bahais and God

fritzy19
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
bahais and God

Are there any bahais on this forum? One of the principles of the Bahai faith is that science and religion should agree. Have anyone touched that principle?
Fritz


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
fritzy19 wrote:Are there any

fritzy19 wrote:
Are there any bahais on this forum? One of the principles of the Bahai faith is that science and religion should agree. Have anyone touched that principle? Fritz

 

should agree? Sure. But if it requires any compromises on the part of science, I would never support such lunacy. Religion and science are naturally opposed. Religion seeks truth through tradition and "revelation" (aka, making shit up), while science seeks truth through testing and examination of evidence. Can science and religion agree? Sure, if what is "revealed" through religion is actually true. The problem is, religion commonly comes to different conclusions than science. If two bodies compete on explainations to natural events, they must be opposed.

One simply cannot compromise when the evidence tells us, say, that the world is at least 4.5 billion years old, and if the magic holy book tells us that it is 6,000 years old and say "hmm, let's make it a million and call it a deal". It's simply ludicrous. One is right, and the other is wrong. There can be no compromise, only submission. And if I were to put my money on an explaination, I'd put it on the one with the most hard evidence backing it up.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm not bahais, but I do

I'm not bahais, but I do think that science and religion should agree.

 

So yeah, I've 'touched it' >_>


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I'm not Bahai and I don't

I'm not Bahai and I don't see anywhere where religion and science conflict.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:I'm not

totus_tuus wrote:

I'm not Bahai and I don't see anywhere where religion and science conflict.

Do you tweak science to fit your religion or just accept it? I believe I know you well enough that you won't dare tweak your religion.

I could be wrong...wouldn't be the first time.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:I'm not

totus_tuus wrote:

I'm not Bahai and I don't see anywhere where religion and science conflict.

You mean except for virgin births.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
I've talked to a Bahai

I've talked to a Bahai before, and I was not impressed. It sounds to me like the Bahai faith enjoys spouting their "religion and science should agree" tenet to pique people's interest, but they don't actually seem to think that. They also just make shit up, just like any other religion. I still have some quotes from the particular Bahai I spoke with.

 

I'm not offering actual arguments here---I already did that in the conversation I had before. I'm simply posting some quotes to show you how "new" and "different" Bahai is.

 

*digs up*

 

Quote:

That's one of the many reasons I like the Baha'i Faith. Although we most definitely believe in teaching the faith, we don't proselytize. If someone isn't interested, that's fine. I guess one big difference is that I believe there is more than one way to get to Heaven - you don't have to be a ____________ (insert religion of your choice) to be "saved".

 

It's nice that the religion doesn't proselytize, but notice the making shit up part in bold. Nothing new going on here.

 

Quote:

I really admire all the study and research you have done in order to reach the conclusions you have. While I completely disagree with your conclusions, I can certainly agree on the dangers of blind faith.

Says the person of faith.

Same religious nonsense here. "Those other religions are crazy, but not mine!"



Quote:
Given the strength of your convictions, and my conviction that everyone must find their own way to truth (not THE truth, just truth), I'm not going to try to convince you of the existance of God. I do however, want to point out some of the similarities between science - which is often seen as the epitome of logic and reason - and religion, which you characterise as mythology.

Notice all the newness? Very new. Very refreshing. Not at all old hat. Not at all the same old schtick with a different name. No, sir.


Quote:

Religion is seen by those who don't believe as irrational and illogical because of, among other things, a belief in God - an invisible, unknowable being. Science however, also believes in invisible, as yet unknown things. One example that comes to mind are WIMPs. Physicists are convinced that they exist, but they have yet to find them. I've included an excerpt from bbc.uk.co with a brief explanation of WIMPs.

Because an invisible conscious being that has a relationship with us and cares and knows our feelings and created a universe which it currently controls is the same thing as a particle. It's totally the same.

Quote:


The Baha'i Faith believes that science and religion must agree, and that does not mean that science must be wrong.

Science without religion is magic and religion without science is superstition. That's what I believe.

 

Science without religion is magic? Excuse me while I laugh milk out my nose.

Also, notice all the newness? Very new and refreshing.

