example of the "common ancestor" we supposedly share. The Missing Link has not yet been found (and universally accepted). I - for one - don't think it ever will be found....because I don't believe it exists. Still, that doesn't mean that scientists shouldn't keep looking. The more we learn and understand about ourselves and our world - the better our quality of life becomes (as a general rule ;) ).</font>

You’re talking about supernaturalism there.
But Science only deals with Tangible proofs and evidence,
So to say that someone _is_ cured by “god’s grace” is rather misleading, since there is no scientfic justification for that (the matriel world, including people getting cured come under the jurisdiction of science) nor will there ever be, unless someone empirically proves the existence of a god or higher power of the sort that your beliefs subscribe too.
So someone can believe that they were cured by such, but ultimately it comes down to a matter of faith, and so it is inadmissible as evidence in any form of logical debate and argument.
I can say that I think for example When I went Short sited in my right eye, That It was caused By something to do with hardening of the lenses or something? or I could say that It was done by god who was angry that I had done sometihng bad,
However on the one hand I have an Optician to back one veiw up with the whole wieght of human scietific endevour and "proof" behind him, On the other hand I have faith in A God and faith in various doctrinesn needed to ascribe my ocular malady to him.
The choice is up to the individual in the end.

some people may think you have proved his point,
your belief in a god as you state quells your fear of dieing,
i.e “I do not fear death”.

Religion in itself cannot be empirically proved true, therefore unless you first prove the existence of god, to claim the existence of it's intervention in the matriel world is, since it cannot be verified on scientific grounds, is purely faith.
You cannot definitively claim that god _does_ exist or that god _does not_ exist without making the statement anything other than pure faith with all that entails.

Religion deals with faith, i.e. simple (or complicated YMMV) Belief in something without nessacerily any valid empirical proof to back it up.

Science deals with empirical proof, i.e. something that within the evidence based observation model we have built up of the materiel world can be independently verified by someone with repeatable experiments and similar.

Mathematics I think deals with Necessary truth & pure logic, I.e. within our current mathematical system 2+2=4 and no one and nothing can change this without changing the whole premise of Maths as it currently is.

Language deals with contingent truth, For example The Sentence “Fish don’t have legs” Is contingent that we don’t call “fins” (something which fish have) “Legs” (something which under the current meaning of the word Fish do not have).

For example I can get Foucault’s pendulum or whatever it was they used to prove that the earth rotates and I can duplicate this experiment myself, You can duplicate it, Everyone on earth can, and They can therefore prove to themselves that the earth appears to rotate.

We can all get a sheet of people and a pencil or even a calculator perhaps, and see that 2+2=4. We can all look in a dictionary at current meaning of words,
But we cannot all sit down and do a certain proscribed action and all find proof of god’s existence in that or even contract with a divine being etc.

Therefore IMHO (YMMV) I think science and relegion do have an irreconcibiable gap, One of proof and evidence.

<font color="plum">There is one fundamental difference between the two examples, <font color=white>Eisenschwarz</font>. An examination by a trained doctor will find the the physical cause of your reduced eyesight. It is easily and readily identifiable by scientific means.

But I had Peritonitis running rampant through my system for 30 hours. According to all medical knowledge and scientific data, the Peritonitis should have also spread to my bloodstream and killed me within the next 72 hours - but it didn't. The "fact" is that there are occurrences that science cannot explain. My example was one of them. If it can't be explained by scientific methodology, then the explanation must lie somewhere else. You call it supernatural, I call it God's Grace. Fair enough on both counts.

As for the "empirical results" I spoke of, the fact that I am still alive (in defiance of any scientific explanation) DOES count as empirical evidence. You may disagree with my hypothesis (God's Grace), but you cannot disagree with the evidence (that I'm still alive).

However, I will stop there. And I will also compliment you on the entirety of your response to me. You offered excellent counterpoints to my assertions and I give credit where credit is due. I'm sure many people would say that I don't fear death because of my faith. I have to admit they are probably right. Although I admit that I do have some fear of the physical sensations I will experience as I die....I have NO fear about what happens afterwards. In my opinion, my faith is not base on blind hope - but I won't contest your assertion that it is.

