The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

It;s basically a belief that makes you a better person.

How does it make you a better person compared to someone without your religious beliefs?

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

It's naive to say that Science disproves God its much more diverse and complicated issue that will never be solved till we die

Is anyone saying that science disproves god? Science can't deal with a hypothesis about god's existence because it cannot be tested through the scientific method. There is simply not a way to set up an experiment that can test this when we are dealing with somethigng that by nature is invisible and chooses to not interact with matter.

Science can, though, deal with various religious claims, like earth being only 6,000 years old, that prayers work, that various miracles are true, etc. 

And when all this is ripped apart what theists are left with is a belief in something for which there is no evidence. 

 

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Something with god. It's  impossible to disprove or prove(agnostic)  its just what you chose. If you chose that there is no god, your view your choice, you chose to believe in a creator, again that is your right

Now you are making it sound like there is an equal probability of gods existing as for them not existing. Like it is a coin toss. But that is not true. It is extremely unlikely that gods exist. Through all our studies of the world that surrounds us we have never proven anything else that is supernatural. We also have good theories for a lot of the natural world. There is simply not a need to complicate matter by introducing a supernatural agent. Hence if you choose to believe gods exist you are choosing to believe in something that is very, very, very unlikely.

[action]

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Personally I have no problems accepting that matter/energy has always existed without there being a beginning or a creator. 

 

both options are incomprehensible:

- energy / matter has always existed

- energy / matter has been created

no matter which one is true, I still remain as clueless as before. and so on, and so on. every answer, brings new questions. 

But asking the very question "where do we come from" necessarily implies creation. The answer "you come from somewhere" seems far more likely than "you come from nowhere". And by that I mean: where does matter / energy come from (forget about evolution, that's totally besides the point we're discussing)

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by action

[PatrickS77]

18 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

And in that sense I guess religion is incredibly valuable.  Cuz everybody has something, something that holds them together, something that they lean on.  Every man can be broken, no matter how strong and if religion is the thing that keeps so many from breaking then it almost doesn't matter if its real for me, as long as its real for them.  That has the potential to sound awfully patronising but thats not how I meant it.

Yeah. That's it. A crutch. Some take drugs to get by, others have religion. Both a tool to make you feel better. Both BS to me. 

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yeah. That's it. A crutch. Some take drugs to get by, others have religion. Both a tool to make you feel better. Both BS to me. 

Everyone has a version thereof, wouldn’t you say?

[EvanG]

18 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

then it almost doesn't matter if its real for me, as long as its real for them.  

Reminds me of that South Park episode about the Mormons,

''Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life, and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.''

[PatrickS77]

19 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Everyone has a version thereof, wouldn’t you say?

Something to get you by? Yes. Sure. But not everything is made up/ruins your health. Some of the things that get you by are real and tangible.

Edited May 28, 2020 by PatrickS77

[action]

 

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Science can, though, deal with various religious claims, like earth being only 6,000 years old, that prayers work, that various miracles are true, etc. 

 

 

I agree about the 6000 year old claim. that can be scientifically tested in a controlled environment.

How are you going to set up a scientific experiment to test the theory that prayers work though?

or that miracles are true or not true?

How can science prove / disprove the last two problems?

Edited May 28, 2020 by action

[SoulMonster]

4 hours ago, action said:

But asking the very question "where do we come from" necessarily implies creation. The answer "you come from somewhere" seems far more likely than "you come from nowhere". And by that I mean: where does matter / energy come from (forget about evolution, that's totally besides the point we're discussing

But no one is saying that we came from nowhere Noone is saying that matter/energy came from nowhere. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

I agree about the 6000 year old claim. that can be scientifically tested in a controlled environment.

How are you going to set up a scientific experiment to test the theory that prayers work though?

or that miracles are true or not true?

How can science prove / disprove the last two problems?

There has been some studies where one has looked at the efficacy of healing and prayers, like looking at the outcome of people with diseases who were either prayed for or not, and so on. 

Spoiler: No evidence that prayer works has been found.

In fact, there is no evidence at all implying that any gods interact with the material world in any way or fashion. If you choose to take the illogical step of believing that a supernatural creator created the world, you take another long leap of unreason if you believe this deity actually interacts with the world. The era of overt miracles seems to be over No burning bushes, no brimstone from the skies, no angels descending on fluttery wings. What we have is a world entirely devoid of anything magical. Just matter and chemical reactions. Cold and indifferent. And what we interpret as magical and miracles are just products of fantastic processes like evolution and human interaction interpreted by a brain that has been evolved to get excited over such things.

