Do You Have a Thinking Problem?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 00:33
VIEWED: 13256
PAGE 9 of 17
Amazing thread. It has given me many "What the f's did he say". It is quite painful for me to make the following statement: Citizen makes the most sense to me. When he wrote "Science is not a religion, this is nonsense. The fact that some people treat it as such doesn't make it so." That I believe makes the point that religion is illogical. I agree with that statement, and believe anyone who doesn't isn't being honest with his/her self. Science uses data and evidence to build a foundation for understanding our universe and is fundamentally logical. On the other hand, religion is based on belief, in which there is no test for validity, and is inherently illogical. I am not talking absolutes here. God could one day fill the sky and voice his displeasure in all of us. I wouldn't hold my breath though. And to take the will to live as proof in a god is absurd and illogical in its own right.
*edit* I am not saying you are absurd and illogical...just at that moment is all. I'm sure you are a very logical person most of the time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
And we go from false definitions to simply making things up, bravo.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
That depends on what the definition of "is" is!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I see. You're defining religion as: a system of dogmatic, illogical beliefs in the supernatural.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I wouldn't consider Unitarian Universalism a religion
Word to the wise. Next time you argue with someone, it is best to state your unique, peculiar definitions up front. It'll save everyone a lot of time if you let them know you already have a dogmatic defintion that is not subject to change. I wouldn't have bothered arguing with you had I known.
Hang on. You redefined words earlier to suit your needs and now you're once again putting words into my mouth and insulting me.
There are classier ways to admit you've lost an argument you know.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS- What I think I'm hearing is that for you, religion is a subjective experience. The examples that you bring to the discussion: contentment, a feeling of warmth, awe that comes from looking at a star-filled sky or contemplating a complex problem... they are all feelings.
Not that I'm dimissing feelings, but they don't stack up to me as a "religion", "supernatural" or even particularly unexplainable. So why don't YOU tell us your defintion of religion.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I looked it up in the dictionary. Here's my definition of religion, copying and pasting from Merriam-Webster. (#2 is an amalgam from the definitions of religion and religious.)
Originally posted by SignyM:
So why don't YOU tell us your defintion of religion.
1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural OR
2. A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices that are faithfully devoted to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity OR
3. A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
MY personal religion is a mixture of #2 and #3. I am not so much into the "service and worship" or the "practices" aspect. My religion is more of a personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and principles devoted to an acknowledged ultimate reality/deity. Other people's religions could be any one of the above 3, or any mix of the above 3.
Depending on the religion, this ultimate reality or deity can be either supernatural or simply a principle / cause. For example, Gandhi's self-professed religion, his God, was the principle of Truth. Truth was his ultimate reality that he sought, served, and pursued (from Gandhi's autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth).
Please note that attitudes, beliefs, and principles are not the same thing as dogma. Depending on the religion, the system of beliefs can be immutable or dynamic. Some religions ARE dogmatic (Christian, Muslim, and Jewish fundamentalists come to mind). Other religions are responsive to the journey of individuals, society, and the church itself (e.g. Unitarian Universalists or Zen Buddhists). Some attempt a mixture of both dogma and self-correction (mainstream Christian denominations). Some are so subjective (like mine or say, Gandhi's) that it doesn't fit well in any existing institution.
If I can make one point about what religion is, it would be this: religion as a whole is extremely diverse. It is unfair and inaccurate to judge all religious systems based on one single model.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My comment.
Quote:If we took the word logical and substituted rational (meaning from the common parlance, as in 'not crazy'); then took the word religion and substituted faith, would that make the religious people feel better?
Although obviously logical thoughts are the natural enemy of nearly every religion.
Reworded: Rational thoughts (based in observable phenomenon) are the natural enemy of faith (which exists in the absence of, or in opposition to, observable phenomenon.)
Waiting for the firestorm ....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No firestorm, Rue.
Originally posted by rue:
Rational thoughts (based in observable phenomenon) are the natural enemy of faith (which exists in the absence of, or in opposition to, observable phenomenon.)
Just my opinion, of course. But this whole pitting rationalism vs. faith (or logic vs. religion) feels like an artificial, forced division to me. Take intelligent design for example. I can blend both rational study of evolution AND faith in a Creator that started this evolution (in absence of convincing evidence of how it all started).
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is what I see:
Science (the study of observable phenomenon) seeks a rational, self-congruent explanation for everything observable - from the most commonplace to the entire universe. If it did not, it wouldn't be science, it would be dogma. It's goal is to nibble away at the unexplained and eventually consume it all.
Faith is what exists in the absence of a rational explanation. If faith is what exists in the absence of explanation, then to increase faith one must decrease the explanations.
The two are exactly mutually exclusive. Even more, they are in a zero-sum relationship. The increase of one causes the decrease in the other.
You can't be both a scientist actively seeking rational explanations for the universe, and a person of faith, actively seeking to maintain unquestioned beliefs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, I looked up the definition of "religion" too and it sucks. Apparently religion is whatever anyone chooses it to mean. It could be having an invisible friend (like Harvey) or finding awe in mathematics or convincing everyone that I am the one true GOD and therefore you should GIVE MONEY!! So if it's all the same thing why do we have words like "philosopy", "ethics", "science", "mysticism""beauty", "hope", "delusion" and "faith"? Ghandi's "truth" is a philosophy (of course, we'd have to get into a discussion of what he means by "truth"... which, in my book, is not the same as "honesty").
Quote:So, aiming for more precision and description, how is your reality different from your deity? (You use two words so I assume you're trying to describe two different things.)
MY personal religion is a mixture of #2 and #3. I am not so much into the "service and worship" or the "practices" aspect. My religion is more of a personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and principles devoted to an acknowledged ultimate reality/deity. Other people's religions could be any one of the above 3, or any mix of the above 3.
I think I asked this before in a different form.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This is what I see:
Science (the study of observable phenomenon) seeks a rational, self-congruent explanation for everything observable - from the most commonplace to the entire universe. If it did not, it wouldn't be science, it would be dogma. It's goal is to nibble away at the unexplained and eventually consume it all.
Faith is what exists in the absence of a rational explanation. If faith is what exists in the absence of explanation, then to increase faith one must decrease the explanations.
The two are exactly mutually exclusive. Even more, they are in a zero-sum relationship. The increase of one causes the decrease in the other.
You can't be both a scientist actively seeking rational explanations for the universe, and a person of faith, actively seeking to maintain unquestioned beliefs.
Very well said, rue.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME