Are YOU a believer in miracles?

[Jude]

Insane Clown Posse - Miracles

One of the commenters put it best:

I think this is the end of the internet.

[Brandon]

Cool video. Yes I believe in miracles.

Although I do have 1 question. Why is this in politics and religion?

[Silk]

No

[Xenophile]

I believe in the type of miracles that can be classified as remarkable events or incidents, but divine interventions? Nawh, that's not for me.

[Chelemar]

Yes, I believe. 

[Neroon]

I believe in the type of miracles that can be classified as remarkable events or incidents, but divine interventions? Nawh, that shit is for kids.

I think that discussions like this are best handled in a polite manner without dismissive comments.

[Nico]

I don't exactly believe in miracles, but in this:

Faith can move mountains. :-)

[Xenophile]

I think that discussions like this are best handled in a polite manner without dismissive comments.

Point duly noted.

[Noelle]

But guys. Guys.

Magnets. How the FUCK do they work?! :O

[Xenophile]

But guys. Guys.

Magnets. How the FUCK do they work?! :O

SCIENCE!

But seriously folks, it's science.

[Hemingway]

Symphony of Science - 'We Are All Connected' (ft. Sagan, Feynman, deGrasse Tyson & Bill Nye)

Here's what I believe. It's ... oddly similar to the ICP video, what I saw of it, at least ... but scientific.

[Paladin]

Yes I do. There are so many things that can't be explained, like the gun that gets taken from a cop by a badguy who is about to kill him. The hammer falls once, twice, and yet there is no bang, and there is no bullets fired. Later when everything is checked the same two bullets work perfectly. Science can't explain it.

[MasterMischief]

I believe that an event which can not be explained by the observers does not necessitate the supernatural.  It merely means it can not be explained by the observers.

[Hemingway]

I forgot to mention this when I first posted, and was reminded of it by Paladin's post. I heard something quite, ah, accurate the other day. I can't remember who said it, though I suspect it might have been James Randi. What it amounted to was essentially that calling something supernatural because it can't be explained, is about the same as saying "it can't be explained, so here's the explanation".

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Yes, but the same is being done by saying "it's science, we just don't know how."  Someone is simply claiming that it has to be scientific reason with no more basis than the person claiming there is a supernatural explanation.

[Hemingway]

Well, thousands of years of scientific advances suggest they may be onto something.

But beyond that, one side is still making a paradoxical claim. If you say there is no explanation, then go on to explain, you're contradicting yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

[Jude]

Yep, that's a Randi quote, and I'm overwhelmed with joy at the fact that someone quoted Randi on this thread.  Seriously, I love you.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

At the same time you cannot claim to have an explanation using the scientific method when no experiments work and the hypothesis continue to be rejected.  Science is rigid for a reason.

[Hemingway]

It makes me happy to hear that, Jude. I do like it when someone takes notice.

And, no, you can't claim to have an explanation. But even if you gave up, to say that there is no explanation ( as opposed to saying you were unable to find an explanation ), is still a cop-out of enormous magnitude. Because explaining something that defies explanation is by definition impossible, the best you could do is continue to look for the explanation, and meanwhile, even if you never find it, admit that there may still be one.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Those people of faith believe they have found an explanation for the event which falls within the parameters of their mind set.  The event is not unexplainable by their definition and so they are able to make the claim of divine intervention, supernatural occurence or what have you.  That is their choice and until another thought process, such as the scientific method, can surmount evidence to disprove their claim and prove their own there is little that can be said.

Science is constrained by its scientific method.  I respect that method immensely, but believe that many people fall prey to making a religion out of science.  People have just as much right and ability to state something is explained by supernatural forces as others do that an event is explained by natural causes but they just don't know how.

[Jude]

Science is constrained by its scientific method.  I respect that method immensely, but believe that many people fall prey to making a religion out of science.  People have just as much right and ability to state something is explained by supernatural forces as others do that an event is explained by natural causes but they just don't know how.

They have the right to make that claim, I certainly would never impede on someone's freedom of speech.

Throughout history people have claimed supernatural forces as the motivation behind a wide variety of phenomenon which, after further inspection, have turned out to be a completely explainable, natural occurrences.  To continue to use that same excuse, and believe it, is about as logical as telling your teacher that the dog ate your homework for the fiftieth time after she's called your house and confirmed that you have no dog.

Could you have gotten one?  Yes.  But uh, what's more likely here?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Nobody has disproven the dog though, as you so eloquently put that example.  The dog was not disproven; the teacher is merely making an assumption.  That assumption violates her own constrains and tenets for absolute proof which dictate she satisfy before assuming that the homework is not being eaten by a dog.  She is in fact lying if she makes the statement that she has disproven the dog’s existence. 

Science has indeed explained many things, but has also proven many false things when its tenets were abandoned in favor of being “right.”  People are tied to the infrastructure of science and so are fallible, which science attempts to minimize by having their rigorous standards.  I do not think it wise to make claims of explanation without following the scientific method.  Such things have lead to disaster in the past and are still leading to future disasters. 

Both science and religion have given untold advantages to our species.  They have given us a great deal to be thankful for and have also given us many horrors and problems.  I will not deny either their place, but if people are going to use them then they need to use them as intended.  If people are going to make the statement that something is supernatural, then their beliefs had better encompass that statement.  If science is going to claim an explanation, then that explanation must be proven by their tenets.

[Inkidu]

Those people of faith believe they have found an explanation for the event which falls within the parameters of their mind set.  The event is not unexplainable by their definition and so they are able to make the claim of divine intervention, supernatural occurence or what have you.  That is their choice and until another thought process, such as the scientific method, can surmount evidence to disprove their claim and prove their own there is little that can be said.

Science is constrained by its scientific method.  I respect that method immensely, but believe that many people fall prey to making a religion out of science.  People have just as much right and ability to state something is explained by supernatural forces as others do that an event is explained by natural causes but they just don't know how.

Science is a religion. Just because its phenomena are easier to quantify doesn't mean its not. It's the newest thing telling people what to do and how to act.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I do agree that science has become a religion, but I do not believe it was always meant to be so.  Scientists have abused the faith gained by their stance of empirical neutrality and twisted that belief to follow their own agendas.  I do believe science at its more pure and untouched is not a religion, but merely a set of standards to prove or disproven natural phenomenon. 

[Hemingway]

I was going to post something long-winded about how this ends up being a question over which is more important; facts, or feeling good.

But I'll leave it at that, and focus on what Inkidu said instead, because I find that something offensive and dishonest. Science is a religion? You either have a very broad definition of religion, or of science. It fits no definition of religion that I know of, having no commandments, no rituals, no sacred texts, nothing of the sort. It also doesn't tell people how to act or what to do. It's a tool - how could it?

[Brandon]

Faith is the affirmation of truths that we can not perceive or at least that's how I define it. Religion is when a specific faith becomes organized by a group of people.

Science falls in the category of both of those definitions. It explains phenomena that the human senses can not perceive and no one can dispute that with entire scientific communities its certainly organized. Science also has some sacred texts in the form of the scientific process

So how can science not be another religion?

Edit: I feel I also need to point out something else. In roman catholocism (I dont know about other religions) you are not told how to act, you are only told that there are consequences for acting a certain way. If you live (or try to live) as a good person you will go to heaven. If you live as an evil person your destination is hell. Its a subtle difference but an important one

[Hemingway]

Even by your made-up definition, science is not a religion. By your definition, belief in extraterrestrial life is a religion. Belief in witches is a religion. Belief in carbon monoxide is a religion. Must I go on?

Religions are more complicated than that. Religions have rituals, supernatural beliefs, shared world views and moral codes, prayer and meditation - at least a few of these, and others I haven't mentioned or thought of.

[Jude]

Nobody has disproven the dog though, as you so eloquently put that example.  The dog was not disproven; the teacher is merely making an assumption.  That assumption violates her own constrains and tenets for absolute proof which dictate she satisfy before assuming that the homework is not being eaten by a dog.  She is in fact lying if she makes the statement that she has disproven the dog’s existence.

Science has indeed explained many things, but has also proven many false things when its tenets were abandoned in favor of being “right.”  People are tied to the infrastructure of science and so are fallible, which science attempts to minimize by having their rigorous standards.  I do not think it wise to make claims of explanation without following the scientific method.  Such things have lead to disaster in the past and are still leading to future disasters.

The difference between science and religion however, is that science does not make claims without evidence.  It doesn't presume to know anything baselessly.  Scientific claims have been incorrect in the past (think Newtonian Physics) but they were always reasonable theories constructed from evidence to suit reality.  That's not what religious people do when they proclaim a miracle; they always bring their external belief systems into the equation.

I'm not going to argue the specifics of the analogy because that's removed from the point (and I think your objection is correct too).  The point is, the religious have been making claims for centuries about how the world works, and those claims have constantly been repudiated.  The religious claim a duality between the physical and the metaphysical (supernatural), and regularly blame the latter for things they cannot explain.  When the former is shown to be the cause, they simply move along to the next claim, still believing that the latter does in fact exist.  Yet there is no reason to believe that such a duality exists; the physical has been used to explain nearly everything, and there is no solid reason to believe in anything else.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the teacher having no proof that the dog exists, learning of other reasons for why the student is failing, and the student continuing to tell her that yes, the dog is real.

Both science and religion have given untold advantages to our species.  They have given us a great deal to be thankful for and have also given us many horrors and problems.  I will not deny either their place, but if people are going to use them then they need to use them as intended.  If people are going to make the statement that something is supernatural, then their beliefs had better encompass that statement.  If science is going to claim an explanation, then that explanation must be proven by their tenets.

Science is a method which relies on the assumption that the world is logical and behaves in logical ways.  Just as religion requires you to have faith in divinity, science requires faith in reason.  The difference between the two, of course, is that faith in reason is born out by reality and faith in god is not.

I've never been struck down by lightning for proclaiming all manner of blasphemous things, but nearly everything around us is a product of reason; without it we'd all be sitting in a cave striking two stones together while taking homeopathic medicine, doing a rain dance, and strongly believing its opposite day (yes, I realize none of that makes any sense; that's the point).

I was going to post something long-winded about how this ends up being a question over which is more important; facts, or feeling good.

But I'll leave it at that, and focus on what Inkidu said instead, because I find that something offensive and dishonest. Science is a religion? You either have a very broad definition of religion, or of science. It fits no definition of religion that I know of, having no commandments, no rituals, no sacred texts, nothing of the sort. It also doesn't tell people how to act or what to do. It's a tool - how could it?

The religious love to claim science is a religion; well lets see what altar they worship at when their loved one's life is at risk.  Hands on healing certainly doesn't have the same success rate as open heart surgery.

Science falls in the category of both of those definitions. It explains phenomena that the human senses can not perceive and no one can dispute that with entire scientific communities its certainly organized. Science also has some sacred texts in the form of the scientific process

Except... the scientific process is actually based entirely upon the observable, i.e. that which can be perceived.  Your definition of science and extrapolation based on that is a fundamental contradiction.

[Brandon]

Even by your made-up definition, science is not a religion. By your definition, belief in extraterrestrial life is a religion. Belief in witches is a religion. Belief in carbon monoxide is a religion. Must I go on?

Sorry but you need to re-read the definitions I gave because you most certainly did not go by them when defining any of that as a religion

Religions are more complicated than that. Religions have rituals, supernatural beliefs, shared world views and moral codes, prayer and meditation - at least a few of these, and others I haven't mentioned or thought of.

This is also not correct. The church of scientology has no supernatural beliefs, to them everything they believe is a natural truth. The ability for souls to travel from body to body, to live outside of what we see as time, to let the body run on autopilot as they...do something (Im not a big scientology expert). All of that is defined by a kind of science lost to humankind.

I would argue that the scientific process is a ritual in and of itself

Prayer and meditation are personal choices not religious ones. I've never been told that I must pray to god or meditate, only that I have the option to speak to god through prayer

World views and morale codes change from culture to culture and religions are certainly cultures but neither comes from religion alone. They are shaped by personal opinion

[Inkidu]

I do agree that science has become a religion, but I do not believe it was always meant to be so.  Scientists have abused the faith gained by their stance of empirical neutrality and twisted that belief to follow their own agendas.  I do believe science at its more pure and untouched is not a religion, but merely a set of standards to prove or disproven natural phenomenon.

They all start out innocent. Good ideas (Dogma reference) some people were just born to corrupt I suppose.

[Inkidu]

Even by your made-up definition, science is not a religion. By your definition, belief in extraterrestrial life is a religion. Belief in witches is a religion. Belief in carbon monoxide is a religion. Must I go on?

Religions are more complicated than that. Religions have rituals, supernatural beliefs, shared world views and moral codes, prayer and meditation - at least a few of these, and others I haven't mentioned or thought of.

Belief that what one sees, tastes, touches, smells, and hears or the effects or consequences therein are all that is important and the rest maybe be ignored. That's science in a nutshell. Science is built on the belief that the world is real that the universe is more or less constant. If I told the scientific community that up was down and gravity was actually a giant vacuum cleaner and I had undeniable proof of such the Scientific community would absolutely would rail against it in full might. At one time the Scientific community didn't believe in the atom but well gee their you go.

A human, and only a human has to believe what he is perceiving to be true. Science does this. That is the basis of their faith.

[Hemingway]

Sorry but you need to re-read the definitions I gave because you most certainly did not go by them when defining any of that as a religion

We can't see, hear, feel, smell or taste any of the things I listed as examples, no more than we can the evolution of birds, the structure of a DNA double helix, or the forces of gravity.

This is also not correct. The church of scientology has no supernatural beliefs, to them everything they believe is a natural truth. The ability for souls to travel from body to body, to live outside of what we see as time, to let the body run on autopilot as they...do something (Im not a big scientology expert). All of that is defined by a kind of science lost to humankind.

I would argue that the scientific process is a ritual in and of itself

Prayer and meditation are personal choices not religious ones. I've never been told that I must pray to god or meditate, only that I have the option to speak to god through prayer

World views and morale codes change from culture to culture and religions are certainly cultures but neither comes from religion alone. They are shaped by personal opinion

Scientology has no supernatural beliefs, but they believe in souls.

I don't know about you, but I see a contradiction.

Scientology also has its own rituals. Auditing would qualify as one such, and possibly meditation at the same time. It has its own dogma, its own myths for explaining things. Mental illness, specifically.

It fits the definition of religion very well, even if you don't take into account that religions don't need to meet them all.

And are you really suggesting religion doesn't try to act as a moral guide? What, the ten commandments are just there as filler, or? I mean, I'm sorry, I don't mean to get offensive, but you seem to be missing the point entirely. Saying that religions tend to provide their followers with a moral code, is not the same as saying morality stems from religion.

Edit: What? If you had actual, undeniable evidence, no scientist in their right mind would question you. They'd try to refute your claims, because without that, science would not be science. But if that fails, and your hypothesis is the one with the most compelling evidence, it isn't going to be buried by scientific community.

[Brandon]

We can't see, hear, feel, smell or taste any of the things I listed as examples, no more than we can the evolution of birds, the structure of a DNA double helix, or the forces of gravity.

You still didnt read the definitions I gave but thats ok. I dont expect you to at this point

Scientology has no supernatural beliefs, but they believe in souls.

I don't know about you, but I see a contradiction.

Scientology also has its own rituals. Auditing would qualify as one such, and possibly meditation at the same time. It has its own dogma, its own myths for explaining things. Mental illness, specifically.

It fits the definition of religion very well, even if you don't take into account that religions don't need to meet them all.

And are you really suggesting religion doesn't try to act as a moral guide? What, the ten commandments are just there as filler, or? I mean, I'm sorry, I don't mean to get offensive, but you seem to be missing the point entirely. Saying that religions tend to provide their followers with a moral code, is not the same as saying morality stems from religion.

As I understand it in scientology the soul is another natural phenomena proven through the scientific texts they charge thousands of dollars to get ahold of.

I didnt say scientology didnt have rituals or things that seemed like rituals. Only that they didnt have any beliefs in the supernatural

Im suggesting that moral guides are not determined solely by religion and that some religions, to my knowledge, dont have them (i.e. Scientology or Vodoo). Since morale codes are developed by the culture (not neccesarily religion) it surrounds I dont feel that they can be something that helps define religion

Edit: Also I wanted to note that its difficult arguing my points from a religion that I consider to be a total fraud

[Hemingway]

You still didnt read the definitions I gave but thats ok. I dont expect you to at this point

"Faith is the affirmation of truths that we can not perceive or at least that's how I define it. Religion is when a specific faith becomes organized by a group of people."

What you're saying essentially boils down to this; a religion is something a lot of people ( organized ) believe to be true, that we can't prove. Or am I mistaken?

Because belief in extraterrestrials seems to fit that definition very well. We have no proof that aliens exist. We know it's statistically probably that they exist somewhere in the universe, but we have yet to actually see anything besides apocryphal evidence hinting at actual existence. Yet people still believe it, some more firmly than others. People organize gatherings and the likes. I don't see how that could be anything but organized. Or do you just lump these people together with everything else that isn't overtly supernatural and call it "science"?

Come on. And let it not be said I didn't try to be reasonable.

As I understand it in scientology the soul is another natural phenomena proven through the scientific texts they charge thousands of dollars to get ahold of.

I didnt say scientology didnt have rituals or things that seemed like rituals. Only that they didnt have any beliefs in the supernatural.

Whether this is what they call souls or not, I don't know, but scientology dogma maintains that mental illness is caused by the spirits of aliens brought to earth and killed. Spirits that somehow latch on to human beings and cause all manner of problems. If this does not fit the label "supernatural", then what does?

And this is, of course, ignoring the point others would have made, that scientology is not a religion at all, but a business venture. A scam.

[Inkidu]

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do." James Harvey Robinson

"Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe."
Voltaire

"Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them."
Blaise Pascal

"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't."
Blaise Pascal

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
Albert Camus

"God does not play dice with the universe."
Albert Einstein

Then there's one to the effect of: "To the believer no proof is required and to the doubter no proof is ever enough." I couldn't find that one.

I ultimately believe science is a religion because it's run by humans and humans are naturally religious and horribly fallible and to think that you as a human aren't makes you an idiot. 

[HockeyGod]

I'm a fairly hard core skeptic.

With that said...Yes, I have faith that miracles do happen. Sometimes it's fun just to let things not be described or explained.

[Brandon]

"Faith is the affirmation of truths that we can not perceive or at least that's how I define it. Religion is when a specific faith becomes organized by a group of people."

What you're saying essentially boils down to this; a religion is something a lot of people ( organized ) believe to be true, that we can't prove. Or am I mistaken?

Because belief in extraterrestrials seems to fit that definition very well. We have no proof that aliens exist. We know it's statistically probably that they exist somewhere in the universe, but we have yet to actually see anything besides apocryphal evidence hinting at actual existence. Yet people still believe it, some more firmly than others. People organize gatherings and the likes. I don't see how that could be anything but organized. Or do you just lump these people together with everything else that isn't overtly supernatural and call it "science"?

Come on. And let it not be said I didn't try to be reasonable.

Not that we cant prove but that we cant perceive. The most important word being perceive which Ill define below

per·ceive
   /pərˈsiv/ Show Spelled[per-seev]
–verb (used with object),-ceived, -ceiv·ing.
1. to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses: I perceived an object looming through the mist.
2. to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: I perceive a note of sarcasm in your voice. This is a nice idea but I perceive difficulties in putting it into practice.

You can certainly percieve an alien or a witch if you saw, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted one. You can see, feel, and smell Carbon monoxide. Since we can perceive those things with our senses they dont fall within the definition of faith and by extension religion.

Still Science explains things that we can not percieve with our senses such as electromagnetism or DNA

Let me ask you, how do you know these things exist? Is it because someone in a white coat tells you they do and gives a detailed explanation that makes sense to you or sounds plausible?

Whether this is what they call souls or not, I don't know, but scientology dogma maintains that mental illness is caused by the spirits of aliens brought to earth and killed. Spirits that somehow latch on to human beings and cause all manner of problems. If this does not fit the label "supernatural", then what does?

And this is, of course, ignoring the point others would have made, that scientology is not a religion at all, but a business venture. A scam.

Once again, all that is explained as a natural phenomena in the information that the church charges its followers for.

I will also agree that I think the Church of scientology is a scam, however until proven otherwise in a court of law they must be recognized as a legitimate religion.

[Serephino]

Yes, I definitely believe there are things that cannot be explained by reason.  I'm also finding this discussion very offensive.  Believing in God is irrational?  Well, if that's the case, then there are an awful lot of irrational people in this world, many of them on this forum. 

And believing in a witch is a matter of faith?  That comment just made me laugh because this post you are seeing right this very second was written by a witch.  While I don't eat little children or sacrifice animals, I do believe in and practice magic.  I'm not asking any of you to believe as I do.  What I am asking a few of you to do is back off. Y'all may choose to put your faith in science, and that is your right, but not all of us feel that way. 

And yes, I hate to break it to you, but your belief in science is faith.  When a scientist tells you something you choose to believe it.  You weren't there when the experiment was done.  A man with a degree does an experiment, writes down the results, interprets those results based on what he knows, then tells you what it means and you accept it as fact without question.  I don't see someone having an experience that they believe as divine intervention and telling me that's proof God exists as being any different.  Someone perceived something, they decided what it meant and passed the info on to me.

Honestly though, why does it seem that some of you use this part of the forum to bash religion?     

[Jude]

Yes, I definitely believe there are things that cannot be explained by reason.  I'm also finding this discussion very offensive.  Believing in God is irrational?  Well, if that's the case, then there are an awful lot of irrational people in this world, many of them on this forum.

An irrational belief isn't necessary a wrong belief, it just means it's based on faith and not reason.  Every religious person out there (at least the sane ones I've known) realize that faith is an integral part of their religious beliefs.

And believing in a witch is a matter of faith?  That comment just made me laugh because this post you are seeing right this very second was written by a witch.  While I don't eat little children or sacrifice animals, I do believe in and practice magic.  I'm not asking any of you to believe as I do.  What I am asking a few of you to do is back off. Y'all may choose to put your faith in science, and that is your right, but not all of us feel that way.

I think I may have told you this before, but I encourage you to look up the James Randi million dollar prize and go pick up your money; all you have to do is show documentable evidence of your magic use and you'll be rich!  Let us know how that goes for you--oh wait, you won't have to, we'll see you on the news, right?

And yes, I hate to break it to you, but your belief in science is faith.  When a scientist tells you something you choose to believe it.  You weren't there when the experiment was done.  A man with a degree does an experiment, writes down the results, interprets those results based on what he knows, then tells you what it means and you accept it as fact without question.

EHHHHRRRR WRONG.  You have an extremely poor understanding of science.  Let me explain to you how the process goes.

1)  Science starts with some sort of phenomenon or problem which needs to be understood.
2)  Scientists brainstorm and come up with possible explanations.
3)  They derive testable implications from that possible explanation and then perform an experiment to see if that testable implication occurs, thus supporting their hypothesis.
4)  The study is then examined by their peers, who pour over their operational definitions, apparatus, and methods of experimentation for any potential flaws.  Assuming that this passes their rigorous test, the study is then published in a peer-reviewed journal.
5)  Other scientific organizations attempt to reproduce their findings to make sure that the original study was performed in good faith and that the result wasn't a fluke.
6)  Assuming that hypothesis passes all of these steps without any problems, whatever claim was derived in step (2) is considered corroborated.  More testing occurs and eventually the claim is included in a theoretical framework that explains the effect in a casual fashion.
7)  After further rigorous testing, the theory eventually becomes a law (based on all of the statistical evaluation that is done, the countless tests, and its comparison to other parts of the field)
8)  This law, which isn't meant to be taken literally (nor is the term theory) may eventually undergo change if in the future scientists find some part of it lacking.

Thus science is frequently in flux, it's constantly evolving and changing to adapt to challenges instead of denying evidence that disproves it (unlike religions which refuse to learn from their failings and instead employ abject denial).

I don't see someone having an experience that they believe as divine intervention and telling me that's proof God exists as being any different.  Someone perceived something, they decided what it meant and passed the info on to me.

Honestly though, why does it seem that some of you use this part of the forum to bash religion?

There's nothing wrong with being religious, I'm sure many of us have said this countless times, the problem comes when the religious claim that their belief is based on reason, and it's not.  If it was, then it would have the predictable and practical value that science has, and no religion does.

EDIT:  If you'd like to learn more about science, and see how scientists actually criticize each other's experimental resources and procedures, check out some of the podcasts on this link:  http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

EDIT2:  On second thought, I don't know if it's irrational to be religious necessarily.  When you have an experience that you interpret as evidence, it can be a very convincing thing, and placing your trust in it doesn't make you crazy.  Most people who have religious experiences accept them uncritically because they aren't aware of just how fallible human perception can be at times.  I do think, fully aware of all of the facts, a lot of religious beliefs are irrational, but again that doesn't make them wrong--and certainly doesn't mean every religious person is irrational.

[Brandon]

Thus science is frequently in flux, it's constantly evolving and changing to adapt to challenges instead of denying evidence that disproves it (unlike religions which refuse to learn from their failings and instead employ abject denial).
There's nothing wrong with being religious, I'm sure many of us have said this countless times, the problem comes when the religious claim that their belief is based on reason, and it's not.  If it was, then it would have the predictable and practical value that science has, and no religion does.

This is pretty much the only thing Im going to cut you down on besides the condescending attitude Jude. As far as you know religion isnt based on reason. Remember that in science "I dont know" and "I need more data" are acceptable answers. I want to prupose a theory though and get your take on it. Chaos theory supports the idea of an infinite number of other worlds based around the decisions and reactions we make in our lifetimes. Now if somehow a person could look across whatever boundries seperate those worlds and they saw a Utopia of perfection, could that not be heaven? What if they saw the exact opposite, a war torn reality of fire and torment that one could not escape. Could that not be hell?

Now I want to point out that thats not just conjecture its cold hard speculation but its and interesting thought excercise dont you think?

[Jude]

This is pretty much the only thing Im going to cut you down on besides the condescending attitude Jude. As far as you know religion isnt based on reason. Remember that in science "I dont know" and "I need more data" are acceptable answers. I want to prupose a theory though and get your take on it. Chaos theory supports the idea of an infinite number of other worlds based around the decisions and reactions we make in our lifetimes.
Now if somehow a person could look across whatever boundries seperate those worlds and they saw a Utopia of perfection, could that not be heaven? What if they saw the exact opposite, a war torn reality of fire and torment that one could not escape. Could that not be hell?

Now I want to point out that thats not just conjecture its cold hard speculation but its and interesting thought excercise dont you think?

I'm pretty sure that you're wrong about that Brandon.  The only scientific theory that supports the idea of multiverses with branch points at particular choices that I am aware of is membrane string theory.  I'd like to see where you're getting this from if we're going to debate it.

As far as your particular thought exercise, I listened to an interview of one of the membrane string theorists who basically said what you just proposed is completely impossible.  I can dig it up for you if you like, it's on the Skeptic's Guide link I gave earlier somewhere.

EDIT:  Though to be fair, membrane string theory is so far out and unsubstantiated without a tiny bit of empirical evidence to back it up.  Pretty much all of theoretical physics is without any solid data to back it up; I barely consider it a science because it's all about theorizing to match data instead of coming up with a theory and testing it (due to the fact that it's nearly impossible to test at this stage in the game--though I also heard in the same interview that they're coming up with ways of testing it).

Even Dark Matter, right now, is an untested hypothesis.

We're pretty much stuck, as far as I know, when it comes to progress in theoretical physics.  Until the LHC fires up and we figure out whether or not the Higgs-Boson exists, a lot high-level cosmological physics is kind of... crap.

[Brandon]

It was something I remembered from my Theoretical science classes a few years ago. Unfortunatly I didnt keep the book but then who keeps college books these days?

[Silk]

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do." James Harvey Robinson

"Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe."
Voltaire

"Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them."
Blaise Pascal

"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't."
Blaise Pascal

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
Albert Camus

"God does not play dice with the universe."
Albert Einstein

Then there's one to the effect of: "To the believer no proof is required and to the doubter no proof is ever enough." I couldn't find that one.

I ultimately believe science is a religion because it's run by humans and humans are naturally religious and horribly fallible and to think that you as a human aren't makes you an idiot.

Wooo we have ourselves a quote miner

Religion
# a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
# an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him

Theism
# the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods

# Scientific theory
To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.
# A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.

Scientific method
# Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
#The set of rules used to guide science, based on the idea that scientific "laws" be continuously tested, and replaced if found inadequate.

Atheism
# Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1]  It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[2]  A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.


You have two different flavours of religion, Theistic religions, such as christianity and islam. Or Athistic religions such as Bhuddism and scientology. A religion isnt defined by having a god or not.

Science in no way has a intrinsic belief in that some divinely ordaned being or some other force has direct control or indirect control over our lives, it is the testing and knowledge of the natural world as we know it to exist. The supernatural by its definition untestable by the scientific method which is why its almost unanimous that scientists have no comment on them, or say we do not have enough evidence at this time.

The scientific "Religion" you are speaking of is called Darwinism, and just because it was born from science, and leans heavily on science, does not itself make science a religion in its own right.

You can believe in the scientific method and religion with no contradictory terms between them, however since 97% odd of scientists are Atheists, they obviously do not see much need to.

Here is my quote to counter yours.
"The greatest tragedy of mankind is that the wise are so full of doubt while the foolish are so damned sure of themselves.

Humans are infaliable, which is why the peer reveiw literature exists, a hypotosis does not become a theory until it has been left often in the academic gladiatorial arena and defeated all oncomers. All majory scientific theories have done this. Religion has been unable to. Just like you don't have to disprove a yellow and pink striped anteater called ann-marie, it has to be given a valid reason to why it can be proved, god, a supernatural ebign that transends everything to cause everything and is still having a effect on us now, and made us to be his chosen people and will not like non-believers and send them to a sad place but loves us. Is one hell of a claim to make, and the academic arena gladly awaits its return to the stand so it can be tried once again, because we are all getting tired of the religious trying to pass off faith based fables as fact, so please, prove it or shut up about it? :)

[Kate]

Pumkin Seeds - I really enjoy your posts - I don't agree with all of your stances but you really do think things though from more perspectives than those that only support your stance - I really do salute that, you would complement any public debate on issues you have a view on.

Hemingway science practically does have "rituals" (Scientific method) and sacred texts (statistics) - which are used and abused as much as anything is. It also has an institution - try getting your research idea funded if 1/2 of the institution snubbs you as a fraud. But that is a tangent.

What if divine intervention is a natural cause ? What if an exploitable scientific model exists that can predict them occurring ? If one did would "it" belong in science because "one" aspect of it can be modeled scientifically ? Would it belong in science and not religion if the model describes all aspects people could measure with instruments ?

What is "science" and what is "Divine" are not mutually exclusive by definition. Religious scientists exist. Many religious mathematicians exist who see their "findings" as a window on an aspect of "the mind of god". They dont feel that their math is in contrast to the divine, they see their math as an attribute of it. Many scientists share such thoughts. The Pope believes in evolution, an insight science gave them.

Both robes can be worn, or one or neither in the past champions of both perspectives have drawn "hard lines" but pure Science doesnt have equations that imply the lack of the divine. "Divine" subjective experiences do not rule out the relevance of science. Believing an "us vs them" thing is obvious and inevitable between science and religion is a choice.

Remember science "models" what is statistically relevant. "Scientific Laws "estimated models",  accurate enough under many conditions to be exploitable useful - but they do not define anything other than what is statistically exploitable. Believing in the divine's influence in your life is also exploitable from another angle. One gem=life - many facets, some spiritual, some logistic, some physical, some emotional - light can shine through one of them without the others getting jealous of the attention deeming such seriousness is more worthy their way.

Exceptions exist all the time in measurements. Occasional Peaks outside ranges are dismissed until there is enough of them for a statistical evaluation to produce a new expectation landscape.

To those that do not believe in miracles though, dismissing that those who beleive in them as delusional works both ways for my dear horatios, there are more things in heaven and earth than can be dreamt by such philosophy.

[Silk]

Kate you are using two different types of ritual and saying they are the same thing. Ritual has to meanings,

Religious:
# the prescribed procedure for conducting religious ceremonies
# of or relating to or characteristic of religious rituals; "ritual killing"

Other:
# any customary observance or practice
# stereotyped behavior

Just because they share the same word doesnt mean their the same thing, example being, Murder can be a flock of crows, or a crime where someone is killed. Same word different meanings.

[Kate]

Exploiting the fact ritual can be used in different contexts, was intentional, and was part of my point.

Same Gemstone, light in different facets (different contexts). Interpretation comes from the angle you glance at it and the intention of the perspective which observes it. Releasing a need to interpret from one facet frees it to spin, when it does light shining through one facet ends up shining through all.

My gemstone analogy is useful to model the phenomena I am seeing in this post, it doesnt make it the most useful for all contexts this thread touched on but highly useful for one.

Electron Shells is a useful analogy to model to phenomena some see in chemistry, it doesnt make it the most useful for all contexts of chemistry (some chemistry may drop it if its not useful to describe the phenomena they currently care about )

Divine analogies are useful to some to model phenomena they experience, it doesn't make it useful for all contexts of life, but is highly useful for some.

Divine-excluding analogies are models which are useful to model some phenomena which is experienced, it doesnt make them useful for all contexts of life, but they are highly useful for some.

Choosing one to superceed others is a choice, believing doing so is the only path for ALL those seeking thoroughness and coherance
.. is a choice.

[Hemingway]

Not that we cant prove but that we cant perceive. The most important word being perceive which Ill define below

per·ceive
   /pərˈsiv/ Show Spelled[per-seev]
–verb (used with object),-ceived, -ceiv·ing.
1. to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses: I perceived an object looming through the mist.
2. to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: I perceive a note of sarcasm in your voice. This is a nice idea but I perceive difficulties in putting it into practice.

You can certainly percieve an alien or a witch if you saw, touched, heard, smelled, or tasted one. You can see, feel, and smell Carbon monoxide. Since we can perceive those things with our senses they dont fall within the definition of faith and by extension religion.

Still Science explains things that we can not percieve with our senses such as electromagnetism or DNA

Let me ask you, how do you know these things exist? Is it because someone in a white coat tells you they do and gives a detailed explanation that makes sense to you or sounds plausible?

Actually, you cannot see, feel, taste, hear or smell carbon monoxide. You can only infer its presence by other means. Which apparently means, according to the definition you provided, that belief in it is a faith. Never mind that it can be observed with the proper tools, like everything else in science, and contrary to everything in religion. Electromagnetism, unfortunately, was easily my least favorite subject in physics. However, I still understand it on some level, and experiments we conducted gave us coherent results. Being testable, you can examine these theories for yourself. If they fail to produce the results you were expecting based on what you had read or heard, you are either doing something wrong, or something is not right with the theory. If you try doing the same in religion, you'll get a non-explanation about how god works in mysterious ways, or something to that effect.

What if divine intervention is a natural cause ? What if an exploitable scientific model exists that can predict them occurring ? If one did would "it" belong in science because "one" aspect of it can be modeled scientifically ? Would it belong in science and not religion if the model describes all aspects people could measure with instruments ?

What is "science" and what is "Divine" are not mutually exclusive by definition. Religious scientists exist. Many religious mathematicians exist who see their "findings" as a window on an aspect of "the mind of god". They dont feel that their math is in contrast to the divine, they see their math as an attribute of it. Many scientists share such thoughts. The Pope believes in evolution, an insight science gave them.

If the divine has a natural explanation, then it's hardly divine, is it?

There is also a difference between religious scientists, and scientists who happen to be religious. If you base your research on any religious assumption ( other than possibly god setting events into motion that caused the big bang, and laws of nature took over from that point on ), you're going to get skewed results, because you're deliberately looking for one specific explanation.

If, on the other hand, you were to look into alleged miracles and look for an objective answer, you might find that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it, or you might find an entirely new explanation. But even if that explanation was literal, Biblical angels who descended from a literal heaven to help those they determined had strong faith, that would still be an explanation, and to deny it would be unscientific. However, until such evidence is found, to assume such a thing makes no sense at all. If you're saved in the nick of time from a speeding car, it is literally more probable that someone invented an Iron Man suit that simply moves faster than you are capable of observing, and used it to save you. Because at least that can be explained without postulating all kinds of impossibly complex beings.

[Kate]

"If the divine has a natural explanation, then it's hardly divine, is it?"

- Hemingway

To those who see the divine in nature .. it is.

[Doomsday]

Yes, but the same is being done by saying "it's science, we just don't know how."  Someone is simply claiming that it has to be scientific reason with no more basis than the person claiming there is a supernatural explanation.

See: God of the gaps fallacy.

Science is a religion. Just because its phenomena are easier to quantify doesn't mean its not. It's the newest thing telling people what to do and how to act.

What?!?!

[Hemingway]

To those who see the divine in nature .. it is.

The willfully ignorant? I'm sorry, but if the explanation is available to you, but you prefer to marvel at it in disbelief, there is no other word for it. And even if you don't understand, that does not make it divine, or magical, or in any way supernatural.

[Kate]

The willfully ignorant? I'm sorry, but if the explanation is available to you, but you prefer to marvel at it in disbelief, there is no other word for it. And even if you don't understand, that does not make it divine, or magical, or in any way supernatural.

Willfully ignorant ? Marveling in disbelief ? Don't understand ?

For one who sees the divine in nature, what are they ignorant of ? what are they disbelieving of  ?
Don't understand from a science perspective therefore they don't understand it ?

One can choose to know experience from a spiritual perspective.

Most don't understand love from a science perspective nor care to for they come to "know" it an emotions landscape, which has a different causation landscape to what science is refined to describe.

The implication of an "invalid" perspectives is interesting. They are perspectives. They exist. "Wrong" and "right" or "invalid" are subjective and usually describe what the perspective is - in many ways circular and self-supporting.... based on some premise that is neither right nor wrong just unique and chosen. To me Like how fractals are... a seed which when compounded on itself becomes ... more - self describing.

- By the way - do others wish me to withdraw from this dialogue ? Any who have kept tabs on my thoughts on the existance of god would notice similar themes reappearing they may not wish to revisit.

[Hemingway]

How can right and wrong - as in true or false, correct or incorrect - be subjective? What I'm saying is this; for everything we see in nature, there's an explanation. If a person doesn't know or doesn't care to know that explanation, that's entirely up to them. But belief that it was created by some supernatural force, that it's too beautiful to be a coincidence, does not make it so.

[Jude]

Not going to keep up with everything that's been discussed, but someone compared statistics to a sacred text at some point?  That's absolute nonsense.  Sacred texts are writings that are taken to be absolutely true and revered for their holiness.  Scientists regularly analyze how statistics were gathered, argue that they should be thrown out if there's a biasing factor, and propose alternate, better methods for gathering statistics which are more objective than previous techniques.

The real difference between science and religion I haven't seen a single person argue away is how science accepts nothing uncritically, searches for the truth instead of presupposes it, and can actually admit that it's wrong within the same century that a mistake is made (here's looking at you Heliocentric Solar System Model).

Try living without the benefits of religion for a week, then try living without the benefits of science, then tell me which is more useful and valid.

[Lilias]

Belief and proof are mutually exclusive. Once something is proven, it becomes a fact, and then belief (and, more importantly, disbelief) in it becomes irrelevant.

That said, yes, I believe in miracles. Next!

[Will]

Yes, but the same is being done by saying "it's science, we just don't know how."  Someone is simply claiming that it has to be scientific reason with no more basis than the person claiming there is a supernatural explanation.

That's not really the same, actually.  Saying "it was a miracle" is giving an explanation outright (that lack of an explanation is, indeed, proof of an explanation).  Science, on the other hand, is not an explanation in and of itself.  It's saying "There is a reason for this that follows the laws of nature, even if we can't puzzle it out right now."  Those are two totally different reactions.

[Jude]

Question to everyone who claims science is a religion.  If this is true, why does religion have regions of the brain associated with it that have been located by Neurotheologists, whereas science utilizes the area of the brain for higher reasoning.  They're two completely different thought processes, how can you claim they're at all similar?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

First I will thank Kate for her lovely compliment.  I always cherish the words of praise from one that would challenge me just as easily.  I mean that whole heartedly.  There are quite a few here that I respect for debate and you are among them.  Jude is another who I must say has only gotten better and better with every meeting.  Now, onto the matter at hand.

I will attempt to address the “God of the gaps” statement which Doomsday was quip enough to put on the boards.  I am not saying by any stretch that God is explained where science is not.  Truth is I would make the argument, as many have in classical science and philosophy, that God is best explained through science.  The statement I make is that science cannot refuse one explanation with lack of another.  As Will addressed, science indeed continues to look at things but also refuse the explanation of the divine simply because it does not fit into their paradigm.  Out of hand all explanations are dismissed that do not fit into their preconceptions and designs.  Science at its most rudimentary and pure does not weigh in on the debate of miracles, God or any other subject.  Hemmingway accurately pointed out that science is a tool of mankind to adapt and use the natural world around them.

That is where the statement science as a religion comes into play.  Hemmingway is wrong that the faithful use this argument, because it stems entirely from those that do not have belief in the supernatural.  In place of God they hold up science with the belief that all things are explained through these institutions.  Priests are replaced with doctorates in all manner of subjects, sacred texts and writings are replaced with scientific journals and ritual has fallen to method.  Do I make the statement that science is religion, no more than I say that faith is religion.  Yet the institutions that grew around science act a great deal as the religious ones that address with such contempt.  These institutions believe their word untouchable because of the education its members have received and the publications they have released.  A wedge is driven between science and religion here, because those without belief in the supernatural need science to explain what is supernatural and to give them that structure.   Where faith in religion or in the supernatural gave people hope, others look to science to give them that hope.  This is not the purpose of science.

I have seen people continually say that science does not accept the uncritiqued or the unsubstantiated without pause.  Science as a tool does not, but the institutions do because it serves their purpose.(Note: I am not attempting to open debate on these topics.)  The start of life is one topic where science has used their power and people’s faith to have far reaching consequences.  Science feels comfortable making a statement of when life begins, but does not actually believe it knows what indicates this start.  The beginning of life by science is arbitrarily dictated with some criteria that mean almost nothing under scrutiny.  This is one reason why feminists have often abandoned the argument of when life begins, because under a closer look the argument loses water.  Global warming is a current favorite among the scientific community, but a lot of its postulations are not coming to pass.  Many within the community are voicing opposition and then, according to their statements, being silenced and refused publication.  My personal experience is regarding hurricanes which the Global warming paradigm continues to predict will grow worse and worse until my home is removed from the face of the world.  Yet by accepting the global warming paradigm, the other models which worked just as well if not better are rejected. 

Jude once brought up the belief of Therapeutic Touch which was advocated by a nursing researcher decades ago.  Therapeutic Touch has two contexts, one which is accepted and another that is not by the nursing community.  The accepted one is that by touching a person, by giving physical contact that a deeper bond of caregiver to patient can be formed and trust earned.  This is for communication purposes and to help alleviate anxiety by connecting with a “real” human being as opposed to the medical machine.  The other is in regards to energy fields and using the hands to heal.  There are many that believe in the unaccepted version of Therapeutic Touch, but one medical journal did print an article refuting Therapeutic Touch by a girl in elementary school.  That article was then torn apart because the girl did not use the scientific method with all the rigors required and did not adhere to the model of an experiment well enough to make this anything more than a science project.  The journal was then criticized for failing to publish experiments where the hypothesis of Therapeutic Touch were proven and the scientific methods and research models were used.  The editor of the journal used his position to attack another theory. 

These institutions are the ones who publish articles, who open debate and who allow peer review to be expanded into a global event.  Policy makers take these articles and ideas to forge rules of society around them, people read these articles or gain what is filtered through the media and twist them into their own beliefs and even the morality is shifted to fit into these paradigms.  People replace their own beliefs with what science proposes and often times these ideas are presented because they fit.  Another article I remember was an experiment done regarding Life After Death experiences.  The experiment was conducted by qualified individuals, did not reach into the supernatural and fit the research model.  They were denied publication.  The conclusion they drew did not explicitly point to an afterlife, but gave credence to Life After Death as a valid experience to be researched. 

Do I bring these instances up to knock down science, not in the least.  I bring them up so that the statement science as religion might be better understood.  The institutions of the scientific community are presenting popular theory without the criticisms.  Popular science is affecting policy change while being unproven and untested by peers.  Experiments are being done once with people running through the streets making wild claims from them.  This is the rampant nature that science has taken and it is slowly being eroded by more supernatural explanations and homespun remedies.  Science was never meant to be a belief system, but a tool.  That is the warning of science as religion.

[Will]

As Will addressed, science indeed continues to look at things but also refuse the explanation of the divine simply because it does not fit into their paradigm.  Out of hand all explanations are dismissed that do not fit into their preconceptions and designs. 

If you changed "preconceptions and designs" to "established evidence and laws," then you would be correct.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Laws of science and established evidence are myths.  True science takes no truth for granted.

[Will]

That doesn't mean that all empirically gained knowledge is worthless.  Evidence is treated as factual until something comes along to prove it otherwise.  Knowledge builds on knowledge.  Systems are built.  If something comes along to prove them wrong, then those systems are readily questioned.

But, proving them wrong is easier said than done.  Random incidents that cannot be explained are not enough; repeatability is the key.  Find some phenomenon that disproves a system, then try to make it happen again.  If you can, then obviously something in the system is flawed and must be reevaluated.  If it cannot be repeated, then the original recording of the event must have been flawed.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Miracles do not threaten scientific designs of empirically gained knowledge in anyway.  Part of a miracle is that the incident does not typically occur, is a cheat on the natural system.  Were it to be a constant and repeatable, then it would be a natural phenomenon that can be consistently repeated and known.  I do not contend that all knowledge about the heart must be rewritten because someone “miraculously” got better.  If the event was miraculous then God cheated and so the rules were just bent as was seen fit.  If the event is natural, then there is simply an aspect of the heart not understood at the time which may or may not adjust what is already known.  That does not meant we have delete all knowledge.

Also, to discount something under the assumption of a flawed observer is bad science.  The suggestion is that there is a variable unaccounted for by the original experimenter or observer.  Not that they are flawed in what occurred.

[Hemingway]

Pumpkin Seeds, what specific scientific institutions act as religious ones, and in what way?

As for claiming science is a religion not being a tactic employed by the religious, that's just a blatant lie. It's very common among fundamentalists - creationists and religious scientists ( the ones who try to find evidence for their beliefs, rather than gather evidence and see where it leads ), and clearly is their way of trying to delegetimize science. When the argument is made, you're implying that religion and science are somehow equal sides of the same debate, rather than completely different approaches to some similar problems.

Your final comment seems to sum this up very nicely, and reflects the way I think a lot of people think; if it can't be explained, it's a miracle. If it can be explained, it's not a miracle. It's just moving the goalpost.

[Jude]

Imagine you are observing a colony of ants in a tank digging their way through sand and dirt.  One day you wake up, walk to the tank, and you notice a new branch that the ants have dug resembling the letter "f."  There are a variety of conclusions you can come to based on this:  it could be a coincidence, the ants could have purposely made the f, and lastly someone could have tampered with the ant colony to create the f.  In the case of the ant colony, the last assumption is a perfectly valid possibility because it's established that people exist outside of that ant colony capable of doing such.  The possibility of external influence and out-of-the-normal occurrences is established, but lets say that this ant colony is sealed tightly within a vault, where the only glimpse inside of a camera positioned on the wall.  The last option is thereby canceled, leaving behind coincidence and the possibility that the ants are capable of displaying behavior that is out of the norm which you've observed.

For thousands of years mankind has been observing odd occurrences and assigning them to one of these categories, yet there hasn't been a single event observed in a rigorous fashion which wasn't eventually been moved into the first two categories.  Quite often things were described as miraculous and strange in the past, thought to be irreproducible, and with due time were understood and reduced to something decipherable.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument as to why we should believe miracles exist at all, given that (as I have described above) the miracle-claimers are so often wrong.  There's no reason to believe that something exists external to our reality which influences it; the supernatural is an ad hoc hypothesis that has continually had things misattributed to it.

Could it exist?  Yes.  Is it likely?  No.  History has shown us that it's far more likely that we don't understand strange happenings, not that they're not understandable.

***

As far as the science as a religion thing goes, everything you cite there Pumpkin is an example of people stepping off the rails of science, not science.  I agree that unthinking acceptance of supposed scientifically established fact is a dangerous thing, but to do so is not scientific.

Science promotes skepticism and critical thinking thinking, the exact opposites of religion, which promotes blind adherence to supposed static truth.

EDIT:  As an afterthought, using the ant colony metaphor it's pretty obvious as to why the question of "do you believe in miracles" so easily becomes "do you believe in god?"  After all, if in the ant colony situation you lived with a practical joker, you'd assume readily he was responsible for the f too.

[MasterMischief]

If you believe in the supernatural, do you have to believe in all supernatural events/beings/whathaveyou?  If not, why not?  Am I understanding correctly that the supernatural, by definition, can not be proven or disproven?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I will encourage people not to refer to others as liars or to call their statements a blatant lie.  Misinformed, wrong or a variety of other adjectives that remove maliciousness from a statement are more accurate and wise to use.  This particular instance is more troubling because not only did you refer to my statement as a lie, you then set about failing to prove that I was trying to mislead others with my lie.  Therefore you have accused me of something with no evidence to support your claim.  Even if you were to replace the word lie with wrong, you still failed to support your claim.

I have given you specific instances from which to look at the “infallible” work that comes from scientific journals and the community.  Flaws have been shown in specific instances from the institutions that surround science.  Continuing to call for more specific examples while plaguing the thread with statements such as “I think this is how people think,” is a bit hypocritical.

What you describe Hemmingway is people using religion as science, which is of course wrong as well.  Faith cannot be touched by science, but likewise science cannot be touched by faith.  Attempting to cross that boundary leads to any number of false statements and erroneous conclusions.  Science and religion are not opposite sides of a coin nor are they combatants for a single goal.  They are two people blind folded and touching opposite ends of an elephant. 

As for believing in one supernatural event leading into another.  If you believe in the Big Bang Theory do you also have to believe that women suffer from hysteria which can only be relieved by a vibrator at the doctor’s office?

Also, I do not propose to have any reason someone should believe in a miracle.  Belief in a miracle is the personal choice of that person.  Do I believe that things have happened to me in the past that I cannot explain?  Certainly.  Do I believe that every time I see something unusual that God or some other entity has intervened?  Absolutely not. 

My statements are indeed examples of people stepping from the rails.  Most of the statements use against religious institutions and their acts are examples of such a thing as well.  Science, as I have said many times, was not meant to be as those examples indicated.  Those are the institutions though and people put faith in their words and writings as if given religious doctrine. Adherence to blind faith as I have seen written here a few times is what people ascribe to religion.  Science is commanding that same reverence.

Religion, at one time, did call for people to think.  Keep in mind that many of the scientific principles and philosophical lines of thought we possess today were from people of religious backgrounds.  Everything from genetics to economics to mathematics can be drawn back toward monks and priests.  At one time it was a widely held belief that through understanding God’s creation, God would better be known.

[Jude]

That's not really accurate Pumpkin.  Monks did little more than preserve ancient writings on philosophy, mathematics, and science by the Greeks throughout the middle-ages with very few advancements (in fact I can't think of any prominent intellectual advancements).  The only notable scholars of the dark ages were built around Christian thought and analysis of Christian documents.  It wasn't until the dark ages ended and religion's influence over the masses started to wane that intellectual progress picked up again.

During periods of religious dominance the human race becomes stagnant intellectually, and unsurprisingly so, because religion claims to have all of the answers to the problems that ail us.  Why toil hard in life to make this world a better place if it's but a brief blink of an eye before the eternity of heaven?  Religions have directly punished people for thinking, especially when the conclusions they come to are in opposition to religious dogma.  There are many examples of religion as the enemy of free thought (Galileo, Darwin, etc).

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment were inspired by humanism, with an emphasis on the secular and improving the now, certainly not by religion.

The view you refer to is often called "God as a Masterclockmaker" and that's really more of a justification and bandage to help mend the divide between science and religion that was cropping up even in the early days of formal thought.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The monk I was thinking of in particular was the creator of Mendalian genetics.  He is credited with introducing the concepts and ideas that we now use to understand genetics.  Philosophers that stem from religious backgrounds are Descartes, Thomas Aquinas, and Hegel.  Medicine was once a purview of the religious institutions.  Theories on nurse care stem greatly from the Sisters of Charity, medical institutions that were run by religious orders conducted a multitude of experiments including the one to determine the benefits of handwashing.  The Jesuit Order was one of the first to develop dialogue with eastern cultures and help expand trade into those areas.  Those are only the contributions of a small portion of the faithful.  Look at the amount of universities and scholarly institutes established and run by religious organizations. 

To say that religion, or at the least faith, does not promote critical thought is the inaccurate statement.

[Will]

I would be inclined to say that the majority of those are exceptions, rather than the rule.

[Jude]

Your point seems to be that there have been people who contributed to science, philosophy, and mathematics that were members of religious institutions therefore religion promotes such.  There's lots of fuzzy logic going on here.  For one particular examples wouldn't mean as much as percentages, and back in the day nearly everyone was religious.  Of course scientist, philosophers, and mathematicians are going to be religious in such a social landscape.

How exactly do you account for the fact that atheists score higher on IQ tests than the religious and according to this study 52% of scientists in prestigious research institutions are non-religious, as opposed to 12% of the general population.

Show me a single passage in the bible that speaks well of critical thinking?  Show me where the bible encourages doubt and skepticism instead of blind, irrational faith?  Show me speeches religious figures have given that encourage analytical probing into people's own beliefs?

Religion does the exact opposite of what you claim.  Religion teaches people to pridefully cling to their beliefs, to shelter their opinions, to cling to intellectual comforts, and avoid crossing the line into the dangerous territory of presupposing that you could actually be wrong.  Religion praises zealotry, certitude, and obedience where critical thinking is characterized by a willingness to consider any ideas, especially those that go against your preconceived notions.

[Will]

Well, off the top of my head, Jesus does urge people to be doubtful/critical about people who claim to speak for God - "Beware of false prophets," "Be careful that no one deceives you (claiming to be Christ returned)," etc. 

Still kind of a stretch to say that encourages critical thinking in general, though.  And it doesn't seem like most institutions interpret it that way.

[Oniya]

It was something I remembered from my Theoretical science classes a few years ago. Unfortunatly I didnt keep the book but then who keeps college books these days?

*waves*

Also found this in one of them:



And just remember - as long as they teach Algebra, there will continue to be prayer in schools ;D

I'm here till Thursday - try the pot roast.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I give you a monk that contributed to our understanding of genetics; exception.

Give you three philosophers that contributed to classical thought and have influenced modern thought; exception.

An entire order of priests known as the Jesuits and an order of nuns known as the Sisters of Charity; exception…!?

Institutions founded by the Catholic Church across the world that make up some of the most prestigious universities and schools in the world; …..exception!?.....

Am I misunderstanding the definition of exception?

[Jude]

Causation is not correlation, Pumpkin.  Just because they happened to be religious and happened to do things that involve critical thought, does not mean that one led to the other.  An examination of religion reveals it to be dogmatic and absolutist, certainly not skeptical or analytical.

And yes, you gave a few examples from when the world was even more dominantly religious than it is now.  If you wanted to prove that religion promotes critical thought, you'd have to show that the religious tend to think critically more than the non-religious.  Even that link would be vague at best, but it's irrelevant because that just isn't the case.

If religion actually promotes critical thought, you should have passages to link to.  Even the stuff Will managed to pull together isn't preaching critical thought, merely to be suspicious when accepting religious testimony from other people.  That has more to do with the protection and purity of the church than it does a rigorous process for examining statements to determine the soundness of their logic before accepting them as truth.

Even religions that promote altered states of consciousness and inner reflection don't promote deep analysis, recognition of logical fallacies, or venerate reason.

The only exception I can think of to that statement is Discordianism, which proudly proclaims in its dogma after listing its major tenets, "A Discordian is prohibited from believing what they read."

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Please note that in the Wikipedia article linked there is criticism of what the IQ score actually means.  Also note that according to the book, The Bell Curve, these same tests are used to state that men are smarter than women, whites smarter than blacks, rich people smarter than poor people and all manner of erroneous conclusions drawn from IQ scores.  One of the things my sociology professor loved to do was read the amount of questions submitted by the research group using IQ and how falsely they judged natural intelligence.  While the survey this researcher used might have been representative of the population, the IQ test that survey was using is tested on children from the Midwest as their representative population.

Those points you present at the end Jude are quite a bit of generalization.  Continually you make nothing but generalizations about religion and the people that partake in religion.  Out of hand you dismiss the notion that people of a religious bend are critical thinkers, stating yourself that there cannot be any scientific evidence for that.  Readily dismissing something with no evidence because of your own bias. 

Also the Jesuit Order still works actively across the world to establish connections with communities of different cultures and establish centers of education.  The Sisters of Charity work to this day to save people’s lives with medicine and conduct research to better help the medical community.  Last time I looked Xavier University, one of the top schools for pharmacology, still stands and is run by the Catholic Church along with Loyola University not far down the road which has an exemplary law school. 

Why should I name passages Jude?  Is that what this debate has come down to, a debate on religious text?  Quote me a passage or you are false?  That sounds more like a practitioner of religious dogma than anything I have said so far.  I have not memorized the Bible or the Koran or any other religious text.  I do not walk about quoting them from the top of my head so that I might defend my faith.  An oddity that typically people in your position ridicule those that quote the Bible, yet now you demand it be done.  I give you modern day institutions of the Catholic Church which promote knowledge in all its forms and you call them exceptions or say they are not proof.  You give me broad, insulting generalizations and then demand to be quoted the Bible.

If this is what the debate has come to, then I think its conclusion is a bit evident.

[Noelle]

Out of hand you dismiss the notion that people of a religious bend are critical thinkers, stating yourself that there cannot be any scientific evidence for that.  Readily dismissing something with no evidence because of your own bias.

I disagree. Nowhere does he state that no religious people can be critical thinkers. That would be absurd -- plenty of thoughtful, critical people have been religious. You're missing the difference, it seems. Religion does not inherently make critical thinkers. One does not necessarily lead to the other. This doesn't mean a religious person is damned to be an unthinking idiot, it just means that, like non-religious people or people of other faiths, their critical thinking is likely developed from another cause. I feel like you're pulling the offense out of something that isn't really offensive at all.

Why don't most religions outwardly promote critical thinking? It's easy. It's in their interest to keep their congregation coming back, isn't it? Be it for their own noble want to save non-believers or something far more dubious, religion's very foundation is faith in what they assume to be a given -- the existence of God. It's a little like putting the cart before the horse. Before they've given you any substantive evidence, they give you the conditions under which you should believe them and THEN fill in the details. If you start evaluating religion and putting it through rigorous and critical scientific testing, it's no secret that it doesn't hold up. And then you're left with a group of followers who have to reconcile which they'd rather believe, and it's not much of a stretch to say that religion doesn't always win out. Most people question the existence of god easily enough on their own without a prod further in that direction.

Also the Jesuit Order still works actively across the world to establish connections with communities of different cultures and establish centers of education.  The Sisters of Charity work to this day to save people’s lives with medicine and conduct research to better help the medical community.  Last time I looked Xavier University, one of the top schools for pharmacology, still stands and is run by the Catholic Church along with Loyola University not far down the road which has an exemplary law school. 

Their base motivation to do what they do may have rooted in the desire to help others via the Bible's teachings, but religion didn't teach these people how to become doctors or researchers or lawyers.
I might also mention that they don't promote critical thinking WITHIN the church. When was the last time you heard of a church going "Go on, guys! Question us! You think this water into wine stuff is bullshit? Let's talk about it!"

Why should I name passages Jude?

Because if you make claims that an organization does something (ie: religion promotes critical thinking), you should be able to provide examples to support yourself? Isn't that...the basis for a debate? You don't just throw claims out there and expect people to believe you just because you think it sounds right. Religion does that enough as it is. (Sorry, couldn't help myself. It's just a joke.) I doubt he even expects you to have memorized the Bible -- that's not the point. I sure as hell don't have every single scientific theory and law and the like memorized, but you can ALWAYS do research. There's basically no excuse not to when the internet and Google have made it laughably simple to do so. This is the result of exactly five seconds of searching.

An oddity that typically people in your position ridicule those that quote the Bible, yet now you demand it be done.  I give you modern day institutions of the Catholic Church which promote knowledge in all its forms and you call them exceptions or say they are not proof.  You give me broad, insulting generalizations and then demand to be quoted the Bible.

Like I said. I think you're coloring things a little with your perceived offense. I have seen nothing outwardly hostile in his statements, merely your reactions to them. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

“Religion does the exact opposite of what you claim.  Religion teaches people to pridefully cling to their beliefs, to shelter their opinions, to cling to intellectual comforts, and avoid crossing the line into the dangerous territory of presupposing that you could actually be wrong.  Religion praises zealotry, certitude, and obedience where critical thinking is characterized by a willingness to consider any ideas, especially those that go against your preconceived notions.” – Jude

That seems to be a quote stating that religion keeps people from critically thinking and teaches them some rather negative qualities.  This statement is indeed offensive and is meant to be derogatory toward the institutions of religion.  This states that religion willfully prevents people from thinking and encourages them to become mindless.  My experience with religion is completely different, yet I am confronted with the generalization regardless.  My beliefs have become a con perpetrated by someone else to brainwash me into coming back to their congregation and giving them money.

As for quoting the material, might you quote me your worker’s policy manual?  Perhaps you could quote me something from the owner’s manual of your car or mayhap another document.  Please go scan for some bit of information in a text that is, I’ll say over 500 pages, so that this can be dismissed.  If a person has no faith in the Bible, then quoting them something from the Bible is a waste of air and time.  To have my intellect, presentation and information reduced to a Bible quote is indeed insulting.  I think I have presented a fair case that religion can and does encourage thinking, but instead I am told to quote the Bible. 

The institutions I have listed are investments by the Church of their money, efforts and manpower.  That shows a commitment by the Catholic Church in the venues of education.  My listing of medicine and law school is meant to display that the education offered is not simply religious rhetoric, but of scientific and critical thinking.  If an organization makes that kind of investment on that large a scale that their efforts extend into nearly all continents, then their efforts deserve to at least be taken seriously.  Once more this is reduced to…quote me the Bible. 

As for Googling and using search engines, this highlights a problem for debate.  People type a word, find something that looks important and plaster it onto the message board.  They do not look at the credentials of the article, do not consider the sources and don’t look at the knowledge.

[Kate]

I thoroughly and utterly agree with Pumpkin seeds on her current stances. This thread does ring similar to the existence of god thread. I think the reason why her reasoning seems very coherent is that she has seemingly stayed aware that the topic of the thread being

"are YOU a believer in miracles?"
Not
"Should OTHERS beleive in miracles?"

*

This next part of my reply will directly address some of the stances (not points not facts - STANCES) Jude has adopted, mainly because his sentences do have a ring of "Im an authority of interpretation and truth and meaning" coupled with an implied expectation this is an objective truth all non-delusional people agree with.

To prove a point I will assume the same condescending tone in critique ~once~

Science promotes skepticism and critical thinking thinking, the exact opposites of religion, which promotes blind adherence to supposed static truth.

- Jude

"Show me a single passage in the bible that speaks well of critical thinking?  Show me where the bible encourages doubt and skepticism instead of blind, irrational faith?  Show me speeches religious figures have given that encourage analytical probing into people's own beliefs?

- Jude

"And yes, you gave a few examples from when the world was even more dominantly religious than it is now.  If you wanted to prove that religion promotes critical thought, you'd have to show that the religious tend to think critically more than the non-religious.  Even that link would be vague at best, but it's irrelevant because that just isn't the case."

- jude

Pumpkin did rise to the challenge and gave you examples for you. Not because she felt it was suitable to support her own stance to other readers but to honor your request for one. To respect your words. After you have one What that means is not related to her point, its related to sedating a cause for request, nothing more.

But this brings me to a more interesting point - Jude, at one time you were in a mood where a ~single~ example of something would mean "something" to that that mood you were in.

Miracle it happened !

One ~single~ example -not repeatable- one instance of something.. unlikely to the perspective that mood was in. Others have these moods, they are moods that are valid, their experience of "one instance" which is not repeatable enough for them to change something within them.

Does the relevance of that mood persist all-ways throughout their perspective ? No. Unless I am mistaken this thread inst debating this.

"Religion does the exact opposite of what you claim.  Religion teaches people to pridefully cling to their beliefs, to shelter their opinions, to cling to intellectual comforts, and avoid crossing the line into the dangerous territory of presupposing that you could actually be wrong.  Religion praises zealotry, certitude, and obedience where critical thinking is characterized by a willingness to consider any ideas, especially those that go against your preconceived notions."

- Jude

If religion teaches people to cling to their beliefs, no religions would teach anything as the peoples current beliefs (whatever they were) would already perfectly suit the "religion" in question.

Even assuming that Belief in Miracles = Faith = Religion = Fundamentalist Christianity ...
none of the equal signs I believe in personally btw for spiritual as well as logical reasons)

It would be difficult for Christs following to be so strong if Christ was just charismatic, biblical it was his PREDICTIONS which cam true and ~repeated~ miracles he performed with intention that were reported which converted many. Not "blind faith in him", but note of his words implying a testable outcome of them from their perspective.

If true, (as much as any document with sweeping declarations on what is is "true") a crude scientific method of deduction was adopted for the would be followers to think "hmm maybe he is on to something and not just a madman". This MAY be how followings occurred for those following while Christ was alive (if he was). Remember being under a roman rule, not many would be inclined to trust anything that claims authority, they just heave learned to deal with what role they find themselves in. This populous was used to ranting madmen claiming the gods will of this and that ... every day all the time.

"Monks did little more than preserve ancient writings on philosophy, mathematics, and science by the Greeks throughout the middle-ages with very few advancements (in fact I can't think of any prominent intellectual advancements).  The only notable scholars of the dark ages were built around Christian thought and analysis of Christian documents.  It wasn't until the dark ages ended and religion's influence over the masses started to wane that intellectual progress picked up again."

- Jude

During the ~dark ages~ the monks did ~not~ have power over the masses, it was anarchy and warlords more or less reined, fortified monasteries existed - as when people were starving or their warlords want to these places were assaulted. Being assaulted by the masses isn't having control over them, reasons - most monks group objective unlikely included being attacked.

Monks in the dark ages didn't typically seek power over others they were solitary. Medieval times onwards for papal orders - different story. The ~monasteries~ and ~nunneries~ were the only places one could become literate. Times were tough, being part of the order guaranteed a more likelihood of getting food and having an education. Many who joined would have been simply academically inclined and accepted the monastery's conditions as the price to pay to have such an option during "dark times"... and have any chance of living beyond 20 or so.

"Religions have directly punished people for thinking, especially when the conclusions they come to are in opposition to religious dogma.  There are many examples of religion as the enemy of free thought (Galileo, Darwin, etc)."

Unlikely Jude. Typically People punish people, Individuals and groups subjective "causes for a religion" have been used as justifications of punishments. But Religions do not on their own. Books containing a new religion which is not read or known to people seldom manifest powers that punish people in statistically repeatable manner which someone like your self subscribes to needing for it to exist in feasibility. Treating your sentences literally implies religion even without books (perhaps a perspective one has) have supernatural powers of punishing people on their own without any other contributing natural forces - and this force is one that you beleive and others should do.

You may beleive this is possible, I have all the "sacred" books of the Jewish, christian and Muslim faiths in my library and I have not YET experienced them flying out to hit me on the head when I said something sacrilegious.. but it may happen perhaps saying if I say "Moses was insane lame deluded fuckwit" a few more times ...

if you beleive religions directly punish people for thinking - "especially when their conclusions come into opposition of dogma." This would be an example of supernatural powers of the text of the dogma itself - or even of the dogma without the text itself.

The literal interpretation of your sentences imply you DO beleive in "divine supernatural intervention (from what is "divine" is as detailed in the "dogma" (not the people that follow) which punishes people.

Jude I know you do not beleive in what I am implying of your sentences, but I only went down this path to raise it as a point to please give up on the no more "those of faith" must / should / do / will beleive in this and this book passage's or persons statement's LITERAL interpretation.

I know I am talking down condescendingly like a child to your statements Jude, making assumptions on your perspective and beliefs while implying Im the authority of what you mean and its implications. But this is more to bring your attention to the hard condescending tone you take towards others. (Which frankly I think Pumpkin is more deserving to adopt than yourself - credit for her not doing so)

Jude - if you don't like people attributing your perspective to immature fantastic premises like I have above, please give others (especially Pumpkin) the same courtesy.

And for the sweet love of "God" (my God, not the christian god) Jude, those who have faith in miracles happening are not necessarily fundamental Christians ! Nor necessarily religious AT ALL 

I would know, I am one.

But enough of what I don't agree with - Pumpkin your posts are a pleasure to read.

[Silk]

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/The%20Big%20Bang%20Theory.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

There is actually ALOT going for the big bang theory, its hardly something scientists have pulled out of their backsides, (And this is just the first few links from google, can't be looking to hard to find it.

And there is a possible corrolation to why men are smarter than women, whites smarter than blacks etc, ON AVERAGE

Both of the latter groups have not been in a range of education as long as the former, as well as the nature of the way each works. E.g. Many women do not have to be educated to a high degree due to having a supporting male, however its a much rarer occurence to have a uneducated male being supported by a female. And black people "tend" to live in poorer areas of housing and educational access, against white people.

Or you can even say if you wanted, blacks and women tend to be more religious and less likely to be athiests, compared to white males who are a significant bulk of the athistic community and work via the scientific method in their lives. Yes it does have a strong effect on intelligence. Its not racist or sexist to understand causes and effects to what people might have affecting their IQs and certainly less racist/sexist than saying their just naturally dumber without pointing out plausable reasons as to why there might be a effect

http://videosift.com/video/Average-IQ-by-Blue-vs-Red-State-Religious-vs-Atheist
(Taken from wikipedia)
Race Distribution

Overall, U.S. Americans who profess no religion or self-identify as Atheist or Agnostic are more likely to be white non-Hispanic or Asian and less likely to be African American, as compared to the general adult population in U.S.[56]
[edit] Gender Distribution

Both Agnostics and Atheists are predominantly male. In the U.S. population as a whole, 48 percent of adults are males. By comparison, males account for 56 percent of the no-religion group, 79 percent of Atheists, and 75 percent of Agnostics. Those may reflect men's greater tendency to disbelieve and reject authority.[56]

And since atheism and the scienitific method do not have a blind indoctrination that god will make it all better, are more likely to rely on themselves, and their critical thinking alot more to get by in life, which will result in a high rated IQ

[Pumpkin Seeds]

"Just to make it perfectly clear up front - the "data" that the IQ stuff is based on has been thoroughly discredited as far as I can tell." - Obsidian Storm

That was posted under the rather obviously biased video you linked to the community.  Do I need to restate the dangers of using Google again?

[Silk]

You've made the claim, but where is the evidence to back your statement up?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Which statement?

[Kate]

Silk - please keep in mind one thing, this thread isn't about science vs religion.

[Jude]

Pumpkin, you haven't presented any evidence at all to back up this idea that religion promotes critical thinking, you've merely stated it.  I've presented you with statistics that show the religious are not as good of critical thinkers as the non-religious, but I'll freely admit that what I've said doesn't conclusively prove anything (your argument against IQ is well-taken, but you didn't say anything to address the prominence of non-religiousness among scientists).  I asked you for passages because, if religion does promote critical thinking, then it must be in the dogma somewhere.

Religion presents its followers with what it claims is absolute truth and any the only questioning they tolerate and encourage is of outsiders, other beliefs, and anything that threatens the religion.  Want examples of the church silencing people, discouraging free-thought, and critical thinking to back up my thesis?  Here goes:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, and will not listen to them when they discipline him, they shall seize him and bring him before the elders. Then they shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is immoral and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be AFRAID.
— Deuteronomy 21:18-21

... all who are under the yoke of slavery ... who have believing masters ... must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise ... he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy..., which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind...
-- I Timothy 6:1-5 (RSV)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
— 1 Timothy 2:11-14

“If you refuse to obey all the terms of this law that are written in this book, and if you do not fear the glorious and awesome name of the LORD your God, then the LORD will overwhelm both you and your children with indescribable plagues. These plagues will be intense and without relief, making you miserable and unbearably sick. He will bring against you all the diseases of Egypt that you feared so much, and they will claim you. The LORD will bring against you every sickness and plague there is, even those not mentioned in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. Though you are as numerous as the stars in the sky, few of you will be left because you would not listen to the LORD your God. "Just as the LORD has found great pleasure in helping you to prosper and multiply, the LORD will find pleasure in destroying you, until you disappear from the land you are about to enter and occupy. For the LORD will scatter you among all the nations from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship foreign gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods made of wood and stone! There among those nations you will find no place of security and rest. And the LORD will cause your heart to tremble, your eyesight to fail, and your soul to despair. Your lives will hang in doubt. You will live night and day in fear, with no reason to believe that you will see the morning light. In the morning you will say, 'If only it were night!' And in the evening you will say, 'If only it were morning!' You will say this because of your terror at the awesome horrors you see around you. Then the LORD will send you back to Egypt in ships, a journey I promised you would never again make. There you will offer to sell yourselves to your enemies as slaves, but no one will want to buy you.”---- Deuteronomy 28:58-68 NLT

The entire bible is a book of dos and don'ts, constantly warning that the punishment for intellectual disobedience is an eternity in hell.  That certainly doesn't encourage you to consider "what if I'm wrong?"  It commands you to believe, stacks the odds against you if you don't, and otherwise tells you how to live your life in accordance with its message.

To be fair, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are amongst the worst religions when it comes to that.  Buddhism, in its almost-philosophical form, doesn't really speak ill of critical thought (though there are denominations that do).  Dogma, by its very nature, encourages thoughtlessness and blind obedience to supposed holy texts.

I'd like to repeat once more.  Correlation is not causation, you've shown no evidence whatsoever that the bible encourages critical thought (and I'd argue that you haven't really established correlation either, you've given examples, not statistics).  If you want to claim that religion promotes critical thinking, you need to actually back up that claim.

As Noelle stated, I'm not saying all religious people are incapable of critical thought, merely that religion does not encourage critical thought.  This doesn't mean that religious people can't think critically.

***

Also, Kate, different kinds of proof are required for different claims.  If someone claims, "religious people cannot think critically" all you have to do is show them one instance of a religious person claiming critically, and your proposition has been disproven.  If you're going to claim that religion promotes critical thought, from that you can derive a testable implication that therefore on average religious people utilize critical thought more often than the non-religious (because its promoted by their religion, which the non-religious do not have).  She hasn't shown a shred of evidence to back that up.  She's only given a few examples of people who do think critically that are religious, that's not proof that religion promotes critical thought.  I can give you a few examples of clowns that happen to be male, that doesn't mean that every clown is male.

During the ~dark ages~ the monks did ~not~ have power over the masses, it was anarchy and warlords more or less reined, fortified monasteries existed - as when people were starving or their warlords want to these places were assaulted. Being assaulted by the masses isn't having control over them, reasons - most monks group objective unlikely included being attacked.

Monks in the dark ages didn't typically seek power over others they were solitary. Medieval times onwards for papal orders - different story. The ~monasteries~ and ~nunneries~ were the only places one could become literate. Times were tough, being part of the order guaranteed a more likelihood of getting food and having an education. Many who joined would have been simply academically inclined and accepted the monastery's conditions as the price to pay to have such an option during "dark times"... and have any chance of living beyond 20 or so.

There's a reason that the dark ages are also referred to as Christendom.  Religion held great power over the masses during that period of time.  But you'll notice that I did not claim anywhere that the monks were the wielders of power.

If religion teaches people to cling to their beliefs, no religions would teach anything as the peoples current beliefs (whatever they were) would already perfectly suit the "religion" in question.

You have a point, I misspoke.  In the case of people who have already accepted their dogma, they teach people to cling to it.  In the case of people who haven't, they teach people to convert to it.  But in most cases the former is what they spend most of their time doing because in most religions parents are encouraged to teach their children about the religion and instruct them in it before the child's higher reasoning develops, so that they accept it uncritically.

Unlikely Jude. Typically People punish people, Individuals and groups subjective "causes for a religion" have been used as justifications of punishments. But Religions do not on their own. Books containing a new religion which is not read or known to people seldom manifest powers that punish people in statistically repeatable manner which someone like your self subscribes to needing for it to exist in feasibility. Treating your sentences literally implies religion even without books (perhaps a perspective one has) have supernatural powers of punishing people on their own without any other contributing natural forces - and this force is one that you beleive and others should do.

You clearly know I wasn't claiming that the religion itself, the very concept of that belief, is punishing people.  I was arguing that the institutions of the religion punish people, namely the Vatican in the example I gave, for questioning.  But your point is well taken.  It is a good idea to separate the institutions from the texts themselves, but in making such an argument you have also nullified all of Pumpkin's examples, because she's named institutions and people, not the religion.

As for Googling and using search engines, this highlights a problem for debate.  People type a word, find something that looks important and plaster it onto the message board.  They do not look at the credentials of the article, do not consider the sources and don’t look at the knowledge.

Before selecting the specific source to cite I read several articles on IQ and atheism, a few of which I tossed out because I recall reading the study at the time (such as the atheism/male/liberalism study which was linked to in On Topic a few months back) and thinking that they were flawed or not particularly strong/conclusive.  Not everyone throws up an article at random without verifying it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The problem with your statement is that you reached further than you are now claiming.  Indeed religious people were not excluded from the ability to critically think, but you then stated that religion discourages critical thought.  Hence my examples of religious educational institutions where by their existence critical thought must be taught and encouraged.  Continually you make this sound as if these educational institutions are only a small group, despite their existence in Asia, Europe, North America and South America along with ones in Africa.  Once more I state that if an institution discourages critical thinking, then they would not put such immense focus and energy into education.  According to your view of religion, education would be the enemy.

The scientist quote I left unaddressed due to an inability to follow the link given.  As this apparently distressed you, I will tend to that now.  I assume the document you are using is from Dr. Ecklund, who studied the religiosity of people in the academic fields.  Indeed there were a higher number of atheists in the scientific community than in the general populous.  The main contributing factor though to predicting the scientist’s religion was the person’s family at home.  Also the numbers are misleading when grouped together, because according to Ecklund’s report nearly 50% were religious and substantial portions were what she called “creative entrepreneurs.”  This meant they were attempting to work their faith into their scientific background.  A small minority were actually hostile to religion.

Since there is this unsated appetite for numbers now and my listing of actions taken by the Church to promote education and thought are not enough, I will attempt to satisfy.  According to a William H. Jeynes from the University of California in Long Beach, there is a positive correlation between urban children with high religious commitment and improved academic performance over those without religious commitment.  Also a study at Brigham Young University indicated that students with high internal religious conviction performed better academically with higher GPAs. 

As of yet Jude you have failed to prove your claim that religion deters critical thought and also that being non-religious makes one more prone to critical thinking. 

References
1.   http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/1/44
2.   http://intuition.byu.edu/Assets/07religiosity.pdf
3.   http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/04/13/are-top-scientists-really-so-atheistic-look-at-the-data/

[Noelle]

As for quoting the material, might you quote me your worker’s policy manual?  Perhaps you could quote me something from the owner’s manual of your car or mayhap another document.  Please go scan for some bit of information in a text that is, I’ll say over 500 pages, so that this can be dismissed.  If a person has no faith in the Bible, then quoting them something from the Bible is a waste of air and time.  To have my intellect, presentation and information reduced to a Bible quote is indeed insulting.  I think I have presented a fair case that religion can and does encourage thinking, but instead I am told to quote the Bible.

What...does this have to do with anything. There's a reason you're being asked to quote the Bible, and that's because it's RELEVANT. It doesn't matter if I'm Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or a Pastafarian, if you're going to make claims for your religion, then I think it should be obvious that you should be finding where your religion supports it. Your case has hardly been fair -- it's been a claim and nothing more. I can claim the earth rotates around a bald man's head and that it's so bright from the reflection of the stars, but who is going to put any stock into what I said until I do the research? You can claim and claim, but your words are worthless without anything credible to support it. I could more fully understand where your point is coming from if I A) know your background (and I do, you are a Christian, therefore I can assume you have some amount of faith in the Bible) and B) know where you're making your claims from.

The institutions I have listed are investments by the Church of their money, efforts and manpower.  That shows a commitment by the Catholic Church in the venues of education.  My listing of medicine and law school is meant to display that the education offered is not simply religious rhetoric, but of scientific and critical thinking.  If an organization makes that kind of investment on that large a scale that their efforts extend into nearly all continents, then their efforts deserve to at least be taken seriously.  Once more this is reduced to…quote me the Bible. 

I repeat myself: Religion DID NOT teach these people medicine. Science did. Yes, their efforts may have been religiously motivated, but the Church and God did not teach them how to treat patients or represent cases in a court of law, and religion did not teach them to critically think about religion. I have never, ever heard of any Christian institution imploring its followers to consider the fact that god may not exist for the sake of critically thinking about it. Who wants to take the chance of possibly accidentally disproving their own faith in God and then getting sent to hell later?

As for Googling and using search engines, this highlights a problem for debate.  People type a word, find something that looks important and plaster it onto the message board.  They do not look at the credentials of the article, do not consider the sources and don’t look at the knowledge.

Yes, because I asked you to uncritically scan Google for the first thing that convenienced you and to quote it. Crazy that I didn't catch that part where I said that oh wait I didn't.

Since there is this unsated appetite for numbers now and my listing of actions taken by the Church to promote education and thought are not enough, I will attempt to satisfy.  According to a William H. Jeynes from the University of California in Long Beach, there is a positive correlation between urban children with high religious commitment and improved academic performance over those without religious commitment.  Also a study at Brigham Young University indicated that students with high internal religious conviction performed better academically with higher GPAs. 

Non-LDS or Convert Status and BYU Religion GPA
Because of an inadequate sample size it was determined
an analysis would not produce reliable results;
therefore these questions must be addressed in the
future.

The problem with the BYU study is that the whole school is basically forced to convert, so it's next to impossible to retrieve data for comparison for the non-religious or people of other faith when it basically doesn't exist.

The first link you posted doesn't have the full text available, so I can't see the methods they used/the exact statistics.

In terms of the third link, I found this particular part to be interesting:

Ecklund reveals how scientists–believers and skeptics alike–are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms.

I'm curious to know what was on the survey, what statistics came of that, and if the statistics might've changed if they interviewed everyone, or a different portion. It's still pretty vague in the article, though. Actually, in any of these surveys, I'm curious to know if including agnosticism/other faiths than Christianity would change the results any, either, especially since we're speaking strictly in terms of Christianity and if it promotes critical thought.


Alright, my turn.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/atheists_and_liberals_more_intelligent_says_atheist_liberal_psychologist

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

[...]

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

A similar study to one you found, with opposite results:
http://religions-of-the-world.tressugar.com/Why-so-Many-Scientists-Atheists-6259603

A recent survey (June 2009) of over 2,500 U.S. scientists shows that the scientific community has a very different view of God from society as a whole.  Only 33% of scientists believe in "God" while another 18% believe in a "universal spirit" or "higher power". (See source 1.  )  The study concluded that scientists are less likely to believe in a "God" or "Higher Power" as the general public.

It can be broken down even further by the different areas of study:

Biological/Medical Field:  32% believe in "God", another 19% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 41% do not believe in either.

Chemistry:  41% believe in "God", another 14% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 39% do not believe in either.

Geoscience:  30% believe in "God", another 20% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 47% do not believe in either.

Physics/Astronomy:  29% believe in "God", another 14% don't believe in "God" but believe in a "Higher Power", and 46% do not believe in either.

By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in "God" or a "Higher Power" with approx. 83% having a religious affiliation according to a 2006 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

[DarklingAlice]

Since we are quoting things left and right, I just wanted to leave this here.

From The Age of Reason (Part I), published by Thomas Paine in 1794:

The setters up, therefore, and the advocates of the Christian system of faith, could not but foresee that the continually progressive knowledge that man would gain by the aid of science, of the power and wisdom of God, manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all the works of creation, would militate against, and call into question, the truth of their system of faith; and therefore it became necessary to their purpose to cut learning down to a size less dangerous to their project, and this they effected by restricting the idea of learning to the dead study of dead languages.

They not only rejected the study of science out of the Christian schools, but they persecuted it; and it is only within about the last two centuries that the study has been revived. So late as 1610, Galileo, a Florentine, discovered and introduced the use of telescopes, and by applying them to observe the motions and appearances of the heavenly bodies, afforded additional means for ascertaining the true structure of the universe. Instead of being esteemed for these discoveries, he was sentenced to renounce them, or the opinions resulting from them, as a damnable heresy. And prior to that time Virgilius was condemned to be burned for asserting the antipodes, or in other words, that the earth was a globe, and habitable in every part where there was land; yet the truth of this is now too well known even to be told.

If the belief of errors not morally bad did no mischief, it would make no part of the moral duty of man to oppose and remove them. There was no moral ill in believing the earth was flat like a trencher, any more than there was moral virtue in believing it was round like a globe; neither was there any moral ill in believing that the Creator made no other world than this, any more than there was moral virtue in believing that he made millions, and that the infinity of space is filled with worlds. But when a system of religion is made to grow out of a supposed system of creation that is not true, and to unite itself therewith in a manner almost inseparable therefrom, the case assumes an entirely different ground. It is then that errors, not morally bad, become fraught with the same mischiefs as if they were. It is then that the truth, though otherwise indifferent itself, becomes an essential, by becoming the criterion that either confirms by corresponding evidence, or denies by contradictory evidence, the reality of the religion itself. In this view of the case it is the moral duty of man to obtain every possible evidence that the structure of the heavens, or any other part of creation affords, with respect to systems of religion. But this, the supporters or partisans of the Christian system, as if dreading the result, incessantly opposed, and not only rejected the sciences, but persecuted the professors. Had Newton or Descartes lived three or four hundred years ago, and pursued their studies as they did, it is most probable they would not have lived to finish them; and had Franklin drawn lightning from the clouds at the same time, it would have been at the hazard of expiring for it in flames.

Later times have laid all the blame upon the Goths and Vandals, but, however unwilling the partisans of the Christian system may be to believe or to acknowledge it, it is nevertheless true, that the age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system. There was more knowledge in the world before that period, than for many centuries afterwards; and as to religious knowledge, the Christian system, as already said, was only another species of mythology; and the mythology to which it succeeded, was a corruption of an ancient system of theism.

[Jude]

1)  What you're describing there Pumpkin is the behavior of institutions with a religious origin, not the behavior encouraged by the religion.  The religion asks its followers to take care of the sick and poor (a noble tenet, I might add), but people take that in completely different directions based on their own practical methods of doing so.  You've got Christian Scientists who believe hands on healing and use that as their method and then you have people who start hospitals and practice medical science to fulfill their religious obligations.  Religion does not stress one method over the other (though at least hands on healing is actually in the bible).

If your argument is that religious people use critical thinking to accomplish religious goals, therefore religion encourages critical thinking, then religion also encourages violence because violence has been used to accomplish religious goals.  Obviously the latter is not fair, so the former doesn't stand up to the test of logic either.

2)  I can readily accept that I haven't proven that religion discourages critical thinking.  I'm not sure I can, because I haven't been able to find the sort of study I wanted (and I don't intend to go out and do such a study just to prove a point--although I am curious about what I will find).  It may not be true.  I've noticed many instances of religious people failing to employ basic critical thinking in my life, and almost certainly that the more fundamental a person is in their beliefs, the more idiotic their logical processes have seemed (for most, anyway).  But my observations are meaningless because I am a flawed observer.  Confirmation bias comes into play and I didn't take a representative sample or use rigid definitions.  The bottom line is, although I do believe that religious people tend to be worse off than non-religious when it comes to critical thinking, I do not know this.

However, don't take that as a concession of your point.  The evidence was have seen, I think, slants in the direction of my point of view, but even if you think it breaks even or leans in your direction, your claim is shaky too.

I've asked for bible passages because I haven't see any promoting the use of reason, thought, and analysis.  The flavor of the bible passages I have shown is anything but rationalism and open-mindedness.

I challenge you to show us some bible passages which do promote this, so that we see where you're getting this from.

[HairyHeretic]

Alright folks, time to calm down a little.

Let's bear in mind that for those with religious beliefs, they tend to be reasonably important. They also have as much right to those beliefs as those who choose not to believe. Politics and religion are always going to be touchy subjects, and it's easy to read tone in words that was not intended, or to misunderstand the intent of a statement. Add that to a touchy subject, and things can blow up in a hurry.

Now, looking over the last couple of pages I think the tone of this thread could use a little more consideration for our rule 2: Be polite, be civil, be respectful. You don't agree with someone else's opinion? That's fine. But if you want to challenge that opinion, bear in mind the manner you chose to do so.

Or I may be tempted to introduce you to a little something from my own beliefs.

[Silk]

Pull your pants back up heretic :P

[HairyHeretic]

Much as I'd like to admit to that, I refer only to my being Asatruar  :D

[Soran]

I would like to say how impressed I am with the level of passion in this thread. It is a simply fascinating argument, one that cannot be resolved in this thread. We all have our own beliefs, whether it is in God (or divine being) or science.

I'm not a religious person because of the simplest fact in the universe. Every holy book on this planet have been written by humans with their perceptions and interpretations which does not make it the word of God.

Do I believe in God? Actually I do.

Do I believe in miracles? hhmmm tricky, but actually yes, I do. Oh not some religious stuff written down, I see miracles every day in everything I see around me, regardless how it has come to be here, by God, evolution or humans.

Although, I will also like to point out, you can debate my take on this, I just won't be participating (after this post).  :P

[Silk]

I would like to say how impressed I am with the level of passion in this thread. It is a simply fascinating argument, one that cannot be resolved in this thread. We all have our own beliefs, whether it is in God (or divine being) or science.

I'm not a religious person because of the simplest fact in the universe. Every holy book on this planet have been written by humans with their perceptions and interpretations which does not make it the word of God.

Do I believe in God? Actually I do.

Do I believe in miracles? hhmmm tricky, but actually yes, I do. Oh not some religious stuff written down, I see miracles every day in everything I see around me, regardless how it has come to be here, by God, evolution or humans.

Although, I will also like to point out, you can debate my take on this, I just won't be participating (after this post).  :P

Nothing wrong with either agnostism or pantheism Soran, its a respectable middle ground stance to take.

[Chelemar]

 
Just a few examples of where the bible encourages critical thinking

A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps. (Pr 14:15)
It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way. (Pr 19:2)

If you need more, check out Paul.

Personally, any time, ANY TIME, I have had doubt, a question, an issue a crisis of faith, and approached a cleric (Priest, Minister, Pastor, hell even a friend who was Wiccan) to speak about what was going on, that person encouraged me to THINK, to explore, to pray.  But to always search for my answers.  Many people of faith do ask questions, critical questions on the whys, whos, whats, etc of their beliefs.  To have faith is challenging and difficult.  It's not easy. Faith is not  blind, you must see your way there.  It is not idiotic, but it can be simple. Faith is a state of existence.   To those of you who feel you have been scorned for not believing, those of us who believe have as well.  It is not a one way street. 

And to carry on in the Personal note, the title of the subject line is "Are YOU a believer in miracles."  It seems to have segued into an argument on proving that miracles exist, or that they don't.  By their very nature, their very definition in that they are a divine intervention that can not be repeated, they will never be proved... I doubt to everyone satisfaction...ever.  And, for me that's OK.  I don't care if anyone believes in the miracles that I personally had happen. I believe that miracles are for those in which they were intended.  The ones who need to believe in them do.  I don't mind that there are those who don't believe in miracles.  It is their right, though I must admit it makes me feel a bit sad. 

A skeptic friend of mine told me that I had to prove that my miracle really happened.  That friend became angry when I denied that. He failed to understand that I felt no need to prove anything.  Again he claimed that it was my burden of proof or the miracle was invalid.  I had to laugh.  That just seemed a silly thing to say.  Someone was going to invalidate a miracle... one that happened over 20 years ago?  But, I soon relented and just simply explained, "It was for me.  It wasn't for you. You didn't give it; you can't take it away.  You can scoff, choose not to believe, feel whatever you like.  None of that changes that it happened."   

No, I can't prove God to you, but every day I talk to Him, and He answers.  I can't show you an angel's wing, but I heard the voice of one many years ago.   

I hope for each of you, a miracle of your very own.

[Kate]

Cool Its good to see everyone taking a step back and a breather a little.

There is no agreement within the church of what the bible means or what weighting to give different passages, popes got reputedly assassinated within their own order for promoting one virtue over the other, the bible also has changed by popes wanting versions re-written that changed or replaced passages such that it suited their own morale or political objectives.  Institutionalized religions that impose a particular interpretation above the individuals is something that disapoints me as to me its the opposite of developing spirituality.

Three things I would like to point out...

A) I don't think Pumpkin Seeds is attempting to prove anything beyond DISPUTE :)

B) Even without explicit passages the "bible" (christian) is book of books - each book is a different take, different angle, there are condtractions within the bible itself - so having a cohesive understanding if you trust each sentence with the same level of reverance would cause at least - confusion.

To resolve this even the most fundamental fanatic convert would have to adopt some measure of critical thinking to prioritize which mean more to them or feel more appropriate for their perspective.

C) Like there are different schools of thought in the christian community (within churches and between them - ie protestants vs Catholics vs baptist .. of the same general faith (Christianity) ) There is no agreement within the scientific community. The "standard model" has many splinter subgroups that beleive certain things over others, like certain things about the currently agreed to model and otherwise. Scientists are ones that most critically doubt their own peers interpretation and beliefs ... same within churches.

Both evolve from this dis-unity.

Perhaps the rate of general critical thinking development from scientific cultural evolution is greater than the rate critical thinking development from religious evolutions due to the nature of its focus

Perhaps the rate of general emotional / ethical / spiritual (ie everything is connected) development from religious evolution is greater than the rate of emotional / ethical / spiritual development from scientific evolutions due to the nature of its focus

Both are optimised to give models of different landscapes. Their are instances where an individual deems an experience feels more relating to one than another - perhaps they are not by nature destined to own the other's focus - nor want to - but can both be useful - as tools which we can pick up and put down as we deem fit.

Some can choose to use one of these tools for one thing, then put it down and pick up the other when attempting a different task, or try using both, or neither. - "Using religion" as in "applied religion" would in my view by an individuals subjective choice about what part of their beleifs could aid decisions in a context they feel the "tool" could help them with (if they feel the decision doesn't warrent need of the tool they don't have to pick it up). (entire books they don't feel helps them such as genesis - they may never really "pick up" and use )

In just the same way a scientist would not use chemistry therums to solve simple biology issues (unless they wanted to for the hell of it to see what happened when they tried ) .. but biology ... chemistry they would use when a chemistry issue occurs that they want to be involved in.

Both religion and science present models. Both are tools.

Attempting to convince others our own landscape of "where one tool is more appropriate" should be ones that adopted by others or shared
(scientific or religion) has been attempted in many places throughout history....

Succeeding doing so (regardless of how good your motives are) removes a grand choice of freedom of individuals ,
such lessening of variation i beleive is an inhumane objective.

[Tachi]

I don't want to enter into a religious debate but I believe that miraculous events can occur (for a lack of a better word), but those events are brought upon by a certain set of conditions which allows for a possibility of a 'miracle'. I don't believe there is some all powerful source behind it or that such a source created the miracle or the conditions which brought about the possibility. The conditions were right, brought about by coincidence and happenstance, and so it occurred. It's nothing more and nothing less than a wonder of the natural world--not a religious commodity.

[Noelle]

To resolve this even the most fundamental fanatic convert would have to adopt some measure of critical thinking to prioritize which mean more to them or feel more appropriate for their perspective.

Isn't this more of a consideration of convenience rather than a consideration of truth, then? In the Great Book of Science, it's kind of hard to ignore laws and theorems that have been solidly proven. There's not a whole lot of picking and choosing, as far as I can think of? There are different branches of science, but it's not as if you generally choose to accept chemistry but not biology. If the whole Bible is the word of god, then what if you're not following the correct set? What makes some of "god's words" more important than others? I think it's the inexactitude of this picking and choosing that makes religion so dubious -- that you can simply choose to ignore some things and not others based on your own feelings instead of hard evidence. If the Bible evolves to shape to modern times, such as no longer finding slavery or selling off your daughters an acceptable practice, then wouldn't that eventually make the Bible completely irrelevant? Just curious to your thoughts on that.

C) Like there are different schools of thought in the christian community (within churches and between them - ie protestants vs Catholics vs baptist .. of the same general faith (Christianity) ) There is no agreement within the scientific community. The "standard model" has many splinter subgroups that beleive certain things over others, like certain things about the currently agreed to model and otherwise. Scientists are ones that most critically doubt their own peers interpretation and beliefs ... same within churches.

I feel like there's one huge difference in the two groups. Scientists doubt science, and therefore test it regularly -- even 'givens' like the laws of gravity are still being studied for inconsistencies. Religion, Christianity specifically, may disagree on what portions of the Bible they want to use and which they want to ignore, but there is no real self-testing, it seems. It takes an uproar or a disaster before they really consider the way they run things -- you'll notice now that homosexual rights is becoming a more prominent movement, suddenly various denominations are suddenly changing their policies. I doubt there would've been any real dialogue about the acceptance of gays into the clergy otherwise...just doesn't seem to me like churches like to test their beliefs and policies regularly for the sake of its own advancement. Churches err towards tradition.

Perhaps the rate of general critical thinking development from scientific cultural evolution is greater than the rate critical thinking development from religious evolutions due to the nature of its focus

Perhaps the rate of general emotional / ethical / spiritual (ie everything is connected) development from religious evolution is greater than the rate of emotional / ethical / spiritual development from scientific evolutions due to the nature of its focus

Both are optimised to give models of different landscapes. Their are instances where an individual deems an experience feels more relating to one than another - perhaps they are not by nature destined to own the other's focus - nor want to - but can both be useful - as tools which we can pick up and put down as we deem fit.

Some can choose to use one of these tools for one thing, then put it down and pick up the other when attempting a different task, or try using both, or neither. - "Using religion" as in "applied religion" would in my view by an individuals subjective choice about what part of their beleifs could aid decisions in a context they feel the "tool" could help them with (if they feel the decision doesn't warrent need of the tool they don't have to pick it up). (entire books they don't feel helps them such as genesis - they may never really "pick up" and use )

In just the same way a scientist would not use chemistry therums to solve simple biology issues (unless they wanted to for the hell of it to see what happened when they tried ) .. but biology ... chemistry they would use when a chemistry issue occurs that they want to be involved in.

You have an interesting comparison, and I would agree that science and religion do address different realms -- but your last comparison is not entirely apt. Chemistry has a specific, defined, factually-based use. It's usually pretty easy to tell when you use one house of science over the other, but religion is not so cut and dry. The real question is just how useful of a tool religion even is to begin with, especially when a sizable chunk of your population is getting along fine without it, as well-adjusted, civil members of society. Morality does not stem inherently from religion -- if that were the case, the non-religious would be a bunch of uncouth bastards. The distrust of science is a problem in of itself -- people take for granted that they know that gravity keeps them latched to earth or that our world is round, but when you explain evolution, they become offended, abhor it, even try and outright silence it. It feels like more picking and choosing out of convenience rather than a rational, well thought-out choice. It seems so obvious now of those basic facts, but in their day, they were also heavily contested by religion.

[MasterMischief]

If you believe in the Big Bang Theory do you also have to believe that women suffer from hysteria which can only be relieved by a vibrator at the doctor’s office?

I am not sure that is an entirely accurate analogy.  Science changes its stance when new evidence is offered.  So, no, I do not believe in outdated models or theories.  Hell, I do not even necessarily believe in currently held theories.  I remain skeptical of the Big Bang and Dark Matter.

The point I was badly trying to make, was that, to me, it seems the argument for miracles is no one can 'prove' they did not happen, therefore, we should believe in them.

To me, and this is just my uneducated opinion, when all things are equal and you can not prove or disprove something, I assume the negative.  In my experience, this seems the standard as we do not believe in Santa Claus or Gremlins.

[Jude]

At first I was surprised to see passages encouraging critical thought in the bible.  Naturally I dug up the chapter and verse and started reading, then... well, my enthusiasm was kinda dampened by the context...

14 The faithless will be fully repaid for their ways,
       and the good man rewarded for his.

15 A simple man believes anything,
       but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.

16 A wise man fears the LORD and shuns evil,
       but a fool is hotheaded and reckless.

Be rational, but FEAR BELIEVE OR ELSE!

1 Better a poor man whose walk is blameless
       than a fool whose lips are perverse.

2 It is not good to have zeal without knowledge,
       nor to be hasty and miss the way.

3 A man's own folly ruins his life,
       yet his heart rages against the LORD.

Yeaaaaah...

Personally, any time, ANY TIME, I have had doubt, a question, an issue a crisis of faith, and approached a cleric (Priest, Minister, Pastor, hell even a friend who was Wiccan) to speak about what was going on, that person encouraged me to THINK, to explore, to pray.  But to always search for my answers.  Many people of faith do ask questions, critical questions on the whys, whos, whats, etc of their beliefs.  To have faith is challenging and difficult.  It's not easy. Faith is not  blind, you must see your way there.  It is not idiotic, but it can be simple. Faith is a state of existence.   To those of you who feel you have been scorned for not believing, those of us who believe have as well.  It is not a one way street.

A state of existence?  What does that even mean?  And just because they encourage you to find your answers doesn't mean they encourage you to question the religion itself.  Whenever someone is having a crisis of faith, they don't attempt to dismantle that faith as a false truth, they encourage you back into the fold with half-hearted BS.  "Well, you're right about... evil does exist in the world despite god being allpowerful and good... You did just lose your son in a horrific car accident... OH WELL, GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!"

And to carry on in the Personal note, the title of the subject line is "Are YOU a believer in miracles."  It seems to have segued into an argument on proving that miracles exist, or that they don't.  By their very nature, their very definition in that they are a divine intervention that can not be repeated, they will never be proved... I doubt to everyone satisfaction...ever.  And, for me that's OK.  I don't care if anyone believes in the miracles that I personally had happen. I believe that miracles are for those in which they were intended.  The ones who need to believe in them do.  I don't mind that there are those who don't believe in miracles.  It is their right, though I must admit it makes me feel a bit sad.

If... you only read the topic, then you could take it that way.  The video link provided kinda... well, makes it obviously what light miracles are being viewed in by the topic creator (me).

Basically you said that miracles cannot be falsified because they are circular logic.  They can't be disproven.  It doesn't... bother you to think that you believe in something that you literally cannot unconvince yourself of?  Isn't that the definition of zealotry?

A skeptic friend of mine told me that I had to prove that my miracle really happened.  That friend became angry when I denied that. He failed to understand that I felt no need to prove anything.  Again he claimed that it was my burden of proof or the miracle was invalid.  I had to laugh.  That just seemed a silly thing to say.  Someone was going to invalidate a miracle... one that happened over 20 years ago?  But, I soon relented and just simply explained, "It was for me.  It wasn't for you. You didn't give it; you can't take it away.  You can scoff, choose not to believe, feel whatever you like.  None of that changes that it happened."

Doesn't it bother you that people attest to miracles which are in defiance of your own experiences?  You can't both be right.  Miracles are practically a religious staple.  Not all of your experiences can be valid.  It's easy to explain false miracles by confirmation bias, sensory fallibility, etc.  What always confused me is how someone can insist so strongly that their miracle was fact, when there are other people insisting just as passionately that theirs was.  If it's possible that they are wrong, it's supposed that you're wrong too--likely in fact.

No, I can't prove God to you, but every day I talk to Him, and He answers.  I can't show you an angel's wing, but I heard the voice of one many years ago.   

I hope for each of you, a miracle of your very own.

Does he answer, or are you just seeing occurrences in your life that you interpret that way?  Expectation and belief are powerful things.  When we look in our environment with expectant eyes, it doesn't take much luck to find anything.  That's the brilliance of science, it does its best to remove the bias of the observer in order to find the truth of a situation.

However, you're welcome to believe whatever you like, I certainly wouldn't begrudge you that.  I'm simultaneously glad that you've found something that's such a hope of inspiration and joy for you and horrified at how concluded you seem to be.

[Jude]

A) I don't think Pumpkin Seeds is attempting to prove anything beyond DISPUTE :)

Pumpkin Seeds was the first person to claim that religion promotes critical thought and intellectual flourishing.  She then tried to establish evidence for it and believed she did--I don't know where you're getting this idea that she didn't make a claim from.  It's simply untrue.

B) Even without explicit passages the "bible" (christian) is book of books - each book is a different take, different angle, there are condtractions within the bible itself - so having a cohesive understanding if you trust each sentence with the same level of reverance would cause at least - confusion.

Pointing out internal contradictions within the scripture and the fact that belief is still respected and mandated in spite of these really just highlights the lack of respect for reason that organized religion has.  You're not wrong though, there are factual discrepancies in the gospels, yet somehow people still manage to take the bible seriously.

To resolve this even the most fundamental fanatic convert would have to adopt some measure of critical thinking to prioritize which mean more to them or feel more appropriate for their perspective.

Not... exactly.  Critical thinking isn't what people employ when they decide what they want to pick and choose in the bible.  It's emotion-based.  You don't need serious, rigorous thought to make decisions when your biases and personal predispositions will do.  Example:  gay Christians do exist, and they ignore the anti-homosexual writing in the bible.  And homophobic Christians love to do the exact opposite.

C) Like there are different schools of thought in the christian community (within churches and between them - ie protestants vs Catholics vs baptist .. of the same general faith (Christianity) ) There is no agreement within the scientific community. The "standard model" has many splinter subgroups that beleive certain things over others, like certain things about the currently agreed to model and otherwise. Scientists are ones that most critically doubt their own peers interpretation and beliefs ... same within churches.

That's... fundamentally not right.  Are there few points of agreement when it comes to factual claims?  Yes.  But when it comes to process, there are most definitely standards.  The philosophy of science does vary somewhat in its basis, scientists disagree on what makes it authoritative, but they all recognize the effects of placebo, confirmation bias, and the need for double-blinding.

Both evolve from this dis-unity.

Perhaps the rate of general critical thinking development from scientific cultural evolution is greater than the rate critical thinking development from religious evolutions due to the nature of its focus

Perhaps... but perhaps doesn't prove anything.  That's a nice idea, but perhaps religion decries critical thought because its a threat to its existence and science bolsters it because it's the foundation of rationality.

Perhaps the rate of general emotional / ethical / spiritual (ie everything is connected) development from religious evolution is greater than the rate of emotional / ethical / spiritual development from scientific evolutions due to the nature of its focus

Funny how we can induce those feelings with drugs and physical traumatic experiences.  Just like "near death experiences" which astronauts regularly experience when endurance training with g-force simulation.

Both are optimised to give models of different landscapes. Their are instances where an individual deems an experience feels more relating to one than another - perhaps they are not by nature destined to own the other's focus - nor want to - but can both be useful - as tools which we can pick up and put down as we deem fit.

They found a location in the brain that seems to control sympathy for other human beings.  Apparently it allows you to internalize the notion of other human beings as separate entities with similar structure and value to yourself (i.e. recognizing the sentience of others).  This phenomenon relates directly to moral development, and in time science could develop techniques for increasing the activity in this moral center of the brain to bring about that feeling of connectedness you discovered.  What... purpose will religion serve then?

Some can choose to use one of these tools for one thing, then put it down and pick up the other when attempting a different task, or try using both, or neither. - "Using religion" as in "applied religion" would in my view by an individuals subjective choice about what part of their beleifs could aid decisions in a context they feel the "tool" could help them with (if they feel the decision doesn't warrent need of the tool they don't have to pick it up). (entire books they don't feel helps them such as genesis - they may never really "pick up" and use )

Exactly, so if someone needs a reason to hate gays, they can pick up Leviticus while still having premarital sex with their girlfriend on the weekend.  Congratulations, you've just explained religious hypocrisy and cynicism.

In just the same way a scientist would not use chemistry therums to solve simple biology issues (unless they wanted to for the hell of it to see what happened when they tried ) .. but biology ... chemistry they would use when a chemistry issue occurs that they want to be involved in.

Both religion and science present models. Both are tools.

And one has increased the lifespan of the average human by nearly threefold while the other... what has it done in the past 2,000 years?

Attempting to convince others our own landscape of "where one tool is more appropriate" should be ones that adopted by others or shared
(scientific or religion) has been attempted in many places throughout history....

Succeeding doing so (regardless of how good your motives are) removes a grand choice of freedom of individuals ,
such lessening of variation i beleive is an inhumane objective.

Not exactly.  Attempting to convince people is fine, they still have the freedom to accept or deny your ideas.  Coercion is a different story altogether.

I think you've accurately described religious behavior Kate, but what you've described is anything but flattering.  You've depicted a mindset which abhors the very notion of universalizable truth by choosing to believe whatever is most convenient or useful.  Aka, Sophistry.

[Chelemar]

I'm simultaneously glad that you've found something that's such a hope of inspiration and joy for you and horrified at how concluded you seem to be.

LAUGHS

I am 43.  At this age I have come to conclusions about many things.  My faith is only one of them.  Please, spare me your horror.  I would be more horrified had I not found a comfort in my faith, faith not religion. 

[Jude]

I really did mean the first part, I'm glad you've found something like that to help you through your life.  This world is not easy to navigate.

[Kate]

To ~some~ proof (subjective) religion is a useful in a culture is seeing cultures of its absence - human rights in china.

View of "well religion moves people to wars dudette see the crusades" is dismissing the power of propaganda generally (Ie "War on drugs" because drugs are bad hmm ok ?,"War on Terrorism" because terrorism is bad hmm ok ? )

Firstly jude - my appologies, I didn't walk in to the middle of a discourse I didn't entire read before assuming what the was the thrust of your stance.

I feel threads like this will be passionate no matter what
and that this is about as open and welcoming a forum for debating an issue as one can hope for. Being a sex-site does let others imply or use adult examples and implications as we all know that those here are adults.

As you all know I myself am not a christian, If a label could be put on myself I would choose "Empathic Wiccan" ( splinter group of Wiccan Witchery) - religion is too tight a word for my spiritual belief landscape as it attributes your own emotions as an indicator of navigating your way though probability landscapes in the context of your desires, and thoughts coupled with attention and emotion to manifest or change reality to them. The role of particular phrases or focuses (Such as dolls or candles, symbols, mirrors etc) are simply tools to aid focusing attention - and can be used in a way a musician would use a metronome.

How useful these perceptions are compared to what my life would be if I choose another beleif system is subjective.

Those of my faith have been burnt as witches by Christians so I don't exactly trust what happens when mobs or individuals choose religion to justify certain actions which impose on the values of others but I do beleive that "faith" in its raw form has exploitable merit. My "defence" of religion is chosen regretfully as unfortunately the current cultural climate equates the two.

Science like religion can and have been used in adverse ways.

Science has a place but science does have limitations.
It does rely on statistical analysis, this requires tools of measurement, copious sample data, variable awareness or access to the findings of another who had them and went through the scientific process on a topic which is simular enough to your issue at hand for you to have faith (no inverted commas needed) that whatever scientific model (laws, trends etc) they found that fits caters for your situation also plus "objective" data relating to your current predicament in the context of your landscape.

This is a lot of dependencies and isnt exactly a "light landscape" to carry, and unwieldy if decisions are needed quickly. Many decisions that are important to us are ones we need to make without a backdrop of such luxuries.

To manage making sensible decisions we also have other tools "Common sense" (subjective), gut feelings (subjective),
past experiences (subjective) ... and spiritual beliefs (subjective).

I dont beleive any religion is a blanket that should govern decisions, it is carpet that can be rolled out if its wished by the believer. Developing scientific prowess is good, nothing against it - it does develop massively exploitable options.

Developing "common sense" - ie assume everyone else on the road is not paying attention (even if its wrong) has advantages. Developing gut feelings (ie an experienced psychologists, clinical workers, poker players, lawyers, police etc may be able to "feel" when another is trying to fool you) is also useful, as one becomes highly developed the dependancies on others is not as needful for their objectives... the development of one would likely also change the individuals perspective such and intention landscape.

Someone who thinks others beliefs should be scientifically based before they are given credence enough to be acted on or believed forget one thing.

At one point there wasn't science - an inspiration appeared to adopt methods that science formed from - without a landscape of beliefs, expectations, intentions and so on critical thinking wouldn't be. Something birth critical thinking, which wasn't science, it was something else.
Same with Math.

It may be argued that something "Scientific" (ie repeatably measurable and quantifiable) but an unknown one at the time a person to start thinking critically or emphatically. Measurable and Quantifiable may only make up a fraction of what "is". Some are interested in that and do develop landscapes of beliefs to navigate their way around such places. Also scients who feel there is more to water or rocks than current science implies would reject "accepted science" and attempt to investigate further with a different lean - they may find new things. Where did this inspiration and faith to not trust science come from ? Im not saying it comes from a divine source, but it came from that individuals faith.

Where does faith come from ? Belief ? Where do beliefs come from ? Experience ? Where does experience come from ? Memory, where does memory come from ? someones Sensors ? Sensors coupled with how that experience changed their intentions or beliefs.

Some may beleive that science ALREADY implies the lack of a God.
Some may beleive that science already offers manners of understanding things attributed to divine causes. These "manners of understanding" is dependent on things however, so dependent there will be limit of what it can detect let alone make "conclusive" reality laws about.

Some advates of science believe science is robust, tried and tested, proven.

This is not true, science is a lanscape of models some mesh well together some don't which is being changed and evolved constantly. Its not "stable yet", not stable enough for certainty of its interpretations - let alone something that rules out the acts of a divine beings or "self-created miracles".

It may be that science finds that someones thoughts alone can create te miracles they seek - under certain circumstances. If this was to be the case both the faith-disbelieving-scientists and the faith-believers would both claim victory of proof of their perspective describing what is meaningful to THEM.

One stating "see scientific explanation just like we always said no need for divine intervention".
The other stating "see the divine exists, we change reality with thoughts with will though belief".

Science and "Religion" have and will have had many papers which are outright delusional and a step back from common sense, we shouldn't feel such things are representative of the good that comes from "all things religion" or "all things science", judge by successes.

It may be true that empathy is dependent on a part in our minds, but there are things which need institutions to manage.

Churches have funded more charities and education

(So people can learn ~science and math~)

than

anything

else

PROOF OF RELIGION PROMOTING CRITICAL THINKING

[Xenophile]

Religion can only promote critical thinking within the limitations of the religion itself. If a priest wants you to think about what the Bible says, in regards to a moral issue, then he does not mean that you would consider the nature of the existence or non-existence of God. He wants you to examine what exists in the boundaries of the holy scripture, and make a decision from that. Religion does not in itself promote general thinking, for example, whether God exists or not. It can however promote critical thinking that draws from the text that the Religion itself dictates to be the only material to be relevant relevant, its own scripture.

This is a important detail that we should, and probably need to acknowledge.

[Kate]

Modern priests from non fundamentalist Churches are quiet encouraging of conversations concerning the lack of a god.

The bible is used more dynamically by those that beleive in it than I think its being represented here.

Highly fundamentalist Christians which choose literal interpreations are not the norm.

Implications that Fundamentalist Christian views are a dependency of perspectives believing in miracles is baseless, boring, off topic but nevertheless has numerously highjacked this thread now - a shame, more could have been learned with such a stance taking center stage.

Pumkins suggestion to this first appearing was met with her mock suggestion that if so perhaps those of faith should treat backward scientists of old being representational of science ... her doing so didn't seem to snap this thread out of it.  My suggestion that believing in miracles doesn't make one religious, or religions not necessarily christian or if christian not necessarily fundamentalist christian couldn't either.

A notion seemingly lost on our most passionate "Advocates" of "critical thinking" no less.

If I see one more I will stop my involvement in this thread, not due to defeat of my stance, but simply from belief Im wasting my breath explaining otherwise.

Explaining someone who believes in miracles isn't necessarily a fundamentalist Christian ?

Whoa ... slow down kate .. wrong thread for thoughts like those ..

[Xenophile]

Literal or not, the interpretations of the Bible could never, ever dismiss the existence of God, nor would ANY priest ever suggest that he does not exist if he is a believing man. In the Christian dogma, there is One God. Thinking otherwise would constitute a non-Christian belief. Having a Christian argue for the possibility of there not being a God would be a blow to his own religious identity. Being a Christian requires faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit (all right, I'll accept the exist the odd church that might disagree, but I will for the sake of argument base my arguments on mainstream protestant and Catholic dogma). Denying the existence of either wouldn't make any sense (apart from advanced theological debates, but even those would not consider the non-existence of God).

But to go back to the miracle thing...

It depends on how one defines a miracle. Earlier, I said that I believe in miracles in the sense that the word "miracle", for me, means an extraordinary events that defies all odds (example can be a man surviving a drop from a plane without a parachute). However, I take that in a very non-spiritual fashion. I do not consider the possibility that the divine will interfere with the natural order of things, so for me, the "religious miracle" does not exist but the "statistical anomaly miracle" does exist.

[Kate]

"interpretations of the Bible could never, ever dismiss the existence of God"  - quote X

- you would be surprised by the variations in interpretations people have on the bible.

[Xenophile]

"interpretations of the Bible could never, ever dismiss the existence of God"  - quote X

- you would be surprised by the variations in interpretations people have on the bible.

I would very much like an example of this happening, beyond that of a very small congregation, where a significant group has adopted the Christian belief that there is no God.

[Noelle]

To ~some~ proof (subjective) religion is a useful in a culture is seeing cultures of its absence - human rights in china.

Wrong. We are not a Christian nation to begin with, and though we are oddly more religious than most first-world countries, we are not a theocracy by any means and by all intent, religion should not be in our government (though we're pretty lazy about enforcing that). European countries are not Christian or any kind of religious nations and have plenty of human rights to be seen. Maybe I don't understand your point, but I don't see what religion has to do with human rights in China, anyway. It seems to me like you're suggesting that morality comes from Christianity/religion, and that's not correct either.

Those of my faith have been burnt as witches by Christians so I don't exactly trust what happens when mobs or individuals choose religion to justify certain actions which impose on the values of others but I do beleive that "faith" in its raw form has exploitable merit.

Ehhh, except that the vast majority of neopaganism is just that -- neo, or new, especially Wicca, which is basically a 20th century invention, and especially after 1930 --even moreso after 1950, when it was popularized by Gerald Gardner in Britain and furthered by Alex Sanders (and thus your two main branches of Wicca, Gardnerian and Alexandrian). There is little connection between the witchcraft most practice today compared to what was done before the 1800's especially. They're not exactly "your faith" in that matter, because...well, Wicca didn't 'exist' before this last century. I know the claims that paganism is the oldest religion, and that's true by definition -- especially the Christian definition of pagan as being anything non-Christian. However, there are so many offshoots and branches and developments of paganism that by today, it's likely got little to do at all with how it "used to be".
In terms of "The Burning Times", actually, it's dubious if all those who were convicted were even practicing witchcraft/magick/whatever you want to call it at all. Most, if not all convictions were of witness testimony and contained probably very little factual evidence, and of course if you're convicted of witchcraft, you're going to point your finger at ANYBODY if it means your ass gets  saved. Pretty unreliable.
The numbers are a little off, too, if my memory serves me correctly. Of almost two hundred claims in Salem alone, only 19 actually got the death sentence, as well as two DOGS, and even then, it was hanging, not burning ;P Nitpicky details, but it makes the sensationalized title "THE BURNING TIMES" a lot less accurate. The deaths were not in the millions as reported but are projected to be well under 200,000 across Europe in the span of three hundred years. It's not to say the idea of going after people for practicing witchcraft isn't still a horrible idea (because it is -- making "witch hunts" for anyone of ANY faith is pretty much a Very Bad Idea), but put into perspective, I think the whole thing is, as mentioned, sensationalized and twisted a bit for the aims of neopagans today to get their point about persecution across. Let's not forget that pagans (or the concept of them, since I've already mentioned my doubt that all people who were hanged/tortured/burned were actually religious, practicing pagans) are not unique in this, either, as it often seems tos ound -- Christianity has found more than their fair share of massacres, too -- the Religion Wars in France were especially brutal between the Catholics and the Protestants in the same era as witch hunts, for one.

Science has a place but science does have limitations.
It does rely on statistical analysis, this requires tools of measurement, copious sample data, variable awareness or access to the findings of another who had them and went through the scientific process on a topic which is simular enough to your issue at hand for you to have faith (no inverted commas needed) that whatever scientific model (laws, trends etc) they found that fits caters for your situation also plus "objective" data relating to your current predicament in the context of your landscape.

No.

No good scientist simply relies on the data of others and assumes it's correct. That's not how science works. I would argue that nothing in science isn't scrutinized at any given time. Scientific "laws" are under constant testing (even "givens" like gravity) and could change at ANY time if they suddenly found an anomaly in their data. These so-called "limitations" are exactly why science is reliable -- because it's based on measurable, perceptible data and not a whim or a feeling.  They go through a constant system of checks and balances to ensure that the resulting data isn't a fluke and that laws are very dependable, though not necessarily permanent. No scientist simply looks at another scientist's research and goes, "Wellp, that must be it! Guess I don't have to worry about THAT!" because environmental variables can ALWAYS change results. Even pure coincidence can happen, some unforeseen factor can work itself in and change the data for one scientist's given conditions.

To manage making sensible decisions we also have other tools "Common sense" (subjective), gut feelings (subjective),
past experiences (subjective) ... and spiritual beliefs (subjective).

...

Developing "common sense" - ie assume everyone else on the road is not paying attention (even if its wrong) has advantages. Developing gut feelings (ie an experienced psychologists, clinical workers, poker players, lawyers, police etc may be able to "feel" when another is trying to fool you) is also useful, as one becomes highly developed the dependancies on others is not as needful for their objectives... the development of one would likely also change the individuals perspective such and intention landscape.

...Except science is also actively working to explain this, too. The most plausible explanation found for "gut reaction" and "instinct" is the brain processing environmental cues at a rapid pace as well as relying on past observations/lessons/experiences to conclude a fast reaction that is preconscious, or happens before you become immediately aware of it. Hardly mysterious or supernatural when you put it that way, eh? I suggest doing some research on the subject, it's actually pretty interesting.

Someone who thinks others beliefs should be scientifically based before they are given credence enough to be acted on or believed forget one thing.

At one point there wasn't science - an inspiration appeared to adopt methods that science formed from - without a landscape of beliefs, expectations, intentions and so on critical thinking wouldn't be. Something birth critical thinking, which wasn't science, it was something else.
Same with Math.

...Except, at one point, there wasn't religion, either. What's your point? Wicca wasn't formed until the 20th century, and yet you adhere to it. In fact, science has been around longer than Christianity, for one. What's that supposed to mean, according to your conclusion? Something birthed critical thinking? If you're implying it wasn't the natural development and curiosity of a conscious and mentally active human, it certainly wasn't religion or else this would basically blow up what we've already discussed -- that the non-religious are perfectly capable of critical thought. The very NOTION that the non-religious could possibly even have more tendencies to critically think couldn't even be discussed if that were true.

Where does faith come from ? Belief ? Where do beliefs come from ? Experience ? Where does experience come from ? Memory, where does memory come from ? someones Sensors ? Sensors coupled with how that experience changed their intentions or beliefs.

faith
–noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

[the rest of the definitions deal strictly with Christianity]

Experience doesn't come from memory, by the way, experience comes from the process of undergoing something personally, and cannot be transferred to another. Memory is highly fallible anyway, and thus is not considered proof. There is no quantifiable way to provide proof of the supernatural in order to change the experience of others -- if there was, as it was mentioned, please do submit it to the James Randi challenge and collect your money.

It may be that science finds that someones thoughts alone can create te miracles they seek - under certain circumstances. If this was to be the case both the faith-disbelieving-scientists and the faith-believers would both claim victory of proof of their perspective describing what is meaningful to THEM.

Yeah, and to some people, Santa Claus is meaningful to them even though his existence is blatantly not real, not quantifiable, and can be backed up by science.

Churches have funded more charities and education

(So people can learn ~science and math~)

than

anything

else

PROOF OF RELIGION PROMOTING CRITICAL THINKING

Have you been reading anything up until now? This has already been addressed exhaustively.
Religious motivation builds schools, but religion does not teach math and science. Religion did not discover the methods taught in math and science. Religion did not discover gravity, invent the heliocentric model (quite the opposite, in fact), or extend the human lifespan. Religion didn't find out the chemical composition of the air we breathe and religion did not land us on the moon.
I don't even know why you're mentioning charities -- let's say the church throws money at a charity that provides medical services to people in need in third world countries...They are throwing their money at a charity that relies on science to develop the methods they use to carry out the good deeds that religion is funding. The churches aren't supporting the science, they're supporting the good deed that comes of it. Science only seems to be acceptable when it's convenient to their aims -- it's okay to discover cures for diseases and then turn around and use it to further your own religious cause through missionaries, but once we start digging into controversial things such as evolution, WHOAAA slam the brakes, we're out of control.

Ultimately, religion does not teach its followers to think critically about religion the way science teaches scientists to think critically about science. It sounds redundant, but that is the HUGE difference between the two.  It does not support the possibility that it could be wrong, which automatically shuts down one HUGE avenue of what critical thinking IS.

Like Xenophile said, I'd love to hear any mainstream example of a Christian organization going, "We've accepted the fact that there might not be a god!"

[Jude]

There's another problem in stating that because Christians have contributed more to education by charity (which by the way you simply stated, you've provided no statistics to back up that claim so I feel shaky about that to begin with) they've promoted critical thinking more.  There are numerous other problems:

a)  You've failed to take into account the detrimental effect they've had on critical thinking by persecuting people who don't agree with them (often of the scientific or mathematical persuasion)
b)  You're comparing the contribution by the vast majority of wealthy peoples to contributions by other sects with less influence and power.  Could be Christians have contributed more because they vastly outnumber atheists. (Over 4 to 1 in the US off the top of my head - I can dig up statistics if you like)
c)  You're only measuring charitable, monetary contributions, and you can contribute in more ways than that, such as volunteering or participating in the actual fields of study (and we've already established scientists trend non-religious in much greater numbers than the general population)
d)  Even if they're giving money to education, that doesn't mean that educational experience is actually teaching critical thinking.  A lot of institutions do an incredibly poor job of fostering critical thinking.  I'd even argue that public school in the United States largely fails in promoting critical thought when it comes to their students.
e)  You're still talking about the actions of the institutions and individuals who happen to be religious, and not the institution itself.

I'd like to see a breakdown of the statistics you're getting that from so I can have a better idea if it's at all valid to begin with.

Attributing the fact that those charities, which happen to have a religious slant, to religion alone is also very short-sighted unless those charities were given money solely for religious purposes (and not simply charities which work from a religious point of view) and made the decision to spend the money according to religious beliefs.  Perhaps Person A donated Sum B to Charity C out of altruism, not religious motivations, and the charity is attempting to better the world.  Placing all of the responsibility for that action on religion itself is... well, not right.

EDIT:  Science is an extension of reason, and ultimately built upon that framework.  Without formal logical principles there could be no science or mathematics, and formal logical principles exist in an informal fashion in human thought.  Piaget's stages of development (a theory on how children mature intellectually) even include the concept of the "little scientist" as a description of one of the earliest stages of human development.  From the first time you touch a stove, burn your hand, and learn not to do it again, you're using an intrinsic understanding of logic in the from of cause and effect to guide your actions.

There's something innate about reason, I'm not sure that we understand how or why, but it extends into nearly everything we do.  Even religious beliefs utilizing reason in their own way when it comes to analyzing and understanding religious dogma.  What sets critical thinking and scientific thinking apart from that fundamental application of mental processes is that science and critical thinking is rigorous and impartial.

Informal thinking is good enough to establish the basis of survival, and nearly everyone has a mastery of that, but when it comes to understanding confusing, complicated, and general phenomena, informal thought (common sense, whatever you want to call it) is often led astray.  The purpose of science is to root out human error and create a more concrete method of reasoning in order to accomplish things that intuition and informal logic cannot.

Of course science came after religion, it isn't all that useful in a survivalist sense, but this does not in any way diminish it.  That's an argument from antiquity logical fallacy.