You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 12:51:25 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Religion...and SCIENCE! (Nee - Re: Oh..those people at westboro baptist are at it again! o3o)  (Read 13307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lithos

Because thoughts lead to actions in most cases.

If those actions are criminal, they will be taken down as criminals if justice system works. God or no god is not excuse in any matter, if that does not work, the problem is in law, not in people believing this or that. Acting like idiot is not a crime, and that cannot really be blamed on science or god usually either.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 10:53:01 AM by Lithos »

Online Silk

If those actions are criminal, they will be taken down as criminals if justice system works. God or no god is not excuse in any matter, if that does not work, the problem is in law, not in people believing this or that. Acting like idiot is not a crime, and that cannot really be blamed on science or god usually either.

Except when the crime in question is a direct relation to a teaching in the holy book in question. Prevention is normally prefered to the cure. Its better to halt the spread of homophobia  in the book and prevent the murder happening than it is to wait for a homosexual to get killed and the murderer put away.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
It seems the difference between atheist and anti-theist lies not in actual world view, but purely on personal experience.

Atheist never had any bad experiences with religious people, or no experience with them at all (like me).

Anti-theists on the other hand, seem to have particularly bad experiences with religious people or as I, in reference to Richard Dawkins, put it some time: Were spanked by their mommy with a bible. With them it seems to be questionable, if they are even really atheists or if they actually maltheists. After all, there is a difference between "believing that there is no god" and "being angry at god".

Not so. I do not identify as an Atheist; I don't think of myself in those terms, but if you go by Jude's earlier definitions, I fall under the umbrella. I don't believe in God, at all, nor a Goddess, nor any of the other divine beings put forth in various theistic religions. I am not an anti-Theist. I don't care if other people believe in God, and as I've said before, if you really believe I'm going to Hell for not believing that then I fully expect you to try to convert me if you're a decent human being. I'll leave the intricacies of conversion and whatnot for another thread but I can tell you I've had experiences with many religions, and they have been pretty bad.

I do agree with you that some professed Atheists are actually very angry Christians. :P

Offline Lithos

Except when the crime in question is a direct relation to a teaching in the holy book in question. Prevention is normally prefered to the cure. Its better to halt the spread of homophobia  in the book and prevent the murder happening than it is to wait for a homosexual to get killed and the murderer put away.

People are usually against any sort of crime prevention or looking after their health quite zealously. Just think how odd it is that people are allowed to get weapons and such, and how many dangerous hobbies are allowed and so on.

Offline Jude

I don't know that anti-theists and atheists are necessarily determined by how much they've been persecuted by the religious so much as anti-theists are still in that angry "religion is a house of cards, and people have been trying to forcefeed it to me and control me with it all my life" state.

Personally, I came to the conclusion that I wasn't religious after enduring confirmation (a Lutheran practice of being educated in the faith leading up to your first communion).  Every Wednesday for three years I went to church, recited some tenet of faith I'd memorized over the previous week (such as the Ten Commandments, a Creed, or bits of the Lutheran Catechism), then did bible study with my Pastor and other people undergoing confirmation.  I never had an emotional experience at church the way most people do, so all throughout the process I expected that I'd have some sort of spiritual awakening--it never happened.

Especially towards the end, I started to get very nervous because the Pastor (who I trusted very much) told us that to partake of communion without the right feelings in your heart meant damnation.  I began to doubt whether I actually believed in anything at all, but I went through it with it, got confirmed, and it was over.  It wasn't until after that I realized that I truly had no religious inclinations at all and never had; anything I felt or believed before was simply transplanted into my mind and predicated on the trust I had for the people who'd made the claims to begin with.  Then I got very angry.

If you're raised in a Christian household, in a largely-Christian country you don't realize that there are other legitimate viewpoints on religion (aside from other Christian denominations), and that works right into the hands of the pastors and parents throughout the country who are looking to implant their beliefs into children (though admittedly they have good intentions).  It's horrifying to wake up and realize everything you've been told for the first fifteen years of your life was just an opinion with little basis, not the invincible, solid fact that it'd been passed off to be by friends, family, and other trusted individuals.

