Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have managed to avoid religion, per se, and have focused on my experience of God as represented by Jesus as He presents Himself in the Bible, especially on the Cross, NOT what our ancestors thought and believed about Him. I identify as Christian because I still believe that Christ deserves recognition for His manifestation of God's True Nature to our ancestors in that savage and brutal era.
From what I have seen, youngsters get indoctrinated with religion (they tried with me, often enough) and come to their senses later on.
I would certainly think that those who never wise up may become more religious as they get older, but I would think the chances of deconverting (1) would not get less as they get older.
One might protest, argue or bluster that their chances of accepting Christ might increase as their brean collapses, but I'l avoid that one if I wuz them.
(1) or deconstructing as Christians like to call it, as though one couldn't 'construct' something that should never have been built
Do we think that requiring 'proof' for everything we allow ourselves to believe in, is because we are afraid we will be conned and made to look a fool?
I think for a lot of people, they absolutely NEED 'proof' to follow the line of belief. Science is often followed almost as if it were a religion, but science cannot prove everything in our world - yet. There are many grey areas and anomalous events which cannot be explained as well as some people want. So, I think we have to include science as a belief system.
There are probably many scientists who believe in a God and have a religion. So, how do they reconcile one with the other?
Do we think that requiring 'proof' for everything we allow ourselves to believe in, is because we are afraid we will be conned and made to look a fool?
I think for a lot of people, they absolutely NEED 'proof' to follow the line of belief. Science is often followed almost as if it were a religion, but science cannot prove everything in our world - yet. There are many grey areas and anomalous events which cannot be explained as well as some people want. So, I think we have to include science as a belief system.
There are probably many scientists who believe in a God and have a religion. So, how do they reconcile one with the other?
Science is a bit different than religion in that science is not dogma. Hypotheses can be presented and tested at any time to challenge the prevailing conventional thought. As a result, science can change.
Religious tenets are fixed and cannot be challenged. Granted, fringe elements of religion can free flow with society. For instance, nobody goes for the "hats in church" thing for women any more even though it is expressly stated in the Bible. Not trendy anymore like it was 100 years ago.
As for scientists reconciling religion and science. I think scientists have one of the highest "non belief" levels as a group of about anybody out there. But scientists who do believe in religion probably rationalize their beliefs in all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons.
Do we think that requiring 'proof' for everything we allow ourselves to believe in, is because we are afraid we will be conned and made to look a fool?
I think for a lot of people, they absolutely NEED 'proof' to follow the line of belief.
No, I think most people rely on evidence, not proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
Science is often followed almost as if it were a religion, ...
No, science is followed because it works. This need of the religious to bring science to the level of religion makes religion look bad, not science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
... but science cannot prove everything in our world - yet. There are many grey areas and anomalous events which cannot be explained as well as some people want.
Correct, but religion also can not explain these many grey areas and anomalous events, it can only assert things. And as most explanations based on evidence points to naturalism, this increases the probability those unexplained anomalous events also have a natural explanation, and this will be true until people start providing better evidence for any of the alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
So, I think we have to include science as a belief system.
Yes, and that belief is based on evidence that we have. And that belief is the conclusion of naturalism, and will remain naturalism until someone provides evidence for something else being responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
There are probably many scientists who believe in a God and have a religion. So, how do they reconcile one with the other?
Compartmentalization. And even those religious scientists come to the conclusion of naturalism, never for a god (unless they are being dishonest). One must ask why?
Do we think that requiring 'proof' for everything we allow ourselves to believe in, is because we are afraid we will be conned and made to look a fool?
I think for a lot of people, they absolutely NEED 'proof' to follow the line of belief. Science is often followed almost as if it were a religion, but science cannot prove everything in our world - yet. There are many grey areas and anomalous events which cannot be explained as well as some people want. So, I think we have to include science as a belief system.
There are probably many scientists who believe in a God and have a religion. So, how do they reconcile one with the other?
I don't think that we are requiring proof for all that we believe. I think many of us are requiring proof if 'you' want us to believe something other than what I already believe. And let me just add that it isn't a question of being closed minded. I got to where I am in terms of my religious thought after 60 years of thought and contemplation and listening to various voices.
In terms of your last paragraph, as I have mentioned before, as a geology major in college, all of my geology professors were christians, and none believed biblical literalism.
Do we think that requiring 'proof' for everything we allow ourselves to believe in, is because we are afraid we will be conned and made to look a fool?
Based on my own observation and experience, most people don't have that concern. It is more along the lines of wanting or needing to believe in something, which is usually the price of some form of group "belonging", and as social beings they will go to great lengths to justify any belief to belong. Including ridiculous beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I think for a lot of people, they absolutely NEED 'proof' to follow the line of belief. Science is often followed almost as if it were a religion, but science cannot prove everything in our world - yet. There are many grey areas and anomalous events which cannot be explained as well as some people want. So, I think we have to include science as a belief system.
Science at least has the decency to be silent or to be transparent that it is only speculating on things it is not certain of. That has nothing to do with whether any of its discoveries are valid. Your cell phone, toaster, TV and car still work -- all of which are technology (applied science), even if science doesn't know how to build a practical production fusion reactor or generate a gravity field. Yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
There are probably many scientists who believe in a God and have a religion. So, how do they reconcile one with the other?
They don't. They compartmentalize. Of course by "believe in a God" you likely presuppose they believe as you do. Many are not Christians, or are not Biblical literalists. There are plenty of Christians who are scientists, but there are zero literalist / inerrantist / fundamentalist Christians who are, say, paleontologists. Unless they are lying to their church or to their employer.
Historically, religion needed more members of the group so they actively recruited people to join, science does not need that and does not push a 'group' identity. Nor does science need people to join (with their money) to enable it to continue.
I think the problem is that anyone can call themselves 'a Christian' or whatever, because there is no way that others can verify membership of the group. As long as people keep quiet about what they personally believe and do not voice their (possibly wayward) beliefs, no-one will be the wiser and no-one will challenge them as not being a member of the group.
Science is fairly straightforward in that there is a set of procedures which all scientists should adhere to and which the training given will mark them as 'trained in science'. There probably is the same thing for priests/vicars/ministers/etc but certainly not for the lay folk - at least as far as I can see.
Science is a bit different than religion in that science is not dogma. Hypotheses can be presented and tested at any time to challenge the prevailing conventional thought. As a result, science can change.
Religious tenets are fixed and cannot be challenged. Granted, fringe elements of religion can free flow with society. For instance, nobody goes for the "hats in church" thing for women any more even though it is expressly stated in the Bible. Not trendy anymore like it was 100 years ago.
As for scientists reconciling religion and science. I think scientists have one of the highest "non belief" levels as a group of about anybody out there. But scientists who do believe in religion probably rationalize their beliefs in all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons.
Historically, many religions were more flexible and syncretistic than they are today. Take a little of this if it works, leave that behind if it doesn't, absorb certain elements of other religions into yours to form stronger cultural bonds, etc.
Today, everything seems rigid and inflexible. There's no deviation allowed from established dogma, less you be the heretic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
