|
:::Your-:~Pic7arS~:-Thread::: (pg. 548)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
haha i'm similar: I just dont think people should diagnose what they can't know: science is so stupid saying god doesnt exist when they can't prove it (when their entire belief structure is based on proof), and religion is stupid for pushing their beliefs onto people who aren't interested in transcendentalismz...
i think i just like to argue :p |
Actually, my belief is a wee bit different.
I don't reckon science is stupid to say God doesn't exist because it can't prove Its existence (or lack thereof). It's Occam's Razor being used in a case it should indeed be applied:- Less is more: If you can explain with less, do it;
So, if you can explain the world without resorting to a higher power, by all means, do it. Dodging highly imaginative why-questions and favouring pragmatic how-questions has been the backbone of scientific investigation since Adelard of Bath (who was himself religious) posited that it didn't matter if "God created rainbows to remind us of the day he flooded the Earth" and whatnot - what natural philosophers back then wanted to know was how these rainbows worked.
Naturally, science can only go so far (which is something I know you agree with).
However, I don't think religion is stupid either - specially if you take it to be a branch of politics. It provides believes both a sense of:- What they ought to do;
- Why they ought to do what they have to do;
- And who they are.
And it's pretty effective at that, being an ingenious solution to keep members of a given community organised and behaving well (sinners/criminals notwithstanding). My main quarrel with religion is that even if everything it says were "true", there's absolutely no reason why we should live according to it; much less be punished for abiding by any cosmical law. Hell, even if a religion comes up with an answer to the meaning of life that happens to be what a possible creator had in mind when he designed the universe, it can't be less arbitrary than any meaning we ascribe to our own lives.
So, on the one hand, I don't consider it wrong not to overbelieve (that is, believe unless you have enough proof). On the other, I don't see anything wrong with having overbelieving (i.e. having faith) as long as you decide to assume all responsibility for your choices - the moment you share "blame" with a higher power (e.g. "I do it because God commandeth me so" or "You must believe it because the Lord thus spake",), then my inner existentialist gets all riled up. The rest of religion isn't exactly fruitful either, because I do believe there can be no morality formulated a priori... if you want to read the so-called sacred texts for inspiration, fine, but you should know better than taking them at word value. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
Why are there so many threads talking about philosophy at the moment? :wtf:
Also,
 |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Why are there so many threads talking about philosophy at the moment? :wtf: |
Is this a philosophical question? :D
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Also,
|
:stongue:
Took me a while to get it :p |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Actually, my belief is a wee bit different.
I don't reckon science is stupid to say God doesn't exist because it can't prove Its existence (or lack thereof). It's Occam's Razor being used in a case it should indeed be applied:- Less is more: If you can explain with less, do it;
So, if you can explain the world without resorting to a higher power, by all means, do it. Dodging highly imaginative why-questions and favouring pragmatic how-questions has been the backbone of scientific investigation since Adelard of Bath (who was himself religious) posited that it didn't matter if "God created rainbows to remind us of the day he flooded the Earth" and whatnot - what natural philosophers back then wanted to know was how these rainbows worked.
Naturally, science can only go so far (which is something I know you agree with).
However, I don't think religion is stupid either - specially if you take it to be a branch of politics. It provides believes both a sense of:- What they ought to do;
- Why they ought to do what they have to do;
- And who they are.
And it's pretty effective at that, being an ingenious solution to keep members of a given community organised and behaving well (sinners/criminals notwithstanding). My main quarrel with religion is that even if everything it says were "true", there's absolutely no reason why we should live according to it; much less be punished for abiding by any cosmical law. Hell, even if a religion comes up with an answer to the meaning of life that happens to be what a possible creator had in mind when he designed the universe, it can't be less arbitrary than any meaning we ascribe to our own lives.
So, on the one hand, I don't consider it wrong not to overbelieve (that is, believe unless you have enough proof). On the other, I don't see anything wrong with having overbelieving (i.e. having faith) as long as you decide to assume all responsibility for your choices - the moment you share "blame" with a higher power (e.g. "I do it because God commandeth me so" or "You must believe it because the Lord thus spake",), then my inner existentialist gets all riled up. The rest of religion isn't exactly fruitful either, because I do believe there can be no morality formulated a priori... if you want to read the so-called sacred texts for inspiration, fine, but you should know better than taking them at word value. |
yeah the thing i like about (at least christianity) is that it has free will written into it, which means that if any 'christian' tells you X, you can say: God gave us free will, OFF!!
I think anyone saying you must believe in x is simply wrong, the bible actually is fairly intricate, and is really just a tale of how humans are ed up-- its extremely similar to the greek fables, intended merely to make people aware of how people before us have gone wrong... like you said, as a political system its not really that bad an idea (guidelines), but its just when people get involved, and start institutionalising and adding to it (hello catholics) goes wrong---
anyway: Doing whats best for you, without harming others is essentially good from both scientific and religious stand-points.
both systems are fundamentally flawed (in practice), but you can usually find some middle ground where they won't disagree too much: No need to be all extreme about it :gsmile: |
|
|
| EgosXII |
FAO: stu, sorry for getting all deep on you stu, here's this:
 |
|
|
| EgosXII |
FAO: stu, sorry for getting all deep on you stu, here's this:
|
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
as a political system its not really that bad an idea (guidelines), |
Especially not if one is a huge fan of misogyny , slavery and mass murder :p |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Heh. I took this pic for Swamper. :o Cleaning out my photobucket and forgot about it. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
Especially not if one is a huge fan of misogyny , slavery and mass murder :p |
hahaha i knew as a i was typing it that someone would say that :p
its why i put in guidelines, technically the bible isn't THAT bad, compared to texts from the same time~~ the people who institutionalised religion used it to justify those things, no doubt, but the bible itself is (in my opinion) not that bad: Areas condemning homosexuality for example are hardly negative towards it, the church merely twists it... homosexual intercourse is banned, but so is all types of sex with women etc which these days is ignored by the church... further, stuff like sodom and gomorrah was twisted: In the bible the inhabitants use rape as a weapon, somehow the church saw that as a criticism of homosexual intercourse.... obviously rape is not about sex, yet the church twists it to its own ends...
, was not meant to keep ranting, should have had more sleep last night |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| wtf wrong thread |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
You've lost weight! |
yes! started using washley's chest workout routine too |
|
|
|
|
