Other Philosophy, Thinking in the Grey.

[Rhajaki]

Listen. Understand. Set aside, for the time you take to look upon these words, your personal bias, opinions, and beliefs, no matter how well ingrained they may be. This may sound preachy, but my goal is not to convert, but to communicate ideas—with the hope that they be backed with actions by the people. If my requests are too much for you, I don’t insist on you reading any further. If my words conjure up negative emotions, that is to be expected. I only hope you can think past those and listen for the truth rather than what you want to hear. I ask that you think not in black and white, but in the grey.

If you want to talk, go ahead. If your views are based on only what has been preached to you by others, I would suggest not responding.

If you respond with emotions, I have already won.

Communicate with logic and understanding.

Do not argue faith with science or vice verse with the expectation of winning the argument. It doesn't work.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

I believe that everything was started by an outer spiritual force. I also believe that there is a spiritual energy in everything that is alive (humans, animals, plants, etc.) This same spiritual force that began things can sometimes interfere in current events and speaks to those who are able and willing to listen. This spiritual force desires that we as a species take care of our own species as well as the other species in this world.

At the same time, I also believe that most scientific theories have at least some factual basis and can tie into a spiritual belief. For example, it is well documented that life started in a primary location and spread throughout the earth, adapting to the conditions that it found. As the earth changed, that life changed with it. Living things will continue to adapt to changing world conditions until the world ends.When this happens, all energy will return to the place it started from.

 

[madame moiselle]

Listen. Understand. Set aside, for the time you take to look upon these words, your personal bias, opinions, and beliefs, no matter how well ingrained they may be. This may sound preachy, but my goal is not to convert, but to communicate ideas—with the hope that they be backed with actions by the people. If my requests are too much for you, I don’t insist on you reading any further. If my words conjure up negative emotions, that is to be expected. I only hope you can think past those and listen for the truth rather than what you want to hear. I ask that you think not in black and white, but in the grey.

If you want to talk, go ahead. If your views are based on only what has been preached to you by others, I would suggest not responding.

If you respond with emotions, I have already won.

Communicate with logic and understanding.

Do not argue faith with science or vice verse with the expectation of winning the argument. It doesn't work.

Well to be frank, I believe in God. I don't read the Bible much even though I've been trying to find some sort of weekly study planner thing that suits me, it's still hard. The Bible is just so big and filled wit so much stuff---there's so much wisdom to glean from it--and I just don't know how to start. Please don't think that my faith is some blind, unscientific, illogical thing because it isn't. Christianity does have strong archeological and historical evidence---it is based on fact as well as faith---all you need to do is dig into it.
But yeah, I believe that God created the Earth, that everyone and everything was specially designed and that we all have a purpose on this earth. I believe God to be an all loving and merciful deity--though most would be quick to point out the God of the Old Testament---where He wasn't so nice. I know--it confused me as well, but then I realized that God is not only loving and merciful, He is also righteous and just.

 

[Hige]

I'm a bit of both, used to be an athiest, still use a lot of the logic in my day-to-day life, but now I'm also religious and I pay attention to the spiritual part of my life.

 

[The Gunrunner]

I have no idea what the reader is supposed to respond to.

 

[Hige]

I have no idea what the reader is supposed to respond to.

I assume the poll question? The original post is lacking in discussion or depth.

 

[The Gunrunner]

I assume the poll question? The original post is lacking in discussion or depth.

Ah

Well it's a bit hard to answer. No one is entirely scientific, but I don't consider myself spiritualistic or religious.

 

[TheRockInception]

Ah

Well it's a bit hard to answer. No one is entirely scientific, but I don't consider myself spiritualistic or religious.

I was going to respond but I have a feeling this was bait.
Anywho, science and religion don't have to be at odds. As a person who has appreciation for the natural world and the sciences, Science has never conflicted with my religious beliefs. Science explain what religion can't and vice versa. Science can explain how a seed can become a tree for example, but it can't explain why it grew into a tree. God's existence can. Science can explain how the universe was created, but can't answer why.
I've seen this painting almost every time I've gone to the Art Institute, and I think it's another good example.

