Deranged zealot loses in court-Gawd shunned from public school system.

[stolat]

I think that there is a difference between faith and organised religion. There was a time in history when 'the church' would make outrageous claims about a splinter of wood been from Jesus' cross. Thousands would make pilgrimages just to see the said splinter.

At another point in history, people had to pay money to priests so they could secure their place in heaven........

Yes, aspects of religion can be fabricated - people's faith can be exploited.......

[25]

I mean, the Greek myths we study today were once taught and believed by some amount of the people. Looking back on them now we see them as myths. I'm sure in a few hundred years people will look back on the story of Jesus rising from the dead in much the same way that we look back on the story of Horace rising from the dead, or Heracles traveling to the underworld for some task, or any other myth we study. What are today's religions but the myths of tomorrow?

I think "a few hundred years" might be on the optimistic side. Sadly, the diminishment of one "faith" is usually due to the increased popularity of another. It would be nice to see the end of the old religions but if the price of that is the rise of scientology or the moonies or something then it's not really an improvement.

As for the Greek myths, I think it's a stretch to try to equate them with the contemporary belief systems. Even if you confine the comparison to deity myths you'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument for any sort of analogous relationship between the Greeks' obscure heirarchy of household gods and the monotheistic institutionalized  religions which followed. I think that the relationship of the people or their society to their gods is so utterly different as to be irreconcilable, which makes comparing the level of blind faith both difficult and pointless.     

[Robman?]

The problem with the church is it wants everyone to think alike, and not for themselves. I personally think theres nothing less harmful than Harry Potter. Like kids are gonna watch Star Wars and then go off chopping peoples limbs off thinking that prosthetic limbs are completely life like.

[25]

I think that there is a difference between faith and organised religion. There was a time in history when 'the church' would make outrageous claims about a splinter of wood been from Jesus' cross. Thousands would make pilgrimages just to see the said splinter.

At another point in history, people had to pay money to priests so they could secure their place in heaven........

Yes, aspects of religion can be fabricated - people's faith can be exploited.......

I disagree with your first statement. I think that "faith" is a product of organized religion, particularly of monotheism. The importance of devotion and unquestioning belief, at least in Christianity, seems to stem directly from the adoption of that religion as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to that change-over the concept of religious piety was rather different, even the adoption of Christianity by Constantine was motivated by political and social pressures rather than faith, and the public reasoning behind it was about gaining the sponsorship of a powerful deity rather than any spiritual correction of their heretic ways. Faith, belief, devotion, piety - prerequisites for acceptance by monotheistic religious institutions, rather than the breeding ground for the acceptance of those religions by the people. Basically, unless you're being asked to believe in impossible and improbable things and accept them as literal truth, faith has no function.

[stolat]

I think that there is a difference between faith and organised religion. There was a time in history when 'the church' would make outrageous claims about a splinter of wood been from Jesus' cross. Thousands would make pilgrimages just to see the said splinter.

At another point in history, people had to pay money to priests so they could secure their place in heaven........

Yes, aspects of religion can be fabricated - people's faith can be exploited.......

I disagree with your first statement. I think that "faith" is a product of organized religion, particularly of monotheism. The importance of devotion and unquestioning belief, at least in Christianity, seems to stem directly from the adoption of that religion as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to that change-over the concept of religious piety was rather different, even the adoption of Christianity by Constantine was motivated by political and social pressures rather than faith, and the public reasoning behind it was about gaining the sponsorship of a powerful deity rather than any spiritual correction of their heretic ways. Faith, belief, devotion, piety - prerequisites for acceptance by monotheistic religious institutions, rather than the breeding ground for the acceptance of those religions by the people. Basically, unless you're being asked to believe in impossible and improbable things and accept them as literal truth, faith has no function.

I can't speak for other people, but for me my faith comes from a 'knowing' and from my own personal experiences. There is a great mystery to the cosmos and I respect it.

[25]

I can't speak for other people, but for me my faith comes from a 'knowing' and from my own personal experiences. There is a great mystery to the cosmos and I respect it.

Then the question is clearly; What do you have faith in?

I would define faith as belief in something which is unproven. Obviously that would differ from believing in something that you know to be true or have experienced for yourself. Would you say that you have faith in something or things that you have no rational or evidentiary reason to believe?

[stolat]

I can't speak for other people, but for me my faith comes from a 'knowing' and from my own personal experiences. There is a great mystery to the cosmos and I respect it.

Then the question is clearly; What do you have faith in?

I would define faith as belief in something which is unproven. Obviously that would differ from believing in something that you know to be true or have experienced for yourself. Would you say that you have faith in something or things that you have no rational or evidentiary reason to believe?

Yes, it is well known that materialists and dualists speak a different language. The fact that scientists are unable to prove a theory/idea does not mean that it does not exist. Scientists need to keep developing their laboratory equipment.......Paul Davies says that scientists are getting close to developing a super machine to test such claims - but the cost!

Maybe 'faith' and 'experience' should be left alone by scientists - it is not their field. It is more of a area to be tackled by the humanities.

Maybe dualists and materialists need to work on developing a common language. Music is pretty universal.

I believe that there is a mystery to the universe - I have seen, witnessd and felt many things that constantly reinforce my 'faith'. How many times does something have to be experienced for it to be proven?

[25]

Yes, it is well known that materialists and dualists speak a different language. The fact that scientists are unable to prove a theory/idea does not mean that it does not exist. Scientists need to keep developing their laboratory equipment.......Paul Davies says that scientists are getting close to developing a super machine to test such claims - but the cost!

Maybe 'faith' and 'experience' should be left alone by scientists - it is not their field. It is more of a area to be tackled by the humanities.

Maybe dualists and materialists need to work on developing a common language. Music is pretty universal.

I believe that there is a mystery to the universe - I have seen, witnessd and felt many things that constantly reinforce my 'faith'. How many times does something have to be experienced for it to be proven?

Personally, I wouldn't classify that as "faith." I don't think that it requires any stretch of imagination to believe that there are things that we don't know, and the fact that we continue to learn and discover is proof that there are still unknowns. So I'd call that a belief, but not one requiring of faith.

To take you up on the tangent you offered;  Science and faith (as I defined it earlier) are inevitably intertwined because they deal with the same subject, collective ignorance. Faith is a product of our collective ignorance, in that there are things we do not know or can not explain and so any conclusions or beliefs drawn about those things are unproven and requiring of faith. Meanwhile science is all about learning, knowing and explaining previously unknown and unexplained things. Since both work within the same sphere of human experience there's no way they can avoid each other, until either everything is known or nothing is known.

[stolat]

Ok, what I have done is tried to make sense of my experiences.
I have used my information processing skills: data to information to knowledge to wisdom.

In gaining wisdom in certain areas I am now able to classify experiences and summarise/categorise them under the heading 'faith'.

Everyone will have a different word for how they would describe the taste of chocolate.
Science cannot prove exactly what chocolate tastes like.

[25]

Everyone will have a different word for how they would describe the taste of chocolate.
Science cannot prove exactly what chocolate tastes like.

1)"Chocolatey," I think.
 
2) I think that's a spurious statement at best. Humankind cannot definitively describe what chocolate tastes like, other than it tastes like chocolate. Same goes for chicken. However, science allows us to analyze and synthesize flavors - is synthesis of a flavor not a description of flavor in its own terms? What does chocolate taste like? It tastes like chocolate flavor, just like our chocolate flavored beverage and food products! Science 1: stolat 0.

Science may not be able to describe, in words, every phenomena that is "known." But a failing of language is a failing of language, not of knowledge. I think it's fair to say that most of us know what chocolate tastes like, or the flavors of many different types of chocolate, I'm not sure that the inability to put it into words has any impact on the value of understanding the chemistry, biology or  physics involved.

[stolat]

It's just a concept/tangent that we were discussing in philosophy class. Any philosophical discussion usually does not end with Science1: Stolat 0!!!

It's not to do with language - scientists cannot test the differences in people's taste. When I bite into a piece of chocolate who is to say that my experience will be the same as yours. All human beings are unique and see the world through thier own unique eyes. Somethings are indeed hard to put into words - that is why we have music.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion (no sarcasm intended).

PS. Look up the dictionary meaning of 'materialist' and 'dualist'.

[25]

It's just a concept/tangent that we were discussing in philosophy class. Any philosophical discussion usually does not end with Science1: Stolat 0!!!

I thought you'd enjoy that.

I would seriously still argue that the example you're giving is rather unfair as no methodology has any way of reconciling disparate perceptions. To say it's a failing of science is to ignore that it's a failing of every other institution and social construct. If your palate, like your personality, is a cumulative result of everything it's experienced and everyone has a different range of experience then no two are precisely the same. How then do you objectively measure "taste" and describe it accurately to every individual? Isn't it inherently impossible to objectively describe something which is unique? I'd equate the chocolate flavor argument with something like saying "science can't describe how pain feels," - true, but neither can anything else. "It hurts!"

Also, I would like to hear music describe how chocolate tastes. 

[freedom78]

Look up the dictionary meaning of 'materialist' and 'dualist'.

I did this and, surprisingly, both of them had the same definition: "Philosophical beliefs held by people who haven't realized that it's all Determinism."

[stolat]

Look up the dictionary meaning of 'materialist' and 'dualist'.

I did this and, surprisingly, both of them had the same definition: "Philosophical beliefs held by people who haven't realized that it's all Determinism."

Oh God, not the old deteminism vs free will debate!! Who pulls the strings?

PS. the good thing about music is that it is a science (sound waves) + maths (theory) and it is also an universal language that can speak directly to our souls.

It always amazes me when playing music, the transcendence from theory/notes on a page to something quite intangible.

[freedom78]

Look up the dictionary meaning of 'materialist' and 'dualist'.

I did this and, surprisingly, both of them had the same definition: "Philosophical beliefs held by people who haven't realized that it's all Determinism."

Oh God, not the old deteminism vs free will debate!! Who pulls the strings?

Why not?  It's the best debate!

PS. the good thing about music is that it is a science (sound waves) + maths (theory) and it is also an universal language that can speak directly to our souls.

It always amazes me when playing music, the transcendence from theory/notes on a page to something quite intangible.

Agreed, but we should also be worried about the quality of souls, based on the state of music these days.

[stolat]

Yes, your last point in particular is very interesting.

Look how far away we have come from classical music (a very structured and balanced music style), developed during the 17th century Age of Reason.

The music of the Romantic Era (1900's) was a direct backlash against the highly structured Classical style. Free flowing melody lines/escapist lyrics.

I guess the good thing about music is that it comes in waves.......

(Sound waves, get it.....!!)

[fuckin crazy]

I stand corrected , I should have said : those who proclaim that some magic man in the sky will grant your wishes are liars . However , "intent over content" are two sides of the coin . The former is a manifestation of the latter .

"it is disingenuous to preach myths and parables as fact but the lie is in the preaching, not in the myth"
Hell , that is what religion is . You just made my argument .

"From the viewpoint that any given religion is a framework of social ethics and personal morals usually illustrated through narrative storytelling"
You forgot the part about dogma .

"I fail to see how the combined content of the major religions is inherently good, bad, true or lies"
Dogma is bad.

" I do enjoy the idea that some Jewish preacher would dedicate his life to encouraging personal interpretation of religious texts and personal devotion to spirituality rather"
He also advocated the mutilation , death , and destruction of those who disagreed with him .

[fuckin crazy]

As for the Greek myths, I think it's a stretch to try to equate them with the contemporary belief systems. Even if you confine the comparison to deity myths you'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument for any sort of analogous relationship between the Greeks' obscure heirarchy of household gods and the monotheistic institutionalized religions which followed. I think that the relationship of the people or their society to their gods is so utterly different as to be irreconcilable, which makes comparing the level of blind faith both difficult and pointless.

They both pray/prayed to magic man/men , and they both think/thought those prayers were ansered ... one and the same .

[25]

He also advocated the mutilation , death , and destruction of those who disagreed with him .

So do I. Why judge?

[stolat]

He also advocated the mutilation , death , and destruction of those who disagreed with him .

So do I. Why judge?

25! Grow Up!