29 May 2007, 10:33 pm
30 May 2007, 4:10 am
30 May 2007, 4:11 am
30 May 2007, 3:12 pm
skafather: well, psychology only takes us that far, too. it could, for example, analyze how it comes we want meanings with certain things, but not what that meaning is.
i see, too, that philosophers left a great share of their territory to the sciences (back in the days, nature philosophy was the hype), but that doesnt make philosophy obsolete, in my humble opinion. 
as for religions: well, that taking-things-literally-crap, world being constructed in seven days and the like... im with you fully. but then, i think that we should see that religion took a lot of jobs in former times that are taken by different institutions nowadays. so, th eten commandmends were the stone-age version of modern criminal law - with a justification that was a good enough explanation for the people of the time (and i guess it worked somehow, too). the point is: for a modern conception of religion, we dont need to take explanations literally that dont really look like they were meant that way. assuming any god (without all the rites and literal world-creation myths and what the heck stuff) behind all this world could be a working thing to do for people who want a meaning of that kind in the world. i dont understand it fully, yet, but this seems to be almost a question of character (or some similar predisposition): some people find the thought of a meaningless existence so openly unlikely that they believe in a metaphysical construction of their taste. there seem to be other people who dont seem to have a major problem with a life that has no inherent, objective meaning (you and me, for example)
in that metaphysical regard, i dont think religions can be proven right or wrong. but the worldly side of things, especially when it involves institutions and politics, can be argued with good (worldly) reason.
Anubis
Veteran
Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 137
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England
30 May 2007, 3:19 pm
30 May 2007, 4:34 pm
30 May 2007, 4:44 pm
i see, too, that philosophers left a great share of their territory to the sciences (back in the days, nature philosophy was the hype), but that doesnt make philosophy obsolete, in my humble opinion.
as for religions: well, that taking-things-literally-crap, world being constructed in seven days and the like... im with you fully. but then, i think that we should see that religion took a lot of jobs in former times that are taken by different institutions nowadays. so, th eten commandmends were the stone-age version of modern criminal law - with a justification that was a good enough explanation for the people of the time (and i guess it worked somehow, too). the point is: for a modern conception of religion, we dont need to take explanations literally that dont really look like they were meant that way. assuming any god (without all the rites and literal world-creation myths and what the heck stuff) behind all this world could be a working thing to do for people who want a meaning of that kind in the world. i dont understand it fully, yet, but this seems to be almost a question of character (or some similar predisposition): some people find the thought of a meaningless existence so openly unlikely that they believe in a metaphysical construction of their taste. there seem to be other people who dont seem to have a major problem with a life that has no inherent, objective meaning (you and me, for example)
in that metaphysical regard, i dont think religions can be proven right or wrong. but the worldly side of things, especially when it involves institutions and politics, can be argued with good (worldly) reason.
well apparently i lost my response....crappy internet connection...damned northern LA.
anyways, on the philosophy note: i'm just waiting for the day that god is really dead.
and i think philosophy will replace religion insofar as the needs of existential meaning and what not...because such things are normally more just personal interpretation most of the time...because no one really knows what happens when you die or what the true meaning is of anything yet. but i think the science comments is more because science is under serious attack here in the US (i don't know if you're from here or not) by fundamentalists who are trying to use similar arguments to what you said about science not solving everything but in such a way to where they say it solves nothing....you're obviously against that.
but back to the topic at hand: the christian bible is a work of fiction. there are some lessons to be learned but there are better sources for those lessons today. whether there is a god or not...can't say. christian version of god...most likely not.
30 May 2007, 4:58 pm
30 May 2007, 5:35 pm
Great! Semantics is one of my obsessions.
I agree that logic cannot prove that God does or does not exist, I also agree with most of what Skafather84 said about religion; however not believing in religion and not believing in God are two different things. Religion (at least to me) is a codified system of theology that a group of people agree to agree on. I think it might be mostly NTs who join these groups because their minds lack the ability to focus on the subject long enough to form their own opinions, so they accept the groups. Logic can identify several inconsistencies in their doctrines and science can chalange several points of their theology, yet none of that will prove that the God they claim to worship does not exist. All that can prove is that the people who are talking about him don't know what they are talking about.
I fully admit that I believe in God simply because I choose to. I do not want to believe that man (and I use that term in the gender inclusive sense) is the highest form of life in the universe. I just wish that those who choose not to believe in him would admit it.
Last edited by NobelCynic on 30 May 2007, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
30 May 2007, 5:39 pm
30 May 2007, 5:42 pm
30 May 2007, 6:06 pm
30 May 2007, 6:25 pm
30 May 2007, 7:53 pm
30 May 2007, 9:14 pm
30 May 2007, 10:04 pm
