Do We Need God?

[Guest Akirtghan]

I DO however reject the idea that up in the clouds sits a creator God, because I've flown enough times to check

we are talking about sikhi rite? not christianity or hinduism, rite?

For instance, creationists, or homeopaths, or astrologers, or the nutty chiropractors who claim to heal everything with just some knuckle-cracking

i thought homeopathy was a type of medicine.

[smartsingh24]

firstly, i'll say that that little convo you quoted between t and g is probably from the matrix. So here's some deeper analysis. You know that in the matrix, the basic plot was that machines gained consciousness, defeated humans, and captured and put the ones that were left in huge simulators. The experience of the humans were entirely digital, and the machines somehow used humans as their energy source. Well, when Neo returns to "reality", how can he KNOW that that is real? Can that not be yet another simulation in which a third entity is controlling everything? Read up on the "simulation argumen"t; interesting stuff...

The very fact that you cannot put into words what love is means that it is "vague" (not "clear cut"). And it really is an umbrella term because it encompasses so many emotions and phenomena. I didn't just throw those words around.

And you say gurbani trumps science? do you think science is a religion? Because if that is what you think, i shouldn't even bother trying to talk to you. Why talk about logic to a person who doesn't know the first thing about science?

Science is a tool to discover the truth about EVERYTHING. The truth is not just about the planet and soil and excrement, it's also about the nature of consciousness, the cosmos, and life itself. Gurbani is a philosophical and religious document, but it is not scientific. It is not scientific because it doesn't have hypotheses or experiments that can be replicated. That doesn't detract from it one bit; its simply classification.

How can the two ever trump each other? Keep your beliefs in God strong, but don't diss on science. A tool of inquiry can never be worthless or pointless, just as philosophical thinking can seldom be worthless or pointless.

smartsingh's comment made me wish i had thought enough to say this: you CAN believe in the Gurbani and still be logical otherwise, because in many cases, Gurbani doesn't step into the realm of science. I DO however reject the idea that up in the clouds sits a creator God, because I've flown enough times to check.

Jokes aside, there is something i do disagree with in smartsingh's post. Taking the example of a child and a teacher, the child doesn't have to make a leap of faith because logic ensures that 1+1 will always equal 2. The teacher doesn't matter. Math is self-evident.

I DO agree that "leaps of faith" are involved, and for practicality's sake we do take those leaps in order to get thru life. For example, we trust an airlplane pilot to fly the plane expertly and get us down safe. But what I absolutely hate is when people put down logic. That happens because firstly, they've never had a critical thought in their lives, and secondly because they have built their whole life around superstitions and can't abandon them now. For instance, creationists, or homeopaths, or astrologers, or the nutty chiropractors who claim to heal everything with just some knuckle-cracking. THEY are the ones i think are beyond all reasonable help.

On the other hand, there are deist skeptics in the world too, who believe in a God but never abandon logic otherwise; its their personal choice. You can also, in today's world, believe that god initiated the world, and that the cosmos simply evolved from the big bang onwards on the basis of a few, basic, maybe discoverable laws. You can believe that and not be in scientific error. It is your own choice to do that. But please question your steadfast beliefs and know what you believe through science, and what you simply assume through leaps of faith.

I think, that you are looking for, or perceiving, a problem that isn't here. I don't see creationists, astrologists, or anyone that generally hates logic on this forum (sorry, but homeopathic doctors and chirocpractors are legitimate followers of science and such). I can't quite respond to most of ur post, mostly because I agree with it (cept the part about the teacher and the child. There is no way that you just KNEW math off the top of your head, someone had to teach you the basics. Addition, subtraction, etc.) However, I will say this about the last bit. For me, Sikhi is one giant leap of faith. You're taking a chance and following a path just because you believe. And belief is a powerful thing, one that intimates and sugg

sts that you don't know, but you do more than just think you know. You feel that you know. Questioning it isn't easy, but it also isn't necessary, because if you Truly believe, then what's the point in questioning it if you know nothing is going to change your mind?