So I was an angry, militant "god doesn't exist" Atheist for a time.  I loved debating with the religious, I liked to insult them, and of course I loved the "religion is an opiate for the masses" type quotes.  I think most Atheists go through a similar phase, but I hope that they, like me, eventually dig themselves free from the emotional baggage and try to be the better person by simply admitting that they do not know when it comes to religious questions.  I think "I do not know" is the only way you can be absolutely certain of any religious position, which is why I pride myself on Agnosticism.

Sure, there are still things that get on my nerves.  I hate it when people try to justify with reason their religious beliefs, marginalizing the role of faith in the process, but it doesn't bother me that they believe what they do, just how they seem to think that it's reason-based.  Absolute, blind certainty, I think, is very dangerous as well.  Sure, it can lead people to do great things, but it can also lead to horrific outcomes just as easily.  And of course my final pet peeve is religious people who want to impose their theology on others by force (attempting conversion isn't so bad if it's not backed up by anything in my view) or automatically look down on people who are not religious.

I'm irritated by the fact that we still live in a society that supports and cultivates religious views in official institutions.  Separation of Church and state isn't going so well this day and age.  Furthermore, I wish the majority of religious people understood that morality does not come from religion (and therefore non-religious people can still be moral).

All of my gripes and observations aside, I think it's going a bit far to say the world would be better without religion.  The fact of the matter is, any philosophy (and I believe religions fall underneath this umbrella, just they're a philosophy that isn't governed by reason) can be taken to its extremes and used to justify violence, hatred, and ignorance.  Anti-theists love to point out all of the bad things that religion has done, but they forget the good.  And while it's true that the "good things religion has done" are actually "good things that people do," religion often provides the framework, the motivation, or the basis of that.

The only things I'd like to see amongst the religious are less certainty, less extremism, and less bias.

EDIT: Afterthought, damn that's long, I wonder if anyone's actually going to read this.  I'm not even sure how relevant it is, given how personal parts are.  Heh, sorry.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 12:02:51 PM by Jude »

Offline Phaia

This is by far my favorite responce to bible quoting and how to combat it!!

West Wing Bible Quote

Phaia

Offline Nyarly

So I was an angry, militant "god doesn't exist" Atheist for a time.  I loved debating with the religious, I liked to insult them, and of course I loved the "religion is an opiate for the masses" type quotes.  I think most Atheists go through a similar phase, but I hope that they, like me, eventually dig themselves free from the emotional baggage and try to be the better person by simply admitting that they do not know when it comes to religious questions.  I think "I do not know" is the only way you can be absolutely certain of any religious position, which is why I pride myself on Agnosticism.
I doubt that so many atheists go through such a phase. Of course, it depends on many factors, one of the biggest is whether you are were atheist your entire life or if you were raised in a religious household but later "lost your faith".

I come from an atheist family, religion was never a subject for us and it is, in fact, a very alien concept to me. I could never belief that there are such things as gods and I say clearly that there is no god. After all that's what I believe in. But I never saw any reason to look down on religious people and still don't see.

Of course, not everyone who was raised like me, is so accepting towards other beliefs and not every atheist who comes from a religious family has an "anti-theist" phase.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
So I was an angry, militant "god doesn't exist" Atheist for a time.  I loved debating with the religious, I liked to insult them, and of course I loved the "religion is an opiate for the masses" type quotes.  I think most Atheists go through a similar phase, but I hope that they, like me, eventually dig themselves free from the emotional baggage and try to be the better person by simply admitting that they do not know when it comes to religious questions.  I think "I do not know" is the only way you can be absolutely certain of any religious position, which is why I pride myself on Agnosticism.

For what it's worth, it's actually a well-known phenomenon in the Pagan community where some people just finding that Path lash out at whatever they used to be.  Not all of them do - and many of them do grow out of it.  I could joke about it being 'second birth pangs', but I think it's really just a result of trying to make a complete dissociation with what they now see as 'not their Path'.  As Nyarly pointed out, if you're raised atheist, you've got nothing to break away from, and therefore nothing to be angry about - unless, of course, you were raised by Madeline Murray O'Hare.  In the end, it takes a lot more energy to spend all that time arguing, insulting, and generally antagonizing than it does to simply live life and try to be a 'good person'.

