Page 1 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

14 Oct 2007, 2:58 am

Sand wrote:
There is one fundamental very basic conflict between religion and science. Science is based on the belief that there are laws in the universe that determine its behavior and that they can be discovered and understood and are inviolate. Religion believes that there is a supreme being that can do anything it wants with the universe and create a miracle if it so chooses to violate universal laws. Some people defend the belief in a creator by saying it exists but does not violate universal laws. If so, insofar as science is concerned, the existence of the universal being (or UB) is irrelevant.


It's really the same thing.
Either way, it's all faith.
Whether you take your
proof from mere empirical
evidence, or some holy
book written thousands
of years ago by men, neither
gives one a definite grasp of
reality.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

14 Oct 2007, 3:33 am

I thought so too; but i looked it up. Seems Christianity is the largest. Hardly the most prosecuted though! Criticism is not prosecution. Prosecution is jail, torture and murder.

Perhaps someday science will decide to look into the possibility of a god(s). But as there are no logical tools for examining the concept, its a moot point. Scientists might choose to believe at home though. Or not.



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

14 Oct 2007, 5:11 am

Fuzzy wrote:
I thought so too; but i looked it up. Seems Christianity is the largest.


Nah. I think more people believe
in empirical evidence.

Quote:
Hardly the most prosecuted though! Criticism is not prosecution. Prosecution is jail, torture and murder.


Some Christian beliefs ARE persecuted against
in some places though.

Quote:
Perhaps someday science will decide to look into the possibility of a god(s).


And THEN science will lose ANY credibility that it has,
going against its very precepts.

Quote:
But as there are no logical tools for examining the concept...


Au contraire. There are certainly LOGICAL tools.
There just aren't ones which conform with the
fundamental definition of what a natural science
is. If you find Aquinas or Aristotle as lacking in
logical capacity, I fear you're sadly mistaken.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

14 Oct 2007, 7:52 am

calandale wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
I thought so too; but i looked it up. Seems Christianity is the largest.


Nah. I think more people believe
in empirical evidence.

Quote:
Hardly the most prosecuted though! Criticism is not prosecution. Prosecution is jail, torture and murder.


Some Christian beliefs ARE persecuted against
in some places though.

Quote:
Perhaps someday science will decide to look into the possibility of a god(s).


And THEN science will lose ANY credibility that it has,
going against its very precepts.

Quote:
But as there are no logical tools for examining the concept...


Au contraire. There are certainly LOGICAL tools.
There just aren't ones which conform with the
fundamental definition of what a natural science
is. If you find Aquinas or Aristotle as lacking in
logical capacity, I fear you're sadly mistaken.


You are quite right in all that you say.

Perhaps a better way for me to put it is that science has no bounds to what we may learn. If its out there, its for us to learn. What IS out there(or not) is kinda moot. The only goal is complete knowledge. We have no means to test any god concept, so god is not a concept that science cares about.

Anyone that says we shouldnt test fully any concept(when/if it becomes possible) is being religious. If we suspect its there, and we can apply scientific method to it, we should. Relentlessly.

To reiterate: I dont mean let us look for god, I mean let us look for everything.

I wont accept that there are facts that humanity should not know. Science wants no dark corners. None.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

14 Oct 2007, 8:10 am

Chuchulainn wrote:
My opinion is that evolution is not contradictory with theism. But eventually you have to come down to the main point, which can never be explained rationally.

What created the laws of physics?
What created the forces that created matter?
Why do these things exist?


The problem is that those are not legitimate scientific questions. They are teleological issues and should be addressed by philosophers and theologians, not by biologists, paleontologists, or physical anthropologists.

Cheers,

Mark



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

14 Oct 2007, 8:14 am

Chuchulainn wrote:
Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the entire world, yet it is the largest. That testifies to its inherent power. Wherever perseuction begins, membership explodes. Unlike in Islam, where people martyr themselves in a painless death so they can go to heaven and fornicate all day long.


Well, the Falun Gong and Tibetan Buddhism are the most persecuted religions in China. Does that testify to their "inherent power," too?

Cheers,

Mark



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

14 Oct 2007, 8:47 am

Fuzzy wrote:

Perhaps a better way for me to put it is that science has no bounds to what we may learn. If its out there, its for us to learn. What IS out there(or not) is kinda moot. The only goal is complete knowledge. We have no means to test any god concept, so god is not a concept that science cares about.