[SoulMonster]

4 hours ago, action said:

both options are incomprehensible:

- energy / matter has always existed

- energy / matter has been created

There are many things that are incomprehensible to the human mind. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Why would the world be created such that we could understand everything? Or why would our brains be made so that we could fathom all? The world is immensely complex and our grey matter was only evolved to deal with relatively simple problems, like predicting trajectories, come up with strategies for foraging and warfare, and plan a little bit for the future. We weren't evolved to understand the most hardcore aspects of cosmology. 

So no reason to feel something is wrong because we don't get it. It would be weird if we did.

Here's another thing that to me is completely bonkers: The Universe is either finite or endless. How can it be finite? What is beyond its borders? Nothingness? I can't warp my head around a model where the Universe was somehow like a ball and there was nothing ness outside. Not vacuum, nothingness. And the alternative scenario, that it goes on forever, is similarly incomprehensible to me. How can that be? How can something just go on and on and on forever? It is clear that my mind isn't up for this. I can't grasp it. The solution is probably in extra dimensions, but I won't even try to understand such things.

Anyway, my point is that we shouldn't really be surprised that we can't understand everything. We should learn to live with it. Making up supernatural explanations certainly won't help. You know you just made up an explanation that superficially solved the problem while it really only complicated it. It is like cheating at solitaire. You might feel good about it if you don't think too hard about it. Foll yourself into thinking you are better at solitaire than you are. And try to suppress that little thought that tells you that no, you aren't and now you are a cheater too.

 

[action]

58 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There are many things that are incomprehensible to the human mind. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Why would the world be created such that we could understand everything? Or why would our brains be made so that we could fathom all? The world is immensely complex and our grey matter was only evolved to deal with relatively simple problems, like predicting trajectories, come up with strategies for foraging and warfare, and plan a little bit for the future. We weren't evolved to understand the most hardcore aspects of cosmology. 

So no reason to feel something is wrong because we don't get it. It would be weird if we did.

Here's another thing that to me is completely bonkers: The Universe is either finite or endless. How can it be finite? What is beyond its borders? Nothingness? I can't warp my head around a model where the Universe was somehow like a ball and there was nothing ness outside. Not vacuum, nothingness. And the alternative scenario, that it goes on forever, is similarly incomprehensible to me. How can that be? How can something just go on and on and on forever? It is clear that my mind isn't up for this. I can't grasp it. The solution is probably in extra dimensions, but I won't even try to understand such things.

Anyway, my point is that we shouldn't really be surprised that we can't understand everything. We should learn to live with it. Making up supernatural explanations certainly won't help. You know you just made up an explanation that superficially solved the problem while it really only complicated it. It is like cheating at solitaire. You might feel good about it if you don't think too hard about it. Foll yourself into thinking you are better at solitaire than you are. And try to suppress that little thought that tells you that no, you aren't and now you are a cheater too.

 

based on this acount, you're giving me little hope that science will ever provide me the answers I seek.

that's why, even though science certainly is interesting, I don't "worship" science. Science is a tool, not a way of life.

When science stops (you just said it, and admitted it), then you should not blame me for looking at religion. There is nothing else to look at. If science can give me explanations, sure, fine, I'm all ears. but it doesnt.

What would be ridiculous, is if I was looking at religion, when science provided me with tested and stone cold facts about the creation / not creation of the universe. but that is clearly not the case. The most you can blame me for, is being clueless. But clueless, so are you 

[Dazey]

3 hours ago, action said:

How are you going to set up a scientific experiment to test the theory that prayers work though?

You get a bunch of people in a room and get them to pray for stuff. If the number of prayers "granted" is statistically significant vs the control group you have at least the start of an argument.  

[action]

15 minutes ago, Dazey said:

You get a bunch of people in a room and get them to pray for stuff. If the number of prayers "granted" is statistically significant vs the control group you have at least the start of an argument.  

I can easily fill a room with 1000 people, who got their prayers answered, and whose recovery stunned the scientific community.

