For those of Faith

[green leaves]

For those of faith



Just finished reading The goodman Jesus and the scoundrel Christ by Phillip Pulman.

It offers an alternative view of old Ben Joesph and his story.I was brought up with no religious views and,after reading various "non fiction" books regarding christianity,i find it difficult to understand that,sensible intelligent adults swallow it.i understand the idea of a faith and a church to turn to in times of adversity,but where's the difference between Christianity and any of the more recent looney cults?

My question is this,has anybody become a devout christian in adulthood or is it something you need to be brought up in?

I do not wish to belittle anyone of faith,everyone is entitled to belive what they want,but just cant get my head round people still falling for this as gospel

[Killiehibbie]

I think they have to get you very young and brainwash you before you know any better.

[erin-go-bragh87]

For those of faith



Just finished reading The goodman Jesus and the scoundrel Christ by Phillip Pulman.

It offers an alternative view of old Ben Joesph and his story.I was brought up with no religious views and,after reading various "non fiction" books regarding christianity,i find it difficult to understand that,sensible intelligent adults swallow it.i understand the idea of a faith and a church to turn to in times of adversity,but where's the difference between Christianity and any of the more recent looney cults?

My question is this,has anybody become a devout christian in adulthood or is it something you need to be brought up in?

I do not wish to belittle anyone of faith,everyone is entitled to belive what they want,but just cant get my head round people still falling for this as gospel


If your aim wasn't to try and belittle people o faith maybe watch how you say things. People of faith are not sensible or intelligent??

[CropleyWasGod]

For those of faith



Just finished reading The goodman Jesus and the scoundrel Christ by Phillip Pulman.

It offers an alternative view of old Ben Joesph and his story.I was brought up with no religious views and,after reading various "non fiction" books regarding christianity,i find it difficult to understand that,sensible intelligent adults swallow it.i understand the idea of a faith and a church to turn to in times of adversity,but where's the difference between Christianity and any of the more recent looney cults?

My question is this,has anybody become a devout christian in adulthood or is it something you need to be brought up in?

I do not wish to belittle anyone of faith,everyone is entitled to belive what they want,but just cant get my head round people still falling for this as gospel


By definition, it is gospel. :cool2:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Does Humanism count as a faith?

[Twa Cairpets]

Does Humanism count as a faith?

Nope

[Phil D. Rolls]

Nope

Is a belief system different from a faith?

[green leaves]

By definition, it is gospel. :cool2:


that was my little joke.:agree:

[green leaves]

If your aim wasn't to try and belittle people o faith maybe watch how you say things. People of faith are not sensible or intelligent??

perhaps not the best choice of words,but in times gone by,drilling holes in peoples heads to release demons,was an accepted medical treatment,according to the most intelligent minds,the world was flat.

2000 years on "intelligent"adults still belive in virgin birth and walking on water?

No more rational than David ikes lizard men.

[J-C]

I too find it hard to comprehend that after hundreds, nay thousands of years intelligent human beings still believe and put their faith into the teachings of a man who walked on water and supposidly rose from the dead.

I have no problem accepting the fact that millions of people still have beliefs, whether it's Christianity, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhism and even earlier the belief that there was dozens of Gods and deities.

Since then though we have developed our own thinking, realising now that the Earth and the Universe is millions of years old and not just the few thousand said in the Bible. Many of the peoples and stories in these manuscripts have no foundation or even proof of their existence, fables or old wives tales come to mind, only latterly in the new testament there is sme credability due to the age and era of the writings, with other writings from that time seemingly backing up what was originally written.

We as a population have been brainwashed to believe in a higher existence for thousands of years and only now as we have learned more through science etc are we now doubting this on a daily basis, the church is not the hub of society any more as the younger and more learned generation start to turn their backs and say no, we don't believe.

[Twa Cairpets]

Is a belief system different from a faith?

Yup

[MyJo]

My question is this,has anybody become a devout christian in adulthood or is it something you need to be brought up in?

Couldn't answer that one but i've gone the other way, i was born into a Catholic family, went through the whole process....baptised, communion etc went to a catholic primary and secondary school but as i got older i found myself more and more at odds with religion and i now consider myself as aethist.

[heretoday]

I envy people who have faith. They seem to gain a lot of strength from it.

Personally I can't bring myself to pray without laughing.

[Future17]

I was brought up as a Catholic, but would not consider myself to be one now.

However, I do believe in a God. Can't really explain why but don't think I'll ever feel that I have to.

I have no problem with people believing what they want but I do get irritated by the "human" aspect to religion - as in the things that we do to one another and use religion to justify it. I'm not even talking about the "biggies", like genocide and the like - I mean things as (relatively) small as taking money from those who don't have much to fund the construction of excessive numbers of over-elaborate places of worship where charity and goodwill to all is preached, while millions die every day for the want of clean water or a reliable food/medical supply.

So, in reply to the OP, I think it's healthy to show a respectful wariness of man-made aspects of faith (such as religion) but I don't think "faith", by it's very definition, is something that can be questioned, or rather discussed, with the hope of swaying another person's opinion.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yup

Why?

[Twa Cairpets]

Why?

'Cos :greengrin




But seriously, "Faith" to me pre-supposes a belief in some supernatural deity within whom one invests a belief for future salvation. A "belief system" is a set of beliefs one has which generally guide the way you behave, and is not reliant on that being driven by religious teaching or dogma. The two can and do overlap of course, but they are not interdependent. You can have faith and a good belief system, but you can also have a "good" belief system without any faith.

[Phil D. Rolls]

'Cos :greengrin




But seriously, "Faith" to me pre-supposes a belief in some supernatural deity within whom one invests a belief for future salvation. A "belief system" is a set of beliefs one has which generally guide the way you behave, and is not reliant on that being driven by religious teaching or dogma. The two can and do overlap of course, but they are not interdependent. You can have faith and a good belief system, but you can also have a "good" belief system without any faith.

The magic of open questions as opposed to closed ones.

Yeah, that kind of ties in with the way I see it. Humanism can't be a faith as it is merely an acceptance of who we are as people. It is very close to Calvinism in my mind without the belief in god - that's what got me wondering.

[Hibernian Verse]

I've been singing hyms and listening to readings from the bible every school day for the past 13 years at my school, and it does my head in. Every end of term we have a service in which a 'religious figure' hosts in Stockbridge Parish Church or St. Stephen's centre and, as much as I like the collectivity of an assembly every morning in which the school comes together, I find the religious 'teachings' we're subjected to extremely uninteresting as in almost every case I either find myself thinking 'spraff' or 'scientifically impossible'.

