A possible cenario

Originally posted by KellyJay
It isn't that faith is believing without proof, but being able to prove.
Kelly

got lost... you say "faith is being able to prove" ?

Faith (for me) is simply believing something, independently of proof or likeness of that something to exist or happen.
To other persons, sometimes is ridiculous, sometimes it's natural. Obviously one can't trust one's faith because it's something that comes from our feelings.

Originally posted by serigado
Imagine all people and knowledge were wiped out of the face of the Earth.
Well.. all people except a few children with no memory of what happened and that could give continuity to mankind.
I am sure of these: Today's science would be rediscovered (maybe with different language or formality), and today's religions would never come up again. There would be ...[text shortened]... e. Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives.

This was an interesting assertion, but I can't buy it. It seems to me that the current state of science is not necessarily less flawed than the current state of religion. In fact, I see many parallels between religion and science. Here are a several:

1) Religion at its core is also the study of reality.
2) Today's religion would also be rediscovered (also with different language and formality).
3) Both religion and science are hindered by those seeking wealth, fame, power, etc. instead of truth.
4) Both religion and science have a set core beliefs that are generally regarded as true within their respective domains.
5) Both religion and science have factions that contradict one another.
6) Both religion and science have many quantum leaps that need to be made before the true nature of reality can be realized.
7) Both religion and science have historically had advocates that were convinced that they were close to realizing (or had realized) the true nature of reality. This is true for this age as well.

Originally posted by serigado
Faith is believing something without proof. .

.
I can live without faith.

i however can not live without my faith, as a quote while i breath i pray.
but agree it is believing without any outward sign of proof, but inward. You say you can live without faith think most people do, but if i am wrong i will not find out, if you are then do not blame anyone else but you if you are in eternal fire and brimstone,

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This was an interesting assertion, but I can't buy it. It seems to me that the current state of science is not necessarily less flawed than the current state of religion. In fact, I see many parallels between religion and science. Here are a several:

1) Religion at its core is also the study of reality.
2) Today's religion would also be rediscovere ...[text shortened]... to realizing (or had realized) the true nature of reality. This is true for this age as well.

It seems to me that the current state of science is not necessarily less flawed than the current state of religion.
Science by definition admits it can be flawed. I didn't say science was perfect, or even good. I said we would reach many of the same results we have today if we started from scratch.

1) Religion at its core is also the study of reality.
No it's not. It's an attempt to give an explanation to reality. There's no "study" in religion. But the way it tries to explain reality is closed. Closed explanations don't make sense.

2) Today's religion would also be rediscovered (also with different language and formality).
Maybe we would have similiar religion, but how could we have the same ones? What's intrinsic in reality or in everiday that suggest the current set of gods we have today?

3) Both religion and science are hindered by those seeking wealth, fame, power, etc. instead of truth.
And both science and religion are written with one "N" in english language. So what?

4) Both religion and science have a set core beliefs that are generally regarded as true within their respective domains.
In science there are no beliefs. Set core of beliefs?? Are you crazy? Where? Science always admits it can be wrong. It's the basic of science.

I wont' to the rest of points. You didn't make sense in the whole post. You don't seem to know what science is.
Science and religion are not two alternate viewpoints. One of them is clearly biased... Guess which one.

Originally posted by stoker
i however can not live without my faith, as a quote while i breath i pray.
but agree it is believing without any outward sign of proof, but inward. You say you can live without faith think most people do, but if i am wrong i will not find out, if you are then do not blame anyone else but you if you are in eternal fire and brimstone,

i however can not live without my faith, as a quote while i breath i pray.
And I can't live without chess. Of course you can't live without faith. Millions can, why do you think you are different then them?

if you are then do not blame anyone else but you if you are in eternal fire and brimstone,
Correct. And you are not to blame but yourself if you lived your whole life in an illusion.

Originally posted by serigado
[b]It seems to me that the current state of science is not necessarily less flawed than the current state of religion.
Science by definition admits it can be flawed. I didn't say science was perfect, or even good. I said we would reach many of the same results we have today if we started from scratch.

1) Religion at its core is also the study of e not two alternate viewpoints. One of them is clearly biased... Guess which one.

[/b]You seem to be as close minded toward religion as some religious people are toward science. I hope that you can at least understand that religion as a whole has evolved over the years and continues to evolve. I hope that you can understand that there are a number of religions that continue to evolve within themselves. I hope that you can understand that ultimately both science and religion are about building conceptual models of reality. Would you be surprised if two hundred years from now, people look at science in the early 21st century, shake their heads and say, "Did you know that they actually used to believe that?"? All conceptual models are ultimately 'beliefs'.

You're kidding yourself if you don't recognize that science is also held back by biases collectively as well as those of individuals. The difference is that the timeframes for science are generally much shorter.

Religion would similarly reach many of the same conclusions we have today if we started from scratch.

I was hoping that you'd be able to look at this in terms of overarching themes with a historical perspective, but that seems to have eluded you.

Originally posted by stoker
if i am wrong i will not find out, if you are then do not blame anyone else but you if you are in eternal fire and brimstone,

Not Pascal's Wager again. 😕

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to be as close minded toward religion as some religious people are toward science. I hope that you can at least understand that religion as a whole has evolved over the years and continues to evolve. I hope that you can understand that there are a number of religions that continue to evolve within themselves. I hope that you can understand th ...[text shortened]... s of overarching themes with a historical perspective, but that seems to have eluded you.[/b]

You talk as if a religion was an independent view point.
Religion and Science evolve: I agree.
But religion hasn't got a mechanism of self-critique because it's based on circular logic and on Dogma.
There's no dogma and science, and that's exactly why you can't compare both, even if you really want. Religion can only be a valid view for those who believe it. That's quite reducing.

The only time when I remember Science being held back was when religious men were in power. Now, nothing holds back science. That's why we evolved as much in the last 50 years as in the previous 2000.

But maybe you are mistaking religion with theology. Theology would probably reach similiar conclusion. The religions would never be the same.

And I'm quite open towards religion. But when the basis of same determinate religion is something absurdely stupid, don't expect me to be tolerant towards it. I'll criticize with the same spirit I criticize science. If a stupid theory comes to me, I'll question it until I accept it or refute it.
I'm equally minded towards religion.

Originally posted by serigado
You talk as if a religion was an independent view point.
Religion and Science evolve: I agree.
But religion hasn't got a mechanism of self-critique because it's based on circular logic and on Dogma.
There's no dogma and science, and that's exactly why you can't compare both, even if you really want. Religion can only be a valid view for those who believe ll question it until I accept it or refute it.
I'm equally minded towards religion.

It depends on what you see as the core of religion. From what I can tell, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. all had the concept of giving up the desires of the self for truth, love, justice, compassion, etc. at the core of their teachings. It seems likely that similar teachings would be introduced in the scenario you proposed.

I'm a bit surprised that you don't see how science has its own dogmatic beliefs that hinder it. People, by their nature, are reluctant to change views once they've been strongly formed. I don't see science as being immune to this.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Not Pascal's Wager again. 😕

no idea what you are talking about, i write from my knowledge and experiances, tho i do quote from people i have never met

Originally posted by stoker
no idea what you are talking about, i write from my knowledge and experiances, tho i do quote from people i have never met

Lookup Pascals Wager on Wikipedia and you will discover that you were trying to use what is a fairly well known fallacy.

Why did you say that you would not find out if you were wrong? What makes you so sure that Odin is going to let you off lightly?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It depends on what you see as the core of religion. From what I can tell, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. all had the concept of giving up the desires of the self for truth, love, justice, compassion, etc. at the core of their teachings. It seems likely that similar teachings would be introduced in the scenario you proposed.

I'm a bit surprised ...[text shortened]... change views once they've been strongly formed. I don't see science as being immune to this.

So you admit there's no real objective reasons to choose Christianity to Islam or Hinduism?
Don't you find odd religion comes to answer mens biggest fears and needs? It's seems a little too mundane to me.

Science has no dogmatic beliefs, by definition. Not since it has become independent of religious people who controlled it to their own agenda.
Some people might hold to what are currently the best theories as their own personals viewpoints and make of them their belief. But their against the spirit of science. A scientist NEVER takes anything for sure. Science NEVER takes anything for sure.

Originally posted by serigado
Imagine all people and knowledge were wiped out of the face of the Earth.
Well.. all people except a few children with no memory of what happened and that could give continuity to mankind.
I am sure of these: Today's science would be rediscovered (maybe with different language or formality), and today's religions would never come up again. There would be ...[text shortened]... e. Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives.

"Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives."

Yes many religions say that!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives."

Yes many religions say that!
Kelly

Science is on the right track. Why? Because there's technology.
What verifiable knowledge came from ANY religion? What applications from the religions' study of reality came during thousands of years? By the contrary, it delayed knowledge in the most horrible ways.
Many religion might say so, but none have come up with evidence to sustain it. Science has, all the time.

Originally posted by serigado
Science is on the right track. Why? Because there's technology.
What verifiable knowledge came from ANY religion? What applications from the religions' study of reality came during thousands of years? By the contrary, it delayed knowledge in the most horrible ways.
Many religion might say so, but none have come up with evidence to sustain it. Science has, all the time.

I disagree, religion taught us to live together gave us boundaries in
behaviour that we may not otherwise have had. Given in some areas
of the world humans ate other humans those types of boundries
were a good thing, science teaches nothing along those lines.

With respect to tecnology that is just a tool, nothing more, it is a better
hammer. Science helps us do things in better, it does not lead us as
you suggested in those types of ways, if you want to claim science
as your guide in life, spell out how this is done.
Kelly