Are there any religions based on logic, and which change according to new evidence? Or are all regions based on faith alone? IIRC Judaism, Christianity and Islam used to think that logic and experimentation was a way to know about the mind of God, has that ceased to be true?
I think so. There are apologetic books and evidence based books for christianity that support the divinity, death, and ressurection of Christ. And also try to logically support the biblical teachings. I have alot of books I have not read about these things, but I have watched the Lee Strobel documentaries and read the book The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. I don't want to turn this to a debate as I am unprepared for alot of you. I am still in the process of learning about my faith, but the research I have done so far supports the divinity, death and ressurection of Jesus. I also have books by Josh McDowell like "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" which I haven't read yet, but I highly recommend "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel.
This sort of thing is just as bad as when the Christians and other religions try to perpetrate their way of thinking as the one true and right way. "My way of thinking and beliefs is superior to your way of thinking and beliefs." One is based on holy books in some format. Others use science as a way of telling others their beliefs are wrong/ silly/ not logical with an inference of inferior/ whatever. Same creature, just a different disguise. It is still intolerance and a lack of respect for others and how they live their lives. Why don't we all just let each other believe what we want? And only call it out when that other starts telling others how to live based on their own belief system?
I agree. People should be free to choose and beleive the way they want. I don't think people of any particular religion should be able to dictate how nonbelievers live their lives. I do on the other hand believe that people regarldess of their religion should be free to share their beliefs with others who are open to hearing it. I don't believe on the other hand in people forcing their beliefs down other peoples throats.
Sort of. I chose my faith first or was raised into it. As I got older, what caused me to look for the logic/evidence within the faith was talking to various atheists. They asked hard questions that I didn't have the answers to which made me look for answers. So I started looking for answers and evidence for what I believed.
I don't have any solid arguments for this, but it's hard to say if something is based on logic or not. For example creation. I think that the scientific view on how life came to be is also more or less just a belief. Sure, there have been experiments trying to prove and reconstruct the process and the theory is widely accepted today, but if I'm not wrong there are many things still unclear. So believing in so many unprobable coincidences is (as I see it) kind of similar to believing that life came about some other way, for example through creation, if you find (your own) logic in it. I've read some very interesting books trying to scientifically, or logically prove that creationism can be valid - that things from the Bible make sense from a certain point of view. I don't remember too well, but before I learned about evolution and it's mechanisms in detail and heard some probably not too well known theories, creationism made much more sense to me than darwinism - there were some cool arguments against it (I read a lot about it when I was younger ). It's just hard to prove evolution, so it's not too difficult to come up with other theories that could make sense and have better solutions for some of the weaknesses of the scientific theories. And I think people like Creationists are trying to see logic in all that, although the whole religion doesn't change because of it. I'm not religious, but I'm usually not trying to argue against religion. I let everyone believe what they want, unless, of course, they're not trying to force their beliefs on others... I agree with aaradia
In the book I was talking about, Lee Strobel was an atheist and his wife became a christian. He researched christianity to try to disprove it to his wife. He was a court room journailst so he knew just where to go to get answers. In the process of researching it to disprove it to his wife he got won over instead. Really interesting read.
From an individual's point of view I wonder if religion has to be based on logic. Maybe it's different if you're born into a religious family; you'll have more questions as you get older, but if you find religion later in life (teens onwards) maybe religion just fits with you and your lifestyle. Not being religious myself I'm not best placed to answer this question, but I'd be interested in the opinions of those that are.
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/critique-of-lee-strobels-the-case-for-faith.html I've not read his book, how does this critique add up?
Yes, but what with the JCM religions being in vogue on MAP at the moment I'd focus on them. Hasn't the dali lama said if science contradicts buddism, buddism must change.
One difference is why you think something is true. Do you believe something because a book told you so? Do you believe it because at some point you had a spiritual experience? Or do you consider that something is true because evidence seems to support it? Another is what do you do if there is new evidence that disproves or contradicts your theory/conclusion/belief? Most religious people find evidence to support their belief, they do not believe based on evidence. "Believing" in science,at least for me, doesn't have to do with thinking today's science is always right. There is no doubt in my mind that somethings that today are taken as almost facts are wrong. I simply think that the method behind it is better.
Except it's not and it doesn't. Science and reason have key differences to most theologies: They work from a presupposed position of ignorance They admit they could be wrong even with very strong data/reason to support their positions They work from evidence and logic and do so as objectively as possible They will change their way of thinking if shown to be wrong And the reason you didn't use the words reason, logic, or objectivity are because even in a language which in many ways is heavily intwined with abrahamic/Christian theology, those words carry a particular positive connotation when dealing with questions about life, the universe, and everything... (42) I can have respect for individuals and still find their conclusions and methodologies to be wrong. Some very good people I know are very devoted to their faith and I respect them very highly. Because the kind of thinking which is fundamental to those ideologies causes things like the crusades, genocides, jihads, etc. You can see the same thought processes outside of religions in the cult of personality of people like Stalin, Hitler, and the hereditary dictatorship of North Korea. Unwavering certainty in one's own view unmoved by outside evidence or untested entirely. It's not religion which is the problem but the thought processes fundamental in religion, which also happen to exist outside of it. Even something like this, which Fusen mentioned, is progress. At least that has the last three points down.
I've not read the book "Case for Faith," so I cannot really say. The book I mentioned was called the Case For Christ." This is a critique against the book Case For Faith. I have watched the documentary though. Just don't remember much of it because it was such a long time ago. I will read their critique and get back at you on it and give my thoughts when i get the chance.
That's generally right, but there are dogmas in science, too. And sometimes it takes long to break from one. Also, it's hard to work completely objectively. I'd guess theories often don't start just like that, as you write, from presupposed position of ignorance, but rather while having the current dogma in mind.
In some fields more than others. The LHC has no bias and neither does math, or chemistry, or astrophysics and the list goes on. Something like psychology or sociology are much more prone to biases and working on pre existing assumptions but then they are working with much more complex subjects and convoluted data. But in this case we have two people looking for treasue on a beach both with shovels. One of them says for sure they know where the treasure is but that the treasure doesn't need to be found for you to know it's there. The other person has picked up a shovel and is actually digging to see if the treasure is there and if so where.