REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evolution, science, faith- lightening rod - II

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, July 30, 2007 08:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8301
PAGE 1 of 4

Monday, June 25, 2007 6:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'.
You keep using the word "science", but do you know what the word means? Scientific method is ... based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence ... and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Specifically, science confines itself to what can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, or to extensions thereof. This isn't some kind of scientific snootiness. It is based on the principle that two different people can examine a third thing, unlike subjective phenomena - such as faith and belief- which are internal and which therefore cannot be shared with or verified by another person. To propose something as "science" that cannot be observed and tested betrays a breathtaking ingorance of the word.
Quote:

thats a dangerous precedent, because once science feels it has disproved God(or the neccessity for a Creator),
Science can neither prove nor disprove god. What science does, which may seem worse, is ignore god.
Quote:

maybe science will(and has) began tell everybody what is ... 'real' and 'factual'
What is "real"? That's the nub. There are several assumptions underlying science about "reality". The first is that there is world that exists outside of ourselves, the second is that we are part of it, and the third is that our senses tell us something meaningful about that world. Which one of those assumptions do you care to dispute?
Quote:

saying 'God did it' doesnt undermine legitimate discovery.
But saying "god done it" is also incredibly unproductive and uninsightful to legitimate discovery. It doesn't differentiate and it's not testable. As a hypothesis, it sucks.
Quote:

it is irrelevant to know who the actual designer was of a watch or television, but what we ought to recognize is the many elements and parts, had to align perfectly, in all their complexity and design, to fullfill the devices purpose.
You claim to know the purpose of the universe? Besides, who says everything works harmoninously?
Quote:

the complexity of an invention indicates intelligence* so why not the entire universe, in its incredible equilibrium and synchronicities? we believe 'God did it', because we believe order precedes design.
I think you're mis-stating yourself, I think you mean "design precedes order".
Quote:

what you are saying instead is that it all 'just happened', as a product of time, and purely random mathmatical chance.
I really wish Haken had a emoticon but since he doesn't I'll have to be satisfied with a . What makes you think the universe is random? I recognize that there is order in the universe. I recognize that it is complex. I also recognize that the past few centuries have led to profound discoveries about the principles such as gravity that underly this order and complexity, and I expect that more discoveries will be made in the future. I don't have to propose an untestable deity to account for order. All I propose to do is to study it.
Quote:

{Do} you believe in an 'atheist' view of a 'universe of harmony'?
I don't accept a deity as a "scientific" explanation for observeable phenomena.
Quote:

i dont believe in chaos guiding evolution
Neither do I.
Quote:

i believe in order through design. i acknowledge that evolutionary changes occur, i do not accept that these processes manifested themselves, beginning with spontaneous generation, to eventually account for the genesis of all life on earth. some people maintain that DNA, and the basic building blocks of life essentially write and guide themselves to create the visible 'order', but i believe instead that it follows patterns which the Creator of the universe established.
Thank you for the testimonial
Quote:

why is this position so controversial? .. its one thing to have a faith, its another to ...attempt to justify it
Faith cannot be justified. If it could be tested and validated, it would be science. People object- rightly I think- to attempts to "prove" religion.
Quote:

your right.. and i dont have a straight forward answer. the problem with this subject is that im arguing against the status quo; everything people are taught, about evolution.. the age of the universe, biology, is all based around a secular premise that our entire existence(what we know if it) occurred naturally over 'billions of years'. so when you find a fossil, you date the ground by the alleged era that this species supposedly existed, or vice versa
Will you PLEASE learn something about science before you attempt to describe what science "says" about something? I'm just tempted to call bullshit on your whole thread.
Quote:

you can guess what 100 million year old soil looks like.. but their is no way to know for sure.
And you know that God exists for sure because.....?
Quote:

as far as i can tell all of evolutionary science requires this kind of circular reasoning
Well, you can' tell very far because you know squat about science. It only looks circular to you because you have not considered the several independent lines of inquiry which lead to the same conclusions.
Quote:

because the observable evidence IMO doesnt conclude atheistic evolution
Well, one thing the evidence disproves is The Flood and Creation.
Quote:

im not 'discounting' reality.
You most certainly are!
Quote:

i actually include it. talk about subjective idealism.. maybe we should just re-write the last 4-6 thousand years of history, and just pretend that none of this 'deism' stuff ever existed (it was all entirely false, creative inventions maybe) ... and lets just assume that we really did spontaneously occur just a few unfathomable billion years ago.
let's go back to sacrificing to the rain gods and blowing holy smoke on people too.
Quote:

thats not my 'reality'
See, you ARE discounting reality!

You assume that since the universe is so finely tuned and complex that it requires a more complex entity to bring it about. But that is enirely circular. IF the creator is even more complex than the universe, who created the creator? It's called recursive logic and is entirely self-negating.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2007 6:31 PM

LEADB


Thanks Sig; the old thread was getting pretty slow to load.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2007 6:32 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


What I don't get is this - why is it that people who can't grasp the idea of the universe coming from nothing have no problem with (a) god(s) coming from nothing ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:21 AM

LEADB


Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that?

"If god created the universe, who created god?" BTW there 's similar conundrum in Hinduism, and according to Wikipedia a joke about it. It goes: what does the earth rest on ? An elephant. So what does the elephant rest on ? A tortoise. And what does the tortoise rest on? Isn't it time to change the subject ?


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:30 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fredgiblet:EDIT: Non sequiturs, arguments from ignorance and incredulity, ignoring known evidence...pass.

Wow Fred you're a quick reader! I'm impressed! It took me 3 weeks to read it. Oh!!!! wait!!!!!....you little scamp....nobody reads that fast. Let me guess...you ran out to the web....google'd the book...ran back with the first bad review you found.....am I right?



I read several reviews, none of them convinced me that it would be worth my time to read it and several showed the flaws in logic that I pointed out. I don't know how much free time you have but I don't have enough time to read the books/watch the shows/play the games that I already have, much less read everything that's thrown out in arguments here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that=Rue

Well said. I'm jealous. Here I've been huffing and puffing and circling around and around this point. But this would be my answer to FINN in the other thread on religion.

But wow, this has been a long discussion. So have fun, keep kicking the ball around.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:12 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I read several reviews, none of them convinced me that it would be worth my time to read it and several showed the flaws in logic that I pointed out. I don't know how much free time you have but I don't have enough time to read the books/watch the shows/play the games that I already have, much less read everything that's thrown out in arguments here.


That's true, we're all busy. I have the same backlog of books, shows, games, and relatives in varying stages of helplessness. We're just different in that I don't make judgements about anything based on what a critic says. Especially if I have a bias that will likely cause me to gravitate to opinions that validate my own. There are positive reviews out there you know...but I imagine you have neither the time time, nor the inclination to read them. Geezer tried to start a book club once with Ann Coulter's Book, I wanted to read it but couldn't bring myself to do it, not even to argue against it, So I think I understand your point

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:36 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that?

"If god created the universe, who created god?" BTW there 's similar conundrum in Hinduism, and according to Wikipedia a joke about it. It goes: what does the earth rest on ? An elephant. So what does the elephant rest on ? A tortoise. And what does the tortoise rest on? Isn't it time to change the subject ?

Well, most strong theists have a strong emotional investment in God being eternal. So, even if they grasp that the concept that an eternal God is as problematic as an eternal (if you go with the big crunch/big bang/big crunch/big bang, etc theory) universe, it's very easy to get into denial when someone challenges it. And of course, the ones who don't grasp it... well, they are hard to 'work with'.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:32 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
There are positive reviews out there you know...but I imagine you have neither the time time, nor the inclination to read them.



My selection process for which reviews I read consisted of putting the name of the book into Google and reading the reviews that came up. This resulted in about 6 independent sites plus around 8 or 9 Amazon reviews, many of them were positive overall but many quite clearly state that his arguments for scientific evidence for god fall flat.

Quote:

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.


Indeed, I'm part of the Atheist Al Qaeda, DEATH TO ALL WHO RESIST THE PROPHET DAWKINS!!!!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:46 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"Perhaps they can grasp it; they just happen to have a preference for it?"

Then why claim it as an eternal truth? If it defies simple logic and you know it's just your preference, why not just say you chose to believe it b/c you like it, and let it go at that?




Because they want to save you. Because if you don't believe then you are damned and they can't in good conscience sit back and just let that happen. If you don't see the "truth" in what they tell you they just have to try harder to clear the devils that have clouded your vision.

As for evolution, science etc. That's a simple bid for primacy. It's hard to preach "do as we say because the bible says so" if the bible can be shown to be inaccurate. If the reason to obey it (or more specifically the fundementalist interpretation of it) is that it is the literal, infallable word of God, then it has to be taken literally and you have to defend that infallability.

There you go, the complete scope of this argument in 2 paragraphs.

My work here is done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:43 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Indeed, I'm part of the Atheist Al Qaeda, DEATH TO ALL WHO RESIST THE PROPHET DAWKINS!!!!!!!!


I hope you don't crash any jumbo jets into my house...but if you need to you can crash a car into my garage door. I can use insurance to get a new one the one I have don't work so good. And your movement will get publicity! I can act terrorized and declare marshal law in my backyard! You can even spray paint DAWKINS LIVES!!! on whats left of the garage door for effect

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:14 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?




No, not for real people anyway. Science talks about the how of things and religion deals with the why. I don't know that any species with a collective ego as big as ours will ever be happy with a "why" that is essentially dumb luck.

Besides part of Rue's famous "hard wiring" of humans is a tendency for religious belief.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:14 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?




No, not for real people anyway. Science talks about the how of things and religion deals with the why. I don't know that any species with a collective ego as big as ours will ever be happy with a "why" that is essentially dumb luck.

Besides part of Rue's famous "hard wiring" of humans is a tendency for religious belief.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 13, 2007 2:02 PM

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA


Science can't replace Religion in my view, because of the fundamental differences in what they are. People can get similar dietary benefits from eating an apple as they can get from eating an orange, but both are different enough to justify their continued existense. I think Religion and Science are that way too. So in comparing them, one finds that fundamentally she/he is comparing apples to oranges.

Philosophy, in continuing my above metaphor, would have to be the potato. It focuses upon how we live, and how to live well, without focusing on the why of it all, and the where it all ends. It gives us similar benefits to the apple that is Religion and to the orange that is Science, but it does so in a fundamentally different way.

What I don't understand are people who demand literal interpretation of their religion. When certain "facts" of their religion fly in the face of the evidence of their senses and they choose the "facts", they seem to be willfuly choosing ignorance. As I said above, I don't understand it.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 13, 2007 2:38 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?

The reason why I'm wondering is that in the past religion was a bid for control over the uncontrollable- rain, game, sickness, birth and death. As population became more dense and life became more settled the questions tended to revolve around justice, goodness, punishment. It seems that science is slowly taking over these areas. Where do you suppose it will end?

No. Religion is about the supernatural, Science is about the natural. Just because some of the Supernatural (like where rain comes from) has been moved to the realm of the natural doesn't mean that everything in the realm of the supernatural will be.

The problem with too many religious zealots is that they want all or nothing, and thus assume everyone wants all or nothing just the same. So any small move of domain from religion to science, is a massive attack that must be countered with an attempt to send us back to before the renaissance.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 13, 2007 3:18 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose science will ever completely replace religion and/or philosophy?



I think religion will change to incorporate the knowledge gained from science. I've yet to hear a solid reason why religion should only ever be about the supernatural.

The thing that science is discovering is that, even if a reductive view of truth is 'real', it doesn't take into account the infinitely complex ways that the those reductive elements can manifest. Materialism doesn't deny the existence of beauty, love, spirit, etc... But it's not the way to understand those kinds of things. That's where religion will continue to be valuable.

I do think that'll we'll move beyond the mysticism and fantasy that's at the core of today's religions, but I think we'll always ways to deal with the high-level concepts of experience.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 13, 2007 3:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.



Newly discovered hominid fossils include jaws, partial skeleton

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.

Ethiopian archaeologist Yohannes Haile Selassie said the find included several complete jaws and one partial skeleton and were unearthed in the Afar desert at Woranso-Mille, near where the famous fossil skeleton known as Lucy was found in 1974.

"This is a major finding that could fill a gap in human evolution," he told a news conference in Addis Ababa. "The fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille area sample a time period that is poorly known in human evolutionary study."

Researchers say the area, about 140 miles northeast of Addis, boasts the most continuous record of human evolution. Last year, an international team of scientists unveiled the discovery of 4.1 million-year-old fossils in the region. Lucy, the most famous find, lived between 3.3 million and 3.6 million years ago. But Yohannes said Afar had yielded early hominid fossil remains spanning the last 6 million years.

www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/ethiopia.fossil.reut/index.html



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 13, 2007 3:25 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think religion will change to incorporate the knowledge gained from science. I've yet to hear a solid reason why religion should only ever be about the supernatural.

I haven't heard a convincing reason why it shouldn't, we already have Science, why do we need Pseudo-Science+God? Why not keep both to the eminant domains they are best at expressing?
Quote:

The thing that science is discovering is that, even if a reductive view of truth is 'real', it doesn't take into account the infinitely complex ways that the those reductive elements can manifest. Reductive materialism doesn't deny the existence of beauty, love, spirit, etc... But it's not the way to understand those kinds of things. That's where religion will continue to be valuable.
The Reductionists in science get the most media time because of the successes of Quantum Mechanics, which is itself a reductionist philosphy, but at least half of science is Holistic in it's approach.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 13, 2007 3:26 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.

Yeah, but, erm, what about the gap between them and the next step, huh, see, evolution comes crashing down...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 13, 2007 3:29 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (Reuters) -- Ethiopian scientists said on Tuesday they have discovered hominid fossil fragments dating from between 3.5 million and 3.8 million years ago in what could fill a crucial gap in the understanding of human evolution.



Of course you know what the creationist response is right? "well now you've got two gaps to account for"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 4:58 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think religion will change to incorporate the knowledge gained from science. I've yet to hear a solid reason why religion should only ever be about the supernatural.

I haven't heard a convincing reason why it shouldn't, we already have Science, why do we need Pseudo-Science+God? Why not keep both to the eminant domains they are best at expressing?



I'm not sure what you mean by "Pseudo-Science-God", but I do think there's room for, in fact a great need for, a materialist religion. The micro/reductive world of science and the macro/high-concept world of religion are intimately connected - they're the same thing, the same reality. Failing to recognize that cause us lots of trouble and misses so many opportunities for clarity and understanding. Both perspectives have profound impact on the same world, often in contradictory ways. That contradiction causes confusion and sets up artificial conflict between the two perspectives. I think we'd be better off integrating them, each leveraging the other's strengths, rather than continue with each working at cross purposes.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:25 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I kind of think that this is a motivation for the emergence of some modern neo-pagan and spiritualistic beliefs. I’m not very familiar with a lot of them, but those that I have been introduced to, like Wicca for instance, seem to a mixture of a perception of European superstition or folklore and modern sociopolitics.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:29 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not sure what you mean by "Pseudo-Science-God", but I do think there's room for, in fact a great need for, a materialist religion. The micro/reductive world of science and the macro/high-concept world of religion are intimately connected - they're the same thing, the same reality. Failing to recognize that cause us lots of trouble and misses so many opportunities for clarity and understanding.

But there is already holistic and reductionist methodology within Science, it doesn't need to be introduced from outside. Reductionism has hit the media more often because of the successes of Quantum Mechanics, but Relativity itself is a holistic approach.

Science and Religion are too very different things, Science is a tool for understanding natural phenomena, Religion a belief system for explaining and/or answer questions that Science simply can't. They're on the same bookshelf, but they're two very different books, and ultimately are better at explaining two very different subjects, subjects which don't overlap.

I see no basis to assert that Religion and Science are 'the same thing', they have different goals, questions, and ways of answering them, while also operating in significantly different domains. To try and combine them wouldn't give something stronger, but something that fulfils the goals of neither. It would be like trying to hammer a square and a round peg in to an oblong hole at once.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'.


I don't even know whose quote this belongs to, but I find it a commonly held view on those who question evolution, or science. First of all , I'd like to state that the quote has a major flaw in it, almost immediatly from the start. My views on evolution come NOT from thinking Christianity ( or any religious viwe point ) are scams, but from the evidence its self. I find paleontology to be fascinating. More specific, the study of dinosuars. It's from the sheer interest in such topics and those related that I view evolution. It STARTS with an interest and desire to learn, and does NOT demand the facts fall into a preconcieved paradigm of religous teaching. I freely admit that I know nothing about an issue , but only what the facts can reveal. If my course of learning takes me to a point where I can concluded that a certain fable or story has no merrit at all with what it is I'm studying, THERE is where I determine it. Not before.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:53 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
But there is already holistic and reductionist methodology within Science, it doesn't need to be introduced from outside.



I agree, it has been moving in that direction. What I'm talking about is sort of an extension of that. But the focus is still different. Science looks for explanations of how things work. Religion tries to understand what they mean.

Quote:

I see no basis to assert that Religion and Science are 'the same thing'


Ahh... but I didn't say that. Or I didn't mean to. What I meant was that each tries to understand the world in different ways, but it's the same world.
Quote:

To try and combine them wouldn't give something stronger, but something that fulfils the goals of neither. It would be like trying to hammer a square and a round peg in to an oblong hole at once.

Yeah, I'm not really talking about combining them - certainly not in some kind of Frankenstein monster that takes the mysticism and fantasy of current religion and tacks it onto science. What I'm saying is that the two different approaches to understanding our world don't need to be in conflict. Accepting a materialistic understanding of the universe shouldn't preclude someone from enjoying the spiritual guidance that religion provides.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:59 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yeah, I'm not really talking about combining them - certainly not in some kind of Frankenstein monster that takes the mysticism and fantasy of current religion and tacks it onto science.



