As I said in the other thread, religion by it's nature is unprovable. The early alchemists were almost considered to be a religion of thier own. Now thier "religion" is current science. If it is ever proved, then it is no longer a religion. So no, religion cannot be proved, because if it is proved, then it is maundane in a religious sence - it is non religious, so it can have no impact on the religious argument.
Fixed ideas are like a cramp in the foot - the best remedy against it is to tread on it.
-Søren Kierkegaard
It is not easy to reach such a stage of intelligence as us. The brain underwent massive evolution to form the modern day human one. Apparently, a more capable brain is not needed for other animals, or else the species have not yet recieved an organism with the mutation of such a progress yet.Quote by: Flip Jackson
Why do you say it's "unecessary"? On the contrary, it would seem to be an integral feature of intelligence, and therefore very necessary.
May I ask how you've reached the assumption that only humans are sentient?
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
-- Thomas Jefferson
http://rationalidealism.wordpress.com/
Perhaps sentient is the wrong word. For some reason when I hear sentient, I think of people. I think of how people able to cooperate and advance intellectually, technologically, scientifically, and all the othwer ways.
It just seems so odd that our race would rise above all the others and have such an advanced form of thinking and collective growth. We almost seem out of place. I just wonder why our race would need to eveolve the way we did to survive, or way no other race has achieved a similar mutation.
I say "unecessary" because a species doesn't need thinking and sentiency to survive. They only need instinct. We could have survived easily without forming the intelligence that we have, but for some reason we did and no other animal seems to be remotely near our capabilities, even though some are more advanced than others.
Seeing as how most other animals live in harmony with their environment, kill only what they need to survive and have existed thousands of years longer than homo sapiens, perhaps we're not intelligent in any truely meaningfull way. After all, we're the ones who have decided we're so smart. Objective criteria may lead to a different conclusion.no other animal seems to be remotely near our capabilities, even though some are more advanced than others.
The Forum Rules
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
[John F. Kennedy]
The principal value of debate lies in the development of logical thought processes, and the ability to articulate your positions publicly.
[Senator Dick Clark of Iowa]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
[Terry Pratchett]
Ha, you have got me there. We haven't really made life better for all the other animals, have we?
What I meant was the way we learn and grow as a species instead of each for himself.
I don't agree with your assertion that no other animal has capabilities "remotely near" our own. Animals such as chimpanzees have a complex social life, full of traditions and learned behaviors. While I agree there is a clear difference, you should know that animal behaviorists (and human ones) are learning new things all the time and developing new theories that blast away old paradigms.
You are right that these are currently unexplained questions. But that's the whole point of science -- to extend our understanding of the universe. People have been throwing up their hands and saying "God did it!" all throughout history. Luckily, scientists have ignored the dissents and continued their unbroken history of finding perfectly natural explanations for things previously assumed to be God's work.
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
-- Thomas Jefferson
http://rationalidealism.wordpress.com/
I am not one of those people that throws up my hands and says "God did it!" I say He did it, but then I wan t to know how. I believe in some "supernatural" concepts, but I know that science explains reality as we understand it. I am all for learning more about people, animals, and the world we live in. But I don't think these sciences have ever really given me reason not to believe.
Now you are not being completely honest. It is not as if there is any good reason to believe in your particular god either. It is not as if the reasons you have for belief in your particular god are any better or worse than the reasons given for other gods that you lack a belief in.
Starboy
Ah, but you can't know that for sure. For all you know, God came down and told me who He is and what He's like. You don't know all of my reasoning, therefore you cannot make the judgement against me that you have.
Am I being honest? Heck yeah I am. I might keel oevr and die from a guilty conscience if I knew that I was practicing a belief that I had absolutely no reason for. You don't know the kind of person I am. I hardly lack the capacity to lie.
Do I know everything? Of course not. I know what I have been exposed to and what I have studied. I have looked at my religion and many others and have many good reasons for choosing the one that I have. Now, if I think I have the right answer, how much more should I look? Rest assured, I will continue to look at other religions to see what they are about, but this is the best I have seen, and I have good reasons for choosing my belief over others.
So how about we play nice, and stop pretending we know what Flip Jackson is all about?
This contradicts your earlier implication that science fails to completely explain the universe.
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
-- Thomas Jefferson
http://rationalidealism.wordpress.com/
I see no contradiction.
This is what I think. Science cannot disprove religion because religion doesn't explain how anything happened, it only explains what happened. Science is used to explain how. The two complement each other.
I think in their purest forms science and religion will go perfectly hand in hand. Thus the importance of learning both of them. Just saying "God di it!" is lazy. But there is nothing wrong with saying God did it and then trying to the best of our ablitly to find out how.
Now, one thing I might have said is that science isn't always right, which is why I am hesitant to trust new findings. I change my scientific beliefs as new evidence is accumulated, but I trust my relgious doctrines because they won't change on me. If my religion says I shouldn't drink wine, then I won't no matter what science says about how wine in small amounts can be good for you. Maybe that is true, but maybe there is another reason for the commandment.
Look, I don't know everything. But if every time I did what science said was "good for me," I might be dead right now. Science is an amazing tool, but we can't place all our trust in it because it keeps changing and finding its own errors. I prefer something more reliable that I have seen the positive effects of.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks