Anti-science madness

Abu Loren wrote: Emettman wrote: What's wrong with finding evidence for a 9th planet? Uranus was found in in 1781. Neptune in 1846 and   Pluto in 1930, though later, better observations revealed that it was too small to class as a full planet (it was for a while considered the 9th full planet of the solar system. We now know it is only the second biggest dwarf planet. (so if Pluto counts as 9, we already have 10!) This is called progress in knowledge. Better ideas from better observations replace weaker or less accurate ideas. Now where any religion touches on these areas, why should it have some sort of "religious immunity"? (like diplomatic immunity only more so.) If granted for one religion it needs granting for all. Whatever it is. That doesn't seem very palatable given the range of religions that exist. Test the science, history, biology too, of course. But declare any religion "science proof" and you can't tell wisdom from nonsense. The trouble with finding evidence is that there is absolutely NO evidence. They just use conjucture, if you look at their statements they say things like 'probable' 'likely' 'could be' etc etc etc. This is not an exact science. There is no way of proving it unless you send a camer up there, which is impossible.

Buy a telescope.

Look at Jupiter.

If you can't see the moons of it on a clear day you either brought a very poor telescope or have the lense cap on.

Abu Loren wrote: The trouble with finding evidence is that there is absolutely NO evidence. They just use conjucture, if you look at their statements they say things like 'probable' 'likely' 'could be' etc etc etc. This is not an exact science. There is no way of proving it unless you send a camer up there, which is impossible.

Okay, I think I see the problem.

You're right that science is rarely (theoretically never) certain of anything. No matter how confident we are, no matter how much evidence we have (and yes, everything in science is based on evidence), we always leave open the possibility, however remote, that we might be wrong. If someone comes along with better evidence or a better theory, we are always willing to listen and perhaps change our minds.

You see that as a weakness; but on the contrary, that is its great power. I once read a book called "How Not To Be Wrong", whose main message is that if you want to avoid being wrong, never be too confident that you are right. Excellent advice, IMHO. The acquisition of knowledge is an iterative process, constantly building greater and greater confidence in the truth, but never declaring final victory and never closing the door to the possibility of further refinement or revision.

Certainty is the fatal flaw of all religions. The Muslims are certain; so are the Hindus, and the Christians, and the Mormons, and virtually every one of the thousands of other religions humankind has invented over the millennia. Even the most optimistic view would have to admit that certainty about religious opinion is an almost sure sign that you are wrong. Think about it.

Abu Loren wrote: Certainty is the fatal flaw of all religions except Islam. I know that you and all the other religions will laugh at this statement,

or make it, with the name of their own religion as the exception.
The symmetry is near-perfect.

so let's examine why.In the beginning there was only one religion, the true religion of Monotheism worshipping ONE God.

Well that's dubious indeed, given how scattered early humanity was and with groups isolated from each other.

However, as man 'evolved' into communities, groups and nations they invented their own religions..

   Stop there.
On what grounds declare an earlier unified and pure religion? Those religions that do indeed reference an earlier better or purer time are in no agreement as to its nature.

our Creator has sent down various books so that man will get back to the true religion,

Well so most of the books say, or imply, but they would, wouldn't they, whether true or not?

But the thing is that nobody will know what the true religion unless one has been guided to this.

Yes, so several forms of Hinduism maintain: a guru is necessary.

now you will ask "so how do you know that the Hidus, Budhists etc are not guided?" Because you have understand what the original religion was. Again we can argue for years and years abotu this but as I believe in the Abrhamiac Monotheistic religion I believe that is the the true one

It's a fair question, and yours is a fair answer provided you remember it is *your belief. The judgement and commitment of a fallible human being, the same as any other. Whence then *grounded* certainty?

Man in his nature searches for God.

No, I found "truth" more of the issue, and that included the possibility of their being no God.
I've reason enough to consider that, looking at nature, the world and the universe.

When we are born, we all are born innocent and pure, it is our parents, our communities and the people that we interact wih in our lives that lead as away from God. Some people the majority of mankind suppresses this desire to be close to God, this is the reason we have free will.

It's a belief, but far, far removed from anything proven.

... just be honest and open your heart and search for the truth.

I did, and I found I couldn't be honest and still be a theist any more.
There's too much wrong with the idea, and too much sign of God and religion being a human creation.
Very often God as a tribal leader writ large.

Of course, faith and belief cuts through all that, and authenticates (self-authenticates) the religion settled upon. Which could be anything: that's how faith operates.
But whatever is settled upon tends to be reinforced.
As faith doesn't do doubt.
Which is the horror of it.

AbuL: I can't guide you or anyone to God, only He can.

He's doing a bad job in this respect. One could almost take it as proof that he is not omnipotent.


Airmano