Quote:

As for a Baha'i deity - there is one God. He (limitations of the English language, not a designation of sex) may be known by different names to people of different faiths, but there is only one God. I would argue that the proofs of His existance are everywhere, but I doubt that will get me very far with people who don't believe in Him. I would, however, be equally interested in proof that He doesn't exist.

The newness will not cease!

 

Quote:

In terms of creation and evolution - Baha'is believe that God created the universe, but not in seven days. That doesn't make any sense and is not supported by scientific evidence. To quote Abdu'l-Baha (son of the founder of the Baha'i Faith)

" Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly.  29  One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life."

Is faith an important aspect of the Baha'i Faith? Absolutely. We have taken that leap that Kierkegaard spoke of - the leap of faith.

But I also believe that blind faith is dangerous, even though that's exactly what Kierkegaard's leap of faith is! I make so much sense because my religion is so new!

We believe in science, too! It's easy. Look:

Science says X is the case. It is the case because God makes it that way.

The newness is almost overwhelming.

Quote:

"One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself: nay, his creator and designer is another than himself.

Man did not create himself, therefore God did it.

So fucking new!

 

Quote:

It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being. The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create.

Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation. Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection.

The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God.

You probably stopped giving a shit once it came around to that "totally new" painter and a painting metaphor.

I'm sorry if all this newness is blowing your mind.

Quote:

For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined. Then the weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of God; for if there were no power, there could be no weakness; so from this weakness it becomes evident that there is power in the world. Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is  6  apparent in the world. In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized.

Is something X? God is more X!

Is something Y? God is more Y!

Is something Z? God is more Z!

Very new. Sparkly almost.

Quote:

It is certain that the whole contingent world is subjected to a law and rule which it can never disobey; even man is forced to submit to death, to sleep and to other conditions -- that is to say, man in certain particulars is governed, and necessarily this state of being governed implies the existence of a governor. Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an independent being whose independence is essential.

In the same way it is understood from the man who is sick that there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved.

Therefore, it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One, Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation."

I'm bored.

Are you bored?

I'm bored.

 

Quote:

Evolved from what? I'm trying to get at the first cause - where did the first life forms come from? Where did the first cosmic dust come from? Where did the first matter come from? To be more than a little facetious, as Maria sings in The Sound of Music "nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could..."

*yawn*

 

Quote:

it is entirely based on a set of random mutations and the best adapted mutations are continued. Although I have no problem whatsoever with things evolving, I do disagree with the idea that it is entirely random. Do I believe that human beings have always looked this way? No, not at all. That does not fit the evidence we have. I believe that humans have evolved from ape-like creatures, and before that from smaller mammels - and on back to the earliest one celled creatures. Where I would differ from true evolutionists is in the randomness of it.

I believe in God, and I believe that God created humans. I believe that we have a soul, and this ability to have a soul, and to know God has always been in us - whatever our physical appearance may have been. That is what separates me from an evolutionist.

Whatever is true is only true because God makes it that way.

Is there a computer in front of you right now?

God did it.

Doesn't that just blow your mind? Because it's so new, I mean.

Quote:

I've been thinking a lot about everything that has been posted here during this discussion, and I'm so glad that it's confirming my faith. Reading the reasons why people don't believe in God has made me even stronger in my faith.

I'm currently thinking about logic (having been told more than once during this discussion that I'm not being logical), and I'm realizing that not being logical when it comes to discussions of faith really isn't such a bad thing. Logic is a man made construct, and as such, is as limited as the people who created it. If something appears to be illogical, that may be a result of the fallibility of logic, rather than anything else. I'm pretty sure many people will disagree with me on that, but hey - that just makes life more interesting.

Oh, look. We haven't seen this one before.

"Does my religion look like it doesn't make sense after all? Oh, that must only be because it makes too much sense."

Quote:

This is the primary tenet of the Baha'i Faith. There is a Baha'i children's song that says it very well, "God is one, man is one, and all the religions are agree, when everyone learns the three onenesses, we'll have world unity."

I think you are starting to become slightly combative. I wouldn't say that you are getting rude, and it may just be that with the limitations of an online discussion tone of voice is lost, but the sense I'm getting is that you feel that your position is superior to mine.

First, woo-woo.

Second, you can't disagree because that offends me.

Therefore, God exists.

Also, notice the newness of it all.

Quote:

One of the tenets of the Baha'i Faith is individual investigation of the truth. If I did not investigate my faith, as well as other faiths, as well as evidence that there was no God, I would not be following the tenets of my religion.