I could give more examples of why I feel it isn't, but this thread WAS originally designed primarily to allow atheists to explain the reasons for their beliefs (or lack thereof) - so I will step back and allow you to have the spotlight once again.</font>

Theology IS a science.

I just want to say that although many of us agree or disagree, I am learning much about the different opinions on this matter... and for that learning experience and added wisdom, I thank you all. Most is done with much humility and respect for others views, and this is why I love IW!

The wisest statement I have read on IWF or anywhere in days. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

OMG (pun intended, sorry) Eisen posted something I agree with! Way to go buddy [img]smile.gif[/img] You always have good arguements, thankfully, one went in my directions. Cerek, I am extremely pleased that you did live through that experience, as I get to interact with you here. I am NOT trying to lessen your faith, but let me put it in the terms I think of it in. Currently I am an agnostic, for lack of better words. Some days I feel "spiritual" and some days not. Your experience with the doctors is simply one they had not encountered. To go with Moiraine's explanation of the scientific puzzle, you are a new piece. If they knew more, they would have known what combination of circumstances and your physical characteristics interacted to "save" you. 500 years ago, a lighter would seem like magic, now it costs $.50 in a gas-o-mart. Just because we can't explain it, doesn't mean we never will.

On the other hand, on one of my spiritual days, I would say that God saved you, not by direct, immediate intervention, but because he designed you that way. My theory is that IF God exists, he did it by designing evolution, billions of years ago, and set it in motion. He knew we would eventually pop up. The Book of Genesis was written as it is because the writers did not have the framework and environment we have now to write it in, when God "gave" them the knowledge through divine intervention.

On a cynical day, I would say 3 things:
1) You're a lucky SOB,
2) God is EITHER omnipotent OR omniscient, but not both,
3) Women: a mistake, or did He DO it to us ON PURPOSE (to quote Jack in Witches of Eastwick). [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
Thank Him I don't have many of these.

And to paraphase Gammit, thanks for the new knowledge and perspective.

Theology is not science because science is based upon pancritical rationality, Which is a way of thinking that is free of external domination (for example that of a deity & associated Dogma), always regards all assumptions and all results as in principle open to criticism and does not cling stubbornly and dogmatically to any thesis.

The Sphere of theology is founded upon and promulgates dogma, and doubt is acknowledged only as a challenge to be overcome by faith.
Whereas doubt about the correctness of any assumptions and any affirmations forms an essential part of science, i.e. pancritically rational thought.

Theology is not science because science is based upon pancritical rationality, Which is a way of thinking that is free of external domination (for example that of a deity & associated Dogma), always regards all assumptions and all results as in principle open to criticism and does not cling stubbornly and dogmatically to any thesis.

The Sphere of theology is founded upon and promulgates dogma, and doubt is acknowledged only as a challenge to be overcome by faith.
Whereas doubt about the correctness of any assumptions and any affirmations forms an essential part of science, i.e. pancritically rational thought.</font>[/QUOTE]sci·ence

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (<font color="cyan">the science of theology</font>)
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge (have it down to a science)

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws (culinary science)

5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

[ 01-25-2003, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Yet again you show you fail completely to understand faith. Why don't you stop telling ME what doubt means to a theologian, and let a theologian tell you - an atheist - what doubt is acknowledged as.

Doubt is a wonderful precursor to greater theological understanding and knowledge of God. The existence of doubt actually creates faith - without which there would simply be mute, one dimensional acceptance.

Thank you for your post Yorick. Since I have a Master of Theology degree it is rather bothersome to keep seeing people post about theology when they don't even know the basic definition much less how theological work is done.

As an aside students of comparative theology can show, using observation techniques, logic and reason that "Science" can be a religion. It is usually described as a type 2 religion with and identifiable supreme entity (named either science/reason/logic). It has its own interperters of the religions tenets (scientist=priest). Salvation/completion comes through the supreme entity. It is faith based (ex. "All creation comes from the Big Bang." What was before the Big Bang? How did matter come from nothing? "Science will eventually find the answer.")

Agreed Antryg. Well said.

