The God Hypothesis

[Stevil]

True, science can't deal with god directly.  What it has done, and continues to do, is to chip away at all the areas that religion used to dominate.  God is now standing on a pretty small foundation, and it's shrinking.

This makes sense to you, me and most atheists, but we are preaching to the converted here LOL

To theists, like iSok, it makes no difference. Science simply shows them how god acheived some things. Scripture have been open to interpretation since their inception. The only assertions that are unchangable are the the unprovable ones.
God exists, god is all powerfull, god created existence, god is good, god is perfect, god is like the sun (WTF).

Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

[Medusa]

Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

That's not true of all theists. I know quite a few who go about their religion with reason and logic.

[Stevil]

Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

That's not true of all theists. I know quite a few who go about their religion with reason and logic.

I'm not saying that they are illogical or unreasoned, just that their basis is theology and these basic assertions. These don't conflict when compared with reality or science.

[Medusa]

Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

That's not true of all theists. I know quite a few who go about their religion with reason and logic.

I'm not saying that they are illogical or unreasoned, just that their basis is theology and these basic assertions. These don't conflict when compared with reality or science.

Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

[Tank]

Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

That's not true of all theists. I know quite a few who go about their religion with reason and logic.

I'm not saying that they are illogical or unreasoned, just that their basis is theology and these basic assertions. These don't conflict when compared with reality or science.

Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

Would he have the time/inclination to join in here?

[Stevil]

Would he have the time/inclination to join in here?

Yes, would be interesting to hear how he reasons that science substantiates the position that there is a god.
Although my current feeling is that he would likely point out the gaps in scientific knowledge, e.g. comological argument or argument of complexity or fine tuning.
If he has something other than gaps, I would be really interested.

[Too Few Lions]

Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

I'm not surprised that he hasn't tried to make logical rational argument using the Qur'an, that was written by people who still thought the Sun revolved around the Earth!
It would be interesting to hear how he reconciles his rational reasoning with Islam (and the Qur'an in particular).

Personally I'm not sure science will ever displace religion, unless we all become super intelligent and rational creatures (it seems to me most people are neither). I'm sure one day they'll find which genes or wiring in the brain (somewhere in the frontal lobe?) influence our decision to be believers or skeptics (or somewhere inbetween). Scientists  / atheists will say this explains religion and the belief in gods, believers will say their god designed those genes / neural pathways so that we'd believe in him!

[Sweetdeath]

It just seems highly unlikely for religion and science to co-exist.

[Too Few Lions]

Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

I just thought, a Muslim and a Satanist, I bet there aren't many couples like that in the world. Does he think that you're going to burn in hell and have boiling hot water poured down your throat for all eternity after you die? or does he ignore that part of the Qur'an!

[xSilverPhinx]

I think that nowadays people rely more heavily on the existential aspect of religion rather than looking for any scientific explanation (unless they are scientifically ignorant in the broad sense).

Also, since they're claiming that god is a supernatural entity, no tool used to decipher the natural world (science) can ever test god, who is unreachable, unfalsifiable, untestable and based on word of mouth and books thousands of years old that were written by people of their time. It's what Stephen J Gould called 'non overlapping magestiria', and I agree with him. However, a theistic god is supposed to intervene in the natural universe, and there aren't any good proofs for that sort of phenomena either. Then you see the weird rationalisations and the extreme emphasis on belief.

Personally I think that if you have to need belief, then there can't be much there. There are what they call 'religious experiences', but I tend to have and accept other psychological explanations for those.  

Of the more educated theists I've encountered, they know very well not to put scripture over the results of the scientific process, at most they incorporate models of reality into their metaphysical one.

 

[iSok]

Just to add a last thing in this thread.

Science has it's own language to explain reality, from the micro-world, to the macro-world, to the mega-world.
Religion uses the language of methaphors and symbolism to describe reality.

Stevil, maybe this article will be an interesting read for you.

http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/What_We_Are_and_Where_We_Are.aspx

[Crow]

Logic and reason is great. But that can ONLY happen without the human. Face it we are more than facts and figures .

You may want to watch the three part series "the code", especially episode three as it looks at the mathematical code behind biology and how interaction can be replicated and predicted, here is an excerpt from that episode which looks at the flight of starlings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFU5_pVkoZM, the actual episode goes into more detail about human patterns.

[Asmodean]

Science has it's own language to explain reality

Mathematics..?

[Stevil]

Just to add a last thing in this thread.

Science has it's own language to explain reality, from the micro-world, to the macro-world, to the mega-world.
Religion uses the language of methaphors and symbolism to describe reality.

The problem I have with metaphors is that they are always vague and open to interpretation, and you don't have to travel far into the metaphor before the imilarities breakdown. When taken at a very simplistic level they can be used to assist a person come to an understanding, but only a simple understanding of one aspect of something which you are wanting to convey.

In discussions with Catholics I am learning about their adherence to symbolism. It seems very unusual and primitive to me. Very odd. I don't know how they get value out of symbolism.

[Sweetdeath]

^
In the end, there are only facts and truth.  If the sky is dark, opressed by gray clouds during the early morning, we can safely say it is most likely going to rain.  We know this from weather facts and study.

Living in a world without logic is like staring into the sun.