retired_B_RAN

The source is EXACTLY the same in all cases. The source is the human mind, and not something external to the conscious being in question. Given that all beliefs are formed from this same source, anyone is justified in analyzing, questioning, and criticizing the workings of this source, which is the mind.

Ultimately, all beliefs are groundless, including the belief that all beliefs are groundless. But we have constructed standards of rationality and logic, to be applied to our seemingly empirical experiences, and this is what allows us to construct and evaluate theories about the world. Not every theory is as good as any other, and if there are errors in logic, if there is irrationality, or there are inconsistencies in empirical data, then a theory can be contradicted, refused, or proven false.

Blind faith or fedeism is irrationality. It's an insistence on a belief despite errors in logic, inconsistencies in empirical data, or an otherwise lack of a cogent, rational argument. And that is all that any religious person is left with after his or her beliefs are truly analyzed and challenged.

I have never encountered a human being on this earth that was able to withstand the analysis and challenges without simply resorting to blind faith. Even honest theologians admit that this is their final tactic when all objections have gone through.

But blind faith is almost universally rejected in our world. It's not acceptable in any other domain of human activity, so why should we accept it in matters of religion? I contend that we shouldn't accept it, and religion should go the way of alchemy.

retired_raistlin1979

Valid points about religion, even atheism, requiring blind faith.

Who are we to say that religion is bad for a certain person? If it allows them to be a better person in society, is that something that should be done away with? I'm fully aware of the wars & deaths that religion regularly causes. But I'm not sure the absence of religion would necessarily make the world a better place, either.

retired_sargent

Being an Alchemist, I object to that last bit, we haven't gone anywhere, we have just moved science on a bit. Without us Chemical Engineers, you would be struggling for many of life's necessities these days.

Uknowmehfo

An Alchemist?

Geez Church :eek:

I knew you were older than me, but that older?!!! I believe they stopped using alchemist in the XVIIth Century.

retired_lizthibert

Church is on his third re-incarnation

Uknowmehfo

I get it!

Church's real name is Edward Kelley or Enoch Root \o/

retired_sara maria

Enoch Root.

retired_mrsjb

:thup: A 'celebrity' in our midst. Which one of you poofs is "half-cocked Jack" then.

retired_tye1234

I'm have it on good authority that way back in the 17th Century they even knew what all the X's avd V's and I's stood for. :eek:

retired_sargent

Form wikipedia:

Alchemy as a proto-science

"The common perception of alchemists is that they were pseudo-scientists, crackpots and charlatans, who attempted to turn lead into gold, believed that the universe was composed of the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water, and spent most of their time concocting miraculous remedies, poisons, and magic potions.

This picture is rather unfair. Although some alchemists were indeed crackpots and charlatans, most were well-meaning and intelligent scholars. These people in many ways served as innovators, and attempted to explore and investigate the nature of chemical substances and processes. They had to rely on experimentation, traditional know-how, rules of thumb — and speculative thought in their attempts to uncover the mysteries of the physical universe.

At the same time, it was clear to the alchemists that "something" was generally being conserved in chemical processes, even in the most dramatic changes of physical state and appearance; i.e. that substances contained some "principles" that could be hidden under many outer forms, and revealed by proper manipulation. Throughout the history of the discipline, alchemists struggled to understand the nature of these principles, and find some order and sense in the results of their chemical experiments — which were often undermined by impure or poorly characterized reagents, the lack of quantitative measurements, and confusing and inconsistent nomenclature."

We chemical engineers are the modern form of alchemists, creating new chemical processes to create new drugs, textiles, additives etc. for you lot to use.