General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God? [View all]RainDog
(28,784 posts)Scientific materialism thinks the world can be studied and understood. Religion offers nothing like this. The scientific method, which forms the basis for all of the modern world, allows that knowledge is never absolute or complete, and any knowledge that is claimed as reality can be tested in this world.
Facts are bits of knowledge that have stood the test of challenges and have evidence to back them up. Evolution has evidence to back it up in so many ways - again, the way you refer to evolution indicates to me you are basically ignorant about the subject, so any attempt to talk about the ways in which evolution is true would need an entire book - luckily, tho, there are plenty of them available. A good one is from Coyne, called Why Evolution is True.
If your belief in god is true, why would a just god disallow anyone an afterlife simply because, according to their best attempts to understand the same, someone could find no proof and, therefore, declined to believe something that appears preposterous in any of the ways it is presented by any religion?
If your only reason to believe in god is an afterlife - that's sort of weak, isn't it, and gives you an out from making any effort to learn how the world really works because you somehow think you have to deny reality in order to believe in god.
Any god that expected that would be a... really sick being, imo. The justifications for belief are grounded in that idea that you must be irrational in order to be somehow in good standing with god. Kierkegaard, tho he claimed faith in god, understood that he was agreeing to be irrational for the purpose of faith. So, if someone refers to religion as irrational - well, that's the reality.
I most certainly believe people are entitled to their own opinions, but if someone posts about them on a board like this, they are going to find such ideas contested.
You don't get a pass for thinking something just because you put the idea within the confines of religion. That's been the problem with religion since it began, this view that faith cannot be challenged. If people had held to that agreement, we would still be burning witches at the stake. no thanks.
Religions are simply manifestations of cultures. We no longer live in an age when people can claim epilepsy is caused by demon possession. Of course, someone may choose to believe that, too, as part of religious belief, and that belief, too, would result in society shunning them - because such beliefs endanger others. Your insistence that your religion takes precedence over science sounds, to people like me, the same as if you said epilepsy was caused by demon possession.
This doesn't mean others cannot have respect for another person. Respect for beliefs, however, is something else entirely.