Religion: Fact and Fantasy

[lofhay]

FACT AND FANTASY

Humans have developed a system for using their minds to distinguish fact from fantasy. We call it science, and it includes math, physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy. Information gathered by these methods can be demonstrated and replicated, always with the same results, unequivocable. We all know from experience that if we have 6 pennies and get 6 more, we will have 12 pennies. And we can unequivocably predict that, if someone takes 3 pennies away, we will have 9 remaining. We have also learned, first in theory and then in practice, how to calculate the amount of thrust energy must be generated by a rocket engine in order to lift XX tons of machinery into orbit and at what speeds necessary to keep it there. We know these things as facts because we have used math, physics or chemistry to demonstrate them repeatedly.

We, these same human beings, find ourselves at odds over ideas which some of us want to call facts, but which do not meet the tests of math, or physics, or chemistry, or demonstration, or replication. We refer to certain ideas as “spiritual”, or “supernatural”, or “holy”, and use this to excuse them from any scientific tests. We do this with God, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddah, Joseph Smith, and others. When we cross the line between science and non-science, we have entered the realm of fantasy.

I find it astounding that educated, informed, brilliant minds can subscribe to fantasy and insist that it is fact--the way we do with religion. If you can convince yourself that things exist for which there is no scientific evidence, then you are susceptible to whatever propaganda (preaching) that others put forth and which may appeal to your fantasy.

[Baraka_Guru]

There are exceptions. For example, interactions and crossovers between psychology and Buddhism have been occurring for a while now. There are many parallels between Buddhist philosophy and approaches to psychology in terms of self-awareness, self-esteem, and our interactions with other people.

The challenge, then, is distinguishing religion from philosophy; namely, applied philosophy, which is what I consider pure Buddhism to be. I'm sure the same can be said about certain approaches to Christianity and Judaism, from what I understand. Also, I wouldn't doubt that there are parallels to other religions as well.

The problem with religion is the dogma. What makes Buddhism stand out is that it's both atheistic and "anti-dogmatic" (for the lack of a better term).

As for finding the middle ground between science and religion, I think it takes a certain level of humility. The function of religion is to help us navigate the world between what is known and what is unknown, whereas the function of science is to seek understanding and knowledge. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and yet the two play different roles in the human mind.

I'm an atheist, but I'm not anti-religious. To be truly humble is to realize that neither religion nor science has all the answers. Life is a process, not a goal.

[lofhay]

Thanks for your input, BG. We do not disagree.

[Sheepy]

.

I understand religion is meant to be more of the 'why' than the what.

For example this question: 'why is there something rather than nothing if nothing is easier than something?

And then there is the question about how why and what way we should behave towards other people that you can't get from science.

For example there is the five pillars of Islam: (1) the shahada (creed), (2) daily prayers (salat), (3) fasting during Ramadan (sawm), (4) almsgiving (zakat), and (5) the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) and this gives a lot of satisfaction to people as people like having certain goals and instructions for everyday life. ( i'm not defending it, but just stating the way it is.)

With Buddhism though... there are some SERIOUS problems when it comes to dealing with ethics. You can't argue with Buddhism why certain tyrants should be taken out of power. It states life is all round a painful experience and only escapable through enlightenment And enlightenment has the idea of un realness, seeing ourselves outside our bodies. Yet to someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. Also in some ways it justifies poverty. We are all born into our positions due to previous life - so there fore it is acceptable to be alright with why children are born into starving and sick families. Wasn't Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child? That certainly will make for happiness for all around the world.

ect ect ect. * But if you could defend all these statements Baraka reasonably then i think Buddhism would be great!

( Personally i find Presbyterianism a very satisfying denomination of Christianity )

"Presbyterians generally exhibit their faith in action as well as words, by generosity, hospitality, and the constant pursuit of social justice and reform, as well as proclaiming the gospel of Christ." Wooh! GO JESUS~

[Willravel]

Religious people, generally speaking, don't believe what they believe because they've been convinced by a long and incredibly consistent line of scientific evidence. There are some apologists out there who do believe in God because of the evidence, but I'm fairly sure they're in the minority. It's about a lot of other things. For some, it's about community. For some, it's about a connection to history. For some, it's about a sense of belonging. For some, it's about ritual and tradition. For some, it's about hope. For some, it's hate. It's a huge combination of things for different people.