Offline Jude

That's a good point, I'd never considered people raised atheist, because I don't... and never have, known any, haha.

Offline Serephino

Yes, new Pagans often go through a 'divorce period' where they hate their old religion; usually Christianity.  I never did because my parents weren't all that religious.  My mom went through a phase after my dad died, and we went to church every Sunday for a few years.  I was even baptized and confirmed.  But like a lot of people, God wasn't thought of much once we left church. 

I personally don't care what another person believes.  All I care about is that my beliefs are not insulted or hindered.  I don't have a problem with science either, just people that put way too much faith in it.  Here's the thing... Like with my example about the earth's core...  Sure, you can analyze things, compare data, and compare it to other similar things to come up with a reasonable and logical explanation.  We know how certain types of waves act going through different types of material.  There's no reason to think they'd act any differently when looking at the earth.  Even still, how far did they send these waves down?  How can anyone know that there isn't a material down there somewhere that causes these waves to behave differently than they would with known substances?  I'm not saying the explanation is wrong, just that there is no way to know for 100% sure other than to dig all the way down and analyze every dirt particle.  So, who wants to start digging?

The Big Bang Theory;  No one was actually around to see this happen.  The formation of life; no one was there to see and record that either.  Scientists only looked at what evidence they did have and came up with an explanation that made sense to them based on what they knew at the time.  I don't mind that, but what I do mind is that these people who accept such things as absolute fact without question with no existing tangible proof who call me delusional for believing in God.

I will be the first to admit that I don't have tangible proof that God exists, but that is the explanation that makes the most sense to me, which should be all that matters.     

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
I personally don't care what another person believes.  All I care about is that my beliefs are not insulted or hindered.  I don't have a problem with science either, just people that put way too much faith in it.  Here's the thing... Like with my example about the earth's core...  Sure, you can analyze things, compare data, and compare it to other similar things to come up with a reasonable and logical explanation.  We know how certain types of waves act going through different types of material.  There's no reason to think they'd act any differently when looking at the earth.  Even still, how far did they send these waves down?  How can anyone know that there isn't a material down there somewhere that causes these waves to behave differently than they would with known substances?  I'm not saying the explanation is wrong, just that there is no way to know for 100% sure other than to dig all the way down and analyze every dirt particle.  So, who wants to start digging?

The Big Bang Theory;  No one was actually around to see this happen.  The formation of life; no one was there to see and record that either.  Scientists only looked at what evidence they did have and came up with an explanation that made sense to them based on what they knew at the time.  I don't mind that, but what I do mind is that these people who accept such things as absolute fact without question with no existing tangible proof who call me delusional for believing in God.

It's not just scientists; it's everyone.

It's the middle of winter. You're sneezing all the time, you can't breathe, your head feels like it's blown up like an overinflated balloon and you're sure that your sinuses are about to secede from your face via jet-pack. You're tired, you're cranky, and what do you do? Reach for cold medicine. Why? Because you have a cold.

But you can't see the cold. You can't feel it, or taste it. All you can taste is the funk of un-expectorated snot in the back of your throat. Most of the time, you don't have someone sitting with a microscope, analyzing your sputum for bacteria. So... how do you know you have a cold? Well, you take a look at what you can see and make an educated guess.

I could come up with about a million examples of it in the average person's life, but suffice to say, scientists do the same thing as you do with your cold. Now, this doesn't justify someone telling you you're delusional for believing in God just because you have no scientific evidence. Science has its share of pricks and morons, just like every other field or profession.