[skepticSikh]

For human society spiritual reality is as important as the sensually perceived empirical reality. One soothes the mind and gives moral direction the other provides material comforts. One is didactic (instructive) and subjective, the other is dialectic (logical) and factual, both are necessary for human development. Instead of being irreconcilable they are two views of the same reality, observed through different coloured spectacles. Only if we accept each discipline in the context of the other can we hope to taste the fruits of reality (18). Such an approach can be intellectually honest, satisfying, rewarding and socially beneficial.

that is pretty much what i believe (i.e., the separation of morality and science). And i agree that in the context of humanity both are necessary.

smartsingh: the creator god comment was not directed towards sikhi; i refered to the Jewish/christian/muslim creator-god concept that had been taken literally for centuries before, and perhaps still is by many. So yeah...

let me clear up homeopaths and chiropractors. They both practice pseudoscience. It is simply not science. Homeopathy can be entirely explained by the placebo effect, and chiropractors, while making your back feel good, can do nothing more than that (they CANNOT cure stuff like colds, or even cancer as i'm sure some have claimed). Before trying to disprove me on the homeopathy point, read this excerpt from wikipedia:

"Homeopathic treatment involves giving a patient with symptoms of an illness extremely small doses of the agents that produce the same symptoms in healthy people when exposed to larger quantities. A homeopathic remedy is prepared by diluting the substance in a series of steps. Most homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted that few molecules of the original substance are likely to remain after dilution so rendering them ineffective as treatments.[3][4] Homeopathy asserts that the remedy will retain a memory of the diluted substance and the therapeutic potency of a remedy can be increased by serial dilution combined with succussion, or vigorous shaking."

Water cannot retain memory; It's as simply as that. U simply cannot cure people with homeopathy because ur basically giving them distilled water.

But i know some will not believe me. So here's another excerpt from the same article:

"Since its inception homeopathy has received significant criticism on scientific and medical grounds. The belief that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers"[5] is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics and the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs. Several pro-homeopathic articles published in highly regarded journals were later withdrawn.[6] Additionally, the use of homeopathic drugs to prevent malaria infection has had life-threatening consequences.[7][8] Consequently, critics of homeopathy have described it as pseudoscience[9] and quackery.[10]"

satisfied? ok...moving on...

i know most forumers here don't believe in these psudosciences, but i still wanted to assert tht i hate pseudoscience because most people just don't know. The misinformation is rampant because homeopaths and chiropractors have their jobs on the line. Compare them to psychics; they're either well-meaning self-delusional types, or simply crooks who know they can't do what they say they do. And some, like syliva brown, are particularly malevolent crooks, who only think of money, and who have been repeatedly proven wrong.

lastly, on that teacher analogy, ur using faulty logic when u say a child simply doesn't understand furriers or la pass transforms. The fact is, math has rules. If you know those rules, you understand math. There is not trust thing going on. For example, you KNOW that the angle sum property is right, because you can draw it out and prove it. You KNOW the quadratic formula works because you can arrive at that formula yourself. In fact, this is what they teach you, proving theorems and stuff, in pure math courses in college, isn't it? even i, a high schooler, know that...

You don't need to trust a teacher, because u can arrive at the answer through logic and following rules. that's what i'm saying...

the rest we agree on. We agree that both religion and science are important, right? And our goal is a wholesome, productive life, isn' it? Well then there's no contention on those points...

[Guest Akirtghan]

so i guess i've been getting healed "magically" for the past 22 yrs i've been taking homeopathy medicine

You don't need to trust a teacher, because u can arrive at the answer through logic and following rules. that's what i'm saying...

and what smartsingh is saying is that intially when a small child starts off, there WILL be a leap of faith where they take everything the teacher says as truth. its not until you get to higher education that you LEARN to prove these things mathematically. notice use of the word learn.

[skepticSikh]

don't worry, even i took them; unknowningly, however. it was my parents who did that; i used to get sick a lot and like any parents who care for their child and want to see them get better, they tried everything, even homeopathy. Eventually, it was REAL medicine that treated me of flooded lungs and pneumonia. Fact is that u were getting better naturally as you would without homeopathy anyway, or maybe u took other medications too and it was those meds that cured u of the simple afflictions. Either of those explanations is a much better one than homeopathy.

Yes, a small child does listen to his/her parents and teachers and trusts them. And as a pre-teen, he/she usually starts to question authority and develop his/her individuality and personal opinions on just about everything. What you're talking about is this, isn't it? How small children are very gullible? I agree, they are.