This thread is STILL going? Once again I have lost the entire plot of the last 20 or so posts but I may as well post an (most likely allready stated) opinion on science just for the hell of it! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
From what yet more or Gods own teachings hove told us - religion and science must work togeather to make the world a better place. Using science to disprove religion and religion to hinder science will just lead us around in circles while if they both healp each other and work towards the same goal (the betterment of humanity) then we could achieve amazing feats!
Of cours this it probably totally off the current topic but it just felt good to get that out. [img]smile.gif[/img]

You’re trying to frame the question, What you describe is how some people treat science. We can make a religion out of anything, Government can become a religions, Communism and fascism etc

The basis of science is Pancritical thinking, and this can never be made absolute and it is especially valid where it can itself be subject to criticism. However, Theology is not a science since it is based on wholly dogmatic Principles, since it presupposes the Truth and authority of the word of god. You may describe theology as what you will but it does not involve scientific thought and it is based on Dogma.

Let me quote from a theologian: “As the Science of faith, it regards the statements of faith as its object, which it cannot of it’s own accord, either produce or do away with. It has rather to serve them by creating through methodical thought, a deeper understanding and a more lively personal appropriation of those statements of faith, which are RECEIVED BY THE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN FROM THE CHURCH. The Church in turn is consciously BOUND TO THE TWOFOLD BUT SINGLE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION... THEOLOGY PRESUPPOSES FAITH”

(Capitals mine, Note the extensive Dogma revealed therein, Dogmatic points may also be found amongst theologians from other Christian sects) Theology essentially reduces mans reason to an instrument which has to assimilate and reproduce dogma quite uncritically, for example as you can see above, The catholic theologian does not set out to find information or discover things, but rather becomes the puppet to the churches strings, he simply becomes something to try and justfiy their already held veiws.

Critical thought simply becomes something, which is formalized into an instrument to reach previously given aims i.e. intentional rationality. So all Theology does is simply try to develop a given presumption, It does not use the scientific method, insofar as it dogmatically accepts the presumption (the Truth and authority of God) as the absolute truth.

[ 01-26-2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Eisenschwarz ]

Nah Antryg, you cannot say that. [img]smile.gif[/img] A true scientist accepts that ANY of the current hypothesis may be proven false when new facts are discovered. Thus he cannot have 'beliefs' like "Science will eventually find the answer". I for one do not think that someday we will know everything there is to know, because so far, every 'answer' raised ten times more questions. Like "All creation comes from the Big Bang" raising the next questions you mentioned. ;)

You theologists work on the assumption that there is a God behind creation. How would you react if a fact proved to you without doubt that there cannot be a God ? Would you be willing to accept hat fact ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

I do not believe anyone who truly believes in a god is ever going to accept that fact. You will not be able to prove it to that person, regardless of the facts you might present. As I had stated earlier, faith is based on acceptance without proven facts.

To someone who believes in a god, that god is as real as your vehicle, house, television, and excreta. Someone might be able to present all kinds of facts as to why these things do not exist, but obviously you can see them so they must exist. I insert that individuals who truly believe in a god are able to see them, in their own way. Therefore, you could never convince them that there god is not real.

Moraine- Where is your true scientist? They obviously aren't posting on this thread. Again and again I keep hearing that science will provide the real answer. "Evolution is an undisputed fact." That sentiment keeps getting posted as well. Let's just ignore the fact that evolution as a theory goes against other scientific facts such as probability theory and several laws in physics. If we accept your definition of a true scientist then a true scientist would at least allow for the possibility of God. You are correct that a Christian theologian would start out from the premise that there is God. All that shows is that a theologian is not a true scientist by your definition. It does not show that theologian cannot use the scientific method or have a grounding in science.
Eisenschwartz-please define your buzzword pancritical. If your arguement hinges upon a quote then please tell us who you are quoting. It is hard to refute or give weight to an unattributed quote. (ex. a prominent psychiatrist stated "Anybody that goes by a user name such as Eisenschwartz is a pathological liar.") Such an example is worthless; quote marks do not give validity or authority. You are correct in that systems of government can also be seen as expressions of religion. From your posts, I would assert that you do not have an understanding what theology is or how it is done.

All science is based on assumptions. Natural science for example, is based on the assumption that the earth is a physical entity and not an individuals mental construct for example.

Science is an approach. One can approach knowing God scientifically or not.

You’re trying to frame the question, What you describe is how some people treat science. We can make a religion out of anything, Government can become a religions, Communism and fascism etc

The basis of science is Pancritical thinking, and this can never be made absolute and it is especially valid where it can itself be subject to criticism. However, Theology is not a science since it is based on wholly dogmatic Principles, since it presupposes the Truth and authority of the word of god. You may describe theology as what you will but it does not involve scientific thought and it is based on Dogma.

Let me quote from a theologian: “As the Science of faith, it regards the statements of faith as its object, which it cannot of it’s own accord, either produce or do away with. It has rather to serve them by creating through methodical thought, a deeper understanding and a more lively personal appropriation of those statements of faith, which are RECEIVED BY THE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN FROM THE CHURCH. The Church in turn is consciously BOUND TO THE TWOFOLD BUT SINGLE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION... THEOLOGY PRESUPPOSES FAITH”

(Capitals mine, Note the extensive Dogma revealed therein, Dogmatic points may also be found amongst theologians from other Christian sects) Theology essentially reduces mans reason to an instrument which has to assimilate and reproduce dogma quite uncritically, for example as you can see above, The catholic theologian does not set out to find information or discover things, but rather becomes the puppet to the churches strings, he simply becomes something to try and justfiy their already held veiws.

Critical thought simply becomes something, which is formalized into an instrument to reach previously given aims i.e. intentional rationality. So all Theology does is simply try to develop a given presumption, It does not use the scientific method, insofar as it dogmatically accepts the presumption (the Truth and authority of God) as the absolute truth.</font>[/QUOTE]No matter what you think, the English language disagrees with you. Theology, however much you may argue IS by definition a science. I posted the definition of science, and theology certainly fits it. Don't be trying to change the entire language just to fit it in your theology. You are wrong pure and simple.

Yorick, I don't mean to be nasty here but was there any need for that? Whatever you think about the idea Eisendram is putting forwards this comment is just going to push the two of you into bitter recriminations. Its not actual flaming, but it also adds nothing to your argument. I read the rest of your post and thought you were being very reasonable, but this line just makes me think you want a fight. I know you don't, and its clear from your other posts that you do respect other peoples opinions, so why did you have to write this?

I don't want to attack you, or make you think I don't like you or something, but I want to voice my opinion that that comment was entirely unecessary and liable to turn this argument sour.

[img]graemlins/hidesbehindsofa.gif[/img]
Even my gibbies are getting nervous.

Ok I haven't read every single response ;) so sorry...

Here though is the definition of theology from the Cambridge dictionary:
------

from Cambridge International Dictionary of English)

theology
noun
the study of religion and religious belief, or a set of beliefs about a particular religion
These new books on theology might interest you. [U]
Our theologies differ in several respects. [C]

theologian
noun [C]

theological
adjective
After graduating from Toronto University, he went to theological college, and in 1936 was ordained as a minister with the United Church of Canada.

theologically
adverb

-----

Ok and While I'm quoting dictionaries here is the definition for science:

---
science
noun
(knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities
pure/applied science [U]
a science course/lesson/teacher
a science laboratory
There is a shortage of maths and science graduates.
Developments in science and technology have made possible a great many improvements in areas such as health and public safety. [U]
Space travel is one of the marvels/wonders of modern science. [U]
----

Now we all know what are talking about :D

Note how theology has absolutely nothing to do with science...not that there is anything wrong with that!

[ 01-26-2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

Thanks esquire. Great post. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

As a holder (and practitioner... I researched treatments to a cancer for one job, and studied evolutionary processes for several others) of two science degrees, I can proudly say, "I'm right here, baby." (;
But it IS a disputed theory... you could call it a fact, so long as you are willing to admit that a "fact" is not concrete.
Of COURSE it goes against other scientific facts! We're not omnipotent, we're searching for evidence. Science will adapt as more evidence smoothes out the details. BTW, as an ex-paleontologist, I can say that the second part of your statement (evolution working against probability theory, and several laws in physics) is not true.
Correct-a-mundo! ...EVERY scientist must allow him/herself to ponder "but what if...?" I completely allow for the possibility of a God (or Gods). There is much evidence for the existance of such! There is also counter-evidence.
Using the scientific method, or being grounded in science, while missing one of the KEY aspects of it, does NOT make one a scientist... although it's a good start! (;

[ 01-26-2003, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Gammit ]

You could therefore draw that Psychology is not a science from this.

Note that you don't have to be a believer to be a theologian. It is the study of religion and religious beliefs - a branch of sociology, which AFAICR, is still considered a science.

Sociology, Psychology, Theology and others are sciences based on humans and their thoughts, behaviours, actions etc... therefore, a different, yet still scientific approach to learning and research is taken than from say Physics.

Try to get two Psychologists to agree on anything... [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT: Do people agree that the study of all ancient texts is an important part of science? It's subject matter does not IMHO diminish it's relevance as a historical piece of literature.

[ 01-26-2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Leonis ]

Heh yes thats true, sociology and psychology are SOCIAL Sciences, that is
the study of all the features of society. When the features, such as politics and economics, are considered separately they are called the social sciences.■They are classified differently, and for good reason.

Theology is in no way part of Sociology! Let me whip out my old sociology textbook ;)

Sociology defines religion as: "a social institution involving beliefs and practices based on a conception of the sacred."

So, sociologists don't go though the bible looking to see if some prophet did what to who or whatever, they study how it effects culture, society, race, science, politics ect ect ect....
Sociology is basically the study of people in groups... in the macro sense, where psychology is more concerned with the individual, the micro.

They have separate schools for theology because it is separate. I have noticed however that many universities have separate departments devoted to religious studies.... but it is completely separate from sociology.

My major used to be sociology so this is why I'm making a big deal out of this, if you were to group one of my sociology professors into the same category as a theologian, I think they would get a little upset ;)

[ 01-26-2003, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

Yorick, I don't mean to be nasty here but was there any need for that? Whatever you think about the idea Eisendram is putting forwards this comment is just going to push the two of you into bitter recriminations. Its not actual flaming, but it also adds nothing to your argument. I read the rest of your post and thought you were being very reasonable, but this line just makes me think you want a fight. I know you don't, and its clear from your other posts that you do respect other peoples opinions, so why did you have to write this?

I don't want to attack you, or make you think I don't like you or something, but I want to voice my opinion that that comment was entirely unecessary and liable to turn this argument sour.</font>[/QUOTE]Barry, I'm calling a spade a spade. It has nothing to do with opinions. I presented a FACT: The definition of what a word in the English language is, yet Dramnek kept arguing his opinion. If he's wrong he's wrong. The fact is that the English word "science' applies to theology, no matter how much an atheist may argue it is not so. On this case, the argument is not about worldview, but language. Science and faith are not opposite. Science and religion are not incompatible. Science can be part of faith and part of religion, just as faith can be part of the scientific method, and the scientific community.

Any attempt to belittle theology as valid scientific study is little other than an attempt to extend ones own atheistic reality onto others. It's prejudging the CONTENT rather than the METHOD of the field of study.

This is my first post in this thread, so I'm referring way back to Vaskez's initial question.

Why am I not religious as such? I simply choose not to commit myself to any one train of thought. I have never had any form of religious influence or pressure imposed upon me, which I am grateful for. It has given me breathing space, and allowed me to take in everything at my leisure. This way, I have grown to be interested in theology without any form of bias whatsoever. All I have done is step out of the religious melting pot and observe from a distance. I do not reject the idea that there is a God, or many Gods, for that matter; but neither do I embrace it.

I find every religion interesting. I have read many books on theology and of the various religions individually; it is not due to indifference that I do not follow a given faith. I respect all beliefs; from Islam to Bahai. I do not question people as to why they believe in what they do, or why they don't believe in things that others may feel they should.

