This is my blog.
How can faith and science co-exist simultaneosly
Published on February 15, 2006 By Foxjazz In Religion

Is there a way to reconcile science and religion?
One can be religious without being scientific, or be scientific without being religious. One can’t do both, not at the same time. They are two contradictory elements of thinking. Science knowledge is acquired by reason. Religion is acquired by making shit up. Another term one might use is faith. Faith = “making shit up”.

The problem with words, especially in the English language is that one word can have more than one meaning so things are unclear or uncertain. English was meant to be that way, mainly to confuse and render any topic utterly arguable simply because of the many misunderstandings the debaters engage upon. So without question, let me make my self clear. Faith not using the term loosely (not meaning confidence), but faith meaning totally and utterly without reason (in other words “making shit up”). Believing in object (A) without any reason to do so.

Integrity and how to have it. It is especially difficult have integrity after one has had an education if your family is made up of church people. The problem comes with yourself and how you choose to believe. Do you choose to believe with Faith (msu) or do you choose to live within reason and real world. The problem with the real world is that most people that live in it (msu). So one really has to think on how to live life and have a clear conscience while living it. If one wants to be humble, and real, you don’t lie so no (msu). However if one isn’t intelligent enough to reconcile the facts that reason and faith can’t co-exist, then no problem. One just believes in what others mu.

Please don’t take offence at the definition of faith I have provided here. This document is only meant to explain how critical thinkers think about integrity and life that surrounds them. It is unfortunate that many can’t empathize or understand our world view. Integrity is a valuable part of the human experience. Without the need for it, I personally would gladly go back to church and sing the party line. However with the education I have received and the knowledge about the world that I have gained through reason, I could never step into a church and maintain integrity all at the same time. So I put it to you, how do you reconcile integrity with faith? I can’t do it, and I am sure no one I know can really understand what I mean without first hand experience.

A belief system is a serious thing to examine. And for many it is hope of life after death. Why is that important, isn’t the contribution we are making here and now important and significant? If you don’t think it is, then what of integrity. This document only meant to shed light on people with no room for a belief system where there is life after death. Why is it so important for others to share the hope (or false hope as it would be to us). It definitely isn’t from integrity, but faith. What we believe to be a false confidence of a type of Religion, whether it be Christ, Islam, or Buddha.

After much consideration the only resolution I can see of people of faith are two probable reasons they use faith.

1: Because it was what they were taught young in life and haven’t gone to college and reasoned things out with philosophers.
2: Because they lack integrity.

Give me a third reason? And don’t say Faith is real, faith is defined accurately above.
Now I know I have offended people. And that is why critical thinkers suffer.


Wait a moment, suffering. We critical thinkers suffer much more than the faith users. If we go to church we are seen as hypocrites. Or worse, people without integrity. Remember what Christ said about being humble? Why should any of this bother you if you abide by the teachings of your religious faith? Why bring it into question? Because having integrity is a requirement for being humble.

If you are unable to think for yourself, the faith users will go to someone of authority, say a preacher or a priest, and receive “reason” from these characters. Unfortunately, these characters don’t use reason to conclude anything. They use what is taught them on faith (see definition above). Then the faith users go oh, ok then I will see ya in heaven.

So back to the primary question and reason for this document. If your intelligent, and know how to think, and you use faith as your primary tool for gaining knowledge, how do you reconcile that with integrity? I really want to know how its done, because I know that msu is not a reasonable way to gain knowledge.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 19, 2006
'So you think einstein needs help. That's classic.'
You're delusional. Who said that? Certainly nobody here. Suggest you take your meds.

'I will link it to ya so you can understand it better:'
And you have the gall to describe yourself as 'remaining humble'? Ha! 'remaining hypocrital' would be closer.
on Feb 19, 2006
Again, this is just a made-up philosophy, no different than any other, with no more objective evidence than any other that it is superior. "Logic" is posed as objective, when in reality the leaps made between facts are simply the product of personal, subjective experience.

So, maybe this DOES belong in the religion section. It relies on nothing more than religion, really, and obviously there is a messiah, too. It certainly is self-inflated and full of condemnation like many religions.
on Feb 19, 2006
'So, maybe this DOES belong in the religion section.'

Spot on, BakerStreet. Foxjazz's faith in the absence of any objective proof puts his belief system squarely in the religion section. What's more, (1) his refusal to entertain the idea that his beliefs might not be innately 'superior', and (2) his zeal for abusing and belittling all those who do not subscribe to his fancies puts his approach shoulder to shoulder with many of the less tolerant religions.

Like Foxjazz, I am an atheist. Unlike Foxjazz, I acknowledge - or at least try to - that my belief that there is no supreme being is no better informed, justified or justifiable than the theological beliefs of anybody else. We just have different kinds of faith. Science, by definition, doesn't address this area of our experience. Foxjazz tries to use science to justify his faith, and in so doing demonstrates that he really doesn't understand the basic first principles of science at all.

Despite denying it earlier, he continues to attempt to drag this thread down the 'scientists are atheists, and they should know' path. He may puff and blow, but this is a hugely inaccurate argument. However, even if it WERE true, it would not reinforce his argument any more than the news that the Archbishop of Canterbury subscribes to the Grand UnificationTheory would bolster contemporary physics.

Incidentally Bakerstreet, if Foxjazz only knew, you and I rarely seen eye to eye - obviously it takes an argument of this degree of bias, intolerance and general lack of comprehension to unite us!
on Feb 19, 2006
Ah, did I hurt some feelings. Step on some toes? Make you question your belief systems just a little. Well good.

I am glad you furry can come to terms in agreement with Bakerstreet. You calling yourself an atheist, and then calling if faith. You don't have a clue.

As I have stated before in many previous posts. Atheists are WITHOUT faith. So call yourself someting else. Maybe a faith based atheist. That is more suited to the your world view thant just plain atheist.

I wrote the things above and then give you the quoted link that Einstein said those things. Now when you thought I said those things, you insult me. But when you learn that Einstein really said those things, you insult me again.

Excuse me for being humble.

Fox
on Feb 19, 2006
'Ah, did I hurt some feelings. Step on some toes?'
Of course not. That you imagine you could suggests you are suffering not from humility, but from acute self-importance.

'You calling yourself an atheist, and then calling if faith. You don't have a clue. As I have stated before in many previous posts. Atheists are WITHOUT faith. So call yourself someting else.'
It's you that has no clue. Science can, by definition, contribute nothing in respect of issues that cannot be observed, measured, empirically tested. One's faith in what exists outside the physical world is, again by definition, not scientifically testable. So, whether one believes in a supreme being or does not, it is a matter of FAITH, not science / logic / reason etc. BakerStreet has faith that there is a God 'out there'. You have faith that there is NO God 'out there'. Same process, different outcome. Only agnostics qualify for exemption, because they don't ask the question. In a sense, to go back to the inflammatory terminology you used in your original post, they are the only ones who don't MSU.

'I wrote the things above and then give you the quoted link that Einstein said those things. Now when you thought I said those things, you insult me. But when you learn that Einstein really said those things, you insult me again.'
Gobbledegook. And, by your own admission, irrelevant - 'Also it doesn't really matter how many scientists were agnostic or not.' So what does Einstein's personal belief system contribute to your point? Nothing.

'Excuse me for being humble'
When you are, I will. Until then, I am quite happy to excuse your arrogance.
2 Pages1 2