However, watching Lost (bear with me, this does have relevance), I found the characters of Jack and Locke quite interesting when they collided. The main focus was 'man of science, man of faith' and Locke's faith carried him through his life as I'm sure it does for many.

Thirdly, I stuck the TV on on Sunday and it was that questions program on BBC2 and the question was 'Is God real'. This question had religious people scrambling to defend God being real and really did still believe that God made the Earth and one even said "I can't believe so many of you think it's possible for the Earth to happen without the making of God" - and then you've got people who believe in gods with 8 heads etc...

It's all an overinflated story with no scientific bearing - more Harry Potter than anything else.

[Future17]

It's all an overinflated story with no scientific bearing - more Harry Potter than anything else.

Do you mean the bible? Do you believe in a God or anything of that nature? I don't mean as it's been taught to you, just any version from your own beliefs?

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's all an overinflated story with no scientific bearing - more Harry Potter than anything else.

I have to say I keep an open mind on the Bible. It is an interpretation of actual events a lot of the time. Science alone doesn't explain things as there usually comes a point where you have to take the same leap of faith as you do with religion.

[SHODAN]

My faith is something which makes me feel secure in times of despair, and which gives me a hope to achieve things when all is lost. From a non-religious point of view, you could see it as a mind trick which gives you confidence.

I'm not saying that it causes me to have a closed off mind - certainly, I consider a great deal of the Bible, along with other religious texts to be entirely up for debate, and I do not share the same views as many of my other fellow Christians.

Beliefs are a matter of choice and certainly shouldn't be forced on people. I repect all forms of religious (or non religious) belief. What I cannot stand are people who twist their spiritual text to suit their own needs and blight the lives of others - take almost all of America's pseudo-Christian beliefs, and extremist Muslims (note the word extremist - 99% of Muslims are lovely, open people).

For the record, this was entirely of my own choosing as I was raised in a non-religious household by an agnostic mother and an atheist father.

[Hibernian Verse]

I have to say I keep an open mind on the Bible. It is an interpretation of actual events a lot of the time. Science alone doesn't explain things as there usually comes a point where you have to take the same leap of faith as you do with religion.

I haven't ever read the Bible, only heard the famous stories from it. I believe some are real, in that they happened but were misinterpreted such as the Great Flood (reckon that was a Tsunami) but that some are fiction such as Jesus healing the blind.


Do you mean the bible? Do you believe in a God or anything of that nature? I don't mean as it's been taught to you, just any version from your own beliefs?

I don't really have any beliefs relating to God tbh Nick, I've just never been brought up that way. My dad always found a way to explain questions scientifically to me, and as I grew older I started looking for scientific answers. Maybe it's that I don't want to believe, I'm not sure. Also, the social group I'm in literally has no church-goers. Back in the day one of two of them went but as they hit 12,13,14 they stopped going with their parents.

Caitlin took me to a Roman Catholic church with her family for Christmas Eve this xmas past and I found it all a bit too much and thats where a lot of my disbelief now comes from. By 'too much' I mean it's all regimented like a machine repeating the same words in a monotone.

I also used to live in Saudi Arabia when I was little, hence why I was so sheltered from the church. It was also an eye opener into other religions - there aren't even any CINEMAS. I found myself seeing religion as I knew it - Islam - as repressive.

Then I've been studying Politics this year and in particular America at school of which a lot is about religion and mainly abortion. I just don't share the same beliefs as the Church.

I get much more from believing in myself and my ability to do things than from a higher power.

[Future17]

I don't really have any beliefs relating to God tbh Nick, I've just never been brought up that way. My dad always found a way to explain questions scientifically to me, and as I grew older I started looking for scientific answers. Maybe it's that I don't want to believe, I'm not sure. Also, the social group I'm in literally has no church-goers. Back in the day one of two of them went but as they hit 12,13,14 they stopped going with their parents.

Caitlin took me to a Roman Catholic church with her family for Christmas Eve this xmas past and I found it all a bit too much and thats where a lot of my disbelief now comes from. By 'too much' I mean it's all regimented like a machine repeating the same words in a monotone.

I also used to live in Saudi Arabia when I was little, hence why I was so sheltered from the church. It was also an eye opener into other religions - there aren't even any CINEMAS. I found myself seeing religion as I knew it - Islam - as repressive.

Then I've been studying Politics this year and in particular America at school of which a lot is about religion and mainly abortion. I just don't share the same beliefs as the Church.

I get much more from believing in myself and my ability to do things than from a higher power.

Fair play mate. I don't believe in religion either, but do believe in a God.

Every Tuesday, whenever I take the field of dreams for the Gel Boyz, I remind myself: "It does not matter if a man believes in God, for God believes completely in him". :greengrin

[Hibernian Verse]

Fair play mate. I don't believe in religion either, but do believe in a God.

Every Tuesday, whenever I take the field of dreams for the Gel Boyz, I remind myself: "It does not matter if a man believes in God, for God believes completely in him". :greengrin

You never fail to amaze me with your verses!

[Twa Cairpets]

I have to say I keep an open mind on the Bible. It is an interpretation of actual events a lot of the time. Science alone doesn't explain things as there usually comes a point where you have to take the same leap of faith as you do with religion.

Sorry FR, thats just not true and its glib thinking. Science does not explain things that don't lend themsleves to science explanation, areas such as philosophy, politics etc. But you do not need any "leap of faith" when it comes to science - in fact science and the scientific method defis faith, and sets itself up to be challenged, questioned and tested as new ideas are advanced and new evidence is presented.

Faith by its very definition surely needs to be unquestioning - that stance is diamterically opposed to sciencentific thought

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry FR, thats just not true and its glib thinking. Science does not explain things that don't lend themsleves to science explanation, areas such as philosophy, politics etc. But you do not need any "leap of faith" when it comes to science - in fact science and the scientific method defis faith, and sets itself up to be challenged, questioned and tested as new ideas are advanced and new evidence is presented.

Faith by its very definition surely needs to be unquestioning - that stance is diamterically opposed to sciencentific thought

Well there is the so called science that is called Psychiatry. Where does that fit in?

[Twa Cairpets]

Well there is the so called science that is called Psychiatry. Where does that fit in?

