Being religious: thai vs farang

[Kananga]

Have you ever seen a number?

I mean you've perhaps seen "1" or "๑" or maybe even "一" but they are just marks on paper or symbols on a screen.

Have you ever seen a number?

Ok, you really seem to need this question answered? I'm pretty sure that by the age of 7 or 8 the majority of us were taught that the term 'number' represents an arithmetic value and not a physical object you can see.

Actually no.

You learned to accept a construct - you learned a belief. You know you can't see numbers but you believe they exists.

Now go spend some time reading up on reality and perception.

Its not as clear cut as 'something you can see exists'.

You are jumping to the wrong conclusion. I don't believe 'numbers' physically exist as something you can see (your original point on this debate) because 'numbers' is a value. Not a physical object. I believe the universally accepted theory of what defines numbers exists but not numbers as a physical object that you can see (obviously). When this theory is put into place with creating a corresponding value with a set of physical objects it can be means tested. Quite unlike religion which is just theory with no evidence to support it. See, it really is clear cut.

You told me that I believe numbers exist and then then told me I was wrong. How did you figure that was going to play out? And now you have dug yourself into a hole because you have succumbed to your biggest recurring weakness. You think you are smarter than you actually are and you feel the need to portray this to strangers on the internet without taking the necessary time to think about what the point you are so desperate to make before you put finger to keyboard. Now you're back peddling by trying to tell me what I believe with incorrect assumptions and half baked attempts at philosophy.

[GuestHouse]

You hoped for something better but it was a vain hope? Dear oh dear, you need to cut back on the drama classes.

What is evident however is that the information in the bible is still incorrect and has been disproven by science. I'm sure when you turned to religion you hoped for something better, but we both know that it was a vain hope. LOL.

What is evident is, you made a categorical statement regarding 6000 years which you are unable to substantiate.

But don't feel too bad about that, you are not the only one who has done this.

Throughout this thread there are a number of other instances of people making unfounded assertions, you with your 6000 years is one example, the damnation of prostitutes is another - unfounded accusations that must come from either ignorance of the topic under discussion or a wilful denial of what the religion they are arguing against actually says.

You also choose to take a literalist view of Biblical text when the central message of the Bible is not facts - but the question of how to live our lives. A discourse central to all religions and by no means restricted to Christianity.

By all means stick to facile arguments against religion, if that's what you are comfortable with, but in doing so you miss the common central message of all religions.

[bocceball1]

"I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older; then it dawned on me - they're cramming for their final exam"

George Carlin

[HeavyDrinker]

I know numbers exist, be it as a value or in reality as they are on my keyboard, phone, bills. I then have to utilise them in the physical world and actually get some form of result from them. Life is pretty tough without them.

On the other hand if I utterly ignore an invisible man in the sky who doesn't exist, life rattles on pretty much as usual even if I do pray that one day He (if He is real) can get my gardener to actually do some frigging work...

[GuestHouse]

I know numbers exist, be it as a value or in reality as they are on my keyboard, phone, bills. I then have to utilise them in the physical world and actually get some form of result from them. Life is pretty tough without them.

On the other hand if I utterly ignore an invisible man in the sky who doesn't exist, life rattles on pretty much as usual even if I do pray that one day He (if He is real) can get my gardener to actually do some frigging work...

No numbers do not exist - they are a construct.

What you see in keyboards and phone bills are symbolic representations of the concept of a number.

[HeavyDrinker]

We could rattle on for hours about the philosophical nature of constructs; the correlation of the physical and the meta-physical and so on and such:- however, the fact that numbers are required in the physical world shows that they do indeed exist, even if in an abstract sense.

There is no such evidence that God exists or Surachart would have weeded the patio by now.

My prayers went unanswered. He remains snoozing.

However if I now apply numbers to the equation and knock 50 baht off his pay, I think that will enter into the realms of reality.

[Kananga]

You hoped for something better but it was a vain hope? Dear oh dear, you need to cut back on the drama classes.

What is evident however is that the information in the bible is still incorrect and has been disproven by science. I'm sure when you turned to religion you hoped for something better, but we both know that it was a vain hope. LOL.

What is evident is, you made a categorical statement regarding 6000 years which you are unable to substantiate.

But don't feel too bad about that, you are not the only one who has done this.

Throughout this thread there are a number of other instances of people making unfounded assertions, you with your 6000 years is one example, the damnation of prostitutes is another - unfounded accusations that must come from either ignorance of the topic under discussion or a wilful denial of what the religion they are arguing against actually says.

You also choose to take a literalist view of Biblical text when the central message of the Bible is not facts - but the question of how to live our lives. A discourse central to all religions and by no means restricted to Christianity.

By all means stick to facile arguments against religion, if that's what you are comfortable with, but in doing so you miss the common central message of all religions.

The central message of the bible is how to live our lives??? By condoning rape, slavery and murder? Jesus, you have some strange moral pillar if you take instructions on how to live your life from that book.

you miss the common central message of all religions.

No I dont. The common central message of all religions is

Do as you are told. Dont think about how ridiculous it is just take it on faith, dont question anything and most of all dont upset the skydaddy or you will end up somewhere horrible.

Every single religion requires its believers to follow those ridiculous rules.

[Kananga]

We could rattle on for hours about the philosophical nature of constructs; the correlation of the physical and the meta-physical and so on and such:- however, the fact that numbers are required in the physical world shows that they do indeed exist, even if in an abstract sense.

There is no such evidence that God exists or Surachart would have weeded the patio by now.

My prayers went unanswered. He remains snoozing.

However if I now apply numbers to the equation and knock 50 baht off his pay, I think that will enter into the realms of reality.

He knows he has dug himself into a hole on this one because he has conveniently ignored my reply #151 which clearly explains what he can't while continuing to chase his tail on how old the Earth is according to the bible.

Watch, he'll start cherry picking the bits of replies he thinks he can contest and attempt to ignore the bits he knows he has been successfully ridiculed over. Like I said, thinks he's smarter than he actually is and doesn't take the requisite time to think before he blurts.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Kananga

[GuestHouse]

We could rattle on for hours about the philosophical nature of constructs; the correlation of the physical and the meta-physical and so on and such:- however, the fact that numbers are required in the physical world shows that they do indeed exist, even if in an abstract sense.

There is no such evidence that God exists or Surachart would have weeded the patio by now.

My prayers went unanswered. He remains snoozing.

However if I now apply numbers to the equation and knock 50 baht off his pay, I think that will enter into the realms of reality.

He knows he has dug himself into a hole on this one because he has conveniently ignored my reply #151 which clearly explains what he can't while continuing to chase his tail on how old the Earth is according to the bible.

Watch, he'll start cherry picking the bits of replies he thinks he can contest and attempt to ignore the bits he knows he has been successfully ridiculed over. Like I said, thinks he's smarter than he actually is and doesn't take the requisite time to think before he blurts.

Numbers, mathematics and science are, like religion, constructs of the human mind, like religion mathematics and science have at their root articles of faith.

Your age of the earth argument was a total flop - you drew a conclusion on evidence that did not exist (actually what you did was quote something that you'd heard elsewhere and only half understood. If you had understood where the idea of the age of the earth being 6000 years old, you'd have also understood on what crack pot reasoning it was based.

You conveniently skip the point that nobody, not you, not me, not the Pope or some devout Muslim lives their life on a purely religious basis, just as nobody, not you, not me not any scientist or mathematician lives their life on a purely scientific basis - we non of us can extract from our lives the influences of science, religion and a host of other cultural and historical influences that we are almost certainly unaware of in our daily thoughts and occupations.

And you certainly are not expected to go anywhere near the point that religion and religious texts are not statements of pure fact, but examinations and discussions on how to live a good life.

Which incidentally is, in my opinion, why so many people have a problem with religion.

HD

"The fact that numbers are required in the world show that they exist, even in the abstract sense" - so things can exist in the abstract sense..... your getting there.

[GuestHouse]

Kanaga at 151.

Religion is not a theory, its a set of beliefs.

You are using the wrong ruler to make your measurements with - hence you are getting the wrong answer.

[fabianfred]

“All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry.”

― Edgar Allan Poe

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”

― Napoleon Bonaparte

just because some famous or infamous person says something doesn't make it true.

The reason Western Countries are becoming less religious is because of this.... Consumerism, materialism, high technology etc.

The more you become materially wealthy the less you are interested in spirituality. The most religious countries are the ones where they are still materially poor. Thailand is becoming more wealthy and so their spirituality is slipping, or becoming corrupted. Money and possessions lure us away from spirituality.

The trouble with Christian religions is that they do not give us any really logical, believable reasons for life and what happens in the future when we die. They just expect us to believe in their stories without question....not acceptable to modern people with their new education and expanding world view. What worked on ignorant peasants in the middle-ages doesn't work now. But members of those countries where the mainly held beliefs are Christian are now becoming very confused. They find that material wealth and possessions do not bring happiness, and have no alternatives to turn to.

A religion should at least help people in times of trouble...something just pure faith in an unproveable god does not. Asking why god allows this to happen or that and not getting reasonable answers is a big problem for many, and causes them to lose faith (blind belief.) They seem to think that ere is safety in numbers, the more people who believe in something making it more likely to be true.....not....all the wold believed it was flat in the middle-ages but that didn't make it true. This is why there are so many christian missionaries about, trying to force everyone to be deluded like them.

[bocceball1]

Fabianfred......

The reality of religion .....is that it is a myth built upon myth's and in today's world its BIG BUSINESS. Religion and business should never mix ....but they do and have.

If you so choose to believe because it makes you feel better.....Up to you.

The quotes were quoted not because of any TRUTH because "what is truth" but one's man perception (and WOW how many people in the world....7 billion.....WOW again ....7 billion truth's)

“There are no facts, only interpretations.”

-Friedrich Nietzsche

Edited October 11, 2013 by bocceball1

[fabianfred]

Other than being able to spout a whole bunch of mythological claptrap that got attached to Buddhism. Most Thais couldn't speak for 5 minutes on what the Buddha taught. And a shocking number of monks as well.

Have you actually carried out a survey of Thai nationals or Buddhist monks to substantiate your rhetoric? If so can you please share the details with us.

If not then its your opinion only, which of course you're perfectly entitled to express. However, its an opinion based on your worldview rather than facts. Quite a difference.

Having been a Buddhist for 35 years and lived here in Thailand for 21 years, and ordained as a monk for two years.....I would say that lannarebirth is absolutely correct.

[FangFerang]

Some people walk the walk, others only talk the talk.....

I think it depends on the person, not the religion.

My Thai wife is Theravada Buddhist, the predominant sect in Thailand. I am vaguely Mahayana, and only vaguely because the teachings of the Buddha are more a philosophy of controlling your own mind than anything. The actual teachings of the Buddha, who never pretended to be a supernatural being, comprise a collection that can be read in one long sitting. There are, however; long commentaries subsequently written by disciples and their disciples and their disciples....so much so that the actuial teachings have been mixed so thorougly with subsequent writing that no one expert agrees with another.

It doesn't matter to me, really. Some people need books, some people lots of veggies, and some people need a candles. I think humans have a deep need for ritual, whether religious ritual or sectarian ritual (such as posting opinions on web sites). No problem.

I like Thais. They are significantly more polite than people from my own home country.

[northernjohn]

"I was an atheist for a while but I gave it up. No holidays!" --Jackie Mason

There seems to be a trend these last few years for professing atheists to be more aggressive in championing their point of view, and ridiculing those who believe in any sort of "non-scientific" religious doctrine. This is just as unattractive as the evangelists who push their various programs.

To each his own.

The only difference being that the Atheists are actually right. And considering how the religious seem to be forcing their doctrines on others, schools and the state it is becoming necessary to repel these mythical idiots with more vocal means.

So am I to understand you that because you do not hold the beliefs I do you whould shove them down my throat. At least people with religious beliefs have a hope. You have nothing.

I see atheism as nothing more than a different set of beliefs. Possibly become Islamic like with there my way or the high way. At least Christianity has out grown that part of it's childish life.

I have no problems with atheist as long as they hold it to them selves I know three One was in a fox hole and never prayed the other was in a life boat in the second WW and admits he prayed the third never was in a fox hole and I find him very interesting to talk with but he is not trying to sell me his beliefs just explain them.

We all have views and some such as your self speak with a closed mind others with as closed a mind as yours on the other end of the discussion and most of us some where in between. I think there is a great number of agnostics who don't run around pushing their doubts.

What gets me is the close minded atheist. There belief is that Science has all the answers and in fact science is still learning new questions and ways of researching old questions. The atheist base there feet firmly in mid air. Absolutely no proof one way or the other.

Edit

Maybe there is no God if there was one why would he make such as lousey speller out of me.

What gets me is the close minded atheist. There belief is that Science has all the answers

As an open minded free thinking atheist I am more than happy to answer and rewrite the above.

What gets me is the close minded believer. Their belief that their system of dogma has all the answers, and woe betide you if you dare to question the belief system that is rammed down your throat but doesnt stand up to scrutiny.

Flat Earthers being a prime example.

Thank goodness Marin Luther led us out of the dark ages and into the age of enlightenment.

As an open minded atheist my mind is open to new thoughts and ideas, not closed to anything that has appeared in the last 2000 years, because some so called wise(?) holy man dicatates.

There is no such thing as an open minded atheist you are talking about an agnostic. Two completely different things one close minded the other open minded and at the worst at least skeptical. I am as you say closed minded in there being a God a word I use instead of intelligent influance the universe mother nature or what ever people wish to say. To me they are all indicative of a power greater than us.

How ever I am completely open to the interpretation of what God is. My understanding just took a shot when they discovered the God Molecule. I had to rethink my beliefs and make an adjustment. I am how ever sure that my understanding is not rite but then again if I could understand God I guarantee you this would be a different world.

I recall a lecture by Steven Hawkins on the evolution of the universe. He did not know where the material for the big bang came from but I recall him saying at 200,000 years we got lucky then again at 600,000 years we got lucky again. The point being he said we got lucky he went on to say intelligent guidance "I think not" he would not commit himself to the idea that it was all luck he left the door open He did not say no way.

I may be wrong on the timing as I say I am not that smart and my memory is getting on.

Also National Geographic has a DVD on the history of the earth. Some amazing things had to happen or we would not be here. But in all fairness One planet out of more than we can count with the worlds best telescope and computers makes it entirely possible. Interesting DVD if you get a chance.

[northernjohn]

Not to start a war or a debate here but I can only speak with certainty for Catholicism. They do not teach that there is a hell. The system makes allowances for people to say what ever they want to say but unless it is under the words of the pope using his supposed infallibility which I believe has not been used in around 70 years it is not the sanctioned teaching. He has never used it to proclaim there is a hell. People will preach it as a fact but it is not so under the Catholic Church.

People remain clueless because they only learn from their friends. Yes there are those who actually studied the religion and other religions. These are the people who know. Not the ones who were told this is what you say.

..

I don't think you are quite right here about Catholicism and its beliefs.

The diagnostic feature of the Catholic church is that its authority is centralised, because it believes it that it has a direct link to God, and that link is the Pope, who therefore is the intermediary between God and all Catholics. Since the Pope runs the Church at God's behest, when the Pope is talking about doctrine, matters of faith, he is "infallible", as you say. This applies to all Popes retrospectively, so previous doctrinal statements going back through history are also infallible. The current Pope does not have to have made any statements about the reality of Hell for it to be part of Catholic doctrine.

Because the Church is centralised, it has actually formulated its beliefs as a written doctrinal document called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is issued by the Vatican as a definitive guide to what Catholics must believe; it is used to teach the faith world-wide. It can't be argued that these beliefs are optional, or vary with geography. The whole point of having an authoritarian Church run by one doctrinally infallible person is to eliminate this possibility. That's why they set it up like that in the first place.

Here's what the catechism on the Vatican's own website says Catholics everywhere must believe about Hell:

IV. Hell

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

You bring up some interesting points.

How ever in my Catholic schooling nine and a half years I was never once tought that every thing the Pope said was infallible. That would make no sense. First we had one Pope say that Martin Luther was wrong now centuries later another Pope comes along and says no he was not wrong. Infallible means not subject to change and is very seldom used. Why do you suppose every time we get a new pope sooner of later the question of birth control arises. Do you believe God might change his/her/it mind. I don't. That would completely negate the word Infallible as it was tought to me in Catholic school.

not capable of making mistakes

Thesaurus entry for this meaning of infallible

Edit

I looked up your reference and could not find a date for it. The church has changed much in the 71 years I have been here. I strongly suspect the quotes you gave were from the bible. Even in the diocese of Seattle where my mother and I received are Catholic schooling before proceeding on to collage. In my adult years she told me she could never figure out where the nonsense that I was tought came from. It was not tought in her 12 years. I have since been able to travel and see bits and pieces in other diocese. In the Vancouver one I was talking of my marital problems with a Catholic priest. He looked me straight in the eye and said some times divorce is the only answer.

He was rite.

edit again

I forgot that in Spain there is an order of monks founded on the belief in reincarnation under the sanction of Rome.

Edited October 11, 2013 by northernjohn

[rgs2001uk]

Not to start a war or a debate here but I can only speak with certainty for Catholicism. They do not teach that there is a hell. The system makes allowances for people to say what ever they want to say but unless it is under the words of the pope using his supposed infallibility which I believe has not been used in around 70 years it is not the sanctioned teaching. He has never used it to proclaim there is a hell. People will preach it as a fact but it is not so under the Catholic Church.

People remain clueless because they only learn from their friends. Yes there are those who actually studied the religion and other religions. These are the people who know. Not the ones who were told this is what you say.

..

I don't think you are quite right here about Catholicism and its beliefs.

The diagnostic feature of the Catholic church is that its authority is centralised, because it believes it that it has a direct link to God, and that link is the Pope, who therefore is the intermediary between God and all Catholics. Since the Pope runs the Church at God's behest, when the Pope is talking about doctrine, matters of faith, he is "infallible", as you say. This applies to all Popes retrospectively, so previous doctrinal statements going back through history are also infallible. The current Pope does not have to have made any statements about the reality of Hell for it to be part of Catholic doctrine.

Because the Church is centralised, it has actually formulated its beliefs as a written doctrinal document called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is issued by the Vatican as a definitive guide to what Catholics must believe; it is used to teach the faith world-wide. It can't be argued that these beliefs are optional, or vary with geography. The whole point of having an authoritarian Church run by one doctrinally infallible person is to eliminate this possibility. That's why they set it up like that in the first place.

Here's what the catechism on the Vatican's own website says Catholics everywhere must believe about Hell:

IV. Hell

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

You bring up some interesting points.

How ever in my Catholic schooling nine and a half years I was never once tought that every thing the Pope said was infallible. That would make no sense. First we had one Pope say that Martin Luther was wrong now centuries later another Pope comes along and says no he was not wrong. Infallible means not subject to change and is very seldom used. Why do you suppose every time we get a new pope sooner of later the question of birth control arises. Do you believe God might change his/her/it mind. I don't. That would completely negate the word Infallible as it was tought to me in Catholic school.

not capable of making mistakes

Thesaurus entry for this meaning of infallible

Edit

I looked up your reference and could not find a date for it. The church has changed much in the 71 years I have been here. I strongly suspect the quotes you gave were from the bible. Even in the diocese of Seattle where my mother and I received are Catholic schooling before proceeding on to collage. In my adult years she told me she could never figure out where the nonsense that I was tought came from. It was not tought in her 12 years. I have since been able to travel and see bits and pieces in other diocese. In the Vancouver one I was talking of my marital problems with a Catholic priest. He looked me straight in the eye and said some times divorce is the only answer.

He was rite.

edit again

I forgot that in Spain there is an order of monks founded on the belief in reincarnation under the sanction of Rome.

How ever in my Catholic schooling

Yes interesting points being raised here, I dont want to assume, so wil ask, by "my Catholic schooling" do you refer to or belong to what is referred to as, Old Catholic Union of Utrecht?

The Union of Utrecht is a federation of Old Catholic churches, not in communion with Rome, that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church over the issue of Papal infallibility.

Taken from here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Utrecht_%28Old_Catholic%29

Papal infallability discsuused here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

[Emdog]

Yes, science like religion are both man made. The difference seems to be that science attempts to look at and understand the universe as it is, not as we wish it would be. We have limited perception and brains, so we devise systems that establish some standards and equipment to more closely approach "reality". Theories are developed, tested, and if found to conform with reality are accepted UNTIL evidence and/or at better theory or explanation is developed. On the contrary, religion says "here are the answers, now stop asking questions and worship". In myth of Adam and Eve, they were kicked out of Eden for crime of thinking for themselves. It is not for nothing that bible says "you must be as little children..." In other words, don't think. Martin Luther said "Reason is the enemy of faith". Why? Because religion lacks reason. Yes we would all like to be comforted. Religion can do that for many. But it doesn't make it real. Hawking said it well when he said something like "Religion is fairy tales for those afraid of the dark".

Science will gladly abandon any theory that is shown to be lacking. That is the way progress comes about. Plate tectonics as a theory was seen as somewhat crackpot until the evidence was found to bear the theory out. And this was in my lifetime. You don't hear any "thank you's" when evidence seems to indicate Jews were not slaves in Egypt, the 40 years in desert didn't happen, etc.

If there could be any scientifically valid evidence found for existence of God, I would be glad to accept that. But there isn't any. Just one piece. Oh, and God particle, is just a nickname attached to it. They are not saying it proves god exists! It all seems to work just fine without God.

[GirlDrinkDrunk]

I agree with the OP western religions have to provide something extra to hold the congregation together, i.e Schools for the Children,extracuricular events/activities , councelling services,etc their power base has been eroding for decades,who would now believe in Heaven and Hell ? only poor countries,and the uneducated,and believers in ridiculous doctrines.

sounds to me like you just described the village wat.

[northernjohn]

“All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry.”

― Edgar Allan Poe

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”

― Napoleon Bonaparte

just because some famous or infamous person says something doesn't make it true.

The reason Western Countries are becoming less religious is because of this.... Consumerism, materialism, high technology etc.

The more you become materially wealthy the less you are interested in spirituality. The most religious countries are the ones where they are still materially poor. Thailand is becoming more wealthy and so their spirituality is slipping, or becoming corrupted. Money and possessions lure us away from spirituality.

The trouble with Christian religions is that they do not give us any really logical, believable reasons for life and what happens in the future when we die. They just expect us to believe in their stories without question....not acceptable to modern people with their new education and expanding world view. What worked on ignorant peasants in the middle-ages doesn't work now. But members of those countries where the mainly held beliefs are Christian are now becoming very confused. They find that material wealth and possessions do not bring happiness, and have no alternatives to turn to.

A religion should at least help people in times of trouble...something just pure faith in an unproveable god does not. Asking why god allows this to happen or that and not getting reasonable answers is a big problem for many, and causes them to lose faith (blind belief.) They seem to think that ere is safety in numbers, the more people who believe in something making it more likely to be true.....not....all the wold believed it was flat in the middle-ages but that didn't make it true. This is why there are so many christian missionaries about, trying to force everyone to be deluded like them.

I think Bill Gates and others like him are in fact spiritual beings. They are reaching our with there money to help the less fortunate. there is of course the ones who will not lift a finger to help there fellow man. It matters not how much you do but is it with in your power obviously you do not have the power of Bill Gates but you can put as much of your self into the project as he puts of himself becoming equal in the spititual world. My baht goes for schooling of Thai children I know and are grateful for it. Where it will lead them is none of my business all I do is help them to see another way or if you wish more of the opportunities in there world.

Yes I do believe in a God of some sort and the word God is just a word. I use it for lack of another It means different things to different people. I have no problem with that even If I think they are bonkers. It is more what am I doing today.

In this world we have people worth millions committing suicide who lack spiritualism and paupers who have spiritualism struggling to stay alive. It is an inside job and if one omits it they will never find a true happiness.

This is all of course my opinion and a guide line that while I may falter here and there leads me to a happier life.

[bocceball1]

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”

-Carl Sagan

[northernjohn]

Yes, science like religion are both man made. The difference seems to be that science attempts to look at and understand the universe as it is, not as we wish it would be. We have limited perception and brains, so we devise systems that establish some standards and equipment to more closely approach "reality". Theories are developed, tested, and if found to conform with reality are accepted UNTIL evidence and/or at better theory or explanation is developed. On the contrary, religion says "here are the answers, now stop asking questions and worship". In myth of Adam and Eve, they were kicked out of Eden for crime of thinking for themselves. It is not for nothing that bible says "you must be as little children..." In other words, don't think. Martin Luther said "Reason is the enemy of faith". Why? Because religion lacks reason. Yes we would all like to be comforted. Religion can do that for many. But it doesn't make it real. Hawking said it well when he said something like "Religion is fairy tales for those afraid of the dark".

Science will gladly abandon any theory that is shown to be lacking. That is the way progress comes about. Plate tectonics as a theory was seen as somewhat crackpot until the evidence was found to bear the theory out. And this was in my lifetime. You don't hear any "thank you's" when evidence seems to indicate Jews were not slaves in Egypt, the 40 years in desert didn't happen, etc.

If there could be any scientifically valid evidence found for existence of God, I would be glad to accept that. But there isn't any. Just one piece. Oh, and God particle, is just a nickname attached to it. They are not saying it proves god exists! It all seems to work just fine without God.

Not sure but I think the scientific name is the Besom particle and did he not just receive a Nobel prize for it or part of the prize.

Any idea why they picked God particle as a nick name?

[notmyself]

I agree with the OP that people in the west generally regard religion as hogwash, BUT, christianity still seems to have a huge hold in the good old USA. Is it a measure of lack of true development? ;-)

Decide for yourself.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/documents/ReligionAndSociety.pdf

[daoyai]

Yes, science like religion are both man made. The difference seems to be that science attempts to look at and understand the universe as it is, not as we wish it would be. We have limited perception and brains, so we devise systems that establish some standards and equipment to more closely approach "reality". Theories are developed, tested, and if found to conform with reality are accepted UNTIL evidence and/or at better theory or explanation is developed. On the contrary, religion says "here are the answers, now stop asking questions and worship". In myth of Adam and Eve, they were kicked out of Eden for crime of thinking for themselves. It is not for nothing that bible says "you must be as little children..." In other words, don't think. Martin Luther said "Reason is the enemy of faith". Why? Because religion lacks reason. Yes we would all like to be comforted. Religion can do that for many. But it doesn't make it real. Hawking said it well when he said something like "Religion is fairy tales for those afraid of the dark".

Science will gladly abandon any theory that is shown to be lacking. That is the way progress comes about. Plate tectonics as a theory was seen as somewhat crackpot until the evidence was found to bear the theory out. And this was in my lifetime. You don't hear any "thank you's" when evidence seems to indicate Jews were not slaves in Egypt, the 40 years in desert didn't happen, etc.

If there could be any scientifically valid evidence found for existence of God, I would be glad to accept that. But there isn't any. Just one piece. Oh, and God particle, is just a nickname attached to it. They are not saying it proves god exists! It all seems to work just fine without God.

Not sure but I think the scientific name is the Besom particle and did he not just receive a Nobel prize for it or part of the prize.

Any idea why they picked God particle as a nick name?

The term "god particle" did not come from the researchers involved in the project, the term first appeared in the media to get reader attention.

[notmyself]

Yes, science like religion are both man made. The difference seems to be that science attempts to look at and understand the universe as it is, not as we wish it would be. We have limited perception and brains, so we devise systems that establish some standards and equipment to more closely approach "reality". Theories are developed, tested, and if found to conform with reality are accepted UNTIL evidence and/or at better theory or explanation is developed. On the contrary, religion says "here are the answers, now stop asking questions and worship". In myth of Adam and Eve, they were kicked out of Eden for crime of thinking for themselves. It is not for nothing that bible says "you must be as little children..." In other words, don't think. Martin Luther said "Reason is the enemy of faith". Why? Because religion lacks reason. Yes we would all like to be comforted. Religion can do that for many. But it doesn't make it real. Hawking said it well when he said something like "Religion is fairy tales for those afraid of the dark".