Anyone that says we shouldnt test fully any concept(when/if it becomes possible) is being religious. If we suspect its there, and we can apply scientific method to it, we should. Relentlessly.

To reiterate: I dont mean let us look for god, I mean let us look for everything.

I wont accept that there are facts that humanity should not know. Science wants no dark corners. None.


There might be things with no POSSIBILITY
of the scientific method discovering them though.

See, when you base something on being reproducible,
in order to be believable, then you effectively are claiming
that anything which cannot be so conceived actually ISN'T.
I'm not sure that this distinction matters, but I'm uncertain
about ALL things.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

14 Oct 2007, 9:15 am

calandale wrote:
See, when you base something on being reproducible,in order to be believable, then you effectively are claiming that anything which cannot be so conceived actually ISN'T.
I'm not sure that this distinction matters, but I'm uncertain about ALL things.


In ancient Egyptian religion , for a couple of thousand years anyway, the non-existent was as important as the existent.
The non-existent had power. It was important to remember, and respect, and understand ,and even celebrate the ( paradoxical reality of the )"non-existent" so that it would not destroy humans.
I think that this may have become forgotten about in the last 500 years or so, if not before!!

Science has taken over the "half"role of paying great attention to what is observable , measurable,etc which religion had previously included , up to a point!, and what was left of Western religion could perhaps have resigned itself to that and still retained a very important role in observance of the non-existent.
But I get the impression that the biggest brains of Christian religion were so seduced by the new theories( and perspectives arising from them ) in science that to a certain extent they lost touch with the importance of the "non--existent" .
Having too readily abandoned belief in and respect for that which does not exist ,they insisted instead on the "existence" of god,and ways of "proving it "! !, and lost the influence that went with that role of intermediare with the "other half" (! ! the non-existent one)of reality .

It's like society has literally lost the headspace for the non-existent. Except aliens.!

OR that in fact those things which ARE non-existent , in our everyday lives, are either not noticed , or are erroneously believed to in fact to have existence . There is total confusion in society about what is non-existent!
Hence all the post-structuralists, and deconstructionists, and ists of all kinds ( modern high priests!), currently working on the issue!! !! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
While there continue to be so many non-existent things all around us without our recognising and understanding them they have great and often dangerous power!

So it's odd that some fundamentalist religious groups now want to take back some of the genuinely existent stuff to set themselves up with instead ! ! Pre-Galilean.
Are they hoping to draw attention away from that other work on the non-existent?
Is it a territorial dispute along the frontier , or is it just diversionary tactics ; by concentrating on the obviously real ( which tends to get peoples attention) they can undermine the real priests of the non-existent today, make their interpretations and explanations look trivial?
:roll: 8) :? :?: :roll: :lol:

I can't remember how the ancient egyptians explained the origins of the universe.

I think "the origin of everything" is beyond the scope of the "study of the existent" ( that is to say , science). Before the "big-bang" the universe was non-existent , and that needs other tools to deal with it than discussions about proof and repeatable results! In other words it is still matter for religion.
But I think that everything measurable and observable in the development of the universe since this mysterious moment of emergence from non-existence , is more accurately and usefully described by science.

.



:lol: 8)



RadiantAspie
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 373
Location: Surfing the Net

14 Oct 2007, 6:07 pm

ouinon wrote:

So it's odd that some fundamentalist religious groups now want to take back some of the genuinely existent stuff to set themselves up with instead ! ! Pre-Galilean.
Are they hoping to draw attention away from that other work on the non-existent?
Is it a territorial dispute along the frontier , or is it just diversionary tactics ; by concentrating on the obviously real ( which tends to get peoples attention) they can undermine the real priests of the non-existent today, make their interpretations and explanations look trivial?
:roll: 8) :? :?: :roll: :lol:


As far as I know, most fundamentalists are generally threatened by the possibility that the bible could be wrong. The idea that the bible should not be interpreted literally is not a new idea however, for this has been around since at least the middle ages. It did not really start picking up ground once we were able to prove that the reality around us contradicted what was said in the bible.

Quote:
I can't remember how the ancient egyptians explained the origins of the universe.


They attributed to deities. Not that it really matters since it falls along the same lines of modern religion.

