Science against Faith

[Coroner]

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png


:lol: yeah

[muhmuh]

im still waiting for anyone to bring forward a proper argument that science and (christian) religion dissagree on anything

[chefmike]

im still waiting for anyone to bring forward a proper argument that science and (christian) religion dissagree on anything

I'm gonna go out a limb here and say er, uhm...evolution?

[lust4ts]

im still waiting for anyone to bring forward a proper argument that science and (christian) religion dissagree on anything


Not to mention, whether there is a God at all.

[Vala_TS]

I believe in science.

AGTFB

[BeardedOne]

im still waiting for anyone to bring forward a proper argument that science and (christian) religion dissagree on anything


Not to mention, whether there is a God at all.

Lesbian/feminist humorist (Fumorist) Kate Clinton pegged it on the nose:

"God is a comedian working for the Marriott Corporation."

Personally, I don't hink he/she/it/they is even =that= nice. :P

[trish]

im still waiting for anyone to bring forward a proper argument that science and (christian) religion dissagree on anything

this is difficult because first the bone of contention has to be a proposition that truly derives from the christian religion. how about the proposition that the communion blessing transmutes the substance of the wine to the blood of christ. not all christians believe it...so is it or is it not consequence of christianity. how about a human parthenogenic birth. you will even find theologians backing off on that one. the very fuzziness of the concept "christian religion" saves it from mortal falsification. but the same is true of science. phlogiston was a scientific hypothesis. now it's dead...but science isn't. neither science nor religion is the sum of what they currently entail.

however, all would do well to avoid propositions about the physical world in direct conflict with well understood science whether the propositioners be motivated by religion, politics or profit.

[Felicia Katt]

Science is how, Religion is why. Religion never addresses how things work, and and answers but never questions why. Science really only addresses how things work, and answers only the why questions it can by reference to the how answers it knows.
Science can answer why is the sky blue, and how did we get here but not why are we here. Religions doesn't care why the sky is blue, and struggles mightily with how we got here, but can tell us why. My big problem with Religion is that for most, there is only one why, and its blasphemy to ask why not.

I think its important to understand how, and equally important to question why. There is room for both science and philosophy, which can include religion. However, for most people, sadly, religion is to philosophy, what the multiplcation tables are to math.


When we talk to God, we're praying. When God talks to us, we're schizophrenic. Lily Tomlin, in The Search for Intelligent Life

FK

[muhmuh]

I'm gonna go out a limb here and say er, uhm...evolution?

so? science tells you how its happened with the main motor of evolution being chance... religion only changes the motor into god so it personifies chance (chance and god are essentially the same for a human observer)
as such the genesis doesnt disproove science in any way since obviously the writer back then had no clue how humans came to be and as such it isnt about how its about who made them (which in turn is something that isnt a subject science is concerned with)

edit:
dont get "god created man" and "god created man 6000 years ago" confused


im assuming ur being sincere and have some brains and ur comment means that they dont dissagree as in science is real and applicable and rleigion is simply a book of fiction and outdaded morals...

no they dont disagree because theres no overlap... science is always about "how" and religion has always been about "who" and "why" the two arent mutually exclusive in fact they complement each other

and about the outdatedness... the very core of christian ethics has been regurgitated countless times over the years and is as contemporary as its has ever been
one of the most popular writings that basically copied it was from emanuelles cunt... i mean kant


how about the proposition that the communion blessing transmutes the substance of the wine to the blood of christ.

ive always been taught in school (yes religion is taught in school round here) that none of these things are to be taken literally... its a ritual something you do for its meaning to you not because it actually happens in a literal scientifically proveable fashion


how about a human parthenogenic birth.

another one which i have been taught about by a theologist something that probalby deviates from what the great mass of christians reads from it
according to him that first appeared in a gospel addressed to a greek to emphasize that jesus was gods son (think perseus)

[Caleigh]

Yay! Felicia is consistently posting again!

[ezed]

Science or faith. The human race tends to slap themself on the back in both fields when they really don't know shit yet. As far as science we're still playing with tinker toys (but with authority) and those who completely put their eggs in the faith basket are like deer in the headlights.

[guyone]

I think you're mixing apples & oranges. Science & Faith are separate.

[Caleigh]

if you believe in a literal reading of the bible then
they ARE in conflict. if you give an allegorical/metaphorical
reading of scripture then they are not in conflict.

as i see it

[chefmike]

edit:
dont get "god created man" and "god created man 6000 years ago" confused

Oh I'm not getting them confused, I happen to think that both of those statements are 100% pure horseshit.

[muhmuh]

Science is how, Religion is why. Religion never addresses how things work, and and answers but never questions why. Science really only addresses how things work, and answers only the why questions it can by reference to the how answers it knows.
Science can answer why is the sky blue, and how did we get here but not why are we here. Religions doesn't care why the sky is blue, and struggles mightily with how we got here, but can tell us why. My big problem with Religion is that for most, there is only one why, and its blasphemy to ask why not.

I think its important to understand how, and equally important to question why. There is room for both science and philosophy, which can include religion. However, for most people, sadly, religion is to philosophy, what the multiplcation tables are to math.

quoted for being the te truth



edit:
dont get "god created man" and "god created man 6000 years ago" confused

Oh I'm not getting them confused, I happen to think that both of those statements are 100% pure horseshit.

fine but youre missing the point which is that one is not in conflict with science while the other one is... or in other words the horseshitness of one of them can be argued on while the other is horseshit by default

[chefmike]

As far as I'm concerned the concept of god is what's in conflict with science.

As a matter of fact I find ghost stories or UFO sightings to be much more credible... :roll:

[muhmuh]

As far as I'm concerned the concept of god is what's in conflict with science.

matter of fact youre wrong
as i said erlier god is essentially the personification of coincidence... others like to call it fate its all the same however

[trish]

but do you really want to reduce god to part of speech? it's perfectly fine if you want to sing luck is a lady tonight...but is luck really a lady? i would think most christians have something more substantial in mind.

[yodajazz]

Science is how, Religion is why. Religion never addresses how things work, and and answers but never questions why. Science really only addresses how things work, and answers only the why questions it can by reference to the how answers it knows.
Science can answer why is the sky blue, and how did we get here but not why are we here. Religions doesn't care why the sky is blue, and struggles mightily with how we got here, but can tell us why. My big problem with Religion is that for most, there is only one why, and its blasphemy to ask why not.

I think its important to understand how, and equally important to question why. There is room for both science and philosophy, which can include religion. However, for most people, sadly, religion is to philosophy, what the multiplcation tables are to math.


When we talk to God, we're praying. When God talks to us, we're schizophrenic. Lily Tomlin, in The Search for Intelligent Life

FK
I agree with what Felicia Katt said. This is just another way to state the same thing. In my philosophy, everything in the universe is either Law or Love. These are both aspects of God. Science studies and discovers laws. This brings man closer to God though knowledge. My definition of God is that he operates through his laws (science) but also through Love. The other aspect Love (more widely referred to as Spirit) is the issue that religions tend to address. This includes such things as love in the wider sense, mind, consciousness and creativity. Love can transcend or manipulate laws through creativity. An example would be the Wright brothers. They loved various things and this love and their work created a way for man to fly. It is science, but there had to be a creative spark to bring those things together at that time.

I will agree that religion has also been used to cause damage to mankind. But the purpose of religion is to give us a connection to the universe outside of ourselves and ultimately each other. The religious philosophies already there, Mankind still has to figure out how to use them for the greatest good.

I have followed a denomination/philosophy called Religious Science for years, so I had to respond to the title of this thread.

[muhmuh]

but do you really want to reduce god to part of speech? it's perfectly fine if you want to sing luck is a lady tonight...but is luck really a lady? i would think most christians have something more substantial in mind.

the thing is that coincidence fate and god are all defined as forces outside of the realm of physics that have a direct influence on what happens in the real world (not the tv show)
theyre all just different words and interpretations for the same thing

take all the tiny genetic mutations that eventually led to the homo sapiens (im not so sure about the sapiens part but anyway)... depending on your outlook on life the universe and everything its either an act of god fate or merely coincidence... each of these interpretations is equally correct or incorrect

[trish]

consider the following thought experiment. like the Schroedinger cat experiment i don't recommend an actual performance. a cat is placed in a sealed container with a glass vial of poison which is suspended from the cieling of the container. the height of the vial is calculated so that were the vial to fall to the floor there would be a 50-50 chance that it would break, releasing it's contents and killing the cat. the vial is also attached to a trigger release that resides outside the container. once this marvel is constructed and the cat placed inside, the (evil?) scientist releases the vial. it falls. whether the cat lives or dies is now up to chance....no, i mean god. but by this god will choose to kill the cat 50% of the time! that just doesn't seem like a god who can be regarded as the source of moral good in the universe! now you don't really need the experiment or the evil scientist to see my point. if god is chance, how can she also be a moral agent and at the same time obey the mathematical (not the physical) laws of probability?

[muhmuh]

this goes in the direction of the whole where was god in rwanda or kososvo or wherever else argument... i never claimed i had a solution to that one

[trish]

hey, Silvester...it's not my theory...it's muhmuh's. i'm just offering constructive criticism. but now that you mention it, deciding at each instant where everything goes shouldn't be too much trouble for a control freak with infinite power and infinite knowlege. she or he or whatever, would only have to devote half their resources to the effort...less.

[trish]

I can’t imagine any academic conflict between science and religion that would require one to abandon the totality of one for the other. Each can modify or retract specific claims to avoid specific contradictions. Of course science modifies, retracts and reconstructs all the time when it’s in conflict with experiment and observation. This is how progress is made.

Personally, I’m an atheist; a path that is evidently that for everyone. I find the contradictions in the major world religions to be beyond repair and their moral teachings somewhere between confused and reprehensible. The alternatives which aren’t crazy are often irrefutable because they pack no punch. (I admit, I’d really love to be able to say, “I belong to the Church of John Coltrane.” That’d be sooo cool. But I don’t and besides, it’s defunct now). I don’t claim I can prove all this from first principles alone. It takes a leap of faith to be an atheist just as it takes a leap of faith to overcome Descartes’ skepticism and believe in what you see, hear, touch and taste. But I do think that given that touchstone with reality, most deities go the way of the Cartesian devil.

I do, however, take real solace in the existential meaninglessness of the cosmos. Whenever things are really going wrong and I begin to panic, I can always take a deep breath and calm myself down remembering that in the grand cosmic scale, the tiny little events that happen here and the suffering sandwiched between two black eons will forever go unnoticed and will forever mean nothing to the colossal indifference of the universe. This is not an excuse to do nothing. I gotta live on this scale. I got all my stuff here.

[trish]

thanks for the tip...i'll check it out.

[Mugai_hentaisha]

humm I am a deitistic humanist

other words I believe there may have been an intelligence that got the ball rolling and it is now up to us to keep it in high gear

although I am not an atheist I recommend reading two books by Sam Harris

End of Faith
Letter to a Christian nation

enlightening read

[eggbert]

Muhmuh, it seems as though you are labelling whatever that unknown force or energy is that has enabled us to be aware of our existence "God". If that is your definition of "God" then I think there are no conflicts between your religion & science. But I doubt there are any "organized" religions that look at it this way. Check out George Carlin on religion, very funny & dead on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnQ22CsLMQo

[muhmuh]

consider the following thought experiment. like the Schroedinger cat experiment i don't recommend an actual performance. a cat is placed in a sealed container with a glass vial of poison which is suspended from the cieling of the container. the height of the vial is calculated so that were the vial to fall to the floor there would be a 50-50 chance that it would break, releasing it's contents and killing the cat. the vial is also attached to a trigger release that resides outside the container. once this marvel is constructed and the cat placed inside, the (evil?) scientist releases the vial. it falls. whether the cat lives or dies is now up to chance....no, i mean god. but by this god will choose to kill the cat 50% of the time! that just doesn't seem like a god who can be regarded as the source of moral good in the universe! now you don't really need the experiment or the evil scientist to see my point. if god is chance, how can she also be a moral agent and at the same time obey the mathematical (not the physical) laws of probability?

ok finally got the time to answer this one properly (or at least ive eaten enough to not move from my pc any time soon :p)

i dont really think this is the right angle to attack my "model" of god
for starters this only works for gods that are inherently good... which isnt a given
a much better argument follows from your trail of though though
i think we can agree on that death is the change agent in our reality and that if god exists he planned it this way (btw going this route with some hinu thinking you could always argue that the cat served its purpose for this life)
now the problem that arises from this is within the plan itself... if god did design the laws of physics such as that his only way of interacting with the universe forces him to do the opposite someplace/time else... doesnt this deny his inherent allmightyness?


Muhmuh, it seems as though you are labelling whatever that unknown force or energy is that has enabled us to be aware of our existence "God".

not really


If that is your definition of "God" then I think there are no conflicts between your religion & science. But I doubt there are any "organized" religions that look at it this way.

i did get my model and my whole way of thinking from a christian theologist... but obviously he was largely disagreeing with the church on many points


Check out George Carlin on religion, very funny & dead on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnQ22CsLMQo

lets just call it... very american

[trish]

gotta sleep on this one, muhmuh. i'll get back to you.

[guyone]

How do you know that He didn't do it on purpose?

[trish]

you're spending too much time in virtual reality, neo.

[muhmuh]

[...]

try to understand my points first before you reply next time


u know nothing about evolution it seems...while mutation of genes are random, the actual survival of the genes atre not rendom or chance at all...

yes they are since evolutionary pressure is largely random like the cretaceous meteorite and the changes it brought as one of the most prominent examples


and the opposite of evolution/natural selection is creationism

yes but what im saying has nothing to do with creationism


meaning a god an intelligent constructor of it all...

no creationism is the belief that everything was created some 6000 years ago which is in conflict with science while something steering evolution in the right direction from outside of the realm of physics isnt


read up on vestigial limbs and explain to me how an intelligent designer fucked up so many things...

if you had read and understood all of my points youd see that any god would necessarily be restrained in his doing by the laws of physics he himself created... vestigal limbs are merely a result of that and not a fuck up