Science will gladly abandon any theory that is shown to be lacking. That is the way progress comes about. Plate tectonics as a theory was seen as somewhat crackpot until the evidence was found to bear the theory out. And this was in my lifetime. You don't hear any "thank you's" when evidence seems to indicate Jews were not slaves in Egypt, the 40 years in desert didn't happen, etc.

If there could be any scientifically valid evidence found for existence of God, I would be glad to accept that. But there isn't any. Just one piece. Oh, and God particle, is just a nickname attached to it. They are not saying it proves god exists! It all seems to work just fine without God.

Not sure but I think the scientific name is the Besom particle and did he not just receive a Nobel prize for it or part of the prize.

Any idea why they picked God particle as a nick name?

The term "god particle" did not come from the researchers involved in the project, the term first appeared in the media to get reader attention.

US media a considerable time ago. I believe some Christian invoked the god of the gaps argument as it was predicted in the standard model but had not been discovered. Ergo the god particle. Can't remember the name of the fella but I do remember he wasn't a scientist.

[GuestHouse]

Yes, science like religion are both man made. The difference seems to be that science attempts to look at and understand the universe as it is, not as we wish it would be. We have limited perception and brains, so we devise systems that establish some standards and equipment to more closely approach "reality". Theories are developed, tested, and if found to conform with reality are accepted UNTIL evidence and/or at better theory or explanation is developed. On the contrary, religion says "here are the answers, now stop asking questions and worship". In myth of Adam and Eve, they were kicked out of Eden for crime of thinking for themselves. It is not for nothing that bible says "you must be as little children..." In other words, don't think. Martin Luther said "Reason is the enemy of faith". Why? Because religion lacks reason. Yes we would all like to be comforted. Religion can do that for many. But it doesn't make it real. Hawking said it well when he said something like "Religion is fairy tales for those afraid of the dark".

Science will gladly abandon any theory that is shown to be lacking. That is the way progress comes about. Plate tectonics as a theory was seen as somewhat crackpot until the evidence was found to bear the theory out. And this was in my lifetime. You don't hear any "thank you's" when evidence seems to indicate Jews were not slaves in Egypt, the 40 years in desert didn't happen, etc.

If there could be any scientifically valid evidence found for existence of God, I would be glad to accept that. But there isn't any. Just one piece. Oh, and God particle, is just a nickname attached to it. They are not saying it proves god exists! It all seems to work just fine without God.

This is another example of taking the wrong rule to measure with.

The central message of all religions is not - "Here this is a full definition of the universe and all that is in it"

The central message of all religions is how to live a good life. Its a discourse between the follower and the teachings of the religion.

There are of course the 'Thou shalt nots and the Thou shalts' societal laws from before the times of parliaments, courts and lawyers and there are the explanations of creation from before the age of science.

The world moves on - but what does not move on is the question 'how to live a good life'.

Its a question for individuals its a question for societies - its not answered by looking into a microscope or through a telescope, though doing these things might be part of a good life.

And it is a question that does come up right out of the impacts of science and technology - the question how to live a good life does not go away, its not negated by science and it is not a question science answers.

[Pitts]

I follow the school of Earl - "Do good things and good things happen."

[Commander Tamson]

For deeper insight in this issue, may I suggest @RichardDawkins ?

In addition, for a frightening revelation (that there are highly educated people with less than, shall we say, "realistic and logical views" on this matter)

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/07/scalia-says-satan-is-a-real-person/

Highly educated does not necessarily imply high intelligence!

[northernjohn]

Not to start a war or a debate here but I can only speak with certainty for Catholicism. They do not teach that there is a hell. The system makes allowances for people to say what ever they want to say but unless it is under the words of the pope using his supposed infallibility which I believe has not been used in around 70 years it is not the sanctioned teaching. He has never used it to proclaim there is a hell. People will preach it as a fact but it is not so under the Catholic Church.

People remain clueless because they only learn from their friends. Yes there are those who actually studied the religion and other religions. These are the people who know. Not the ones who were told this is what you say.

..

I don't think you are quite right here about Catholicism and its beliefs.

The diagnostic feature of the Catholic church is that its authority is centralised, because it believes it that it has a direct link to God, and that link is the Pope, who therefore is the intermediary between God and all Catholics. Since the Pope runs the Church at God's behest, when the Pope is talking about doctrine, matters of faith, he is "infallible", as you say. This applies to all Popes retrospectively, so previous doctrinal statements going back through history are also infallible. The current Pope does not have to have made any statements about the reality of Hell for it to be part of Catholic doctrine.

Because the Church is centralised, it has actually formulated its beliefs as a written doctrinal document called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is issued by the Vatican as a definitive guide to what Catholics must believe; it is used to teach the faith world-wide. It can't be argued that these beliefs are optional, or vary with geography. The whole point of having an authoritarian Church run by one doctrinally infallible person is to eliminate this possibility. That's why they set it up like that in the first place.

Here's what the catechism on the Vatican's own website says Catholics everywhere must believe about Hell:

IV. Hell

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

You bring up some interesting points.

How ever in my Catholic schooling nine and a half years I was never once tought that every thing the Pope said was infallible. That would make no sense. First we had one Pope say that Martin Luther was wrong now centuries later another Pope comes along and says no he was not wrong. Infallible means not subject to change and is very seldom used. Why do you suppose every time we get a new pope sooner of later the question of birth control arises. Do you believe God might change his/her/it mind. I don't. That would completely negate the word Infallible as it was tought to me in Catholic school.

not capable of making mistakes

Thesaurus entry for this meaning of infallible

Edit

I looked up your reference and could not find a date for it. The church has changed much in the 71 years I have been here. I strongly suspect the quotes you gave were from the bible. Even in the diocese of Seattle where my mother and I received are Catholic schooling before proceeding on to collage. In my adult years she told me she could never figure out where the nonsense that I was tought came from. It was not tought in her 12 years. I have since been able to travel and see bits and pieces in other diocese. In the Vancouver one I was talking of my marital problems with a Catholic priest. He looked me straight in the eye and said some times divorce is the only answer.

He was rite.

edit again

I forgot that in Spain there is an order of monks founded on the belief in reincarnation under the sanction of Rome.

How ever in my Catholic schooling

Yes interesting points being raised here, I dont want to assume, so wil ask, by "my Catholic schooling" do you refer to or belong to what is referred to as, Old Catholic Union of Utrecht?

The Union of Utrecht is a federation of Old Catholic churches, not in communion with Rome, that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church over the issue of Papal infallibility.

Taken from here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Utrecht_%28Old_Catholic%29

Papal infallability discsuused here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Take it from where ever you want to take it. My Catholic schooling was in Seattle in the 40s and the 50s. Never herd of Union of Utrecht

We had Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and a Pope

Might look that up some day and see how it would tie into the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches.

[partington]

You bring up some interesting points.

How ever in my Catholic schooling nine and a half years I was never once tought that every thing the Pope said was infallible. That would make no sense. First we had one Pope say that Martin Luther was wrong now centuries later another Pope comes along and says no he was not wrong. Infallible means not subject to change and is very seldom used. Why do you suppose every time we get a new pope sooner of later the question of birth control arises. Do you believe God might change his/her/it mind. I don't. That would completely negate the word Infallible as it was tought to me in Catholic school.

not capable of making mistakes

Thesaurus entry for this meaning of infallible

Edit

I looked up your reference and could not find a date for it. The church has changed much in the 71 years I have been here. I strongly suspect the quotes you gave were from the bible. Even in the diocese of Seattle where my mother and I received are Catholic schooling before proceeding on to collage. In my adult years she told me she could never figure out where the nonsense that I was tought came from. It was not tought in her 12 years. I have since been able to travel and see bits and pieces in other diocese. In the Vancouver one I was talking of my marital problems with a Catholic priest. He looked me straight in the eye and said some times divorce is the only answer.

He was rite.

edit again

I forgot that in Spain there is an order of monks founded on the belief in reincarnation under the sanction of Rome.

Just to answer your questions briefly. I did not mean to imply that everything that Popes say is infallible, merely that everything that they declare officially is a truth of Catholic Doctrine, ex cathedra, is, by definition, infallible.

That is, if any Pope, now, or at any time in the past, has said "I declare as Pope in my official position that this is Catholic Doctrine" this is, by definition infallible, and can't be changed.

The Catechism quote I gave is current, officially recognised by the Church at this present moment, and the Catechism in current form was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1992 . The Catechism contains all Papal ex cathedra infallible statements of doctrine (as well as some of that were not defined formally by any Pope as Catholic Dogma, so do not come under the infallible category).

This site, produced by the Catholic bishops of the US explains the origins and functions of the Catechism:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cf,

What is a brief history of the Catechism?

On June 25, 1992 Pope John Paul II officially approved the definitive version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On December 8, 1992 Pope John Paul II promulgated the Catechism with an apostolic constitution

Pope John Paul II said, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." John Paul II also stated that the Catechism "is given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine."

Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?

By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms...

Hell is considered to be an infallible doctrinal belief of the Church by Catholic theologians, as well as by its inclusion in the Catechism. For example, see this list of infallible Catholic doctrines:

http://cte.rockhurst.edu/index.aspx?sid=945&gid=1&pgid=252&cid=1967&ecid=1967&ciid=1227&crid=0:

232. The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell. 233. The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. :

To be honest, I find the Spanish monks' belief in reincarnation approved by the Pope story very unbelievable, without a reference to prove it.

In any case even if a Pope were once to have informally said "er maybe" about reincarnation, it would not be infallible, or even a statement of what the Church officially believes, as both of these things would be in the Catechism, which is stated to be a complete summary of Catholic belief (see link).

Edited October 11, 2013 by partington