I think you've answered your own question - it's the "so-called" science of psychiatry. There are elements of it that are guided by sicience, such as the prescription of drugs, but from my understanding of the field (which is not deep), big elements of it are not scientific.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think you've answered your own question - it's the "so-called" science of psychiatry. There are elements of it that are guided by sicience, such as the prescription of drugs, but from my understanding of the field (which is not deep), big elements of it are not scientific.

Strictly speaking, psychiatry is branch of medicine. It seeks biological and scientific answers to behaviour and mental heath. It's not such a big issue in Europe, but in the USA there is an almost religious adherence to the notion that scientific answers will eventually solve all our problems.

Of course, that is nonsense, but I think it is a good example of how science is held up as the universal panacea. Over the centuries science has had to revise its stance when proved wrong, whether it was the poo pooing of Louis Pasteur for advocating sterilisation, or the discovery of quantum physics.

It is only right if you accept the fundamental basis on which a theory is based. That to me is a leap of faith. I think psychiatry is the best example of the damage these leaps of faith do.

[Twa Cairpets]

Strictly speaking, psychiatry is branch of medicine. It seeks biological and scientific answers to behaviour and mental heath. It's not such a big issue in Europe, but in the USA there is an almost religious adherence to the notion that scientific answers will eventually solve all our problems.

Of course, that is nonsense, but I think it is a good example of how science is held up as the universal panacea. Over the centuries science has had to revise its stance when proved wrong, whether it was the poo pooing of Louis Pasteur for advocating sterilisation, or the discovery of quantum physics.

It is only right if you accept the fundamental basis on which a theory is based. That to me is a leap of faith. I think psychiatry is the best example of the damage these leaps of faith do.

The enboldened bit is the key here. Science has revised its stance when new evidence comes to light. Science isnt a stationary "thing" - its a method for discovery, for inquiry, a technique for developing and advancing ideas.

In scientific terms, very broadly speaking, you start with a hypothesis. This becomes accepted as a theory only when there is sufficient corroborative and repeatable evidence to back it up. If by leap of faith you mean accepting relevant evidence as being true, then fine, but it broadens the definition of the term so far as to be utterly meaningless.

Science moves, and changes, and develops. For example, what is loosely called "Darwinism" by anti-evolution activists doesnt exist. Why? Because as science has progressed, it has shown that a lot of what Darwin hypothesised was wrong, certainly in terms of detail and mechanism. In the same period, the the major religions have not changed, because fundamentally they can't. My view is that faith is continued belief in the absence of evidence, or in the face of ovewhelming evidence to the contrary. Science will never disprove faith, or religion, because by its own rules it cant - you can't prove a negative.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The enboldened bit is the key here. Science has revised its stance when new evidence comes to light. Science isnt a stationary "thing" - its a method for discovery, for inquiry, a technique for developing and advancing ideas.

In scientific terms, very broadly speaking, you start with a hypothesis. This becomes accepted as a theory only when there is sufficient corroborative and repeatable evidence to back it up. If by leap of faith you mean accepting relevant evidence as being true, then fine, but it broadens the definition of the term so far as to be utterly meaningless.

Science moves, and changes, and develops. For example, what is loosely called "Darwinism" by anti-evolution activists doesnt exist. Why? Because as science has progressed, it has shown that a lot of what Darwin hypothesised was wrong, certainly in terms of detail and mechanism. In the same period, the the major religions have not changed, because fundamentally they can't. My view is that faith is continued belief in the absence of evidence, or in the face of ovewhelming evidence to the contrary. Science will never disprove faith, or religion, because by its own rules it cant - you can't prove a negative.

A well put explanation, which has taken my thinking forward, thanks. :top marks

[Dinkydoo]

I too find it hard to comprehend that after hundreds, nay thousands of years intelligent human beings still believe and put their faith into the teachings of a man who walked on water and supposidly rose from the dead.

I have no problem accepting the fact that millions of people still have beliefs, whether it's Christianity, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhism and even earlier the belief that there was dozens of Gods and deities.

Since then though we have developed our own thinking, realising now that the Earth and the Universe is millions of years old and not just the few thousand said in the Bible. Many of the peoples and stories in these manuscripts have no foundation or even proof of their existence, fables or old wives tales come to mind, only latterly in the new testament there is sme credability due to the age and era of the writings, with other writings from that time seemingly backing up what was originally written.

We as a population have been brainwashed to believe in a higher existence for thousands of years and only now as we have learned more through science etc are we now doubting this on a daily basis, the church is not the hub of society any more as the younger and more learned generation start to turn their backs and say no, we don't believe.


What an excellent post and my thoughts exactly; though put much more creatively than I could of .

:thumbsup:

[Dinkydoo]

For those of faith



,i find it difficult to understand that,sensible intelligent adults swallow it.i

I do not wish to belittle anyone of faith



Hmmmmm, a slightly oxymoronic expression of opinion I think; but that may just be down to my interpretation of your post.

Intelligence and Faith are incomparable by sheer nature, which is why you perhaps find it difficult to comprehend...........

I have to admit though that I too find it difficult to digest, that intelligent people can believe in something that is completely scientifically unproven - then again, thats the way that we've all been educated from an early age........using maths and science to proove or disproove things.

[Future17]

Hmmmmm, a slightly oxymoronic expression of opinion I think; but that may just be down to my interpretation of your post.

Intelligence and Faith are incomparable by sheer nature, which is why you perhaps find it difficult to comprehend...........

I have to admit though that I too find it difficult to digest, that intelligent people can believe in something that is completely scientifically unproven - then again, thats the way that we've all been educated from an early age........using maths and science to proove or disproove things.

There was a time when nothing we now generally "believe" was scientifically proven - Earth being round, existence of oxygen, other planets etc.

I find it difficult to comprehend that people are arrogant enough to consider themselves intelligent yet have a closed mind to the prospect of something which has never being scientifically disproven, and be content to criticise those whose minds remain open.

[Twa Cairpets]

There was a time when nothing we now generally "believe" was scientifically proven - Earth being round, existence of oxygen, other planets etc.

I find it difficult to comprehend that people are arrogant enough to consider themselves intelligent yet have a closed mind to the prospect of something which has never being scientifically disproven, and be content to criticise those whose minds remain open.

Its because you cannot disprove something, no matter how much you try. Examples such as Russells Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) illustrate this. In summary, I might believe fervently that there is a Flying Celestial Teapot. you may think this is ludicrous, but you can't disprove it's existence because it is impossible to do so. I'll claim you just haven't found it.

