Our Universe! What is it?

[rigney]

To say that either religion or science is the only way to think, leaves a person using only half their brain. A scientist such as Steven Hawkins believes that through his knowledge, perseverance, trial and error; there is no secrets of nature that cannot eventually be unlocked by science. A religious person such as Billy Graham, regardless of which faith he espouses, believes that through his faith and belief, he will one day understand the true measure of GOD. Knowing that each of us must eventually die, who has the best shot at immortality? Scientifically, Steven Hawkins has few peers and an undeniable understanding of the cosmos. But is his rationale the ultimate reason as to why there is a universe?

 

On the other hand there’s Billy Graham, a Bible thumping evangelist who for more than six decades has been preaching the gospels . With our knowledge of a far flung universe limited mostly to that small portion in which we live, can it honestly and truthfully be said that Billy Graham in his belief is totally wrong, or is Steven Hawkins in his belief, totally right?

http://www.billygraham.org/specialsections/classics/classics_index.asp

[Phi for All]

To say that either religion or science is the only way to think, leaves a person using only half their brain.

I disagree with your opening premise. It assumes that religion and science are equally valid and I'll tell you why I don't think they are.

 

Personally, I see my "belief system" in three parts. Faith is an unshakeable belief in something that has nothing but that faith to support it as an explanation. In essence, it's believing with all my heart in something I can't possibly know to be true. Faith can cause you to do things based on a belief that has no basis. People have been known to lose everything because their faith guaranteed them a certain outcome. Some Christian Scientists have lost their lives for no reason because they chose faith over known medical procedure.

 

Hope is believing in something that might be true but acknowledging that it might not. I can hope I'll win the lottery but my knowledge of probability would keep me from rushing out and buying a yacht before the drawing.

 

Trust allows me to accept the explanation that has the most evidence to support it. This is what science means to me, accepting that an ongoing search for the best answer is much better than believing something that others hope or have faith is the Truth and never question. Trust is earned every day by being honed and supported and constantly examined, never being held as sacred and unassailable.

 

So no, I don't think religion and science have the same validity. Religion relies on the flimsiest of beliefs, faith, while science earns my trust every day with constant examination and curiosity.

[doG]

Again, religion is about beliefs regardless of the facts and science is about the facts regardless of beliefs. How exactly did the universe come to be? Science says we don't know and is comfortable with that answer. Religion is not comfortable with that answer so it simply makes one up and then believes in it.

[John Cuthber]

A religious person such as Billy Graham, regardless of which faith he espouses, believes that through his faith and belief, he will one day understand the true measure of GOD.

 

Knowing that each of us must eventually die, who has the best shot at immortality?

Billy Graham believes he will understand God, but he may well be mistaken.

If there is no God (and it's not a suggestion you can rule out) the he has spent his whole life learning nothing.

 

If we all die then none of us is immortal so the question is meaningless if taken literally.

If it's taken figuratively, then I think that in a hundred year's time more people will know about Hawking than about Graham.

As Woody Allen said, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it by not dying."

Edited December 2, 2012 by John Cuthber

[rigney]

I disagree with your opening premise. It assumes that religion and science are equally valid and I'll tell you why I don't think they are.

 

Personally, I see my "belief system" in three parts. Faith is an unshakeable belief in something that has nothing but that faith to support it as an explanation. In essence, it's believing with all my heart in something I can't possibly know to be true. Faith can cause you to do things based on a belief that has no basis. People have been known to lose everything because their faith guaranteed them a certain outcome. Some Christian Scientists have lost their lives for no reason because they chose faith over known medical procedure.

 

Hope is believing in something that might be true but acknowledging that it might not. I can hope I'll win the lottery but my knowledge of probability would keep me from rushing out and buying a yacht before the drawing.

 

Trust allows me to accept the explanation that has the most evidence to support it. This is what science means to me, accepting that an ongoing search for the best answer is much better than believing something that others hope or have faith is the Truth and never question. Trust is earned every day by being honed and supported and constantly examined, never being held as sacred and unassailable.

 

So no, I don't think religion and science have the same validity. Religion relies on the flimsiest of beliefs, faith, while science earns my trust every day with constant examination and curiosity.

I can't help but believe a religious and cognicent person wouldn't recognise science for what it is. Only an idiot would deny the reality of pasteurization, penicillin, along with the many vaccines and medical miracles science has developed. Not only that, but just think of the mechanical developements from fire and wigwams, on up through the wheel and on to rocket science.

 

Billy Graham believes he will understand God, but he may well be mistaken.

If there is no God (and it's not a suggestion you can rule out) the he has spent his whole life learning nothing.

