Man vs. God

[zhimbo]

I believe that one of the fundamental errors in people's views of religion is that the stories are intended to be literal. They mistake poetry for prose, and symbolism for fact. This is an error on the part of those that believe and those that do not believe.

I think this is an excellent point. The odd thing is that believing something is literal truth is, in fact, rather trivializing and demeaning to a religious text. If you are convinced a text is a literal history, then it's just a list of stuff that happened. If you look at it as a myth (in the non-perjorative sense), it becomes a story that invites you think about meanings and purpose. Which is really more important, from a religious standpoint?

 

[fredk]

Personally I don't get the conflict between religion and science. I personally don't see any reason the two cannot coexist.

If God is all powerful and all seeing, than he/she/it could simply create whatever system to function in whatever manner.

What a boring god it would be that would create a system that is incapable of change, growth and complexity.

Those that would argue that there is no evidence of evolution are a funny bunch. There is no evidence that God exists, and we are asked to take if on faith that he does and that he is in charge of the whole show.

We can continue to learn how things work on an increasingly small scale as long as we like, yet mystery and faith (religious and non-religious) will continue.

Nobody owns the truth and it is an ever changing state.

 

[NicolasKL]

That's because they don't have faith.

Faith is often used with and in religion, but is not a religious word at all.

Belief and faith are not the same thing, belief makes faith not possible. Faith is a state of openness or trust. Faith is letting go and the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging to belief, of holding on. In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. The attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.

On the opposite side, belief's Anglo-Saxon root 'lief' is 'wish,' it literally means 'to wish.'

Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

synonyms see belief

 

[MidnightSensi]

Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

synonyms see belief

I know what the dictionary says. I don't agree. They base many definitions off the venacular (s/p?), which obviously would include religion with faith.

Even if you disagree, you can probably figure out my points with replacing beliefs with "x" and faith with "y"

 

[Adam]

...you can probably figure out my points with replacing beliefs with "x" and faith with "y"

Impossible! Your text is taken at face value as literal truth, or it is not - there are no other valid interpretations.

 

[highfigh]

Personally I don't get the conflict between religion and science. I personally don't see any reason the two cannot coexist.

If God is all powerful and all seeing, than he/she/it could simply create whatever system to function in whatever manner.

What a boring god it would be that would create a system that is incapable of change, growth and complexity.

Those that would argue that there is no evidence of evolution are a funny bunch. There is no evidence that God exists, and we are asked to take if on faith that he does and that he is in charge of the whole show.

We can continue to learn how things work on an increasingly small scale as long as we like, yet mystery and faith (religious and non-religious) will continue.

Nobody owns the truth and it is an ever changing state.

Science needs proof before something is accepted as fact, or at least that it matches the hypothesis. Religion is completely opposite- faith needs no proof.

Why would God care if the lack of ability to change, grow and be complex were seen as boring?

 

[zhimbo]

[Dictionary stuff...]

I don't think the important point is the actual words used, but the different concepts that MidnightSensei was trying to get across. It's an interesting distinction between "narrow belief" and "open faith".

 

[Adam]

I don't think the important point is the actual words used, but the different concepts that MidnightSensei was trying to get across.

Agreed, and a wonderfully immediate example of focusing on the text and missing the point.

(Nothing personal meant by that, Nicolas. I might have phrased that wrong, but that's what I see people doing with religious texts.)

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'd like to see those papers.

If I had the foresight I would have saved the articles or at least the dates. Perhaps a Google search for new fossile discoveries, like this?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=new+fossil+discoveries&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS313US313&q=new+fossil+discoveries+2009

 

[mtrycrafts]

On a funny note. The existence of God can be proven in one act. Problem is we've yet to find a way to reverse it.
?

Or, dis-proven, right? And, if that is the only way, forget it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... Unfortunately it seems like most creationists haven't gotten the update.
]

I doubt anything will convince them. I think they want a fossil from every single year to see the changes, if even that would satisfy them; I doubt it seriously.

But I posted a Google link to the 2009 stuff. Good old Google remembers everything Or, is it because it is still young?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think you're referring to this post. It is a good one.
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=452449&postcount=685

Yes, that would be it This time I saved it.
While the theory is law, we don't call it the law of gravity, etc. Ohms Law, Kirkoff's Law, etc. that is what I had in mind, I think

 

[mtrycrafts]

Human intellect has not evolved enough to comprehend reality. The question that always comes to me is "What was before?" .....

-pat

Perhaps because we cannot comprehend nothingness?
Why must we have a 'before?'
If there was anything, most likely it was part of nature, natural and not supernatural.

Why is there a need for a supernatural?

 

[adwilk]

Why is there a need for a supernatural?

I suppose you could ask virtually every people group that's ever existed.

 

[mtrycrafts]

.. I think we have made a great mistake in our thinking of the world and in turn this is the cause of what is beginning to look like the failure of our technology. Of the fact that everything we are doing to improve the world, was an initial success in the short run, but in the long run we seem to be destroying ourselves and the planet by our very efforts to improve it. ....

Oh, but the Universe is fine and dandy doing this itself, destroying, creating, etc. without our help or in spite of it. Just a matter of time, nothing more. In fact, Andromeda Galaxy is on course to devour this one, in time. Most likely the planet will be history, sooner or later.

 

[mtrycrafts]

That's because they don't have faith.

Faith is often used with and in religion, but is not a religious word at all.

....'

So, then by your definition, faith must equate to the existence of a God?
But, such is beyond nature otherwise it would not be a God, hence it is outside of reality, the universe, beyond understanding and immaterial.

 

[NicolasKL]

I don't think the important point is the actual words used, but the different concepts that MidnightSensei was trying to get across. It's an interesting distinction between "narrow belief" and "open faith".

Granted, but it becomes difficult to have a meaningful discussion if people are modifying definitions of words to suit whatever whim they feel like. By his definition most scientists have "faith" and virtually no religious people do, which is only going to confuse the situation for people that are using the actual definition of the word.

 

[NicolasKL]

I know what the dictionary says. I don't agree.

Tough cookies, you can't just make up your own definitions. If there isn't a word that fits what you're attempting to describe then don't use a word and just explain it. What possible benefit can there be to using some personal definition of a word that virtually no one else shares with you?

 

[mtrycrafts]

....
Adam and Eve the first humans and they had Cain and Abel, Cain slew Abel, who did Cain get jiggy with to help further the population....say Mom can I pour you a drink.

I think they called it incest?
But, wonderful stories to build something tangible around, isn't it.

 

[highfigh]

Perhaps because we cannot comprehend nothingness?
Why must we have a 'before?'
If there was anything, most likely it was part of nature, natural and not supernatural.

Why is there a need for a supernatural?

In an abstract way, some clearly can, as in the concept that before the Big Bang, there was nothing and although the universe has been expanding for about 14 billion years, outside of its farthest reaches is nothingness, even though it extends infinitely.

Why need a supernatural? People need some kind of governance and we have known it for a long time. To keep people in line, when they weren't all so eager to disagree that something bigger than us was out there and waiting to mete out some kind of consequences for wrongdoing, a Supreme Being of some kind was needed.

Personally, I think more people need to believe that doing wrong is wrong, whether they believe in some kind of God, or not.