"GOD TAKES CARE OF GOOD PEOPLE"
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@Valiya
--- Epistemology ---
"Science and faith are two different epistemologies in that they approach truth from two different ends."
Well, I can't really agree to that.
Science is collaboration to find answers using the scientific method and peer review. If you want to, I guess the answers could be called "truth".
Faith, as in "belief without evidence", does not require reason or empiricism in any way. All it requires is to submit to a belief without proof. A person can be a completely devout believer, 100% faithful to the doctrine without the use of either reason or empiricism.
Faith is an epistemology, but only in the sense that it is used as an epistemology: Believers use faith as a way to know and interpret the world.
The process you describe "Faith starts from answers (truth), passes through reason/empiricism and arrive at human understanding.", is first an assertion that the answers are already correct, then an attempt to rationalize those answers to make everything fit with the world we actually see around us. That rationalization is made through reasoning and interpretation.
The end result of that rationalization, i.e. your personal interpretation, is just that: A personal interpretation, not a consensus. Another believer of the exact same faith, could come to a completely different conclusion from the same passage.
--- Morality ---
To be able to even begin discussing morality, I would need to know what you consider the definition of morality to be. Is it the commonly accepted definition, for example Wikipedia's definition, or is it to follow the "laws" written in Islamic scriptures?
Does anyone with a half a brain really need " faith" and "God" to teach us what is moral, good, and sensible...don't these people have their OWN MINDS?!! I guess if they did, they wouldn't be theists.
You do realize, I hope, that you are talking about a religion that promotes using your mouth to spread the word as necessary; while it rather considers using the mind as optional if not totally unnecessary...
@ reality
"Does anyone with a half a brain really need " faith" and "God" to teach us what is moral"
Then explain to me how you arrive at moral decisions?
I've heard it all now...COME ON!!! Even little kids know what is right and wrong...because they learn it from their parents, guardians, or mentors...NOT GOD!!! Please, be REAL!!!
@Travis
You didn't understand my point.
I am not talking about the mode of transmission of the message. Say, for example the Quran says "And the mountains have been created as pegs on earth to keep it from shaking." This is a message that has reached us through various modes of transmission (oral and written). But how do we understand it? That's where we apply reason. Today, the scholars say that the idea of mountains standing as pegs is close to the theory of Isostasy in geology.
Hope its clear now.
"You didn't understand my point."
I am not surprised, considering I made no effort to address your point. I made a general statement about religion, period.
"I am not talking about the mode of transmission of the message."
I did, though it was more an alliteration. The "m" in mind, is a better match to the "m" in mouth, than hand or fingers. So...
"Say, for example the Quran says "And the mountains have been created as pegs on earth to keep it from shaking." This is a message that has reached us through various modes of transmission (oral and written)."
Yes, it reaches us from multiple mediums, as all information does.
"But how do we understand it? That's where we apply reason."
Indeed, the Ad Hoc variety, most usually.
"Today, the scholars say that the idea of mountains standing as pegs is close to the theory of Isostasy in geology."
Isostasy does not actually have anything to do with preventing earthquakes, they will happen even more frequently in Isostasy, as the quakes are even more necessary to keep equilibrium. In other words, quakes will happen even without movement then, as a means of equalizing geological pressure. Isostasy is simply about tectonic shift, not quakes.
"Hope its clear now."
Indeed.
@ travis
Isostasy does not actually have anything to do with preventing earthquakes, they will happen even more frequently in Isostasy, as the quakes are even more necessary to keep equilibrium. In other words, quakes will happen even without movement then, as a means of equalizing geological pressure. Isostasy is simply about tectonic shift, not quakes.
It looks like you never read my initial post on the subject. My intent here is NOT to prove that Quran has scientific facts in it. My objective was only to show that scholars use reason to interpret the Quran. May be they are wrong, may be they are right. In my initial post I was trying to demonstrate why it is UNNECESSARY to find scientific explanations for scriptural passages.
As my purpose is NOT to try and match quran and scientific discoveries, I will not invent any time on answering your Isostasy point. But if you insist, i can show to you how the scholars derive isostasy from quran.
"It looks like you never read my initial post on the subject."
Nope.
"My intent here is NOT to prove that Quran has scientific facts in it."
Then perhaps you shouldn't bring up an example of a scientific fact that was supposedly squeezed out of the Qur'an?
"My objective was only to show that scholars use reason to interpret the Quran."
Indeed, Ad Hoc reasoning, like I said. It is very interesting that they had to wait around for Clarence Dutton to "discover" this information. It is almost like they are reading shit into it that wasn't actually there, eh?
"May be they are wrong, may be they are right. In my initial post I was trying to demonstrate why it is UNNECESSARY to find scientific explanations for scriptural passages."
Good. Religious text are NOT science books, and treating them as such is simply ridiculous as all hell...
"As my purpose is NOT to try and match quran and scientific discoveries, I will not invent any time on answering your Isostasy point. But if you insist, i can show to you how the scholars derive isostasy from quran."
I am pretty sure I already know how they did it, as it is the same way Christians read all kinds of stuff into their Bible, so do not worry about investing your time in confirming my expectations.
@Travis
"It looks like you never read my initial post on the subject."
Nope.
I find it extremely unreasonable that you would actually respond to a post without reading it!!!!
And now I understand why your points don't make any sense... because if only you took the time to go through my post, you would get the answers for the questions you have posed.
"I find it extremely unreasonable that you would actually respond to a post without reading it!!!!"
I didn't, I read the post I responded to, it just wasn't yours. My first post was to Reality, not you, so it is rather odd that you would now pretend that my post was a response to you...
"And now I understand why your points don't make any sense..."
The points I make are responses to the points you do, and I address those directly, so if they don't make sense it is because your argument hasn't made any thus far in our exchange.
"...because if only you took the time to go through my post, you would get the answers for the questions you have posed."
I doubt it. You see, I am rather used to religious people claiming to have answered questions they never did, they simply slap together some hasty and unfounded arguments and pretend they answer everything. As I said in direct response to your example, Ad Hoc apologetics do not impress me, especially when they are attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole. The fact that it was scientific was doubly laughable.
I can find things that are patently false in any holy text, but believers are willing to simply hand-wave those away, and instead use extremely pained and stretched interpretations to try and make their texts fit a reality it wasn't meant to describe. Our ancestors weren't just simply ignorant about many scientific facts, it was also beyond their imagination, so they did not write about it. Furthermore, attempting to sift through ancient writings for "revealed" knowledge isn't just a waste of time, it is utterly stupid to boot.
@Travis
"You do realize, I hope, that you are talking about a religion that promotes using your mouth to spread the word as necessary; while it rather considers using the mind as optional if not totally unnecessary..."
This was your post. If you didn't mean this as a response to my post, then I am sorry.
My post was a reply to Reality.
Pages