It's not closed minded, in my opinion, to look at evidence and form a conclusion. If you look at evidence and find little or nothing to back up your stance, but continue to believe nonetheless, that is faith.

It's not arrogance, its how you filter information and come to conclusions. If you decided to remain "open minded" to everything that remains to be disproved, then good luck on your hunt for pixies, sasquatch, aliens and Nessie.

[hibsbollah]

then good luck on your hunt for pixies, sasquatch, aliens and Nessie.

You mean you don't believe in the existence of aliens? Now that's ludicrous:fishin:

[Twa Cairpets]

You mean you don't believe in the existence of aliens? Now that's ludicrous:fishin:

Actually, come to think of it, I do, but just not any that visit Earth with the express reason of perfoming rectal probe examinations on Tennesse rednecks (or indeed visit Earth full stop).

[Future17]

Its because you cannot disprove something, no matter how much you try. Examples such as Russells Teapot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) illustrate this. In summary, I might believe fervently that there is a Flying Celestial Teapot. you may think this is ludicrous, but you can't disprove it's existence because it is impossible to do so. I'll claim you just haven't found it.

It's not closed minded, in my opinion, to look at evidence and form a conclusion. If you look at evidence and find little or nothing to back up your stance, but continue to believe nonetheless, that is faith.

It's not arrogance, its how you filter information and come to conclusions. If you decided to remain "open minded" to everything that remains to be disproved, then good luck on your hunt for pixies, sasquatch, aliens and Nessie.

I agree that it's almost impossible to disprove something. Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that it's arrogant to come to conclusions which are contrary to the beliefs of others.

What I was saying was that I don't think it's fair to criticise those who keep an open mind - and I would consider it to be arrogant for people to highlight their intelligence in doing so, as if to suggest that faith and intelligence are mutually exclusive.

I also don't think the absence of proof is required for a belief to be considered faith, but I suppose that's all in the semantics and probably not relevant to this discussion.

[Twa Cairpets]

I agree that it's almost impossible to disprove something. Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that it's arrogant to come to conclusions which are contrary to the beliefs of others.

What I was saying was that I don't think it's fair to criticise those who keep an open mind - and I would consider it to be arrogant for people to highlight their intelligence in doing so, as if to suggest that faith and intelligence are mutually exclusive.

Fair point - theres lots of very intelligent theists and lots of very stupid atheists. If I was being very picky, I would point to evidence from the US that does tend to show that as academic achievement and ability (certainly one measure of inteligence) increases, especially in the sciences, the incidence of faith decreases dramatically (I cant find the link to the study, so i can only offer my word as evidence, which is not evidence at all, of course...)



I also don't think the absence of proof is required for a belief to be considered faith, but I suppose that's all in the semantics and probably not relevant to this discussion.

Here though I fundamentally disagree. it's not semantics at all, it is at the absolute heart of the discussion and relates to critical faculties, rational thought and their relative strength in comparison to faith. Absence of proof is certainly a red-flag when it comes to evaluating the reason for a belief being termed faith. Absence of evidence, however is of massive importance, and is a much greater indicator of pretty much every religious belief system there has ever been.

[Future17]

Fair point - theres lots of very intelligent theists and lots of very stupid atheists. If I was being very picky, I would point to evidence from the US that does tend to show that as academic achievement and ability (certainly one measure of inteligence) increases, especially in the sciences, the incidence of faith decreases dramatically (I cant find the link to the study, so i can only offer my word as evidence, which is not evidence at all, of course...)

That's alright, I have faith in your word....but how much faith do you have in academic achievement as a measure of intelligence? :greengrin



Here though I fundamentally disagree. it's not semantics at all, it is at the absolute heart of the discussion and relates to critical faculties, rational thought and their relative strength in comparison to faith. Absence of proof is certainly a red-flag when it comes to evaluating the reason for a belief being termed faith. Absence of evidence, however is of massive importance, and is a much greater indicator of pretty much every religious belief system there has ever been.

That's a fair point - highlighting the difference between proof and evidence, as I probably should have used the latter in my last post.

However, I would say that, by strict definition, faith in something which is scientifically proven is still faith, as much as faith in something of which there is no proof or evidence.

By their nature, most of the old/traditional religions, for want of better terms, are likely to be as impossible to prove as we have stated they are to disprove. However, there are primary sources of information, the type referenced regularly by scientists, which are seemingly discounted by most people when evaluating evidence of events linked closely to religion.

[Twa Cairpets]

However, I would say that, by strict definition, faith in something which is scientifically proven is still faith, as much as faith in something of which there is no proof or evidence. Sorry Future 17, it really isn't, or at least not when you use the word faith in different contexts. You know, for example, that if under normal conditions you drop something it will fall to the ground. You don't have faith that it will, because under normal conditions it will happen every single time.


By their nature, most of the old/traditional religions, for want of better terms, are likely to be as impossible to prove as we have stated they are to disprove
However, there are primary sources of information, the type referenced regularly by scientists, which are seemingly discounted by most people when evaluating evidence of events linked closely to religion.

Sorry to pull you up on this, but the "evidence" in question here is very different.
Firstly, the primary sources of information for religion, which tend to be old relate to the belief in the Gods such as Thor, Zeus, Apollo and all the rest of them as handed down by oral tradition or sketchily commerated in archaeological finds. There is no evidence of what these deities have done, in exactly the same way as there is no evidence of Jesus' miracles, resurrection or the Flood (just to take a few christian examples of scientifically "impossible" actions reported in the Bible.

I've said before on this thread and others that science doesnt and shouldnt have any major place in areas such as philosophy or personal morality - its not designed to have an opinion on these very human areas - but when religion puts forward as inerrant fact things that are to all intents and purposes shown to be demonstrably wrong by strand after strand of science (such as the age of the Earth or the "falseness" of the theory of evolution),it is fair game for attack and query.

People who accept the teachings of any religion, adopted at whatever age, are not stupid, or bad, or even necessarily closed minded. If theyve not had the experience of critical thought, or havent had the wherewithal or inclination to question what they "know" why should they. Equally, if they gain personal comfort from their beliefs then that is probably a good thing, even though I think they are fundamentally incorrect.

What it nowadays boils down to for me is that since the beginning of humankind, the physical laws of gravity,biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology and all the other sciences have remained unchanged, and have worked in exactly the same way one day as they do the next regardless of where or when on the planet you are. The same is demonstrably untrue of whatever religion, deity or saviour any individual has chosen to put their faith in.

[lapsedhibee]

You know, for example, that if under normal conditions you drop something it will fall to the ground. You don't have faith that it will, because under normal conditions it will happen every single time.

Shirley there is a kind of faith involved here - that a Law of Gravity will continue to operate every new day just as it did the previous day.

[Twa Cairpets]

Shirley there is a kind of faith involved here - that a Law of Gravity will continue to operate every new day just as it did the previous day.

Knowing something absolutely and irrefutably on the basis of repeated amd predictable evidence isn't faith in any religious sense.

Looking at it another way, I have faith that Hibs will one day win the Scottish Cup, but I've precious little evidence to support it, and I certainly wouldnt invest my future salvation in it happening. Faith in the context of this thread is (I think) pretty clearly defined as religious faith in a God. I genuinely believe that there is a danger when thinking about this topic to blur the lines here. if you're discussing it or thinking about it, it becomes a very easy throwaway phrase to say "well, scientists have faith too, so how is it different?". It's different because on every meaningful level it is.

[Woody1985]

Hmmmmm, a slightly oxymoronic expression of opinion I think; but that may just be down to my interpretation of your post.

Intelligence and Faith are incomparable by sheer nature, which is why you perhaps find it difficult to comprehend...........

I have to admit though that I too find it difficult to digest, that intelligent people can believe in something that is completely scientifically unproven - then again, thats the way that we've all been educated from an early age........using maths and science to proove or disproove things.

What, in the same way that the vast majority of religious people are taught by their parents and believers in society that there is a god?

[lapsedhibee]

Knowing something absolutely and irrefutably on the basis of repeated amd predictable evidence isn't faith in any religious sense.
No it's not religious, but your 'absolute and irrefutable knowledge' is nevertheless underpinned by something which is not scientifically verifiable (probably some concept of induction which for convenience is simply accepted as reliable).


Looking at it another way, I have faith that Hibs will one day win the Scottish Cup, but I've precious little evidence to support it, and I certainly wouldnt invest my future salvation in it happening. Faith in the context of this thread is (I think) pretty clearly defined as religious faith in a God. I genuinely believe that there is a danger when thinking about this topic to blur the lines here. if you're discussing it or thinking about it, it becomes a very easy throwaway phrase to say "well, scientists have faith too, so how is it different?". It's different because on every meaningful level it is.
And probably an equal danger of setting in stone a false dichotomy between religion/faith on the one hand and science/knowledge on the other.

[Twa Cairpets]

No it's not religious, but your 'absolute and irrefutable knowledge' is nevertheless underpinned by something which is not scientifically verifiable (probably some concept of induction which for convenience is simply accepted as reliable).
It is scientifically verifiable. One of the basic tenets of science is that given set of circumstances, can you make consistently accurate predictions of what is going to happen. You can with gravity, because we understand the rules of newtonian physics. The "why" of gravity I grant you is something different in terms of understanding, but it is consistent. You can take any field of accepted science and you'll find the same. Electricity generation, manufacture of polymers, radio-carbon dating. You name it, its predictable and accurate and is therefore not a matter of faith.


And probably an equal danger of setting in stone a false dichotomy between religion/faith on the one hand and science/knowledge on the other.
I agree to an extent, as there are lots of areas where there just isnt a cross over. Its when there are clear, fundamental and in my opinion often irreconcilable differences between the requirements of faith and the evidence presented by science that a dichotomy does exist.

It is dangerous when people are expected to believe in good faith the received opinion of religious leaders unquestioningly. It leads people down a mindset of being uncritical, un-analytical and unquestioning. If you are expected to accept the word of a Priest or Imam or Rabbi as being fundamentally right, even when there is evidence piled upon evidence that what they are saying is wrong then that is dangerous. How can their followers be expected to distinguish between the moral direction given (which may of course be "good" by anyones standards), and the creation stories they give out, or the miracles performed, which are clearly mythical? If doubt is allowed to creep into faith in one area, then from religions point of view it is sets a dangerous precedent insofar as "well if it isnt right there, then why is necessarily right on this...?"

So where the two fields overlap, there is a dichotomy. And the answer in any individuals mind comes down to what ones life view is. If you are of a religious bent, you continue to accept the unknowabilty of the divine and place your faith in whichever your deity of choice is. If you are of a skeptical mindset, you believe, as I do, that the burden of proof lies with those with the most extraordinary claims, and they can provide none.

[Dinkydoo]

I agree that it's almost impossible to disprove something. Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that it's arrogant to come to conclusions which are contrary to the beliefs of others.

What I was saying was that I don't think it's fair to criticise those who keep an open mind - and I would consider it to be arrogant for people to highlight their intelligence in doing so, as if to suggest that faith and intelligence are mutually exclusive.

I also don't think the absence of proof is required for a belief to be considered faith, but I suppose that's all in the semantics and probably not relevant to this discussion.

Apologies if I've come across this way, in no way, shape or form was I meaning that people who have faith cannot be intelligent - or anything around highlighting one's intelligence as being relative to thier open mindedness.

What I meant (and thought I had made it quite clear) was that the two by sheer nature are incomparable which is why the OP has perhaps found it difficult to comprehend that someone can be a very clever person and believe in a religion. This is because we measure intelligence based on known facts, math, and various other forms of "conclusive proof". Since having "faith" usually means that you believe in something irrespective of the lack of evidence supporting it, the two become so different from each other that it would be impossible to accurately (or fairly) measure one's intelligence based on thier faith - and 'vice versa'.

[Dinkydoo]

What, in the same way that the vast majority of religious people are taught by their parents and believers in society that there is a god?

Yes, but presumably you can't believe in both science and a religion fully without contradiction. So one of which would have to be stronger: Myself, Science and others, faith.

Have I understood your question correctly? I do tend to get the wrong end of the stick occassionally :faf:

[Future17]

Sorry Future 17, it really isn't, or at least not when you use the word faith in different contexts. You know, for example, that if under normal conditions you drop something it will fall to the ground. You don't have faith that it will, because under normal conditions it will happen every single time.

I'm not sure if we're agreeing on this point or not now. :greengrin

I recognise that there are obviously different contexts in which faith would be discussed, but as I said, by strict definition faith is a trust or a confidence in something. So faith in a God and faith in the science of man are both equal examples of people having faith and shouldn't be considered inequal by anybody who has faith in one but not the other.


What it nowadays boils down to for me is that since the beginning of humankind, the physical laws of gravity,biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology and all the other sciences have remained unchanged, and have worked in exactly the same way one day as they do the next regardless of where or when on the planet you are. The same is demonstrably untrue of whatever religion, deity or saviour any individual has chosen to put their faith in.

I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but if I do, I disagree. The physical laws that govern the existence of life on this planet will always remain constant, but our understanding of those laws as a species has not and will not remain constant.

We've already discussed on this thread that the majority of things we hold to be true about our physical existence would have been laughed at (or worse) in years gone by. Scientists today still argue over the laws of nature and our interpretation of them and, as we evolve, we'll continue to learn new things which may change what we currently believe to be true.

In many ways, the human race's attitude towards there being some "higher power", for want of a better phrase, has been more constant than our understanding of the physical laws you refer to.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not sure if we're agreeing on this point or not now. :greengrin

I recognise that there are obviously different contexts in which faith would be discussed, but as I said, by strict definition faith is a trust or a confidence in something. So faith in a God and faith in the science of man are both equal examples of people having faith and shouldn't be considered inequal by anybody who has faith in one but not the other.

Still disagreeing, but only in the detail...:wink:
It comes down to the meaning of faith. My view is that in common parlance, yes, you are right to use "faith" to describe the confidence in an event happening. But if you take the word in each context - spiritual and scientific, for the wont of a better way of dividing it up - then the meaning of the word faith is hugely different, and can't be used as a way of justifying one because the othe rone needs "faith" also. It's the poorness of the definition of the word that is the issue, and the lazy (not on your part, I hasten to add) use of it that is wrong.


I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but if I do, I disagree. The physical laws that govern the existence of life on this planet will always remain constant, but our understanding of those laws as a species has not and will not remain constant. Absolutely correct. Thats why I love the fact that science isnt rooted in one, unchanging view of how the world is.


We've already discussed on this thread that the majority of things we hold to be true about our physical existence would have been laughed at (or worse) in years gone by. Scientists today still argue over the laws of nature and our interpretation of them and, as we evolve, we'll continue to learn new things which may change what we currently believe to be true.
Again, agreed unresevedly. But I would be happy to forward the thought that all the advancements we make in knowledge and understanding will be based on the development from existing evidence. As a race, humans dont have to go back and re-invent the wheel every few generations. We know that it works, so how can we make it better?


In many ways, the human race's attitude towards there being some "higher power", for want of a better phrase, has been more constant than our understanding of the physical laws you refer to.
True. But lots of people believing in something doesn't make it right. Aztecs sacrificing a virgin to appease the wrath of the Gods and then having a good harvest doesnt mean that there is a causality between the two, even if they all believed it fervently. I also don't agree with the constancy argument - in the last 2000 odd years since biblical times, there has been religious belief systems in Western Europe alone that would include: Roman Gods, Norse Gods, Chritianity (in all its shades), Paganism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and any number of other devoutly held beliefs from cults to mainstream. The need to believe has been a constant feature, sure. The nature of that belief has been wildly different, and at the very, very least, all bar one these belief systems must have been absolutely wrong in what they have worshipped.

[Future17]

Still disagreeing, but only in the detail...:wink:
It comes down to the meaning of faith. My view is that in common parlance, yes, you are right to use "faith" to describe the confidence in an event happening. But if you take the word in each context - spiritual and scientific, for the wont of a better way of dividing it up - then the meaning of the word faith is hugely different, and can't be used as a way of justifying one because the othe rone needs "faith" also. It's the poorness of the definition of the word that is the issue, and the lazy (not on your part, I hasten to add) use of it that is wrong.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I understand your point. :greengrin


Again, agreed unresevedly. But I would be happy to forward the thought that all the advancements we make in knowledge and understanding will be based on the development from existing evidence. As a race, humans dont have to go back and re-invent the wheel every few generations. We know that it works, so how can we make it better?

But, in many ways, we do re-invent the wheel every so often. We take this basic design and fit it to our changing needs as a species i.e. cars, aeroplanes etc. The same principle applies to people's belief in a God - whenever the original concept came from, it has been taken and adapted down the generations.


True. But lots of people believing in something doesn't make it right. Aztecs sacrificing a virgin to appease the wrath of the Gods and then having a good harvest doesnt mean that there is a causality between the two, even if they all believed it fervently. I also don't agree with the constancy argument - in the last 2000 odd years since biblical times, there has been religious belief systems in Western Europe alone that would include: Roman Gods, Norse Gods, Chritianity (in all its shades), Paganism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and any number of other devoutly held beliefs from cults to mainstream. The need to believe has been a constant feature, sure. The nature of that belief has been wildly different, and at the very, very least, all bar one these belief systems must have been absolutely wrong in what they have worshipped.

I don't believe in a religion but I do believe in a God. I would say that's the belief that has been more constant than any scientific belief since mankind walked the Earth. I'm not saying that proves anything, just that as a species, we've had a more constant view on the existence of a "higher power" than we've ever had on a matter of science.

I also don't presume to know enough about the history of religion or even enough about God to say that any one belief could be considered to be "wrong". I understand you've approached that possibility in your post in a scientific manner, but I don't think that's the most appropriate way of evaluating it when, as we've already discussed, matters of God are almost impossible to prove or disprove in a scientific way.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't believe in a religion but I do believe in a God. I would say that's the belief that has been more constant than any scientific belief since mankind walked the Earth. I'm not saying that proves anything, just that as a species, we've had a more constant view on the existence of a "higher power" than we've ever had on a matter of science. I also don't presume to know enough about the history of religion or even enough about God to say that any one belief could be considered to be "wrong". I understand you've approached that possibility in your post in a scientific manner, but I don't think that's the most appropriate way of evaluating it when, as we've already discussed, matters of God are almost impossible to prove or disprove in a scientific way.

Of course people have needed to believe in a God - it's a very obvious way to explain what we see and think, and to account for our very existence. I think there is even an argument that throughout history the need to believe in a God/Gods has been hard-wired, and as such has been offered evolutionary advantage, but thats a whole other discussion.

But when it comes to religion - and I accept that that may be different to belief for individuals - it is only surely possible for one set of religious principles, one piece of holy writing, one piece of divine revelation to be "right". If its not, and all religious worship and thanksgiving is basically ok by a creator, then the amount of time given over to ritual, structure, evangelising, prayer and suchlike is surely utterly pointless.