I live my life day by day and do what I feel is right on a utilitarian basis. I do not act in the name of a given God or religion; I serve others and live quite simply under the maxim of 'treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated.' This way, if there is no God, I can die with a clear conscience, happy in the knowledge that I did my best for the human race. If there is a supreme being, He can't say I ever rejected Him; I merely waited until our meeting.

At the end of the day, belief is something so fundamentally personal, that to argue about it seems petty and unreasonable. It's like asking someone why they prefer a certain brand of coffee, or why they chose that particular kind of shirt to wear. That is why I hope my standpoint will be respected.

[ 01-27-2003, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Arledrian ]

Yorick, I don't mean to be nasty here but was there any need for that? Whatever you think about the idea Eisendram is putting forwards this comment is just going to push the two of you into bitter recriminations. Its not actual flaming, but it also adds nothing to your argument. I read the rest of your post and thought you were being very reasonable, but this line just makes me think you want a fight. I know you don't, and its clear from your other posts that you do respect other peoples opinions, so why did you have to write this?

I don't want to attack you, or make you think I don't like you or something, but I want to voice my opinion that that comment was entirely unecessary and liable to turn this argument sour.</font>[/QUOTE]Barry, I'm calling a spade a spade. It has nothing to do with opinions. I presented a FACT: The definition of what a word in the English language is, yet Dramnek kept arguing his opinion. If he's wrong he's wrong. The fact is that the English word "science' applies to theology, no matter how much an atheist may argue it is not so. On this case, the argument is not about worldview, but language. Science and faith are not opposite. Science and religion are not incompatible. Science can be part of faith and part of religion, just as faith can be part of the scientific method, and the scientific community.

Any attempt to belittle theology as valid scientific study is little other than an attempt to extend ones own atheistic reality onto others. It's prejudging the CONTENT rather than the METHOD of the field of study.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure how you define 'science' but theology is no more a science than aroma therapy or chinese medicine are 'sciences'. You can't prove faith, you can't test it, they are subjective. Neither is one able to apply the scientific method to study religion...it doesn't work! So, here we are in the 21st century, and we have drawn a line to separate the two. The benefits become obvious when you consider how much science has advanced civilization in the past four hundred years.

To me it seems illogical to try to 'prove' religion using the scientific process because it simply can't be done. Similarly, there are not many scientists around the world trying to prove that god exists - that is for philosophers and theologins. Its perfectly possible to be religious/spiritual and also be an objective scientist, one just separates the two.

I do not believe anyone who truly believes in a god is ever going to accept that fact. You will not be able to prove it to that person, regardless of the facts you might present. As I had stated earlier, faith is based on acceptance without proven facts.

To someone who believes in a god, that god is as real as your vehicle, house, television, and excreta. Someone might be able to present all kinds of facts as to why these things do not exist, but obviously you can see them so they must exist. I insert that individuals who truly believe in a god are able to see them, in their own way. Therefore, you could never convince them that there god is not real.</font>[/QUOTE]Homer, I am NOT trying to convince anybody that their God is not real ! How presumptuous would that be ! ;) I don't know if a God exists or not. No, I only stated that in my opinion a scientist should accept that anything, I mean ANYTHING he currently thinks is true may be one day proven false by facts.

Antryg, I never said I agreed with everything that has been posted here, have I ? Neither do I agree with the aggressiveness that I see creeping up. :(

I have stated again and again that IMO the basis for a true scientific attitude are humility and open-mindedness. That does NOT allow for peremptory statements like science providing The Truth, or evolution being The Truth either. We don't know if there is such a thing as The Final Answer - or if humans are or ever will be equipped with mind and senses broad enough to be able to grasp it if there is ...

I do agree with your statement that a true scientist would at least allow for the possibility of God. And equally with the possibility that there is no God. I personnally stay open for both possibilities. I believe it would be incredibly presumptuous of me to state either one as a fact and try to convince anyone of the truth of it.

To state Confucius : "Know that you know nothing".

EDIT (I don't want to infringe the rules by making another post) :

BTW, nice post Gammit. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So far nobody believing in God has yet answered my simple question : How would you react if a fact proved to you without doubt that there cannot be a God ? Would you be willing to accept that fact ?

I would very much like to know what your answers would be. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-27-2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]