It's a wonderful painting, but notice that when you zoom in, it's made of tiny dots. According to the Bible, God created us in his image. We've created this painting but have destroyed as well. What's to say our existence isn't like this painting? We're composed of atoms and quarks and leptons just like the dots. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that it's completely possible a higher being arranged the universe like this painting.

 

[The Gunrunner]

I was going to respond but I have a feeling this was bait.
Anywho, science and religion don't have to be at odds. As a person who has appreciation for the natural world and the sciences, Science has never conflicted with my religious beliefs. Science explain what religion can't and vice versa. Science can explain how a seed can become a tree for example, but it can't explain why it grew into a tree. God's existence can. Science can explain how the universe was created, but can't answer why.
I've seen this painting almost every time I've gone to the Art Institute, and I think it's another good example.

It's a wonderful painting, but notice that when you zoom in, it's made of tiny dots. According to the Bible, God created us in his image. We've created this painting but have destroyed as well. What's to say our existence isn't like this painting? We're composed of atoms and quarks and leptons just like the dots. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that it's completely possible a higher being arranged the universe like this painting.

Science makes no claims about the supernatural, so of course it doesn't have to be at odds with religion. The only points where there has been conflict is because a religion made a claim on the natural world. The definition of science practically screams out "We're not anti-religion, damnit!"

Otherwise, I don't know if I really need to respond? My claim wasn't that the two are at odds, just that they're different. Science is not religion, religion is not science, and you don't need to choose either or. Ice-cream is not burrito, burrito is not ice-cream, and you do not need to choose either or.

 

[TheRockInception]

Science makes no claims about the supernatural, so of course it doesn't have to be at odds with religion. The only points where there has been conflict is because a religion made a claim on the natural world. The definition of science practically screams out "We're not anti-religion, damnit!"

Otherwise, I don't know if I really need to respond? My claim wasn't that the two are at odds, just that they're different. Science is not religion, religion is not science, and you don't need to choose either or. Ice-cream is not burrito, burrito is not ice-cream, and you do not need to choose either or.

Exactly. My point being was that Science can help fill in the gaps of religion, and religion can fill in the gaps of science. There's a Ray Bradbury quote I remember reading from one of his short stories that executes this idea well, but I can't find it for the life of me.

 

[Hige]

Exactly. My point being was that Science can help fill in the gaps of religion, and religion can fill in the gaps of science. There's a Ray Bradbury quote I remember reading from one of his short stories that executes this idea well, but I can't find it for the life of me.

If you find it be sure to @ me, I'd love to read it.

 

[TheRockInception]

If you find it be sure to @ me, I'd love to read it.

It's in one of his short story compilations. The synopsis was a bunch of earthlings go to Mars, get betrayed by one of their crewmembers. The traitor utters the quote but I forgot the title of the story. I'll have to go to the library on the weekend and find the damned book.

 

[IG42]

I think there could be something that might fit the term god but I think the classic biblical idea of God being the loving father with a special plan for everyone is a product of humanity's massive ego, the same that pervades through our fiction that so often has us being the "special ones" with "potential for greatness" even when there are other peoples who are stronger or smarter or more advanced in a thousand different ways.

 

[pioca]

how did i get here

 

[Dalamus Ulom]

how did i get here

42. Damn, that's not the right question either.

 

[Rhajaki]

Well to be frank, I believe in God. I don't read the Bible much even though I've been trying to find some sort of weekly study planner thing that suits me, it's still hard. The Bible is just so big and filled wit so much stuff---there's so much wisdom to glean from it--and I just don't know how to start. Please don't think that my faith is some blind, unscientific, illogical thing because it isn't. Christianity does have strong archaeological and historical evidence---it is based on fact as well as faith---all you need to do is dig into it.
But yeah, I believe that God created the Earth, that everyone and everything was specially designed and that we all have a purpose on this earth. I believe God to be an all loving and merciful deity--though most would be quick to point out the God of the Old Testament---where He wasn't so nice. I know--it confused me as well, but then I realized that God is not only loving and merciful, He is also righteous and just.

On the contrary, I encourage people to have their beliefs. After all, if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. Also, no matter what name we give Him, her, them, etc, they are all the same. How we worship these deities is what makes the difference however. Religion is an easy thing to twist and blame things on. But it can also be a good basis on which to build our morals and values--which take root within each person and not soully on religious teachings. Religion is like a shirt. How it is worn and treated makes the difference.