*cough*Scientology*cough*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:07 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
*cough*Scientology*cough*



Hehe.... I was actually somewhat attracted to the idea of Scientology on first glance. But then I read "Dianetics". Batshit insane, no way around it. I don't really think that disqualifies the concept in general however.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:15 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'.


I don't even know whose quote this belongs to



That would be antimason I think.

Quote:

but I find it a commonly held view on those who question evolution, or science. First of all , I'd like to state that the quote has a major flaw in it, almost immediatly from the start.


Only one?


Quote:

My views on evolution come NOT from thinking Christianity ( or any religious viwe point ) are scams, but from the evidence its self.


Which is something that is incomprehensible to some people it seems. The simple fact is that ID lacks a basis, there is no scientific need for it or evidence for it. I don't accept it as relevant because it isn't, yet people like anti insist that my lack of acceptance must be because of dogmatic belief in evolution. If there was evidence given for ID or even a demonstration of a need for it then I'd be fine with accepting it but in the meantime it's irrelevant, unscientific and lacking in evidence.

Quote:

It STARTS with an interest and desire to learn, and does NOT demand the facts fall into a preconcieved paradigm of religous teaching. I freely admit that I know nothing about an issue , but only what the facts can reveal. If my course of learning takes me to a point where I can concluded that a certain fable or story has no merrit at all with what it is I'm studying, THERE is where I determine it. Not before.


Which is, I think, the major split. anti sees everything in light of the Bible (to be fair he admits it readily) so anything that disagrees with his view of the Bible must be wrong and anything that agrees with his view of the Bible must be right. To a scientist the evidence is the ultimate arbiter, whatever the evidence says is true. To the religiously minded person the evidence is the ultimate arbiter until the evidence disagrees with the preconceived notion of the way the world works at which point the evidence must be wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:16 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Hehe.... I was actually somewhat attracted to the idea of Scientology on first glance. But then I read "Dianetics". Batshit insane, no way around it. I don't really think that disqualifies the concept in general however



Muh? Isn't Scientology utterly intertwined with Dianetics?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:29 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Muh? Isn't Scientology utterly intertwined with Dianetics?



Yup, same thing. Dianetics was the book where he laid out the 'science' (*cough*) behind Scientology.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 7:44 AM

FREDGIBLET


Oh oh, when you were saying the concept in general you were saying the idea of fusing science and religion. I thought you were saying that it didn't disqualify the concept of Scientology. My bad.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:07 PM

LEADB


Just to provide the source for this quote, and where and when it came from...
Quote:

Originally posted in: Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod date: Monday, June 25, 2007 - 18:28 by: ANTIMASON
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Science looks for consistent, repeatable phenomena. When an underlying principle is found and characterized, it is given a name like "gravity" to distinguish it from other phenomena like "atoms". That doesn't mean that we know what gravity "is" in some ultimate sense, but we do know how it causes matter to behave. Explaining the falling apple and beauty of snowflakes or the marvel of the cosmos with "god done it" doesn't further our understanding one whit.


you know what probably upsets me most about this subject? most proponents of(strictly) evolution approach this subject with their own bigotry and bias, because theyve been taught that christianity has always been a scam, that ID is baseless, and that to say otherwise is factually and scientifically 'ignorant'. thats a dangerous precedent, because once science feels it has disproved God(or the neccessity for a Creator), maybe science will(and has) began tell everybody what is OK to believe and whats not, based on what is percieved to be 'real' and 'factual'.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:32 PM

DEL


I know it's rude but didn't get through the whole thread. I'll put my 2 penneth's worth in anyway if I may.

A wise man (OK a good looking physics teacher) once said to me, the beginning of the universe if science up to the Big Bang, before that, ie. how the matter that exploded got there is the contentious issue. Some say God happened. He said, and I believe this, in infinite time and space there is a finite chance that matter will pop into existence out of nothing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:19 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Fredgiblet
Which is something that is incomprehensible to some people it seems. The simple fact is that ID lacks a basis, there is no scientific need for it or evidence for it. I don't accept it as relevant because it isn't, yet people like anti insist that my lack of acceptance must be because of dogmatic belief in evolution. If there was evidence given for ID or even a demonstration of a need for it then I'd be fine with accepting it but in the meantime it's irrelevant, unscientific and lacking in evidence.



friend, your opinion is just as biased as mine.. why cant you see that? you talk about 'evidence'.. when i look around, all i see is evidence of order, and intelligence and intricacy and design; but more importantly, i see purpose. you have the right to believe its by chance, mathematical, but meaningless- thats the natural view. if not, lets concede that a higher brain or intelligence of some degree had to give birth to all this. you can be condescending towards me all you want, but you dont know how or where the universe began

Quote:

Which is, I think, the major split. anti sees everything in light of the Bible (to be fair he admits it readily) so anything that disagrees with his view of the Bible must be wrong and anything that agrees with his view of the Bible must be right. To a scientist the evidence is the ultimate arbiter, whatever the evidence says is true. To the religiously minded person the evidence is the ultimate arbiter until the evidence disagrees with the preconceived notion of the way the world works at which point the evidence must be wrong.


this may suprise you, but i was agnostic, maybe borderline athiest, before i became a 'christian'. when i look back, i should have been christian because my parents were, but i realize now that i was taught otherwise in school. now, i am skeptical of evolution because it doesnt explain nearly what many claim it does(sort of like global warming), even to much more scientifically inclined people than myself. just look back through our 6-10 thousand years of recorded history, just think of the depth and genesis of human culture, and past beliefs.. and consider other possibilities. if there is any truth to the 'myths' of antiquity, it should make all of us think twice about this lack of 'evidence' for intelligent order and design, which seems more like an opinion (as far as im concerned)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 14, 2007 5:15 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Del:
I know it's rude but didn't get through the whole thread. I'll put my 2 penneth's worth in anyway if I may.

A wise man (OK a good looking physics teacher) once said to me, the beginning of the universe if science up to the Big Bang, before that, ie. how the matter that exploded got there is the contentious issue. Some say God happened. He said, and I believe this, in infinite time and space there is a finite chance that matter will pop into existence out of nothing.

Actually, no. We have some significant disagreement amongst our posters regarding certain issues; for instance, we have one fellow who contends all the species on earth were placed here at one point in time; that species did not evolve, one from another; lower to more complex.
For the adherents of the 'big bang' here, there's been pretty universal agreement it is not possible to conclusively state the nature of the 'initiation' of the events leading up to the big bang. I'm not clear if everyone here concurs that the big bang took place, though... interesting question... anyone care to advocate a position that does not include a 'big bang'? (Me, I'm a big bang-ian ;=) )

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:25 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Fredgiblet
Which is something that is incomprehensible to some people it seems. The simple fact is that ID lacks a basis, there is no scientific need for it or evidence for it. I don't accept it as relevant because it isn't, yet people like anti insist that my lack of acceptance must be because of dogmatic belief in evolution. If there was evidence given for ID or even a demonstration of a need for it then I'd be fine with accepting it but in the meantime it's irrelevant, unscientific and lacking in evidence.



friend, your opinion is just as biased as mine.. why cant you see that?



Sure, but you've got the seqence of events wrong, if I was biased against ID and thus decided that it was baseless, unscientific, useless and disingenuous and that it was trumpeted by liars and frauds with an agenda then my bias would weaken if not discredit my opinion. Instead I investigated ID with little bias (show me a grown person with no bias whatsoever and I'll show you an amnesiac), I found ID to be baseless, unscientific, useless and disingenuous and that it was trumpeted by liars and frauds with an agenda and then acquired a substantial bias.

While I was considering exactly how to respond to your accusation I realized that that my opinion and the genesis of my opinion regarding ID has strong simliarities to another group which I realized that ID has some strong similarities to, Scientology.

In both instances I began my investigations with almost no knowledge, regarding Scientology I knew that Tom Cruise was a Scientologist and that there was some claims of science and religion being mixed or something, regarding evolution and ID I had vague notions of monkeys and something about Kansas schools. Both Scientology and ID claim to have a scientific basis but neither can actually back it up, Scientologies basis Dianetics is riddled with errors, unproven assertions and a complete lack of evidence resulting in it's being ignored by people who actually investigate it's legitimacy, ID's scientific backings (Irreducible Copmmlexity and Specified Complexity) have similarly been dismantled completely by experts in the field due to the absurdly poor scholarship, frequent logical fallacies and lack of evidence to back up the claims made (Specified Complexity was actually dismantled by experts in many fields as it included appeals to many diverse subjects). Both Scientology and ID are unable to produce evidence of their validity yet insist that they are equally as valid as the prevailing science in their fields. Both were created by people with agendas not to expand the body of human knowledge but instead for the sole purpose of advancing said agenda, Hubbard created Scientology to give him money and power and sate his megalomania, the creators of ID invented it to advance an agenda of religious indoctrination in schools and to convince people that the issue of evolution is one of atheism vs. theism and not one of science vs. pseudo-science. Both ID and Scientology use tactics that are disingenuous at best, Scientology ropes people in by giving them a "personality test" where no matter what answers are given the result is always that the person needs to be audited, ID has the "Teach the Controversy" campaign where they pretend that there is controversy among scientists about evolution and claim that evolution is a "theory in crisis" when in reality there is no controversy among biologists about evolution and it is one of the most solid well supported theories in science. All of these things I learned about ID before I was biased, in light of these things a bias formed. So yes, I'm biased against ID, but that bias is the same as my bias against Scientology or Lamarckism or the Planet X theory, namely a bias born of knowledge where I investigated with no real bias and found said ideas to be significantly or even absurdly flawed and thus formed a bias against them.

Quote:

you talk about 'evidence'.. when i look around, all i see is evidence of order, and intelligence and intricacy and design; but more importantly, i see purpose.


I'll agree with you on order and intricacy, but not intelligence or design and I'm not sure how you see purpose. Regarding order and intricacy the difference between us that you see intricacy and say "God must have made this", I see intricacy and say "I wonder how this came about" then with a trivial amount of research it usually becomes apparent that a natural process can easily produce the result that is seen and frequently explains the nature of the result better than "God did it".
Regarding intelligence and design, have you ever taken an engineering class? I understand some of the basic principles of engineering, one of them is "Simplicity Uber Alles", complexity is anathema to good engineering as it increases the difficulty and cost of designing and manufacturing as well as decreasing reliability. Before you lodge a complaint complexity is often necessary to accomplish certain goals and frequently making a design simpler past a certain point compromises functionality, thus even good engineering requires a certain level of complexity and sometimes a large amount of complexity is desirable. Most life forms exhibit enormous amounts of unnecessary and even dangerous complexity, to the point where a first year engineering student could probably do a lot better. If there is a Designer, it isn't very Intelligent.

Quote:

now, i am skeptical of evolution because it doesnt explain nearly what many claim it does(sort of like global warming)


Interesting, one of the most powerful and useful theories in science which has found use in a variety of areas and which provided the basis which underlies nearly all of biology, and it doesn't explain enough for anti. I'm curious, what do you think it is claimed to explain that it doesn't?

And while we're on the subject of explanatory ability the double standard is interesting, you complain that evolution doesn't explain enough but you support ID which doesn't explain anything. ID can accommodate anything but doesn't explain why something is the way it is instead of any other way. Evolution can explain why creatures have specific traits and why they developed the way they did, ID can only say "God did it".

Quote:

just look back through our 6-10 thousand years of recorded history, just think of the depth and genesis of human culture, and past beliefs.. and consider other possibilities. if there is any truth to the 'myths' of antiquity, it should make all of us think twice about this lack of 'evidence' for intelligent order and design


Sure...if. Do you have any evidence that these old myths are true? No? Then doesn't it make sense to assume that they are not true until said evidence is found?

Quote:

which seems more like an opinion (as far as im concerned)


If you would like to show me objective evidence for design then I'm listening.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Religion a belief system for explaining and/or answer questions that Science simply can't."

In another thread SignyM came up with several uses for religion. The three I remember are: 1) 'explaining' the unexplainable 2) 'controlling' the uncontrollable 3) enforcing social hierarchy. Under 1 you can find anything from 'how does an eclipse happen ?' to 'why are we here ?' and under 2 'praying for rain' to 'holy smoke'.

Science has severely diminished the role of religion in both 1 and 2, pushing religious explanations and interventions out of the natural realm. To that extent the religious people have reason to be afraid science will replace religion. For example, I just read an article about the necessary conditions for abiogenesis of life. Now, if it can be reasonably shown that life came from non-life, and since it has been shown that life evolves according to the whims of time and circumstance, the religious (specifically biblical) arguments for how things are fall flat. It's not that humans are god's 'special' creation given dominion, or that humans and god have a special historical relationship, or that humans have a 'god given' purpose. Humans are just another animal formed by the same kind of chance that formed everything else.

I actually like that idea. But it seems to frighten many people who are looking for I don't know what ( - perhaps an inflated sense of importance ?)