Offline Jude

I personally don't care what another person believes.  All I care about is that my beliefs are not insulted or hindered.  I don't have a problem with science either, just people that put way too much faith in it.  Here's the thing... Like with my example about the earth's core...  Sure, you can analyze things, compare data, and compare it to other similar things to come up with a reasonable and logical explanation.  We know how certain types of waves act going through different types of material.  There's no reason to think they'd act any differently when looking at the earth.  Even still, how far did they send these waves down?  How can anyone know that there isn't a material down there somewhere that causes these waves to behave differently than they would with known substances?  I'm not saying the explanation is wrong, just that there is no way to know for 100% sure other than to dig all the way down and analyze every dirt particle.  So, who wants to start digging?
There's more than just the wave line of evidence, that's why I mentioned multiple lines of evidence resulting in the same conclusion.  The thing is, no one has any evidence that suggests it is wrong, so it's accepted.  If it was wrong, wouldn't you think there'd be some indication of that?
The Big Bang Theory;  No one was actually around to see this happen.  The formation of life; no one was there to see and record that either.  Scientists only looked at what evidence they did have and came up with an explanation that made sense to them based on what they knew at the time.  I don't mind that, but what I do mind is that these people who accept such things as absolute fact without question with no existing tangible proof who call me delusional for believing in God.
I actually agree with you on a lot of this.  The Big Bang Theory is a very weak theory, full of assumption after assumption.  Not all scientific theories are equally verified or solid.  That's why absolute faith in the conclusions of science is dangerous, but the scientific method and the principles of rigor behind them I can't find any fault with.

Offline Serephino

But there have been times when I thought I had a cold, and when the symptoms got worse instead of better, I went to the doctor and found out I had a sinus infection.  I've thought I had pink eye again only to find out it was a bad allergy attack.  My doctor once thought I was having a bad IBS flair up, and it turned out to be kidney stones. 

My point is that science isn't quite as exact as some people make it out to be.  You do your best with what information you have and what you know, but there's always a chance you're wrong.  Sure, cold symptoms could mean I have a cold most of the time, but there is that occasional sinus infection.  And a whole host of crap manifests itself with 'flu-like' symptoms.  I saw some medical examiner show where a guy thought he had the flu, but died of a staph infection. 

I was also pointing out that science and religion aren't that different.  Scientists don't have undeniable and tangible proof of some things, but they come up with a theory that makes logical sense.  A person who believes in God is doing the same thing.  They hold a certain belief because it makes sense to them.  So why is there so much insulting going back and forth?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
The insulting back and forth stems in part from frustration when someone starts to think they've managed to know everything there is to know about something that often requires a PhD to understand.

Online Vekseid

I personally don't care what another person believes.  All I care about is that my beliefs are not insulted or hindered.  I don't have a problem with science either, just people that put way too much faith in it.  Here's the thing... Like with my example about the earth's core...  Sure, you can analyze things, compare data, and compare it to other similar things to come up with a reasonable and logical explanation.  We know how certain types of waves act going through different types of material.  There's no reason to think they'd act any differently when looking at the earth.  Even still, how far did they send these waves down?

Earthquakes and large nukes register on the other side of the planet. All the way.

Quote
How can anyone know that there isn't a material down there somewhere that causes these waves to behave differently than they would with known substances?

For the same reason you apply brakes while driving - because you don't expect the law of inertia to suddenly stop applying just because we don't perfectly know how it works.

Quote
I'm not saying the explanation is wrong, just that there is no way to know for 100% sure other than to dig all the way down and analyze every dirt particle.

Indulging in fantasy is fine when that is explicitly stated, but 'we can't know for sure!' simply guarantees intellectual paralysis. That trip doesn't end. Worse, this sort of logic is actively used by the pathological. When it involves medical fraud such as homeopathy, people die.

It's not funny. It's sick, and rightly deserves to be put in its place.

Quote
So, who wants to start digging?

Who wants to slam Pluto into Earth?

The idea is not to be so destructive. It would be far more effective to increase the resolution and capacity of our sensors, and increased analysis of data, which is what allows us to try to image e.g. mantle plumes, to say nothing of analyzing the mantle itself.

Quote
The Big Bang Theory;  No one was actually around to see this happen.

Wrong. Everyone here is watching it happen right now.

Quote
The formation of life; no one was there to see and record that either.

Abiogenesis is not yet even a theory. It may never be. There are hypothesis, but nothing that has yet been shown to make a prediction while simultaneously entire chain of events to evolve into a theory.

Quote
  Scientists only looked at what evidence they did have and came up with an explanation that made sense to them based on what they knew at the time.

And you could to. Rather than saying 'they', say 'we'. By being exclusionary of scientists you are actively promoting anti-intellectualism, and that's never a healthy trend in any civilization.

Quote
I don't mind that, but what I do mind is that these people who accept such things as absolute fact without question with no existing tangible proof

Only two things hold as facts in science, mathematical proofs and verified observations. So either you're conflating scientists with people who aren't, or are assuming that just because you cannot understand something, that it cannot be true.

Quote
who call me delusional for believing in God.

Would you call me delusional for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

If it comforts you, that's fine. If God to you is the raw manifestation and majesty of Nature, that is also fine.

However, the issue that scientists take with some religious people is the claim that God has had a tangible effect on the Universe, yet cannot be tested. This is by definition absurd - if God has the ability to make modifications without our ability to notice (Last Thursdayism - you can't prove the Universe wasn't created ex nihilo yesterday) - you run into the intellectual paralysis I described above. It's a useless statement - we have to work with what we know, and make our assumptions likewise. The realm of the fantastic is uncountably infinite in scope.

Quote
I will be the first to admit that I don't have tangible proof that God exists, but that is the explanation that makes the most sense to me, which should be all that matters.     

Until you try to teach it as the reason for something where we empirically know an answer to, but choose to insert God in its place as fact, subverting knowledge.

Online Vekseid

I actually agree with you on a lot of this.  The Big Bang Theory is a very weak theory, full of assumption after assumption.  Not all scientific theories are equally verified or solid.  That's why absolute faith in the conclusions of science is dangerous, but the scientific method and the principles of rigor behind them I can't find any fault with.

What assumption is that? Our interpretation of observations are built on general relativity, but without GR we'd be at a complete loss to explain the large scale structure of the Universe in any remotely coherent sense. And we'd still gather that galaxies were receding from each other, so the idea of the Universe as being not static but rather a big bang would still hold.

But there have been times when I thought I had a cold, and when the symptoms got worse instead of better, I went to the doctor and found out I had a sinus infection.  I've thought I had pink eye again only to find out it was a bad allergy attack.  My doctor once thought I was having a bad IBS flair up, and it turned out to be kidney stones. 

You do your best with what information you have and what you know, but there's always a chance you're wrong.  Sure, cold symptoms could mean I have a cold most of the time, but there is that occasional sinus infection.  And a whole host of crap manifests itself with 'flu-like' symptoms.  I saw some medical examiner show where a guy thought he had the flu, but died of a staph infection. 

And yet, the real answers were eventually found.

Keep in mind that when you go to the doctor, until some test the doctor makes confirms a prediction, he hasn't yet formed a theory about your condition.

This is complicated by how little we know - compared to the raw scope of biology, medicine, and chemistry - compared to say, the interaction of waves and matter at large scales.

Quote
My point is that science isn't quite as exact as some people make it out to be.

Science is a method. It essentially declares perfection to be a process, rather than a goal achieved. Exactness is impossible (which is actually proven in some fields)

Quote
I was also pointing out that science and religion aren't that different.  Scientists don't have undeniable and tangible proof of some things, but they come up with a theory that makes logical sense.  A person who believes in God is doing the same thing.

No.

Science shows us how to build mountains, and destroy them.

But it does not show us whether it is right to do so.

Science teaches us how to harness the power of the Sun.

It does not teach us where to apply it.

Science demonstrates how to feed billions.

But it does not demonstrate compassion.

Science has shown us that we were ultimately forged in the nuclear fire of the most brilliant stars.

Yet it can not make us appreciate our place in Nature.

Science has revealed to us in painstaking detail just how tiny we are in the Universe.

But it does not force humility.

They are profoundly different. Science is a tool for refining and enhancing what we know about Nature and the Universe.

Science does not provide for an ultimate goal. Science does not provide an ultimate purpose. If you turn to religion to find that goal, that purpose - Science has no say. It is not a moral arbiter, it does not assign value to such things.

It just explains.

Quote
  They hold a certain belief because it makes sense to them.  So why is there so much insulting going back and forth?

Do you feel overwhelmed?

