The folly of arguing against religious beliefs through the application of physical laws.

by John Doe 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  John Doe

  First, I must clarify exactly what type of religious belief I'm discussing. I'm discussing the religious belief in an all powerful deity who created the entire universe and everything within.

  How many times have you seen discussions about how the flood myth violates the laws of physics, or that ghost stories violate the principles of biology? While these discussions may be based upon real and verifiable rules and laws, they seem to me to miss the point. Religious belief is not contradicted by the physical rules of the universe, rather, religious belief is bolstered by them. After all, how can an action be miraculous or godlike if it comports with the laws of nature? If God actually exists and created the laws of the universe, why should we doubt stories of him arbitrarily ignoring those same laws?

  Given this premise, discussion of the physical laws of nature has little place in topics of religion. From the opposite side, religious believers have no place trying to support their world views with the laws of nature. Why should dna evidence that suggests a common ancestor mean anything to a believer when he is already so apt to discard any other physical evidence?

  Thoughts?
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  So are your thoughts that ultimately, what constitutes your typical debate on these matters is moot because both sides are entrenched in their own positions and that they are only interested in trying to prove their own point of view, regardless of what the facts show?

  If I am understanding you correctly, I would agree that in matters of faith, it seems that to try and use known scientific fact ultimately weakens and discredits the value of spirituality and faith. (if not organized religion) Such efforts are a waste of time to me, and ultimately, a disingenuous argument.

  I for one am turned off by an "aggressive" atheist, who, although generally having truth on their side, seem to take out their angst on organized religion and their often political agendas (well deserved) and attacking a person's personal faith. (if kept personal, not deserved)

  I think there is also a quality of life metric to theists and their faith (traditional, deists, etc) that needs to be recognized and seperated from the agendas of organized religion.

  I like the title of your thread, if I am not being to hung up on the semantics, but I for one seperate "religious beliefs" from personal spiritual beliefs, if only because it is my opinion that most people do not fully, 100% subscribe even to the religion that they identify themselves with.
• 

  John Doe

  So are your thoughts that ultimately, what constitutes your typical debate on these matters is moot because both sides are entrenched in their own positions and that they are only interested in trying to prove their own point of view, regardless of what the facts show?

  I think that's generally an accurate statement, but not always. Put simply, my view is that it's not legitimate to argue that a miracle is impossible because it's miraculous.

  I think people often don't fully analyze or understand where others (or often themselves) are basing their beliefs.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I think people often don't fully analyze or understand where others (or often themselves) are basing their beliefs.

  I agree.

  It's impossible to understand a person when you are trying to win an argument.
• 

  WuzLovesDubs

  You mean like "The Creation Book" that tried so hard and in vain to prove "creation" using science misquotes and the authenticity of the Bible creation stories, and the flood, by using "..." ?
• 

  Satanus

  The wt is always on about how futile and foolish human based thinking is. They include scientists in that. If that were really true, the wt would not be using scientific quotes in a forced support of their inscientific theories.

  S