The vast majority of devout believers across history I would contend have held their beliefs with the promise of a happy afterlife, be it in Valhalla, heaven or any other celestial resting place resplendent with angels, harps or 72 islamic virgins. It's not scientific reasoning that is needed to come to the conclusion that they can't all have been right, its straightforward arithemetic.

There is a fairly well known phrase that's used by atheists regarding belief in Gods "Monotheists reject all other gods but their own. I just happen to believe in one less god than they do.". I lifted this from the this article (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-faith-column/2007/04/god-atheist-believe-belief) in the New Statesman. It's worth a read.

[Woody1985]

Yes, but presumably you can't believe in both science and a religion fully without contradiction. So one of which would have to be stronger: Myself, Science and others, faith.

Have I understood your question correctly? I do tend to get the wrong end of the stick occassionally :faf:

Me too. :greengrin

I thought that you were saying that people only accept science as fact because that is how they have been conditioned given their education and I felt that you were saying that it was a bad thing although tone is hard to predict in written text (that's if I even understood your original point correctly). :faf:

My counter arguement/statement to your 'point' was to say that most people are conditioned into religion.

[lapsedhibee]

It is scientifically verifiable. One of the basic tenets of science is that given set of circumstances, can you make consistently accurate predictions of what is going to happen. You can with gravity, because we understand the rules of newtonian physics. The "why" of gravity I grant you is something different in terms of understanding, but it is consistent. You can take any field of accepted science and you'll find the same. Electricity generation, manufacture of polymers, radio-carbon dating. You name it, its predictable and accurate and is therefore not a matter of faith.

Up until 1697 it was predictable and accurate that anything that was a swan was also white, and therefore not a matter of faith. After that it was false. You don't know that the Law of Gravity will continue to operate in the future as it has in the past, but I suspect that you believe it very, very strongly. Don't you? :dunno:

[Woody1985]

Up until 1697 it was predictable and accurate that anything that was a swan was also white, and therefore not a matter of faith. After that it was false. You don't know that the Law of Gravity will continue to operate in the future as it has in the past, but I suspect that you believe it very, very strongly. Don't you? :dunno:

Twocarpets will put this alot better than me but as I understand it gravity is a force as defined in physics. Until that force is altered by another force(s) then it will remain constant. I'm not sure which type of force could cause it to change but I'm guessing that if something hit the planet it could cause a change.

I don't expect gravity to just stop tomorrow and I'l start flying around the place. I think there would have to be a pretty massive event for that to be possible. Something that we probably won't see in our lifetime. Therefore, I believe based on my understanding that it won't just change.

As I said, twocarpets!

[Twa Cairpets]

Twocarpets will put this alot better than me but as I understand it gravity is a force as defined in physics. Until that force is altered by another force(s) then it will remain constant. I'm not sure which type of force could cause it to change but I'm guessing that if something hit the planet it could cause a change.

I don't expect gravity to just stop tomorrow and I'l start flying around the place. I think there would have to be a pretty massive event for that to be possible. Something that we probably won't see in our lifetime. Therefore, I believe based on my understanding that it won't just change.

As I said, twocarpets!

No pressure then Woody...:greengrin


Up until 1697 it was predictable and accurate that anything that was a swan was also white, and therefore not a matter of faith. After that it was false. You don't know that the Law of Gravity will continue to operate in the future as it has in the past, but I suspect that you believe it very, very strongly. Don't you?

The issue here is that it was predictable only from a very limited and distinctly unscientific perspective, but it wasn't accurate on a wider scale, and never had been. If you take the gravity point, then we predicted that gravity would not operate the same across the Universe. Taking this prediction, it allowed rocket scientists (at last something that really is rocket science!) to build satellites and probes to go to Mars, orbit the earth, or penetrate the outer reaches of the solar system. We understand in great and demonstrable detail how the relationship between the Earths gravity and that of the moon makes the tides work. We can predict ahead to minute accuracy when high and low tides will be for years and years to come, and it is shown to be right every time.

I also dont think the colour of a swan is or was a matter of faith or science, it just doesnt lend itself to that type of anaysis. It would have been entirely correct for everyone in mediaeval Britain to think all swans were white because from their limited observation, it was. Predicting that all swans in the world are white from that stance would, in scientific terms, be defined at the very most as a hypothesis, because at that stage (until the Black Swan in Australia was discovered) it was a valid starting point to make. As a hypothesis, it was both testable and falsifiable.

As for my "belief" in gravity, well I'm happy to go with the evidence that for every day of my 43 years I haven't floated off, and nothing that wasn't expected to has either. That's a hell of a lot of mass obeying a law absolutely to the letter. If something does happen to make gravity stop working the way it does, I suspect we'll be past caring.

[Dinkydoo]

Me too. :greengrin

I thought that you were saying that people only accept science as fact because that is how they have been conditioned given their education and I felt that you were saying that it was a bad thing although tone is hard to predict in written text (that's if I even understood your original point correctly). :faf:

My counter arguement/statement to your 'point' was to say that most people are conditioned into religion.

Not at all, I was trying to provide a reason as to why the OP (and others, including myself) found it difficult to digest. IMO I think that it is quite a good thing but as long as you keep in mind that intelligence and faith can't and shouldn't really be used to measure each other.

To me it means that people are using thier brains when thinking about it and not just jumping to a conclusion like, "Aw he's a nutter."

[lapsedhibee]

The issue here is that it was predictable only from a very limited and distinctly unscientific perspective, but it wasn't accurate on a wider scale, and never had been.

Unscientific? Every literate person in the known world believed that swans were always white. You could predict with absolute certainty that when you woke up tomorrow all swans would be white, just as they all were before you went to bed. You could have repeated this experiment ad nauseam - predicting that they would be white tomorrow, going to bed, waking up, verifying that they were white today. How is that unscientific?


It would have been entirely correct for everyone in mediaeval Britain to think all swans were white because from their limited observation, it was.
Just as from your perspective it is entirely correct to believe that the current Law of Gravity has always been and will always be the same.

Predicting that all swans in the world are white from that stance would, in scientific terms, be defined at the very most as a hypothesis, because at that stage (until the Black Swan in Australia was discovered) it was a valid starting point to make. As a hypothesis, it was both testable and falsifiable.
Is your belief that the Law of Gravity has always been the way it is now and will always be the way it is now either testable or falsifiable?


If something does happen to make gravity stop working the way it does, I suspect we'll be past caring.
My small point about Gravity is only that an (imo 'unscientific') belief in its permanence gives
many people much psychological comfort.