 

If we all die then none of us is immortal so the question is meaningless if taken literally.

If it's taken figuratively, then I think that in a hundred year's time more people will know about Hawking than about Graham.

As Woody Allen said, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it by not dying."

Woody had a good philosophy and it would be nice if things worked out that way. Also, we are mortal, what ever that means? But a hundred years from now kids will still be reading amusing fiction written by Mark Twain, called Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

 

Again, religion is about beliefs regardless of the facts and science is about the facts regardless of beliefs. How exactly did the universe come to be? Science says we don't know and is comfortable with that answer. Religion is not comfortable with that answer so it simply makes one up and then believes in it.

I'm no taking sides with any religious philosophy, but isn't there several theories in science as too how the universe began? Edited December 2, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

can it honestly and truthfully be said that Billy Graham in his belief is totally wrong

 

Yes. Yes it can.

 

</thread>

[doG]

...but isn't there several theories in science as too how the universe began?

Sure are. Science theorizes that maybe it happened this way, maybe that way, maybe another. It doesn't claim any of them to be an irrefutable fact the way religion does. Science doesn't do that until there is supporting proof, religion doesn't care about proof. For science, proof is an unavoidable obstacle, for religion it is nothing more than an annoyance that interferes with faith.

[rigney]

Yes. Yes it can.

</thread>

 

I'll not refute your answer, but isn't that a bit short for a cognizant thought to anything?

[rigney]

I disagree with your opening premise. It assumes that religion and science are equally valid and I'll tell you why I don't think they are.

 

I see where you might disagree, but to assume something without question is entirely different. I gave no percentages favoring either Steve or Billy to make such a comparison. To do that you would have to take the world population and break it down into religious and non-religious factions.

 

Personally, I see my "belief system" in three parts. Faith is an unshakeable belief in something that has nothing but that faith to support it as an explanation. In essence, it's believing with all my heart in something I can't possibly know to be true. Faith can cause you to do things based on a belief that has no basis. People have been known to lose everything because their faith guaranteed them a certain outcome. Some Christian Scientists have lost their lives for no reason because they chose faith over known medical procedure.

 

Hope is believing in something that might be true but acknowledging that it might not. I can hope I'll win the lottery but my knowledge of probability would keep me from rushing out and buying a yacht before the drawing.

 

That wouldn't be hope, but stupidity!.

 

Trust allows me to accept the explanation that has the most evidence to support it. This is what science means to me, accepting that an ongoing search for the best answer is much better than believing something that others hope or have faith is the Truth and never question. Trust is earned every day by being honed and supported and constantly examined, never being held as sacred and unassailable.

 

No getting around it, You, I and every living thing on this planet will eventually die. But when our time comes will we have found out all that is to known of the deep secrets of this universe? I very seriosly doubt it. Or will our trust be in the knowledge of others who hopefully will carry on discoveries leading to a higher understanding of it? Steven Hawkins is the best exampel to which I can relate. Here is a guy debilitated for practically his entire adult life. Yet Hawkins believes in what Hawkins rationalizes. If anyone has reason to not believe in a supreme entity, his is certainly among the best. Me, being an agnostic; I wonder, when his time comes to depart this life, will he momentarily hope for something greater the sum of all parts?

 

So no, I don't think religion and science have the same validity. Religion relies on the flimsiest of beliefs, faith, while science earns my trust every day with constant examination and curiosity.

 

Agreed! Science and religion are as dichotomous as crude oil and water. But I wonder, could there be a place sometime in the future where there may be some mutual understanding? And flimsy beliefs? Religion of one faith or another precedes science by thousands of years.

 

 

[Phi for All]

That wouldn't be hope, but stupidity!.

No, faith is stupidity in this scenario. Faith is believing with all your heart that something you can't possibly know about is True, with a capital T. Unwavering faith, something many religious people talk about with pride, is usually belief in things no one can say for certain are true, like the existence of a god, or the outcome of a lottery. It's faith that would tell you you're going to win so go out and order that yacht right now. Hope is wishing for it to be real, for it to happen, but not betting the farm on it.

 

Agreed! Science and religion are as dichotomous as crude oil and water. But I wonder, could there be a place sometime in the future where there may be some mutual understanding? And flimsy beliefs? Religion of one faith or another precedes science by thousands of years.

Religious beliefs keep getting squeezed out of the gaps in our knowledge where they started thousands of years ago. Religion had an answer for why it rained, or why the lightning struck, or why the crops failed. Science began explaining why those things happened in real terms, not some mystical, unobservable deity who was all-powerful but somehow needed you to obey Him, and slowly those gaps in our knowledge replaced religious explanations.