I've been an internet atheist ® for going on 5 years now. I've not only been out, but I've actively sought out religious discussions to try and understand religion better from an outside perspective. I'm even an admin of one of the more popular atheist forums, so I'm sure you can imagine that I get to talk about this a lot. While some theists get trapped into arguing the facts and are at a disadvantage, most of them don't. There's a particular epistemological theory known as fideism, for example, which is extremely popular in Christianity. It asserts that faith can be and in fact is wholly independent of reason. Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, once said something like, "Reason is the greatest enemy faith has." By taking this philosophical position, one creates a sort of different perspective on reality, a perspective in which reason is incapable of achieving certain kinds of truth, namely religious truth. I don't find this personally compelling, but it makes arguments of the kind you mount difficult to say the least.

Let me offer you some advice: don't worry about what other people believe. By all means, be concerned about what others say and do, but if what they believe doesn't hurt you, you're probably just wasting your energy trying to argue with them.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Sheepy

With Buddhism though... there are some SERIOUS problems when it comes to dealing with ethics. You can't argue with Buddhism why certain tyrants should be taken out of power. It states life is all round a painful experience and only escapable through enlightenment And enlightenment has the idea of un realness, seeing ourselves outside our bodies. Yet to someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. Also in some ways it justifies poverty. We are all born into our positions due to previous life - so there fore it is acceptable to be alright with why children are born into starving and sick families. Wasn't Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child? That certainly will make for happiness for all around the world.

Ha, nice. Should we also criticize psychology because Freud and what they did in the 60s and 70s?

Also, I think you have a somewhat misconstrued idea of Buddhism and its approaches to suffering and poverty, but I don't want to threadjack.

Generally speaking, for the purposes of this thread, Buddhism is worth looking at because its approach involves observation and awareness, rather than dogma, ritual, and superstition. That is, if you focus on the core aspects, rather than the, um, ritualized aspects. You know, the way Buddha suggests.

[Sheepy]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Ha, nice. Should we also criticize psychology because Freud and what they did in the 60s and 70s?

Also, I think you have a somewhat misconstrued idea of Buddhism and its approaches to suffering and poverty, but I don't want to threadjack.

Generally speaking, for the purposes of this thread, Buddhism is worth looking at because its approach involves observation and awareness, rather than dogma, ritual, and superstition. That is, if you focus on the core aspects, rather than the, um, ritualized aspects. You know, the way Buddha suggests.

I would really enjoy for you to enlighten (ahhh see what i did there? haha ) me about my mis constructed idea of Buddhism as it's the only way i can learn!

I think it's worth looking at that i am sure. I think all religions, monothiestic or not are worth looking at.

@lofhay I wouldn't call it a line between science and non-science but science and where science can't be applied too, which is namely our theologies or life before and after death. I don't find it surprising, everyone is their own theologian, a theology that you should only believe in what you can apply scientific evidence too is still a theology.

This is one of my favorite quotes ~ "[Credo ut intelligam] “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand."

I'm not sure if it would be thread jacking as all the OP has done is made statements. Straight away it will become an argument rather than the discussion as there is no questions put forward which can be discussed only a personal view.

[thermight1]

Originally Posted by lofhay

FACT AND FANTASY

Humans have developed a system for using their minds to distinguish fact from fantasy. We call it science, and it includes math, physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy. Information gathered by these methods can be demonstrated and replicated, always with the same results, unequivocable. We all know from experience that if we have 6 pennies and get 6 more, we will have 12 pennies. And we can unequivocably predict that, if someone takes 3 pennies away, we will have 9 remaining. We have also learned, first in theory and then in practice, how to calculate the amount of thrust energy must be generated by a rocket engine in order to lift XX tons of machinery into orbit and at what speeds necessary to keep it there. We know these things as facts because we have used math, physics or chemistry to demonstrate them repeatedly.

.

There are actually categories of science. The ideas that are being used as examples above are operational science. And in these cases operational science is sound and repeatable.

It is the other areas of science (hypothetical and theoretical) that can not be repeated that then require faith to believe in the same as a belief in religion. While the narrative we are taught is that science has all the answers when you really dig in an examine all the facts you find plenty of holes. For example, the origin of life. In the Miller Urey experiment science recreated the conditions of early earth and formed amino acids. If we take for granted the experiment was sound (there are questions about some of their starting conditions), we still are left with several problems that science then creates a narrative to explain. Even with a pile of amino acids there is no mechanism to join them in a meaningful way that would create a working gene. Given the assumption that over enough time and chance (and ignoring entropy) a gene was assembled, what then reads the gene? You get into a case of irreducible complexity. There is a level of faith in chance required to believe that all the right conditions came together for life to begin.

It then comes down to a personal choice. Do you put your faith in science or God? A measure of faith is required for both.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Sheepy

I would really enjoy for you to enlighten (ahhh see what i did there? haha ) me about my mis constructed idea of Buddhism as it's the only way i can learn!

I think it's worth looking at that i am sure. I think all religions, monothiestic or not are worth looking at.

[...]

I'm not sure if it would be thread jacking as all the OP has done is made statements. Straight away it will become an argument rather than the discussion as there is no questions put forward which can be discussed only a personal view.

Fair enough. I'll be straight to the point.

A misunderstanding of Buddhism often leads people to believe that it is either pessimistic or world-denying (or anti-materialistic). This isn't the case.

First, addressing the approach to suffering, Buddha teaches that we can overcome our suffering through enlightenment. But he does not indicate that we can "escape" suffering. Enlightenment is a way to deal with suffering. He further teaches that those who are enlightened should refrain from positioning themselves above the diseased and miserable masses, and instead remain to teach others about the path that would lead them to overcome their misery as well. These enlightened ones who remain among us to teach us the way are called specifically Bodhisattvas, rather than simply Buddhas.

Enlightenment isn't to deny or reject our bodily existence to avoid the misery of the world; it isn't to dissolve our bodies into a kind of godlike mind-existence; it is to overcome our attachment to our bodies as a kind of ownership. Life as its very nature is impermanence. Enlightenment involves being awake to this fact at all moments as a way to let go of worldly delusion regarding our craving for life and pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

Second, Buddha teaches that wealth is something that can be used to prevent ourselves from being a burden on others, though he did warn elaborately against formulating emotional attachments to material things.

The reincarnation aspect of Buddhist thought refers more to karma, which is our burden of suffering as it relates to our actions in life. The idea of previous lives is a kind of meditation on the source of misery. It helps us explain the depths of interconnectedness in the universe and how our actions both positive and negative have direct consequences, whether to our own minds or to others.

The idea of reincarnation as a kind of excuse, reason, or justification for poverty and suffering sounds more like the logic found in such works at The Secret by Rhonda Byrne, which, as it happens, tends to hold ideas opposite that of Buddhism. Buddhism is a philosophy that recognizes awareness and the action of cause and effect. This is why it is called an applied philosophy. Buddhism isn't just about meditation and "mindwork"; at its core is a realization of the importance of action or inaction, with regard to compassion vs. violence, etc.

If you take the practical aspects of Buddhism, you can easily see why those in the field of psychology have an interest in it. You may have heard of recent approaches to the "science of happiness." Buddhism has been analyzed as one means of reaching towards this goal.

[Mantus]

Originally Posted by lofhay

FACT AND FANTASY
I find it astounding that educated, informed, brilliant minds can subscribe to fantasy and insist that it is fact--the way we do with religion. If you can convince yourself that things exist for which there is no scientific evidence, then you are susceptible to whatever propaganda (preaching) that others put forth and which may appeal to your fantasy.

You give humans too much credit Lofhay. The educated, informed and brilliant minds are outliers. Even if they poses those traits there is no guarantee they'll be rational.

[Sheepy]

Thank you Baraka for giving me a decent overview! i'll look into it more and probably be back with more questions.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by lofhay

FACT AND FANTASY


... We, these same human beings, find ourselves at odds over ideas which some of us want to call facts, but which do not meet the tests of math, or physics, or chemistry, or demonstration, or replication. We refer to certain ideas as “spiritual”, or “supernatural”, or “holy”, and use this to excuse them from any scientific tests. We do this with God, ...

That is right, God is not a material entity--no size, shape, color, weight, charge, etc. You are comfortable with calling God fantasy, other people are comfortable with calling God spiritual reality. What is wrong with this?

Religion = Theism + many other things.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

[Strange Famous]

Science does not in any sense differentiate between "fact" and "fantasy"

It differentiates between propositions which are "currently proven" and "not proved"

Science cannot tell us anything about the material reality of religion other than it is not proved by existing science.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Fantasy can't be proven by science, right?
Science & religion are the twins of fantasy.
God doesn't involve itself, just us, as us.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Science does not in any sense differentiate between "fact" and "fantasy"

It differentiates between propositions which are "currently proven" and "not proved"

Science cannot tell us anything about the material reality of religion other than it is not proved by existing science.

I know what you mean by "currently proven." But I prefer the terms like "accepted" or "validated," while talking about science. In my vocabulary, the term proof is reserved to logic, as used, for example, by mathematicians. To prove something means to demonstrate that it logically follows from axioms, and from already proven theorems.

Scientists, like many others, also use logic. But their methods of validation are based on experiments and observations, not on logic. Not everything that is logically correct (theoretically predicted) is automatically accepted as truth, in science.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.

---------- Post added at 10:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 PM ----------

P.S.
Theologians, by the way, also validate their claims "by logic only," not by experimental data, like scientists. That is why I think that theology is closer to mathematics than to science. Theological axioms are statements found in holy books. New claims logically consistent with holy books are accepted as valid.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Dumbfounded, kowalskil, I'm extremely interested in why you consider mathematics not a science. Is it because it is the basis of sciences like a concept of god is the basis of its worship?

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

Dumbfounded, kowalskil, I'm extremely interested in why you consider mathematics not a science.

Because the methods of validation in mathematics are not the same as in science.

Is it because it is the basis of sciences like a concept of god is the basis of its worship?

That question is not clear to me. Please explain.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

But science uses math to validate its observations, as theology uses its base concepts to justify its behavior. Sorry, I don't do calculus, I was just thinking math might be science's god. Please tell me more about the methods of validation that math uses.

[Willravel]

Religion's base concepts are not internally consistent or testable like mathematics. I'm afraid I don't see the connection.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

My connection was through questioning theology's being like math. Perhaps kowalskil will explain that statement, & you know me; I'll either backpedal or forge ahead. The facts behind religion are quite fantastic to me as well as you, Will.

[Sheepy]

Here's a really interesting video about how this scientist has been getting a lot of buzz recently as he talks about how he can explain God through quantum physics.

YouTube - Present! - Amit Goswami (Part One) a Quantum View of God

YouTube - Present! - Amit Goswami (Part One) a Quantum View of God

(sec part

YouTube - Present! - Amit Goswami, Ph.D. (Part Two) Quantum Physics and God

YouTube - Present! - Amit Goswami, Ph.D. (Part Two) Quantum Physics and God

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

But science uses math to validate its observations, as theology uses its base concepts to justify its behavior. Sorry, I don't do calculus, I was just thinking math might be science's god. Please tell me more about the methods of validation that math uses.

Mathematicians accept axioms (self evident truths) and use logic to prove theorems. Illustration can be found in any elementary geometry textbook. To validate means to prove.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

---------- Post added at 12:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Science does not in any sense differentiate between "fact" and "fantasy"

It differentiates between propositions which are "currently proven" and "not proved"

I agree. But my personal preference would be to replace "proven" and "proved" by "accepted." Why? Because I use the term "proof" in mathematics only. But I know that others use it in other situations (legal, scientific, theological, etc.).

Science cannot tell us anything about the material reality of religion other than it is not proved by existing science.

Yes again, provided the word "religion" is replaced by the word "God." Why? Because, as I already wrote, religion = theism + many other things. A church, or a holy book, are components of "parts of reality of religion." No one question their material existence.

But you are right, "science cannot tell us anything about the material reality of" God.

Sorry for being picky. But sometimes it helps.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Religion's base concepts are not internally consistent or testable like mathematics. I'm afraid I don't see the connection.

1) Similarity is in reliance on axioms. An axiom is said to be "self-evident" truth. Axioms are accepted without tests.

2) This similarity, between theology and mathematics, exists among many differences.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

...so the reason you wanted to say that math is more similar to theology than science is because it accept axioms? May I posit math has nothing to do with theology?

[lofhay]

To me, proof is the act of producing evidence which cannot be refuted and can be readily accepted by any objective observer. Any so-called evidence which rests only upon what other men have written (all holy books) can be easily refuted and is not convincing to an inquiring mind. All unproven concepts, whether religious or not, must remain in the realm of fantasy. It is erroneous and misleading to call them facts.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Shared fantasies become facts in the minds of their believers...

[Sheepy]

@ lofhay - does the number '0' exist?

With your method of accepting proof lofhay, we would go about doubting existence and reality of nearly 99% of every moment of our lives and frankly thats just not really livable. Many people would claim the only thing you could every accept with that theory is ' it thinks, therefore it is.' And it ends there.

With The Bible, the most powerful proofs of it is not so much the evidence inside of it but the questions it raises.

1) Presuming the bible is all fantasy and false, why on earth would the people who helped contribute and publish it sacrifice their lives for it? They know it's bullshit so why waste such a great part of their lives devoted for it in constant persecution and danger? Lets say you made up the story of Santa for entertainment for your kids, you know its false, so then why would you then deny you did even at the face a terrible death? How did Jesus, born out of nowhere in one of the lowest classes manage to convince people in their thousands to the point they changed their whole lives to follow his teachings? Why did so many of his teachings involve being charitable Were did he come up with ideas so convincing and such a powerful philosophy that the whole western world would then decide to establish their whole foundations on it for thousands of years? Why did he die for them since he personally knew they were rubbish?

You get a mix of queer answers such as: He was insane/but really intellect/though really sinister/He was actually a dozen people in one/Discovered a secret mind control technique/ was really an alien/ put there from the future by American government to control the world/.



These are the types of questions that an inquiring mind would wonder.

[dlish]

Originally Posted by lofhay

To me, proof is the act of producing evidence which cannot be refuted and can be readily accepted by any objective observer. Any so-called evidence which rests only upon what other men have written (all holy books) can be easily refuted and is not convincing to an inquiring mind. All unproven concepts, whether religious or not, must remain in the realm of fantasy. It is erroneous and misleading to call them facts.

that should stand for all theories. religious or otherwise.

any scientific concept about the universe, the black hole, darwinism should be put to the litmus test as much any any religious theory, should it not?

[Baraka_Guru]

Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the absolutist stance that all unproven concepts should remain in the realm of fantasy.

Ethics is full of "unproven concepts." That doesn't mean we should abolish human rights codes.

Science doesn't prove its theories like mathematics does. This doesn't mean there isn't any value, or that they are simply flights of fancy. Besides, not all aspects of all holy books are "easily refutable." It's futile to attempt to refute parables.

[lofhay]

I have not said that fantasy and theory have not place in our considerations, only that it becomes misleading when they are not admitted as fantasy and are presented as facts.

And. Sheepy, you are right in that the questions you raise are those which an inquiring mind asks. My position is that there are no answers to most of them, and to pretend that there are answers is like believing that you will have bad luck if you walk under a ladder. In short, we must learn to live with the idea that (1) we don't know, and (2) if we act as if we knew, we are risking being misled--about anything, theology, ethics, etc.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Originally Posted by Sheepy

Why did he die for them since he personally knew they were rubbish?

He cared. It's not like he suicided.

[urville]

Originally Posted by Sheepy

1) Presuming the bible is all fantasy and false, why on earth would the people who helped contribute and publish it sacrifice their lives for it? They know it's bullshit so why waste such a great part of their lives devoted for it in constant persecution and danger? Lets say you made up the story of Santa for entertainment for your kids, you know its false, so then why would you then deny you did even at the face a terrible death? How did Jesus, born out of nowhere in one of the lowest classes manage to convince people in their thousands to the point they changed their whole lives to follow his teachings? Why did so many of his teachings involve being charitable Were did he come up with ideas so convincing and such a powerful philosophy that the whole western world would then decide to establish their whole foundations on it for thousands of years? Why did he die for them since he personally knew they were rubbish?

Being a Catho-Deist, I'm only providing an answer because i can see the argument, I dont necessarily support this position.

The simple answer is control.

Like the rapture guy, it serves your purpose to control if your method, the history, and the accompanying book is/are ones in which its hard to deny the message, even as you blasphemy it. This happens all the time. God loves everyone and is compassionate but hates gays and wants us to kill them all, but not babies! Even out of rape or if we could prove they were gay. Now thats obviously the most extreme and hyperbolic case there, but I believe it does stand true to the test of history. The point is that the message and materials are so good, that even as they are used incorrectly they are clung to by the follower and yet still followed by those that correctly understand ti all at once. Their all in line with this moral construct even if some are outside of it, their fervor for it guarantees that they otherwise are are doing what it tells them to.

The rest of your questions, well... i couldnt tell you. I'm not sure it matters really.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

It matters, really, because religion is a security blanket we use to keep us warm & to snap others with. God is an idea as destructive as some of our others. Taken as a fact, great structures get erected & those who believe differently die. Or kill. Also historically true. Nothing gets accomplished by those who believe nothing, but when the service of good requires destruction, it has no defense.

[urville]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

It matters, really, because religion is a security blanket we use to keep us warm & to snap others with. God is an idea as destructive as some of our others. Taken as a fact, great structures get erected & those who believe differently die. Or kill. Also historically true. Nothing gets accomplished by those who believe nothing, but when the service of good requires destruction, it has no defense.

Oh I just meant why jesus died for us when he knew we were fallable, does it really matter, in my own opinion, not really.

There is an argument that morals are far more dangerous than ethics, i suppose. Morals are subjective to the belief and the believer and often as is the case with religions, open to debate and interpretation. but modern religion is centered so heavily on the punishment and the suffering and very specific rules and the exact wording of prayers, etc. I dont really believe in all that. if you take a religion like Christianity, and you take all the man out of it, because he cant be trusted, your left I think in my opinion, with the golden rule, which is good advice for just about anyone.

I guess the question really is: how do you prove or disprove something that true or not, was designed to be unprovable? Especially if it is true, the being in question is omniscient.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

If the being in question is a fantasy, its omniscience can't matter. If I was willing to die for you, would that matter to you? Would it matter less if you knew I can't be trusted?

[urville]

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

If the being in question is a fantasy, its omniscience can't matter. If I was willing to die for you, would that matter to you? Would it matter less if you knew I can't be trusted?

Well yeah... my point was that its still made either way to be unprovable. If its true, hes omniscient and you cant prove it. If its not true it was still made to be unprovable and until some point you get the ability, not now, you still cant prove it.

Sure, it would matter to me if you were willing to die for me.I dont think I can explain this in a way that will make sense. For a non believer/doubter, it just doesnt matter. to me, for a believer, what matters is what you do with it.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

I don't think I can explain anything in a way that makes sense to anyone else, much less prove it. I think all religions are fantasies. Facts are observable. I would die for my offspring. I wish (?!) a believer would weigh in, or we're whistling Dixie.

[chinese crested]

Ido believe, I do believe, I do believe in fairies! (And dont you dare say otherwise or one will die!)

[lofhay]

thermight1 said:

"It is the other areas of science (hypothetical and theoretical) that can not be repeated that then require faith to believe in the same as a belief in religion"

In my opinion, hypotheses and theories are where the scientific process begins; but when they cannot be replicated and demonstrated with the same results each time, they are no longer relevant to the scientific process. They are discarded. Faith, or believing something which cannot be proved using proper testing methods, has nothing to do with science. It is mere fantasy.

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz1OhlbGp43

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Hell & damnation, lofhay! Belief is a fact. It doesn't necessarily produce the results it expects, but if one expects to attack it effectively, dismissal doesn't work. Violence also only breeds more. I don't disagree with your belief that results that can't be replicated are discarded by those who don't, but are you sure you're not being unnecessarily harsh?