touchy subject i know...

[loopylou6]

but what does everyone think about what the dream pyschic has to say about madeleines dissapearance?

well as you don't know everything ofcourse you do.

Nobody knows everything, but some people are less happy with the answers to their questions than others.

That's what being a scientist is about (although I'm not one) - asking the right questions.

am all omnimpotent

i have answers to everything

custardo is obviously channelling Mystic Meg

no shes a fruit.

Brilliant, we agree!

shit

Well I think that the fact that there was a funny guy on the telly(isn't telly magic?) who suggested my watch might work again and I gave it a go and my watch worked without a new battery for a couple of weeks after it had a bit of a shake is pretty magic actually.

I think we are here to grow including spiritually. There is gazillions of questions, answers and potential for growth and learning in science and religion and every aspect of human thinking/living/breathing. It is hugely exciting and amazing and magical...and a great challenge.

UD have you read Alistair McGraths books (I haven't yet) Dawkins God and Dawkins Delusion (or something)

I hadn't run away and slit my wrists due a sudden and depressing epiphany caused by UQD and similarly-minded folk [grin[.. I had retreated into my "cave" to write my sodding essay.. and it's now finally done and submitted.. yay! (Probably crap but hey. 7 hours at the computer from start to finish is not in my experience, the way to do it but sometimes needs must!)

[waves to Melsy] Yes I have to confess NDW has a lot to answer for as to the way my mind works . I have had Home with God in my shopping basket on Amazon for ages but can't afford it yet.. I know it'll be worth waiting for.

MadameZ.. I don't have the words to argue with you; not because I can't counter your every "close minded" declaration but because there is no point. We are so on different wave lengths (about everything it seems.. although I do believe there was one solitary occasion when I agreed with you about something ) that nothing I have to say on this subject would even give food you for thought, I know.

Similarly UQD on this particular subject. I understand what you saying but you are missing the entire concept of faith and nobody can make you consider that. It's not the same as wishful thinking, and I would say trust me on that, but I know you won't. And I am very aware of the type of epileptic seizures you describe; I am more clued up about epilepsy than I want to be. To my knowledge a seizure has little in common with spiritual awareness (which was I was going to bang on about next ) but if you want to make a medical condition a scapegoat for the aspects of life that you don't want to understand.. or even find out more about, then that's ok. As previously stated, some people don't "do" spirituality in "this life" at least not consciously.

It's not to do with not "doing" it or not "getting" it, though. It's to do with questioning the whole concept of there being anything to do, or get.

I know what faith is. I just don't agree with it. In the same way that I don't think I believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

Out of interest, do the faith people on here think that we should have evidence for the Loch Ness Monster? I mean, there is a bit, like this and this , but it's pretty dubious and needs to be set against the BBC's comprehensive sweep of the Loch with 600 sonar beams, which produced nothing.

When people see everything in relation to thir faith they find it very hard to see outside it and understand that there is a whole way of seeing things which has nothing to do with faith, and is actually very logical. I don't expect anybody to take anything I say on trust, which is why I will happily provide evidence - when requested, and when I can find it - for any assertions I make.

oh, Lily - sorry - picked up the McGrath book i the shop and read chunks of it. It seems superfluous, as Dawkins has already dealt with the questions he raises. The fact that he hasn't satisfied McGrath is irrelevant - were he to make a respomse it would just consist of the same arguments from TGD. Rephrased perhaps in words of fewer syllables. So I didn't spend my money on it.

You do realise that many people with a pretty good working knowledge of scientific method also have a religious faith don't you?

Maybe the reason Nessie can't be located on sonar is inter-dimensional.. she whips off down a wormhole and then comes back when she feels like it. If you are willing to consider some of the concepts of quantum physics (facinating stuff that it is.. would love to get into that!) then surely this is entirely possible!

Good point Becky.. I was thinking that myself when I was on this thread the other say and forgot to mention it. Loved your Maslow quote below btw.. will have to look more of that up.

But why would she bother?...

Of course I realise there are scientists with a religious faith. I imagine they must have a very hard time of things in their own heads.

Surely everyone has something they find too fanciful for words. A point at which their own internal little Mr Babbage noise goes off and they go "UHH-UHHHH! TOO weird! I'll need some evidence before I believe THAT crock of shit?"

Either I'm over-sensitive, or my "crock of shit" detectors must be set to a particularly low threshold.

"But why would she bother?" meant Nessie, btw.

The quote was Dawkins (from a Times 2 article).

I 'did' Maslow in a psych course a couple of years ago, and found it fascinating, but I went right off him when I mentioned it to DH and he said he'd done 'all about' the hierarchy of needs as part of his MBA

Trying to read the God Delusion...finding it zzzzzzzz

UD did you really like/enjoy that book?
So far my impressions are that it is not a book about questioning. It's a book of answers...dull boring and slightly small answers. I would rather if it was more subtle questioning and not so in your face. It gets my back up in the same way that people pushing their particular religion do. Is he an evangelical atheist you reckon?
I don't think he would like me either though, I'm one of those people whose view of God is so broad and flexible that I see God everywhere (even in him ) and I'm wishy washy and won't commit but that is because I don't think one person can comprehend the whole truth, it's too big.

I enjoyed the book even though I found it heavy going because I was looking up each and every one of the footnotes.

I actually quite like his style. I don't think it's all about giving answers at all. Again and again he reiterates that science doesn't have all the answers. Have you got the anecdote about the biology professor who was delighted to be proved wrong by a visiting speaker?

As he often says in interviews, people mistake his passion for fundamentalism. The big , big difference between Dawkins and a religious fundamentalist - so big and so utterly germane to the argument that people simply cannot ignore it - is that he has arrived at his position through reading and evaluation, not simply "believing", and that if given evidence to persuade him that he is wrong about something he will change his mind. It's that simple.

Science books do this - they are continually updated as new evidence comes to light. If someone makes an important discovery which casts new light on an accepted scientific truth, then the next edition of the book will include that updated evidence. No religious text has ever done this.

I agree with alot of what he says but my perspective is always going to be different and the people he would really like to make his point to probably wouldn't read his book sadly. I'm all for pulling apart and pointing out what is wrong with religion.

I think there are alot of interesting books out there about faith though, intelligent complex books.

I try to entertain doubts but just can't disentangle God from my thinking, I've been communing with him all my life, it would be like chopping off a leg. God makes sense to me. And to me science is part of God...

Never loiter over to this part of MN its a whole different ballgame, bit too heated for little moi.
going to say though
having been brought up as a catholic (dont bash me) I think there are many good things that are reinforced because religion exists - morality, keeping us from doing whatever we wish to eachother, plus some sort of world order (ok ok I know wars wars yes, so on balance probably even)
I do think though, religious faith (in a non-extremist form) is worth preserving as it usually brings more good than harm (community, giving etc). I dont even think people need proof of a heaven to believe in it.

But But if a friend said to me "i can move objects with my mind" there is no way i would walk away from that one. Dont you just want to see it - even a little bit?? come on! This person is claiming to do something here and now (you dont even have to wait til you die to find out)

(And then "what you can only do it when you're alone?" oh ok then cookoo.....)

I see no connection between religious faith and being "good" or moral or pacifist. Lots of religious people are good and help to prevent wars and uphold morality, just as plenty of religious people send soldiers to war and plenty of secular people both support and oppose it. It seems a bit of a non-starter as an argument.

It's interesting that you would be sceptical of a friend claiming telekinesis, but presumably would accept the even odder things which are claimed in the Bible - on the grounds that they are not happening here and now?...

i didnt say I accepted the 'odder things written in the bible" I didnt say what i believed in. Only that i understand why people have religious faith, and don't feel the need to have proof for religious faith to be a valid way to view the world. And i also said yes there are good parts of having religious faith - belonging to a community, bringing people closer together due to the mere act of going to church each sunday, the idea of being 'good' as something to which christians and others aspire.
Faith is integral to religion so i can understand why someone who believes in the afterlife doesnt require proof. Thats the whole point of it. You have faith that if you act in a certain way on earth you get to go to heaven, there is no proof. You do something now for a benefit which you think will happen later.
But for telekinesis to be real it must exist somewhere, ie someone must be able to do it. If they can do it then they can prove it. I dont see the supernatural as a religion in that regard, in that it doesnt require faith, but evidence to exist. If my friend says shes going to heaven i can't disprove it, but if she says shes going to move an object i can ask her to show me non?

hmm put another way:
I can understand the concept of faith when it comes to religion and why no proof is necessary for people to believe.
But I can't understand why someone would believe in the supernatural without proof.