 

One can still hope that perhaps our consciousness may live after our bodies die, but again, hope doesn't require you to bet the farm and change your whole lifestyle in order to live by tenets set up by men who claimed to know what God wants. Hope can give you everything faith gives you without the intellectual dishonesty of fanatical belief in thngs you have no way of knowing are true.

 

Eventually, I hope mankind can realize that faith is what makes people become extremist fanatics of the worst sort, those who can't be reasoned with and who will never listen to anything that tries to shed light on what they hold sacred. Faith is the kind of belief that holds us back from searching for better answers. Faith tells you not to bother, you've already found all your answers.

[rigney]

http://pinterest.com/pin/53339576808270671/Not to disagree with your assessment of human falability, but when looking at the disparity between religious and non-religious people, we have a long way to go in correcting world problems. Good Luck! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

 

Not to disagree with your assessment of human falability, but when looking at the disparity between religious and non-religious people, we have a long way to go in correcting world problems. Good Luck!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

 

Had to jump back into my latest post since a friend left this link a few minutes ago.. I'm not into spontaneity, flash mobs or anything similar, even when it comes to being impromptu. But I do love Christmas Carols. Hell, After looking through all of these crowds I couldn't find a single terrorist, detractor or anyone averse to caroling. or enjoying a happy day in their lives. " Look, Listen and Enjoy"!

http://pinterest.com/pin/53339576808270671/

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/11/29/christmas-holiday-flash-mob-good-people

Edited December 5, 2012 by rigney

[The Flaming Goldfish]

Yes. Yes it can.

</thread>

I'll not refute your answer, but isn't that a bit short for a cognizant thought to anything?

 

Perhaps, but I'll throw my point of view in there. Billy Graham's point of view is that his religion is the only right one, and that to be accepted into heaven, I must accept Jesus as my saviour and such. Where the argument falls down logically is why Christianity is any more "correct" than another religion. If there were evidence for such a thing, it might not be so illogical, but since religion is a matter of faith rather than evidence, it leads to the question of whether any religion is more correct than the others. So I guess in that sense, you could say that yes, his argument is totally wrong from many standpoints.

Edited December 5, 2012 by The Flaming Goldfish

[rigney]

 

Perhaps, but I'll throw my point of view in there. Billy Graham's point of view is that his religion is the only right one, and that to be accepted into heaven, I must accept Jesus as my saviour and such. Where the argument falls down logically is why Christianity is any more "correct" than another religion. If there were evidence for such a thing, it might not be so illogical, but since religion is a matter of faith rather than evidence, it leads to the question of whether any religion is more correct than the others. So I guess in that sense, you could say that yes, his argument is totally wrong from many standpoints.

I'll not disagree with you. My aim was only to make a comparison between Billy and Steven, not cut anything in stone. And religions, there are likely as many as there are languages and dialects. Native American had what you might call tribal religion to the extent that at times, it didn't even reach the next camp area. Statistically, as things stand at the moment it may take another ten to ???? thousands of years to iron out the kinks and ignorance of the situation, If then. And people?. When you try isolating them from their beliefs, regardless of what they might be, you'd better have a pretty good arguement they can understand in order to sway them. And since most people aren't gifted with a scientific mind, it isn't going to be easy. And let's keep the few idiots who constantly stir the sh-t by trying to abolish holidays, at a distance, especially "Christmas", Personally I like all the holidays including Kwanza, Yom Kippur and Jug Day, even though I have no idea what the first two mean?

I just don't want to see any of them go AWOL.

Edited December 5, 2012 by rigney

[PeterJ]

Again, religion is about beliefs regardless of the facts and science is about the facts regardless of beliefs. How exactly did the universe come to be? Science says we don't know and is comfortable with that answer. Religion is not comfortable with that answer so it simply makes one up and then believes in it.

Oh dear. Surely we have developed a more sophisticated understanding of religion than this in the 21st century. It is profoundly insulting when people assume that religious practitioners are all morons. It is also quite amusing to see people arguing for the scientific method by abandoning it. .

 

Re the OP's point - I would say it is absurd to contrast good science and Billy Graham's Christianity, The latter is a minor cult.

 

 

Flaming Goldfish - It is simply not true that religion is a matter of faith rather than evidence. It is profoundly unrigorous to say such a thing. It is true for some people, no doubt, but we cannot generalise from this to the whole of religion. The Christian idea of faith is perfectly sensible, but not in the hands of today's Protestant evangelicals, who have turned this notion into a mockery of its original meaning. For a decent discussion of religion I think we have to ignore the US, where religion seems to have gone off the rails big time in a crash almost a big as the one in Rome all that time ago. .

Edited December 12, 2012 by PeterJ