Once there in our thinking, it will be up to people to decide - Why am I here ? Why are we here ? How do we want to live with each other ? How shall we treat our planet ? God drops out of the picture.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:25 PM

LEADB


Gonna have to book mark that one, Fred.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:43 PM

FREDGIBLET


I assume that means you found it amusing and\or informative in which thank you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:25 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Fredgiblet- If you would like to show me objective evidence for design then I'm listening.


sure... take your pick of any organism or ecosystem, and observe its purpose and complexity. either things happened by accident, or they were designed that way. you can explain to me in detail how the systems work.. but you then claim it occurred that way itself, by chance(and a little bit of willpower). i disagree, i believe these interdependent systems and patterns were 'designed' that way

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


AntiM

That's no explanation. To explain it, YOU have pick the system, organism etc and tell US how it never had an evolutionary history, how it never entered or left an ecological system changing the web of relationships, how nothing ever went extinct b/c it was so perfect in its original creation ...

BTW willpower has nothing to do with it. Since you put that word in where it has no place at all, I suspect your understanding of the science is fatally deficient.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:28 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Fredgiblet- If you would like to show me objective evidence for design then I'm listening.


sure... take your pick of any organism or ecosystem, and observe its purpose and complexity. either things happened by accident, or they were designed that way. you can explain to me in detail how the systems work.. but you then claim it occurred that way itself, by chance(and a little bit of willpower). i disagree, i believe these interdependent systems and patterns were 'designed' that way



I'm looking for objective not subjective. Saying "I think it's designed" is 100% subjective.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Skulls confirm we're all out of Africa

LONDON (Reuters) - An analysis of thousands of skulls shows modern humans originated from a single point in Africa and finally lays to rest the idea of multiple origins, British scientists said on Wednesday. ... The genetic evidence has always strongly supported the single origin theory, and now results from a study of more than 6,000 skulls held around the world in academic collections supports this case.
www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL1885586220070719



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:24 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
What I don't get is this - why is it that people who can't grasp the idea of the universe coming from nothing have no problem with (a) god(s) coming from nothing ?



This is a category mistake. The key element in here is the idea of "coming" which seems to mean "beginning to exist." I'll grant you that nothing can begin to exist from nothing. But that argument won't work if there is some thing that had no beginning to its existence. And given that the typical theist view of deity is that deity has no beginning to its existence, it's not legitimate to extend the line of reasoning from the universe not coming from nothing to God not coming from nothing. The typical theist view is that deity didn't have a beginning to its existence. Therefore asking the question "where did he come from" amounts to a question that seems to have content, but really doesn't.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:26 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"If god created the universe, who created god?"



Same deal here as above. The typical theist view is that God is uncreated. Theists want to argue that God is self-existent. So if that's the case (if, note) then "who created God" is a meaningless question. It's a category mistake ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error).

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:33 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
No. Religion is about the supernatural, Science is about the natural. Just because some of the Supernatural (like where rain comes from) has been moved to the realm of the natural doesn't mean that everything in the realm of the supernatural will be.



I wish there was a jaw-drop emoticon, Citizen. I think this about the most fair assessment I've ever heard. Absolutely: science deals with the natural, religion with the supernatural. Some things have been moved from the realm of the supernatural into the realm of the natural (e.g. where rain comes from, as you note). But I think you're absolutely right in saying that everything in the realm of the supernatural will be ultimately explained in naturalistic terms. I have only one addendum: the mere fact that so much of the world can be explained in naturalistic terms doesn't mean that there is no supernatural at all (and although I don't see you arguing that way, others do).

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:37 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"if there is some thing that had no beginning to its existence" etc

Well, then I can posit that the universe had no beginning and was never created - it always was. And voila ! The need for god to explain anything goes away. Does that help?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:38 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I see no basis to assert that Religion and Science are 'the same thing', they have different goals, questions, and ways of answering them, while also operating in significantly different domains. To try and combine them wouldn't give something stronger, but something that fulfils the goals of neither. It would be like trying to hammer a square and a round peg in to an oblong hole at once.



Again, where's that darn jaw-drop emoticon when you need it?

I would say that the trouble is that the more zealous members of each camp want to insist that theirs is the only way of understanding life. You'll have extreme members of both camps who want to do away entirely with the other so that theirs can be dominant. But why should that be? As Galileo said, "The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." I think his point is that the two treat on entirely different subjects. Science seems to treat on the "how" of things, and religion the "why" of things. Or put another way, science describes the way things are and the way they work, and religion tries to answer the question of what their purposes are and what they mean. I don't see any natural opposition there, unless zealotry takes over (as it often has in the religious camp, and seems to be starting to do in the scientific campt). Of course, such a move amounts to nothing more than philosophical imperialism.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL