* Posts by Allen

3 posts • joined 27 Feb 2007

James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son


The Limits of Science, let's be honest

OK, my gander is up. First of all, why are so many people posting here making absurdly sterotypical assumptions about those not of their own mindset, ie ("maybe we all just need to start beleaving in our selves for a change and stop letting Religion and Governments do all of our thinking for us") Speak for yourself my friend, because I doubt that anyone on this comment board is letting government and religion or science do all the thinking for them.

In response to Paul, science is not and has not disproved the Bible, unless you believe in a STRICT LITERAL interpretation (as I said in an earlier post, the Catholic Church, for instance does not teach that view). And saying that most people have faith because it is easier than looking for explanations shows that you are either ignorant of (or have forgotten) that many people struggle with religion before becoming believers and even then can often be plagued with doubts. True Religion is not easy!

Also it would be just as easy to say that irreligious people are lemmings. They go along with what modern education crams down their throats because it is easier than contemplating the idea that their actions and lives may have greater significance or that their way of life may require drastic change.

Paul, do you BELIEVE in gravity? It is just a THEORY, but maybe a really good one, good enough to bet your life on. Your reasoning is also flawed namely, FACTS do not presuppose proof. A fact is something that exists. If bigfoot exists he is a fact whether you believe it or not. If GOD exists, that is a FACT whether you can prove it or not (P.S. Many intellegent people believe that God's existence can be prove--Check out St. Anselm for starters.) Again, you don't have to prove something for it to be a fact.

Entertaining for the moment that the idea of God is a THEORY, similarly the idea of materialism (ie that only the physical world exists) is a THEORY. Science cannot prove that ONLY the material world existence. Quite to the contrary, science is limited to the physical world. Science oversteps its boundaries when it thinks it can speak of miracles (which, by definition, interrupt the everyday order of the natural world). I would encourage everyone to seriously come to grips with the limits of science in "disproving" religion.

Finally, to all those who find great hope in Mr. Cameron's documentary, read up on the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. This is a case where science seems to be proving religion. Believe it or not, you should still consider the possibility, after all we wouldn't want to be CLOSE-MINDED would we? And for all those who would rush to the "Church conspiracy theory" argument, don't be so naive to think that it can't work the other way around (as in the Cameron documentary).


Re: An Opinion and hmmm

I think one of the biggest reasons that unbelievers get upset over these types of topics is that they assume certain "basic facts of reality" while missing some critical thinking. If you think the statement "there is no God" is a basic fact of reality, then you miss the FACT that God's existence or non-existence cannot be proven by science. (Indeed, one of the flaws of modern science is that it does not know its own limitations, or that it ignores them.)

Cameron, for someone who does not believe in the strict literal interpretation of the Bible (and Roman Catholics fall into this category), none of the biblical claims that have, according to you, been disproven constitute articles of faith. I would be interested if you could name one true article of faith that you think science has disproven. Also, the thought that evolution will rid the world of religion is a bit obtuse. What if certain religious beliefs constitute non-genetic (environmental) evolutionary advantages? (Which families tend to have more offspring, religious or athiest/agnostic?)

Jay, I think you make some very fine points that are quite pertinent to this discussion. Those sceptical of religion often point to "facts" and may not want to follow your train of logic because it is not "science," that is, physical science. One of the great fallacies of our age is the BELIEF/assumption that all facts can be known by science or, in other words, that if something is outside the "normal" realm of science, it cannot be factual. The post-modern skeptic's response is also slipshod: make a cute joke about a topic we don't think is serious. Unfortunately for them, this does not make the topic any less serious.


Re: hmmm

If you believe the Bible is OBVIOUSLY BS, be careful as this could belie some brainwashing (or stupidity) on your part.

A good lesson in argument is that saying "it's obvious" is never the best way of proving a point. In fact, it doesn't prove anything, saying so simply ASSUMES that what you are trying to prove is already proven.

On this note, DNA evidence could never PROVE whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. At some point, belief is required either way. You either BELIEVE he did or BELIEVE he didn't.

Also, do you really think that people preaching Jesus' ressurection were not considered crazy 2000 years ago? It's a radical idea that requires faith. It also requires not assuming that the physical world is all there is, which, again, is an ASSUMPTION that cannot be PROVEN (or DISPROVEN) by the senses and reason alone.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020