 

[Rhajaki]

I hoped this thread would be a great way to attract people who are willing to talk about some controversial subjects.

For example, the difference between what we say and what we do. I'm talking bigger picture here. We said we'd be a democracy. A nation governed by the citizens of the nation. (I live in the USA.) But we are not. We choose the people in power, yes. The power is balanced by many leaders rather than one, yes. But the fact that the government is still a separate entity from the citizens is what makes our nation a republic rather than a democracy. Also consider the fact that the government keeps secrets from its citizens. If this were a true democracy, there would be no secrets there.

Honestly though, I see I am beating around the bush. We need to stop complaining about our problems and actually work towards solving them. We need to back our words with our own actions rather than voting for someone to solve them for us. I feel like my head is jumping around the room from one idea to the other, so forgive me.

I ask what problems, aside from environmental, do we see in our world? Or rather, how we handle ourselves and the world?

Many people would say we are running out of resources--but let us be realistic, that is only a side effect of the problem. Many people would say homelessness, unemployment, and so on, but again, many of these problems are side effects. Before I continue on, I'd like to see what other people have to say.

But one more thing. While this post may seem irrelevant to the thread, believe me when I say that our philosophy has a critical impact on everything. That's why it is so widely talked about and why it has been discussed for centuries. That is why I bring up these issues.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

I hoped this thread would be a great way to attract people who are willing to talk about some controversial subjects.

For example, the difference between what we say and what we do. I'm talking bigger picture here. We said we'd be a democracy. A nation governed by the citizens of the nation. (I live in the USA.) But we are not. We choose the people in power, yes. The power is balanced by many leaders rather than one, yes. But the fact that the government is still a separate entity from the citizens is what makes our nation a republic rather than a democracy. Also consider the fact that the government keeps secrets from its citizens. If this were a true democracy, there would be no secrets there.

Honestly though, I see I am beating around the bush. We need to stop complaining about our problems and actually work towards solving them. We need to back our words with our own actions rather than voting for someone to solve them for us. I feel like my head is jumping around the room from one idea to the other, so forgive me.

I ask what problems, aside from environmental, do we see in our world? Or rather, how we handle ourselves and the world?

Many people would say we are running out of resources--but let us be realistic, that is only a side effect of the problem. Many people would say homelessness, unemployment, and so on, but again, many of these problems are side effects. Before I continue on, I'd like to see what other people have to say.

But one more thing. While this post may seem irrelevant to the thread, believe me when I say that our philosophy has a critical impact on everything. That's why it is so widely talked about and why it has been discussed for centuries. That is why I bring up these issues.

Selfishness, greed, laziness, wastefulness, and lack of common sense are basic parts of human nature. If you put a dozen toddlers in a room with no rules and no supervision, you will see this.

One of the biggest problems I see in modern society is selfishness. We aren't running out of resources... The resources are being unevenly distributed or wasted.

Feel free to debate me on this.

 

[Idea]

Firstly, on the topic of science versus religion, let's not forget that we are ultimately searching for the same thing but in different aspects of it, and that thing is truth. Science and religion can or not be at odds, depending on what they argue, but ultimately fact should win over fiction, regardless of which side ends up winning any specific case. I am a Roman Catholic, and hopefully devout, however, I am also a firm believer in the accomplishments and methods of science, even if I can't bring myself to trust some of the latest pseudo-science. And this isn't restricted to science and religion either, things like philosophy ought to be understood in this way as well.

And now for actual debating...

Honestly though, I see I am beating around the bush. We need to stop complaining about our problems and actually work towards solving them. We need to back our words with our own actions rather than voting for someone to solve them for us. I feel like my head is jumping around the room from one idea to the other, so forgive me.

Yes, that idea is rather dreamy, but let's not ignore the major accomplishments of human stupidity. This is not to say we are an inherently dumb species unable to make good calls, but that we are often moved by things other than logic and the community's interests. In fact, most of the time we are moved only by our own short-sighted self-interest. That is the whole reasons governments exist to begin with: They are the entity whose supposed interest is the good of the community over that of set individuals.

But let's set that aside for a moment and ponder the following: Even if everyone is well-meant, wouldn't there still be issues? How much do you know about bridge infra-structure, about economy, education, agriculture, foreign policy, diplomacy, law, international law, national law of other countries, military operations, management... and this is just what I could come up with from the top of my head. While in pratice that is not so easy to apply (again, due to human stupidity), governments have separate institutions for the sake of power separation and for the specifalization of it's organs. However when the power is transfered to the masses, you're lucky if 1% of the voters knows anything about what they just voted for or against. That's not the will of the people, it's the will of a gambling addict (no offense of course).

Overall, that's the problem in fact. People are unreliable. Human beings are too impulsive for any form of government to properly handle, but it's especially bad when there isn't one to put some kind of barrier between people and savagery.

If I got to choose a form of government, I'd say one based on criteria of education and votes from the educated populus would be what I'd choose. Is it a perfect system? of course not, education is hugely flawed and doesn't guarantee the absense of corruption. But it is the closest thing we have to a real measure of inteliigence, and ultimately I'd rather have a competent government that is a bit corrupt than a gallant but inept one.

I ask what problems, aside from environmental, do we see in our world? Or rather, how we handle ourselves and the world?

More than anything, there is one problem I consider my nemesis at this point given how often I speak against it and that is relativism. The idea that morals or even reality as a whole is subject to one's feeling or opinions is something I think we should have gotten away from when we were five or less, ya know, because object permanence and all. And while I am still ad hominum, it's an incredibely arrogant idea that we, finite specs of dust in a world that is a spec of dust to a spec of dust to many specs of dust in our universe (which may not even be the only one) would think our feelings and opinions can change the whole place.

But getting to more serious arguments. Our innitial understanding of nature is that it is fixed, we live in this world in basis. You don't live thinking you can change what direction the ground is by feeling differently. You accept the ground in it's state.
What this means is that relativism can't come and say "you haven't proven it's not true", because I don't have to prove it's not true, relativism has to prove it is true over the obvious way in which we experience things.

And here is the deal breaker for relativism: Just because people think differently doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid.

Now that I quickly went over the more general ideas of why relativism doesn't make sense, let me explain why it's a problem. You see, despite how absurd it is, somehow everyone seems to think it's a valid idea.

And what this means is that suddenly feelings>facts in many mindsets. Suddenly logic is not important because "oh it's just your opinion bro". The importance in people's minds of what it means to have certain beliefs or not is being drained, and with what so is their care for things like moral progress or any other form of self-improvement. if you are basically never wrong by default, then why try to imrpove, right?

 

[Autumn McJavabean]

I believe whatever science says simply because I have no other means to quantify my reality unless I give into my delusions which I'd rather not. I think things are more nuanced than we may perceive, but our human minds are incapable of what we tend to believe.

 

[Maii]

I believe everything! This may be the weirdest and the most naive "religion", but that's just who I am: I trust everyone and believe everything anyone ever says to me (unless it's a joke etc.) as long as it doesn't get me in danger. So what's wrong about being convinced that the world was created by a God, many gods and a big bang at the same time?
The longer you think about it, the more logic it becomes:
Just take infinity and add a "x" for everything that we don't know about the world/everything we can only speculate about. Infinity + whatever equals infinity. No matter what x is, the solution is the same. X could be nothing (no god), x could be a God, x could be many gods...the solution will always be the same so it is possible that all the religions and opinions (as controversial they might seem) are true and it'seems not hard (for me) to believe "everything ".

 

[sathanas]

Science is a method of observing, creating hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and confirming if they're correct or not. It's a way to understand the world around us and figure out how things work, so it's not at odds with religion since it can't really be "at odds" with anything- there's no scientific agenda. Maybe if you have to ignore factual evidence to believe something, then sure you're not being scientific.

I've heard about some interesting ways people have tried to test whether god is real, or a spirit, etc. There's been prayer studies involving people praying for patients about to undergo surgery and comparing their outcome/survival rate to control groups that weren't prayed for. People have tried weighing people as they died to see if they lose any weight, which would be evidence for the soul. The results were the both the control group and prayed for group had the same success rate, and no, your weight doesn't change as you die. Counterarguments exist such as god saying not to test him and spirits just not weighing anything, but there are experiments that can be attempted in order to prove/disprove supernatural phenomena. You just might have to think outside the box.

Personally I'm agnostic/atheist, I don't think you can prove there isn't a god/gods and I suppose it's possible for them to exist, but I don't think there is one. I'm not big on supernatural stuff either, but I'm more into the psychology of it. If there is a god, I think it can be either omnipotent or omni-benevolent, but not both. At least by human standards, there's too much shit in the world for me to believe any higher power would be "pure good." If they are, they must not be able to do everything.

 

[Idea]

I've heard about some interesting ways people have tried to test whether god is real, or a spirit, etc. There's been prayer studies involving people praying for patients about to undergo surgery and comparing their outcome/survival rate to control groups that weren't prayed for. People have tried weighing people as they died to see if they lose any weight, which would be evidence for the soul. The results were the both the control group and prayed for group had the same success rate, and no, your weight doesn't change as you die. Counterarguments exist such as god saying not to test him and spirits just not weighing anything, but there are experiments that can be attempted in order to prove/disprove supernatural phenomena. You just might have to think outside the box.

Your opinion seems to be neutral on these so I hope it's not taken to harshly when I say these tests are a really stupid idea. God by definition needs to have two things that place him outside the realm of measurable science: A will and being supernatural. So, regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you can't just ignore part of what God IS yet these experiments treat God like it's a natural phenomenon they can measure. So, yeah, obviously it's not gonna work.

To give a little absurd example, it's trying to calculate the mass of a tree and the mass of a pebble in volts. Neither of these conduct eletricity and volts it's the measure one uses for mass, so obviously the results can't really give you any meaningful results.

It's not like I don't understand the sentiment of trying to prove or disprove God via science (thus trying to make it more definitive for everyone), and it's not like there is nothing from science which can't be borrowed to help, but those studies are nonsensical.

 

[sathanas]

Your opinion seems to be neutral on these so I hope it's not taken to harshly when I say these tests are a really stupid idea. God by definition needs to have two things that place him outside the realm of measurable science: A will and being supernatural. So, regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you can't just ignore part of what God IS yet these experiments treat God like it's a natural phenomenon they can measure. So, yeah, obviously it's not gonna work.

To give a little absurd example, it's trying to calculate the mass of a tree and the mass of a pebble in volts. Neither of these conduct eletricity and volts it's the measure one uses for mass, so obviously the results can't really give you any meaningful results.

It's not like I don't understand the sentiment of trying to prove or disprove God via science (thus trying to make it more definitive for everyone), and it's not like there is nothing from science which can't be borrowed to help, but those studies are nonsensical.

There's no real strict definition of the supernatural, and I really don't understand why it's wrong to try to understand or explain the world around you- which includes anything that might be labeled supernatural. Why must it be immeasurable or unprovable? Like I said, science is just a method of learning. I do agree that weighing someone who's dying to see if there's a soul is pretty silly, but the point wasn't that those studies proved god or souls don't exist, it was that you can still try to measure the supernatural through scientific means since science isn't some huge organization with a god-hating agenda... which a lot of people do seem to think.

 

[Idea]

There's no real strict definition of the supernatural, and I really don't understand why it's wrong to try to understand or explain the world around you- which includes anything that might be labeled supernatural. Why must it be immeasurable or unprovable? Like I said, science is just a method of learning. I do agree that weighing someone who's dying to see if there's a soul is pretty silly, but the point wasn't that those studies proved god or souls don't exist, it was that you can still try to measure the supernatural through scientific means since science isn't some huge organization with a god-hating agenda... which a lot of people do seem to think.

There is nothing wrong with trying to understand the world around you, and i wasn't referring to anything regarding your point, but only regarding these studies in specific. But science measures with the laws of the physical and natural world. That's how it works. Social sciences do study people, but they study them as trends rather than individuals, because individual are bundles of trends and exceptions. The supernatural doesn't have to follow the rules of science and the individual's will doesn't have to follow the trends. Therefore the grounds on which there could ever be validity to a study of God through the means of science are shaky at best.

Also, God isn't unprovable, but the means to prove/disprove God's existence, is simply outside of the realm which traditional science can reach.