Quote:
I think "the origin of everything" is beyond the scope of the "study of the existent" ( that is to say , science). Before the "big-bang" the universe was non-existent , and that needs other tools to deal with it than discussions about proof and repeatable results! In other words it is still matter for religion.
But I think that everything measurable and observable in the development of the universe since this mysterious moment of emergence from non-existence , is more accurately and usefully described by science.


We really don't know what happened before or during the Big Bang. The big bang is such a bad term to use in any case, what we (scientists and cosmologists) really mean is that about 13.7 billion years ago, the current expansion of our universe began.


_________________
Philosophy: A good way to demonstrate our ability to make stuff up.

Religion: A good way to demonstrate our ability to believe things that just aren't so.


Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

14 Oct 2007, 6:20 pm

nominalist wrote:
Chuchulainn wrote:
My opinion is that evolution is not contradictory with theism. But eventually you have to come down to the main point, which can never be explained rationally.

What created the laws of physics?
What created the forces that created matter?
Why do these things exist?


The problem is that those are not legitimate scientific questions. They are teleological issues and should be addressed by philosophers and theologians, not by biologists, paleontologists, or physical anthropologists.

Cheers,

Mark


Physicists can also answer these questions, or at least have the potential to. However, it may be possible that asking such questions has very much a Russian Doll effect.

However, where these properties of physical laws came from is not, as you say, questions that can be addressed by biologists of any sort. Unless they actually research physics as well.


_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

14 Oct 2007, 6:39 pm

Quatermass wrote:
Physicists can also answer these questions, or at least have the potential to. However, it may be possible that asking such questions has very much a Russian Doll effect.


I would suggest that physicists may be able, at least at some point, to answer a couple of those questions (in terms of immediate causation). However, ultimate causation is not a valid scientific question. It is why so-called "intelligent design" is not a science.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

14 Oct 2007, 6:45 pm

nominalist wrote:
Quatermass wrote:
Physicists can also answer these questions, or at least have the potential to. However, it may be possible that asking such questions has very much a Russian Doll effect.


I would suggest that physicists may be able, at least at some point, to answer a couple of those questions (in terms of immediate causation). However, ultimate causation is not a valid scientific question. It is why so-called "intelligent design" is not a science.


Hmm. Whoever supports ID nowadays puts the memetic equivalent of a "kick me" sign on their arse.


_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

14 Oct 2007, 6:51 pm

Quatermass wrote:
Hmm. Whoever supports ID nowadays puts the memetic equivalent of a "kick me" sign on their arse.


Yes, and back when I used to debate IDers online, before I tired of it, I was more than happy to oblige (figuratively speaking). ;-)


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

14 Oct 2007, 7:42 pm

Chuchulainn wrote:
... Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the entire world, yet it is the largest That testifies to its inherent power. Wherever perseuction begins, membership explodes. Unlike in Islam, where people martyr themselves in a painless death so they can go to heaven and fornicate all day long.


Are you a holocaust denier? Don't the 6 million holocaust victims and centuries of pogroms make Judaism the most persecuted religion?

I thought that Falun Gong was the most oppressed religion today, and that it's persecution by the Chinese government has made it grow exponentially?


Quote:
How glorious are the victors that return from battle! How blessed are the martyrs that die in battle! Rejoice, courageous athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord, but exult and glory all the more if you die and are joined to the Lord! Life is indeed fruitful and victory glorious, but according to Holy Law, death is better than either of these things.

-- Doctrine of the Knights of Christ/Knights Templar, First Crusade



jfrmeister
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: #2309 WP'er

14 Oct 2007, 8:09 pm

calandale wrote:
It's really the same thing.
Either way, it's all faith.
Whether you take your
proof from mere empirical
evidence, or some holy
book written thousands
of years ago by men, neither
gives one a definite grasp of
reality.


Jesus Christ calandale!! ! would you quit being a contrarian? ? ? (impossible i know) You know better that this so I can't see why you're posting it.

The "truth" of science is only provisionally acepted as it is always subject to falsification by new evidence.

Religion purpously avoids any contradicting evidence and only changes it's doctrine whe social sensebilities change.


_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Oct 2007, 8:52 pm

Quote:

How glorious are the victors that return from battle! How blessed are the martyrs that die in battle! Rejoice, courageous athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord, but exult and glory all the more if you die and are joined to the Lord! Life is indeed fruitful and victory glorious, but according to Holy Law, death is better than either of these things.

-- Doctrine of the Knights of Christ/Knights Templar, First Crusade


Now that's something any suicide bomber could take to heart.