But don't u agree that there're rules to math? By the time ur in 8th or 9th, u know ur teacher can be wrong sometimes, and sometimes it just so happens that you are right even when the teacher is wrong. U trust the RULES then, not the teacher, and u trust the rules because they don't contradict each other. No rule in math ever contradicts another, which is why it is a rule. This happens when ur studying math at the 9th-10th algebra level. You come to know then that humans make errors. if u follow rules in math, u will never make an error, but if u always trust your teacher, you may make quite a lot of errors.

that simply isn't an appropriate analogy because u talk about math. If u talk about human nature, then all ur points are valid. Small children do trust, and are justified in doing so, in terms of human nature.

[skepticSikh]

u know i can't answer that. I already agreed that science and religion can be complementary. Fact is, at least in cases like pseudoscience where people use religion for their own ends (putting down science in the process), i support science. And i also support science because it is essential in the modern world, whether ur religious or not. Ur simply safer if you know how to think rationally, because u won't fall for people who twist the public for their own ends.

I'm sorry if i sound negative, but what i really am is inquisitive. I'm also a little exasperated at times when people just don't know what true skepticism is like. Skepticism is not cynicism, and if done right, is constructive, because rational questions never assume the answer to be negative (that's cynicism). I won't say i'm not a little rude at times tho, but just ignore that...

i do try to find support for my opinions, and TRY to change that opinion if i'm faced with logic that points otherwise...i don't see that as negative...

And as for pessimism...i think that's not a rational position to have. Things do turn out well sometimes...

[smartsingh24]

u know i can't answer that. I already agreed that science and religion can be complementary. Fact is, at least in cases like pseudoscience where people use religion for their own ends (putting down science in the process), i support science. And i also support science because it is essential in the modern world, whether ur religious or not. Ur simply safer if you know how to think rationally, because u won't fall for people who twist the public for their own ends.

I'm sorry if i sound negative, but what i really am is inquisitive. I'm also a little exasperated at times when people just don't know what true skepticism is like. Skepticism is not cynicism, and if done right, is constructive, because rational questions never assume the answer to be negative (that's cynicism). I won't say i'm not a little rude at times tho, but just ignore that...

i do try to find support for my opinions, and TRY to change that opinion if i'm faced with logic that points otherwise...i don't see that as negative...

And as for pessimism...i think that's not a rational position to have. Things do turn out well sometimes...

Sorry, but I am forced to disagree with you there. Science was formulated to figure out how God had created the world around us. Science is a tool, but Sikhi is a way of life. Science can give you answers, but Sikhi gives you salvation. Sikhi is innumerable and I fail to see how anything could complement it.

[skepticSikh]

homeopathy doesn't use a specific religion, but if u read tht article : " [Hahnemann] had concluded that diseases are not caused by "...any disease matter, but that they are solely spirit-like derangements of the spirit-like power that animates the human body"". Well, that is at least partly derived from religious views of the soul, and partly from the medieval era of medicine (the era when people used to think we had 4 main fluids in our body, and tht it was their imbalance that made us sick). But still, it has been proven ineffective. Why so many people believe is because of the successful PR strategy used by homeopaths that appeals to people's liking for the word "natural", and also people desperation or fear of real medicine.

I'm not even saying science is MORE important, or that religion as you describe it is NOT important in the modern world. What i said was that science is important regardless, because we all live a physical life in this world. You are forced to at least accept that you have worldy needs like food, and medicine when you get sick. It is when you have to support your physical being that science is the best bet. For example, why do you see a dearth of witch doctors today? Because medicine has reached the point that most people trust it over old superstitions.

Science is a tool, but Sikhi is a way of life.

That's what I've been saying! Science really is a tool. And it's essential because you would probably live a lot smaller life span without it (without medicine, vaccines, hygiene, clean water supply systems, relatively safe cities, jobs based on technical skills).

The religion you describe is perfectly good, and if people really practice it like that, it is very beneficial for overall mental/spiritual well-being.

The questioning capacity, to know what you believe and if you believe blindly, comes from common sense. And common sense is rationality, isn't it? Sorry for the use of the word "science" there, but what i meant was rational thinking.

So all in all, don't reply saying i said that science is better. Put in there own domains, science and religions are both important.

[Guest Akirtghan]

Put in there own domains, science and religions are both important.

:D

[skepticSikh]

this was a heavy thread....