arndt@lymph.DEC (05/19/85)
*********************************************************
The enclosed article by 'jcpatilla' is a sad, sad commentary
on the state of thought and understanding of many people about
the differences and similarities of religious and scientific
types of thinking. It is on the basis of this kind of thinking
many people build their lives. I don't know whether to laugh or
cry.
*********************************************************
[addressing a net.religion posting jcpatilla says:]
Wait a minute, how can the religious believers have a leg to
stand on in this argument ? A religion is a belief system. The believer
accepts the articles of the religion ON FAITH, because *there is no
proof*. That is what faith means. If there were undeniable scientific
proof, then it would be a fact, not an item of faith. The very notion
that a god or gods exist is an article of faith, not a fact.
*** It is true that a religion is a belief system.
It is also true that a belief system is based on 'faith'. But modern
science, mathematics, etc., are ALSO belief systems based on 'faith'!!
That is, sigh, they are based not on 'facts', absolute proof, as these
words seem to have meaning for jc, but upon 'faith' - hypotheses,
assumptions, theories, as I have so often now, expressed on the nets.
The definition of 'faith' as I use it, and as Christianity uses it
("faith is EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN" as Paul puts it) and as modern
epistomological theory that our science is based on uses it, means not that
one takes a 'leap of faith' into the dark, as the Great Dane puts it,
but that rather that one organizes the evidence around a principle,
theory, assumption, axiom, HYPOTHESIS and completes the task with reason.
Just so we do modern science, math, etc. One could very well use
jc's words to say, "the belief that matter and energy exist is an
article of faith, not of fact. 'FACTS' NO LONGER MEANS BEYOND DOUBT!!
That's the 17 - 19C idea of truth that has been left behind by modern
man, whether he believes in a God or not! The words he uses above,
"undeniable scientific proof" are a contradiction and the stuff of
spoof.
Now note, many CHRISTIANS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS AS WELL!
They hold to a misguided view of 'faith'. Same as jc from the other
side of the discussion.
Science & reason are VERY limited. THAT IS THE GREAT TRUTH
OF THE 20TH C.! The old Christian basher is a thing of humor with
his arguments along the line of jc.
[ jc continues]
The Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon - that these are the
words of God or Allah is an item of faith with those persons who
believe in them, but there is no proof outside of those books that
they were written by God or by my aunt Matilde. To say that "it says
right here in the Bible that this is the Word of God" doesn't cut it
since that is not evidence outside of the item you are taking on
faith.
*** Christians, at least those who really think and understand
why they believe what they believe, don't WORSHIP the Bible the way jc
seems to think, but believe the Bible's claims the same way they would
examine and believe in any other historical document. If you hold a view
(which is an assumption) that there IS no 'supernatural', God, being,
thing, outside the five senses (materialism in a word) then of course
one must discount the miracles recorded as actually having happened
and having a particular meaning and account for them within the framework
of one's chosen materialistic assumption. The cute thing they do is then
to ask for 'proof' in their terms. And think they are making a point!!
I find that most often they are merely quoting each other in a form of
mental incest and haven't read the Bible seriously (over time and with
some study) or even any of the simple tools like an Ency. article. They
groak on feeling superior to the simple Christian who lives on 'faith'.
Macho mind! Jerks.
[jc continues]
Now, I don't want to impugne anyone's religion or beliefs, I
am non-commital about other people's religions as long as they don't
try to foist them off on me. I believe some pretty odd things of my
own but I don't try to hold them up as facts, only as my personal
(and admittedly colored) experiences. The point is religions are without
proof by their very nature - they require FAITH. THerefore, you cannot
speak of their beliefs as fact, and so there can be no argument here
about who is accepting what evidence and so forth.
***** He doesn't want to but just has. Then admits, seriously
perhaps,( I have heard the most 'unscientific' lard from like-minded,
dare I say techie nerds?, people who laugh at Christianity and then
spout the latest 'mind fad' claptrap and fail to see the contradiction.)
his own 'odd things' not held to be 'facts' of course. As if one puts one's
head under one's arm when not doing 'science'.
A yes. That ole experience/fact soft shoe.
Objective/subjective, which hand has the peanut in it.
Let's see . . . I think I'll live in the 13th C B.C.
I like the way they thought about things then.
[his signiture line]
jcpatilla
"'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
**** Sounds like he is.
Regards,
Ken Arndtdimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (05/21/85)
[] Ken Arndt writes: > *** It is true that a religion is a belief system. > It is also true that a belief system is based on 'faith'. But modern > science, mathematics, etc., are ALSO belief systems based on 'faith'!! > ... > The definition of 'faith' as I use it, and as Christianity uses it > ("faith is EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN" as Paul puts it) and as modern > epistomological theory that our science is based on uses it, means not that > one takes a 'leap of faith' into the dark, as the Great Dane puts it, > but that rather that one organizes the evidence around a principle, > theory, assumption, axiom, HYPOTHESIS and completes the task with reason. But, are you willing to abandon your principle, theory, assumption, axiom, or HYPOTHESIS if it doesn't work? Are you even willing to put it to the test? Isaac Dimitrovsky