You need to realize that's only the way you understand it.
I'm sorry, but just because your particular set of beliefs - whatever they are - don't conflict with science, doesn't mean that other beliefs that are supplemented by faith in general, do not. Creationism is proof of that. You might argue that it is the result of a great deal of ignorance - which it is - but it is also only possible because of faith.
Scientists will seek to disprove religious beliefs forever and many times scientists will win the argument against what is usually blind religious ignorance.
Scientists do not seek to disprove religious beliefs, at least not generally. They seek to understand the world. There are many scientists who believed in god and thought the laws they discovered were proof of his perfection and brilliance and who were troubled that their discoveries did not match what they believed or expected.
That has nothing to do with me or the way I understand life. Scientific discoveries do not affect my faith.
I wish you'd elaborate. Note that I have no idea what your beliefs are, and there is a great diversity of belief out there. Coming from certain belief systems, that statement could be interpreted as, regardless of how it may contradict certain beliefs you have, your faith cannot be wrong. From other belief systems, it could mean that there's no contradiction. So what you do mean exactly? How do you understand life?
I'm not the kind of person to pick a side in any argument where both sides are clearly flawed. I always look to find the correlations between the two, to come to a greater understanding. That's how I approach any argument. It's why I have so much clarity.
And what are the flaws of each side, as you see them?
I wasn't assuming the bolded area. What I was implying was that using logic to try to understand a concept that is fundamentally emotional, will lead you nowhere. If you originally come at the subject from a logical standpoint, you won't understand anything.
I thought the assumption was implicit in your words, since you didn't actually offer an alternative to logic. I still think it is implicit in your thinking, given the question you asked me at the end.
"Is God real? Yes, for me He is. How do I know? Just as logic is conflicted by emotion, you may have to abandon your logic long enough to find that answer..."
First, note that earlier you began with the question: "Is God real?" Logic, reason and science all give us possible ways to answer this question. I do not agree that these courses of action will lead "nowhere". Many theists believe they lead you to the "yes" answer, and atheists disagree with them and say the evidence is not sufficient and the arguments are flawed. They all have reasons for saying what they say, some good, and some bad. My first problem with what you're saying is that you haven't given me a reason to think logic will lead us nowhere.
Back to the question: You're proposing that this question can be answered by abandoning logic (which leads you to abandoning reason and science, as these are based on logic), on the basis that God is a "fundamentally emotional" concept. I have two questions for you:
- What makes you think God is a fundamentally emotional concept?
- What criteria did you use when you answered "Yes" to the question "Is God real"? How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Of course if you're just trying to win a debate like most people here, then by all means do continue. Also, what makes you think emotional understanding is inferior to logical understanding? Very unwise.
No one will win this debate. There are no judges, no criteria for winning, no real answer to the question. I am simply talking to you.
What makes you think there's such as a thing as "emotional understanding"?
If there is, what can it understand? And how does it come to have this understanding?
The fact still remains that a conflict between science and religion is purely your opinion. That is not a conclusion that I share. People choose to create conflicts at the notion of things they do not understand. I've never had the drawback of being influenced by the vast majority. I can only see things objectively, using my own mind to construct my beliefs.
I've given examples of conflicts between science and religion. I don't see how this is just my "opinion". Again, simply because your specific beliefs don't contradict science doesn't mean other people who operate on faith won't have beliefs that don't come into conflict with science.
I'm always stunned when people say "Prove God exists." It's like asking you to prove you love your family. You can list all these things that you do for them or how your face twists into a smile when you're around them, but you can never actually prove your love. If you could prove God exists, then it wouldn't be called faith at all would it? How silly people are. ^_^
That largely depends on what your conception of God is. So far, the only thing you've said is that God is "fundamentally emotional", and that's not much to go by. Depending on the particular definition, failing to prove God exists amounts to having no reasons to believe that God exists, except faith.
As for your example with love, it doesn't show that logic is flawed or in some way insufficient. You can give a very convincing argument that shows that you probably love your family. I don't think you can show that you love them directly, as you would be able to do to yourself (or people who could read your mind and experience your emotions), but this only means you have insufficient evidence to show it.
So, again, I don't see why you're saying God and logic don't mix.
Finally, about faith. I don't see anything valuable or worthwhile in believing things because of faith. It simply shows the willingness of a person to believe in things without evidence or argument. For you, this might not be a problem, because you think there's an alternative to logic, but I'm you've failed to convinced me there is one so far.
Edited by Tale, 20 August 2013 - 09:50 AM.