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3

My point is that science isn't quite as exact as some people make it out to be.  You do your best with what information you have and what you know, but there's always a chance you're wrong.  Sure, cold symptoms could mean I have a cold most of the time, but there is that occasional sinus infection.  And a whole host of crap manifests itself with 'flu-like' symptoms.  I saw some medical examiner show where a guy thought he had the flu, but died of a staph infection. 


I saw that one.  He and his wife also thought that they'd gotten spider bites.  If he'd actually gone to the doctor to have the 'bite' examined, he would have found out that it was MRSA (not just any staph infection, but a particularly resilient one), and gotten the correct antibiotics and probably lived.  In his case, science wasn't even employed until it was too late.

Offline Jude

I was under the impression that the Big Bang Theory relied on the existence of Dark Matter, which is still up in the air.  There are active, credible scientists who don't believe in it.  I also take issue with a lot of theoretical physics since much of it is based purely on mathematics without any observation; that's not evidence-based.  It's not that I think it's untrue, I just don't think it's as solid as a lot of other science.

As far as science versus religion goes, I think it all comes down to who our society turns to when there's a problem.  If it can be reasonably solved, people turn to science.  If there's no real conceivable solution, people turn to religion.  You don't go to synagogue when you're having a heart attack.

Which do people actually have more faith in?  If your boss chose another employee over you to get the job done, who do you think he trusts more?

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
To my understanding, Dark Matter is supposed to make up the required mass that would enable the universe to go into an oscillating state - that is, have enough mass to eventually reverse the expansion and draw everything back together into a 'Big Crunch', that would then explode into the next incarnation of the universe.

It's been a while since I've read up on that, though.

Offline Nyarly

I thought Dark Matter was disproven already and that no scientist actually thinks anymore that it really exists.

Offline RubySlippers

The insulting back and forth stems in part from frustration when someone starts to think they've managed to know everything there is to know about something that often requires a PhD to understand.

Not really God did it works for most people, and most theologians in the defense of your case are overeducated persons just as bad as scientists for they take a simple thing living as Christ and learning by His example with the accepting of salvation to an absurd complexity. Jesus did not select scholars for followers close to Him they were fisherman, one tax collector, one physician (educated but not a religious scholar) and various others all likely sinners and commoners by my estimation from the gospels. Faith in God is not complicated ut is a high bar to follow.

That said science is just the study of natural law which God made they study the creation and many things like evolution just don't matter to Salvation. But I do make to counter evolution one thing they have not dmonstrated at a classic scientific level - how did life begin. Biogenisis is all as far as I can tell guessing and raw faith that somehow it started. But without thathow can you trust evolution as THE sole mechanism. For me its not hard God made life, installed evolution as a biological natural law and so they work together. For those thatsupport science alone they must to me deomonstrate how life began with serious evidence and then the rest could be argued as valid. As I see it you have an act of faith (biogenesis) supporting evolution or a sandy foundation wtih a soldi building on it not the most secure situation.



Offline Nyarly

But I do make to counter evolution one thing they have not dmonstrated at a classic scientific level - how did life begin.
I wonder how much this is even a concern for science. I mean, it's not a concern of evolution (something that creationists never seem to understand) and I've read that it's not even a concern of science in general (if I didn't misunderstood it), but I do think that many scientists would like to figure this out.

Normally, I think that science and religion can coexist, as long as no one tries to mix them. However, if someone actually succeeds in finding out the origin of life. That would be a severe hit against religion and I doubt that they would just admit that they were wrong.

Than again, it may be not so bad after all. After all, every new discovery creates new questions and that wouldn't be different with the origin of life. They surely can be handwaved with "god did it" too. At least, until the answer to these question will be found...

Offline Serephino

Yes, they can co exist.  Like Ruby, I also think God created things the way they are.  He set up a system and it works.  Evolution could have been him tinkering with things.  I don't know that for sure, but it's a theory I've come with.   

If more evidence is found that better explains how life was created, I can still say God did it.  It makes perfect sense to me.  I'm not asking everyone else to agree and believe it too.  I'm only asking to not be attacked for it.

I just think it's a bit hypocritical to say that because a person who believes in God can't show you tangible proof they're wrong when you can't produce tangible proof for everything you believe to be true either.  You can say that because A did B then the answer must be C because when K, R, and F did B the result was C, which is logical, but still not absolute proof.  There isn't anything you can see and touch.  In twenty years someone could discover that G causes A to B, which makes the result T instead of C because G was not present when K, R, and F did B.   

Offline Nyarly

If more evidence is found that better explains how life was created, I can still say God did it.  It makes perfect sense to me.  I'm not asking everyone else to agree and believe it too.  I'm only asking to not be attacked for it.
Not if it proves that god doesn't exist. If you still say it in that case, you just deluding yourself. However, it is purely hypocritical anyway, as it is probably impossible to prove the (non)existence of any deity. And really, it's for the better. I don't want to think about, what could happen if this were actually possible...

Offline Jude

Yes, they can co exist.  Like Ruby, I also think God created things the way they are.  He set up a system and it works.  Evolution could have been him tinkering with things.  I don't know that for sure, but it's a theory I've come with.

If more evidence is found that better explains how life was created, I can still say God did it.  It makes perfect sense to me.  I'm not asking everyone else to agree and believe it too.  I'm only asking to not be attacked for it.
The bolded part is what I find troubling, it's also the main point of difference between science and religion.  Scientific beliefs are falsifiable; they're open to change, they recognize the imperfect nature of humanity and that even if you have a mountain of evidence there's still a chance that you're wrong (the very thing you've been pointing out in critiquing science).  Religion refuses to entertain the idea, even if cracks in their theory start to appear.  That's where delusion comes in.

I also wonder why you can criticize science for this when it will actually admit to being wrong and fix itself in the long run when religion isn't even open to the possibility of being wrong.
I just think it's a bit hypocritical to say that because a person who believes in God can't show you tangible proof they're wrong when you can't produce tangible proof for everything you believe to be true either.  You can say that because A did B then the answer must be C because when K, R, and F did B the result was C, which is logical, but still not absolute proof.  There isn't anything you can see and touch.  In twenty years someone could discover that G causes A to B, which makes the result T instead of C because G was not present when K, R, and F did B.
If that's what science actually does you'd be right about that hypocrisy, but that's not how science works.  You don't seem to understand the amount rigor and scrutiny that is involved in the scientific method.  Science is specifically designed to criticize any belief to the extreme before even considering it anything anywhere close to truth, and even then the discovery is not sanctified and beyond reproach.

In one way, by even comparing and contrasting here, we're trying to make an analogy between two ridiculously different concepts that just doesn't work.  Science is simply the how, it doesn't make moral claims, there are no value judgments involved; it's merely a study of the evidence.  Whereas religion attempts to be the why.  You can use science to examine the factual claims that religion makes, and often doing so shows a lack of solidity, but this is a problem with individual religions, not religion.  There are certainly a number of religions that exist that don't make such grand claims that are compatible with science, and religion is only a problem when its tenets of faith are damaging to scientific or societal progress.

I think in these debates we often forget that religion can take many more forms than it does classically, and that the two concepts butting heads aren't science and religion, but science and a certain brand of religion that no longer passes a basic, common sense test.

Keeping the two in separate realms and ignoring the conflicts outright is one way to practice both without damaging either, though it won't exactly lead you to any ultimate truths.

One thing I simply cannot understand is how easily people who utilize science so freely often can criticize it, reject it, and yet continue to indulge in its application.  If you don't trust science, if you think it's as shaky as a religion, then you should never go into a car again; the fact that they're safe to drive most of the time is based on engineering which is based on physics.  Don't go to the doctor anymore no matter what; if you don't trust science, how do you know human anatomy and biology won't lead you astray?  Houses are built to exact specifications using scientific calculations to stable--guess you better give up on that.  Nearly every product we consume is designed by someone utilizing some scientific principles.

If you think faith in science is the same as faith in religion, if you're lacking in that confidence, then I trust we'll never see you again on E either, the computer and the internet are another grand accomplishment of the institution you have no faith in (but isn't it awesome how science works even if you don't believe in it unlike religion).