"Investigation of truth... as long as truth doesn't mean that Bahai is wrong."

New. Different. Scientific. Logical.

I'll start converting right away! =]

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Science without

Quote:


Science without religion is magic and religion without science is superstition. That's what I believe.

 

I believe the phrase is

 

"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame."

 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:


Science without religion is magic and religion without science is superstition. That's what I believe.

 

I believe the phrase is

 

"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame."

 

 

Because lameness is equivalent to wrongness. =]

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Do you tweak

jcgadfly wrote:
Do you tweak science to fit your religion or just accept it?

I accept science.  Like Aquinas, I believe that in those areas where theology and science conflict, we have a faulty understanding of theology.  Hence, I have no problem accepting an old universe, or the evolution of species.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:You mean

HisWillness wrote:
You mean except for virgin births.

Virgin birth, Resurrection, healing, exorcisms.  List em all.  Unexplained healings of physical and mental illnesses still occur.  They may have natural explanations, perhaps not.  But yeah, I believe these things.  I believe there is a supernatural realm.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Is that new car scent I'm

Is that new car scent I'm smelling?  That's very new if it is.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Do you tweak science to fit your religion or just accept it?

I accept science.  Like Aquinas, I believe that in those areas where theology and science conflict, we have a faulty understanding of theology.  Hence, I have no problem accepting an old universe, or the evolution of species.

So if science is in conflict with theology, the theology can't be incorrect - it's just improperly understood?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So if science

jcgadfly wrote:
So if science is in conflict with theology, the theology can't be incorrect - it's just improperly understood?

I think I actually misquoted Thomas Aquinas.  He said that where science and Scriptures conflict, something is wrong with our interpretation of Scripture.  But, yeah.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
So if science is in conflict with theology, the theology can't be incorrect - it's just improperly understood?

I think I actually misquoted Thomas Aquinas.  He said that where science and Scriptures conflict, something is wrong with our interpretation of Scripture.  But, yeah.

Interesting way to let God (if he exists) off the hook.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Interesting

jcgadfly wrote:
Interesting way to let God (if he exists) off the hook.

To steal more thoughts from a dead guy, St Augustine said, "We do  not read in the Gospel that the Lord said, 'I am sending you the Holy Spirit, that he may teach you about th course of the sun and moon.'  He wished to mak people Christians, not astronomers."

Too, though, Christianity views what science teaches us of God's Creation is itself Revelation by God about Himself, His reason and wisdom.  True reason and true faith are not opposed, but complementary.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Interesting way to let God (if he exists) off the hook.

To steal more thoughts from a dead guy, St Augustine said, "We do  not read in the Gospel that the Lord said, 'I am sending you the Holy Spirit, that he may teach you about th course of the sun and moon.'  He wished to mak people Christians, not astronomers."

Too, though, Christianity views what science teaches us of God's Creation is itself Revelation by God about Himself, His reason and wisdom.  True reason and true faith are not opposed, but complementary.

Then why does faith in God require the suspension of reason?

Reason says, "Miracles are mere coincidence. Resurrection doesn't happen. God did not and could not impregnate a teenager"

Faith says, "Oh, forget all that. You just have to believe it and it all becomes clear."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
fritzy19 wrote:One of the

fritzy19 wrote:
One of the principles of the Bahai faith is that science and religion should agree.

Another principle of bahaism is that all the religions agree.

 

So it's dead in the water.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Arch, does your Ba'hai

Arch, does your Ba'hai interlocutor take responses? Can you direct him to this link after I have posted a response. I wish to shred him.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Arch, does

deludedgod wrote:

Arch, does your Ba'hai interlocutor take responses? Can you direct him to this link after I have posted a response. I wish to shred him.

 

Actually, my interlocutor was a lady. I don't know how well she would be open to responses. The text I pasted earlier was taken from a facebook exchange I had with her on a group forum nearly two months ago. As you can see in the text, she was already feeling offended by the time things came to a close.

So while I would be tempted to track her down and link her to your response, it occurs to me that it might be sort of awkward, like a punch line delivered three days late, when your audience has long since moved on.

But a critical examination of this Bahai business would probably be useful to have around anyway, since I'm hearing it quite a lot lately.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.