[CropleyWasGod]

No pressure then Woody...:greengrin



The issue here is that it was, and never had been. .

Having just read this thread quickly, I am jumping in on the white swans bit.

As far as our scientific knowledge is concerned, there can be no heaven or hell; they just don't "fit" with what we know. However, how do we know that "what we know" is "all there is to know"? We can't, of course.

Therefore, could it not also be argued that the non-existence of heaven is, quoting your words.... "predictable only from a very limited and distinctly unscientific perspective, but (not) accurate on a wider scale".

When I hear the words "prove to me that heaven exists", my reaction always is "no, you prove that it doesn't."

[Phil D. Rolls]

Having just read this thread quickly, I am jumping in on the white swans bit.

As far as our scientific knowledge is concerned, there can be no heaven or hell; they just don't "fit" with what we know. However, how do we know that "what we know" is "all there is to know"? We can't, of course.

Therefore, could it not also be argued that the non-existence of heaven is, quoting your words.... "predictable only from a very limited and distinctly unscientific perspective, but (not) accurate on a wider scale".

When I hear the words "prove to me that heaven exists", my reaction always is "no, you prove that it doesn't."

What makes me consider the concept of a soul, is that science so far has been unable to explain where thoughts come from. Could it be that somewhere, in the gaps between living matter in our bodies there is some unseen entity that causes messages to be passed across synaptic gaps, and that this entity can leave the body at death?

[Woody1985]

Having just read this thread quickly, I am jumping in on the white swans bit.

As far as our scientific knowledge is concerned, there can be no heaven or hell; they just don't "fit" with what we know. However, how do we know that "what we know" is "all there is to know"? We can't, of course.

Of course, but science doesn't pretend that it knows everything and is open to new ideas. Religion is a closed book and what is described is accurate and unquestionable.



Therefore, could it not also be argued that the non-existence of heaven is, quoting your words.... "predictable only from a very limited and distinctly unscientific perspective, but (not) accurate on a wider scale".

When I hear the words "prove to me that heaven exists", my reaction always is "no, you prove that it doesn't."

My thought on this is that people ask these type of questions because you have people basing their whole lives on the promise that heaven and hell DO exist.

Therefore, for a non believer, backed up by current scientific knowledge, it is a perfectly valid question that you would ask someone why they are so confident and to show why they are so confident. I personally find it a little obtuse and childish when people say 'prove that it doesn't' when asked this type of question. I guess when asked it then deteriorates into 'I asked you first', 'no, I asked you first'.

When you were young people told you santa claus and the tooth fairy existed and you believed it. Now you know that it's not possible for SC to go to every little kids house in the world in one night and that there's not a little fairy who steals a pound from your mum's purse and sticks it under the pillow.

It seems bizarre to me that someone could base their entire life on something that there is no proof of (general meaning, not in scientific terms). When holy books, from whatever religion, state things that go completely against confirmed sciencec and common sense i.e. parting of seas, walking on water, water to wine, blah, it amplifies my thoughts on how ridiculous the whole thing is. Put that together with the fact that no one can replicate these feats in todays world and it's completely baffling.

Religion IMO is a ridiculous concept.

[Twa Cairpets]

Unscientific? Every literate person in the known world believed that swans were always white. You could predict with absolute certainty that when you woke up tomorrow all swans would be white, just as they all were before you went to bed. You could have repeated this experiment ad nauseam - predicting that they would be white tomorrow, going to bed, waking up, verifying that they were white today. How is that unscientific?

As I said, it is absolutely fair to base a scientific hypothesis on the premise all swans are white, if you were of a mind to do so. What you would then do as a mediaeval scientist is go out and test the white swan thery - you would seek to find something to falsify it. As you wandered your merry way around the streets and lanes of Olde England you would find much evidence to back up your claim where you could quite happily say, with scientific validity, "All Swans in England are White". This works perfectly well, is robust scientifically because it remains falsifibale by the emergence of a single differently coloured swan. However, it is not justified to extrapolate your "Theory of English Swans" into a wider theory of global swan colouring. You have done very little testing, and while the body of evidence to date from say Western europe would be strongly suggestive of the homogeneity of swan plumage, from a scientific perspective (given the size of the globe), it would not be valid to claim it had been tested exhaustively enough to be an accepetable global theory.

The question is one of (a) scale (which is why I called it unscientific), and (b) when it comes to vast swathes of science affirmation from diverse fields - eg physics and geology, chemistry and mathematics, there is none



Just as from your perspective it is entirely correct to believe that the current Law of Gravity has always been and will always be the same.
Is your belief that the Law of Gravity has always been the way it is now and will always be the way it is now either testable or falsifiable?
Yes, of course it is. Any shred of evidence that matter/mass acts in ways other than predicted by the forces of gravity would immediately falsify all laws governing it.


My small point about Gravity is only that an (imo 'unscientific') belief in its permanence gives
many people much psychological comfort.
Including me. I'm very pleased i dont have to strap myself into bed every night just in case gravity stops. But its beuatifully, spectacularly scientific. Much better than worrying if Ive behaved well enough to avoid a tortured afterlife...

[Twa Cairpets]

Having just read this thread quickly, I am jumping in on the white swans bit.

As far as our scientific knowledge is concerned, there can be no heaven or hell; they just don't "fit" with what we know. However, how do we know that "what we know" is "all there is to know"? We can't, of course.

Therefore, could it not also be argued that the non-existence of heaven is, quoting your words.... "predictable only from a very limited and distinctly unscientific perspective, but (not) accurate on a wider scale".

When I hear the words "prove to me that heaven exists", my reaction always is "no, you prove that it doesn't."

Appreciate that you've skim read the thread, but as previously posted its not possible to prove a negative. I believe that there is a giant pink unicorn living in the core of Mercury. Prove its not there. Can't be done.

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but I think that the burden of proof for exceptional claims has to lie with the claimant. The more extraordinary the claim - in this case that there exists a place called heaven where the souls of the departed reside without the slightest, tiniest most miniscule piece of evidence of any kind anywhere that could be replicated, checked or tested - then the more extraordinary the evidence required to back it up.

[WindyMiller]

Couldn't answer that one but i've gone the other way, i was born into a Catholic family, went through the whole process....baptised, communion etc went to a catholic primary and secondary school but as i got older i found myself more and more at odds with religion and i now consider myself as aethist.


Ditto.