Some of the people on the "science side" of this thread assume that having a spiritual side can only be within an established religion. That rationale is beyond me.
Are there some on this thread?
Quote:
I do not belong to any church. In fact, except for weddings and funerals, haven't been in a church in fifty years. However, I do believe absolutely that there is something beyond life on earth and that there is a superior being. What it is or what awaits beyond life on earth, I don't know. I just believe it exists and I'll find out when I die. My belief has never caused me to consider killing, raping, maiming or any other dreadful act.
Why do you believe absolutely, would be my question. My guess is that you think a spirit was inserted into you and when the body dies the spirit will leave. The fact as we know them, demonstrates that we consume nourishment and manufacture energy to operate our bodies until the machinery breaks down. The body is then decomposed and consumed by other organisms on earth. Even the carbon from cremation.
Quote:
Neither does having that belief prevent me from accepting the evidence on things like evolution and other theories. I just think that there are things that are beyond science - something else, unexplainable and unprovable, that existed before the Big Bang or whatever starting point anyone wants to use.
I suspect that there are thing that are beyond my comprehension too, but I do not make the leap into saying that after I die my life is going there, I'm content with being worm food, which completes the circle of life.
Quote:
However, the science side cannot seem to accept anything that is not conclusively proved scientifically and therefore asserts that, if it isn't provable, it can't be.
from my perspective the science side says.. there is nothing beyond question. The non-science side says… don't question me.
Quote:
I think that is incredible arrogance. It's like saying "we are the most superior beings and unless it's proven to us, it doesn't exist". As we have seen through the thread, there's no use arguing the point because neither side can prove the other wrong. Some of the arguments remind me of the Blood, Sweat and Tears lyric, "I know there ain't no Heaven, but I'll pray there ain't no Hell".
It's not the science side that needs to explain the hypothesis, the questions remains in your court. Why do you believe absolutely and where is the evidence that supports your assertions? If it's a secret then say so and everyone will move on.
[quote] But the arrogance doesn't stop there. There is a contention that If I believe in a superior being I must be incapable of rational thought (What utter nonsense) or I must need a crutch to get me through life (Equally nonsensical). Indeed, I would argue that it's the science side who are most in need of a crutch (proof) before they can believe in something.
because you will not present the rational for your absolute belief the questions remain and haunt you. Being haunted you strike out at the questioner, attempting to put the onus on them. The arrogance, I would suggest, is found in the refusal to answer the question and continue to claim, that there is something when there is nothing to present.
Quote:
To get back to my original question, I wanted information that showed that it wasn't only religion that asks people to blindly accept things on faith. The MFIF thread had examples of Science asking people to do exactly the same thing (accept things on faith) on some basic principles.
I had a good reason for seeking the "science taken on faith" information, and it is simple. I have a longtime friend who is terminally ill (small cell cancer has returned) and my friend's beliefs are the same as mine. We haven't talked much yet about the journey ahead of him but we will.
I can understand your motive and sympathize with your position but the journey is at its end as far as we can prove, no matter what we choose to believe.
Quote:
I want to be sure that when he takes that final step that he is not carrying the extra burden of doubt, that what he believes is true and his belief doesn't require proof - no different than Science having concepts that don't seem to require proof.
I had thought that the originally sought article Taking Science On Faith would be sufficient to show that Science doesn't have quite as many answers as it thinks it has. However, this thread has given me far more than I could possibly have hoped for. For that, I thank the participants.
