What's Your Religion and Why?

I don’t believe in any god or religion seeking to have a relationship with said gods.

So why jump into a thread titled ‘What’s your religion and why?’

Because it can be both fun and instructive to stir the pot from time-to-time.

1 Like

Yeah, I had the week off from the gym… so I’v had a little extra time in my day. Usually, I don’t even pay any attention to the Politics and World Issues threads. I don’t care what people believe… but I did find myself keen on folks understanding the difference between science and religion… but I found very quickly that is a lost cause.

That thread is about as one-sided as it gets (at least through the first 200 posts). Although it is always fun to see @smh23 destroy arguments. I’ve never been on the receiving end of one of his rants, so maybe that is why I still enjoy it.

It is amazing to see how even when something is plainly laid out minds aren’t changed from the people involved, but I certainly learn more after hearing both sides. Particularly if one side makes a strong case.

1 Like

Indeed. He is brilliant at that type of arguing. Yet no Flying Spaghetti Monster believers minds were changed

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/cat-sci.html

159 Faith and science : “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” (Dei Filius 4: DS 3017) “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” (GS 36 ’ 1)

1 Like

Thanks Puff, I’ll add it to the list of books I need to make it through in addition to the ones I have from the recommended reading thread. I don’t always have time for fun reading so its slow going but I appreciate the recommendation.

1 Like

@Drew1411 @anon71262119

My faith increases as ‘science’ unravels the universe.

An interesting book from former atheist turned author Lee Strobel is
The Case for a Creator.

Not into apologetics personally, but there are interesting views from scientists here.
.

2 Likes

Just to emphasize a couple of points I’ve attempted to make in this thread:

God and Science Part 1.Science is utterly mute on the subject of the existence of God.
Although I am aware that there have been highly-qualified scientists who were/are outspoken atheists, I would point out that, scientifically speaking, they’re talking through their hats–that is, they have no scientific grounds for denying the existence of God. After all, God is (by definition) a supranatural entity, existing beyond the limits of material and natural law. Given this, by what lights could science (which deals strictly in materialistic, natural-law-governed phenomena) possibly make a positive statement concerning the non-existence of God? Now, a scientist could say ‘There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God,’ and that is true. But the lack of evidence for something cannot be construed as evidence that the thing in question doesn’t exist. Or put more succinctly: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

God and Science Part Deaux. God can play no role in scientific theorizing.
Two of the bedrock assumptions of science–call them ‘articles of faith’ if you like–are that the universe is wholly materialistic (ie, made of corporeal ‘stuff’), and the universe is wholly and solely governed by natural law. Without exception, all scientific theorizing must be consistent with these assumptions. This means that any non-corporeal and/or non-natural-law-based concepts (e.g., an ‘Intelligent Designer’) are disqualified qua science out-of-hand. Now, does that mean such concepts are wrong? Of course not. All it means is they cannot be employed as explanatory mechanisms in a scientific accounting of phenomena.

2 Likes

I agree, and I’ve been guilty of that in the past. I chose that phrase because declaring yourself an atheist will usually stir the pot on its own, even if that wasn’t your intention.

The fun and instructive part comes from gaining a deeper understanding of other people’s point of view, and hopefully helping other people understand my point of view a little better.

1 Like

I have always been very impressed with Mormon’s social work and charity. Really with their overall sense of community, something that many Catholic parishes have lost. My priest had a homily where he talked about not being a “drive through Catholic.” The type of church goer that comes to mass, gets his weekly dose of God, but never engages with other parishioners or becomes part of the church community. This is something I fall victim to and I have to remind myself that I’m not stopping in for burgers.

1 Like

Was not implying that. Again, don’t care what people believe or their reasons, I was just having a discussion with a couple individuals on here whom were using science in the wrong way.

1 Like

Not sure why you replied to my comment with this. I’m not debating the existence of a god with anyone here. I think this has been said several times already, but faith and evidence are entirely two different thing. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called “faith,” it would be called evidence. Once again, don’t care what people believe… just confused why this is such a difficult concept to understand. No one used the scientific method to discover god, but it was used to discover the speed of light. Two separate methods of discovery.

1 Like

Do you consider charities like The Red Cross or Doctors without Borders, or really any large charity with no explicitly stated religious affiliation, “secular groups”? Surely you dont think they “go their own way when times get tough” ?

I am 100% certain you didnt mean to demean their contributions or trivialize what they do, but to imply that secular/non-religious people do not sacrifice and contribute in a meaningful way when times get hard is a bit mistaken in my view.

Again, I’m sure you did not mean any malice with that statement and were likely referring to analogues to a Church (of which, admittedly, there aren’t really any “atheist churches”), but its a bit short sighted to say that because we dont have physical buildings and meet up once a week we dont contribute.

I’m not trying to debate as to the existence of God either. I posted it so you can understand what we (Catholics anyway) believe and to be less confused about why. Reread the quote I posted from the Catechism 159 Faith and Science. It concedes that faith and reason are not the same thing, but are more complementary than contradictory.

Read what she posted in context.

I don’t want to put words in Puff’s mouth, but charities don’t come to mind from this paragraph. Rather collectivist groups with the socialist model based on force instead of voluntarism.

BTW, the Red Cross does have it’s roots as a Christian charity. “Red Cross,” is pretty specific.

For those who favor a strictly voluntary approach to charity, may I recommend Oliver Twist.

The values for the four fundamental forces of: Gravity, Electromagnetic, Strong Nuclear and Weak Nuclear were determined less than a millionth of a second after the big bang.
If you were to alter one of those fundamental forces a tiny amount the Universe as we know would not exist.

I’m not saying it was God, but it was God.

1 Like

It is certainly human nature to attribute a supernatural controller working on our behalf to explain something for which there is currently no accepted answer. A God was also invoked to explain why the sun crossed the sky, as there was no other mechanism earlier man could imagine. Obviously, studying the Big Bang and the reliance of nature’s constants on life is a bigger challenge for scientists. As I mentioned earlier, there is an outstanding book titled “Our Mathematical Universe” that tackles some of these issues (it’s science only; no religion or God is discussed). We humans initially assigned ourselves and our planet to be the center of the Universe, and all bodies revolved around us. We have learned our planet is nothing special; our galaxy is pretty run of the mill, and there is growing consensus that the “Big Bang” (which is a misnomer put out there by a critic of the theory, and it stuck. It’s really the Big Inflation) is not singular event but something that occurred many times. Quantum mechanics has taught us that matter “probes” every allowable outcome before collapsing on a defined one. (At least) one of which being the adoption of constants that produce the Universe we live in. Doesn’t sound likely? Maybe not. But it’s more likely than a magician in the sky who did all this so we could worship him or face eternal damnation.

1 Like

Its actually a homage to the Swiss flag, which is where the organization has its roots.

2 Likes