And that's without counting in myself.

some people pray, and don't get their prayers answered. that doesn't mean you can just ignore those 1000 other people.

it's thinkable, that one person's prayer gets answered, and another doesnt.

the claim has never been "if you pray, your prayers will be answered"

.... but that is the theory, you're testing in your experiment.

so you're starting with the wrong premise

I find the experiment a bit silly, by nature. If you're in desperate need, and you want to pray for recovery, are you going to show up in an experiment? I had 39,8°C fever. I'm not going to show up to an experiment to do science a favor.

Oh, you can find a lot of fools who think its a cool idea to volunteer in such an experiment. "pray for something, and we'll see if it gets answered". I find that a bit silly, for obvious reasons

And a final thought, I reserve the right to criticise scientific findings. Soulmonster has taught me to do so. After all, he was quick to dismiss the scientific article I quoted from that australian investigator who claimed mouth masks help against corona. He was quick to dismiss that. Well, I'm dismissing this experiment now.

Edited May 28, 2020 by action

[Dazey]

Just now, action said:

I can easily fill a room with 1000 people, who got their prayers answered, and whose recovery stunned the scientific community.

But that's not a controlled study. To do it properly you have to recruit them for the study before they say the prayer. Then they pray and you make a record of the prayer and then monitor the scenario to see if the prayer then comes true. You of course need a large enough sample group to make the findings of significance. You can't just go around saying you know of a load of people who have had their prayers answered in the past. That's like saying you predicted the lotto numbers the day after the draw.

[action]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

But that's not a controlled study. To do it properly you have to recruit them for the study before they say the prayer. Then they pray and you make a record of the prayer and then monitor the scenario to see if the prayer then comes true. You of course need a large enough sample group to make the findings of significance. You can't just go around saying you know of a load of people who have had their prayers answered in the past. That's like saying you predicted the lotto numbers the day after the draw.

ok, good point. but say the unthinkable happens, and people's prayers get answered in that controlled environment, and a lot of people are in that category

... can you then make the conclusion that prayers work? 

Even then, I would argue you have not proven they work.

I think you just can not prove these things.

A bit like you can not prove if light is a wave, or a particle.

Why not make an experiment to proof god exists? a test subject sits in a chamber, every day for two months, when the experiment is run, and he asks god to give him a sign. Say, turn off the lights if you exist, or something. Now suppose the lights do turn off (should the unexpected happen), and this is statistically relevant: still no proof that god exists: the current could have went down on those exact moments.

Again, something you can never test in a controlled environment.

So science, the tool, can not give me a good and convincing explanation, even with convincing statistics. I'm afraid, religion will have to do for now, or maybe, forever

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, action said:

based on this acount, you're giving me little hope that science will ever provide me the answers I seek.

that's why, even though science certainly is interesting, I don't "worship" science. Science is a tool, not a way of life.

When science stops (you just said it, and admitted it), then you should not blame me for looking at religion. There is nothing else to look at. If science can give me explanations, sure, fine, I'm all ears. but it doesnt.

I can't understand why the question, "what came before the singularity?" is so bleedingly important to answer that when faced with science's lack of knowledge one would make the cardinal mistake of inventing the divine. Or where you thinking about a different question?

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, action said:

The most you can blame me for, is being clueless. But clueless, so are you 

We are both clueless in regards to how the singularity came to be, true, but the difference between the two of us is that I have no problems accepting my ignorance while you fill that gap in your knowledge with a magical element that only superficially -- when you don't think about it too hard -- solves the problem but in reality makes things more complicated and less understandable by adding a supernatural component for which you now have to explain its origin and also the nature of its being.

Like I said before, it is like cheating at solitaire. It might feel good there and then on a superficial level but if you think harder about it you realize that it didn't really solve anything and that to get there you had to cheat.

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I can't understand why the question, "what came before the singularity?" is so bleedingly important to answer that when faced with science's lack of knowledge one would make the cardinal mistake of inventing the divine. Or where you thinking about a different question?

no, you're right on track with me.

It is very bleedingly important to answer that question, to me. 

It is in my nature, in human nature, to know (or even better: explain) the unknown.

explanations are cool; they can provide knowledge that benefits survival. Knowledge is power.

the people of the stone age wanted to know what lightning was, it no doubt scared them to the bone and lots of stories and theories were told about it, when they were herding their cattle (I know, agriculture is a thing of the neolithicum, I'm just being flippant here). We now know what it is, and most people don't blink an eye when there's thunder and lighting. Because, it is discovered.

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

no, you're right on track with me.

It is very bleedingly important to answer that question, to me. 

It is in my nature, in human nature, to know (or even better: explain) the unknown.

explanations are cool; they can provide knowledge that benefits survival. Knowledge is power.

the people of the stone age wanted to know what lightning was, it no doubt scared them to the bone and lots of stories and theories were told about it, when they were herding their cattle (I know, agriculture is a thing of the neolithicum, I'm just being flippant here). We now know what it is, and most people don't blink an eye when there's thunder and lighting. Because, it is discovered.

Now you make it sound like you have learnt everything else there is in the world and the only thing that remains is the origin of the singularity . If you had such an awesome urge for knowledge, why don't you just pick up a book on cosmology and actually learn thing we do know? Why insist on getting answers to questions that we cannot possible answer? Or pick up a textbook on biology? Or physics? Or history? Or statistics? Surely all of these books would provide more meaningful knowledge in terms of your "survival" and "knowledge is power" than knowing how the singularity came about which is esoteric to put it mildly.

Seems to me you don't really think through before you post.

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

We are both clueless in regards to how the singularity came to be, true, but the difference between the two of us is that I have no problems accepting my ignorance while you fill that gap in your knowledge with a magical element that only superficially -- when you don't think about it too hard -- solves the problem but in reality makes things more complicated and less understandable by adding a supernatural component for which you now have to explain its origin and also the nature of its being.

Like I said before, it is like cheating at solitaire. It might feel good there and then on a superficial level but if you think harder about it you realize that it didn't really solve anything and that to get there you had to cheat.

that is, because the universe is complicated and hard to understand.

An explanation shouldn't be valued according to its ability to teach the masses. If that would be true, everyone would be able to go to university.

Difficult things are difficult to understand.

Also, why are you reluctant to accept an explanation, because it necessitates further explanation? That is certainly not alien to the scientific method. That is science for you: for every answer, new questions arise.

While you are accepting your ignorance (which halts progression), I don't accept my ignorance. I am stubborn and want to erode away the the walls of my ignorance, like escaping alcatraz with a spoon. I have time. It is intriguing. Even if it doesn't make me smarter, it flexes my brain muscles (again, being flippant, brains arent muscles).

I think for now we've delved deep enough.

So knowing all of this, is it really necessary to keep viewing religion as ridiculous? We are just trying to give meaning (while you have long gave up), we're not hurting anyone.

Yes, there are pedophiles in church, and yes, religion has prosecuted people some 500 years ago. But are the hands science clean? Who is responsible for the atom bomb? religion or science? "but science has done lots of good, see medication", you say. True, but so has religion when it gives people purpose in life.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Now you make it sound like you have learnt everything else there is in the world and the only thing that remains is the origin of the singularity . If you had such an awesome urge for knowledge, why don't you just pick up a book on cosmology and actually learn thing we do know? Why insist on getting answers to questions that we cannot possible answer? Or pick up a textbook on biology? Or physics? Or history? Or statistics? Surely all of these books would provide more meaningful knowledge in terms of your "survival" and "knowledge is power" than knowing how the singularity came about which is esoteric to put it mildly.

Seems to me you don't really think through before you post.

all of that sounds a bit boring to me.

it's certainly no match against "the meaning of everything"

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, action said:

that is, because the universe is complicated and hard to understand.

That doesn't explain why you would want to make it even more complicated by introducing a supernatural component that also needs to be explained.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, action said:

Also, why are you reluctant to accept an explanation, because it necessitates further explanation? That is certainly not alien to the scientific method. That is science for you: for every answer, new questions arise.

Yes. But in science we don't make the mistake of giving up figuring something out and instead just make up an answer, especially not one that is very likely not correct. We accept we don't know.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, action said:

While you are accepting your ignorance (which halts progression), I don't accept my ignorance. I am stubborn and want to erode away the the walls of my ignorance, like escaping alcatraz with a spoon. I have time. It is intriguing. Even if it doesn't make me smarter, it flexes my brain muscles (again, being flippant, brains arent muscles).

Then it is really odd that you don't spend more time actually learning stuff we do know. If ignorance was such a big problem to you, you'd go through constant discomfort, why don't you actually read something and get a bit wiser?