Science vs Religion - There is room for both.

Post Reply New Topic

It does not support the role of a Creator, science cannot offer any empirical data that suggests that the creator exists and that anything in the universe is programmed by the creator. The existence of God is a belief in which there is no scientific support, now, you have said that that doesn't conflict with religion or faith, but in relation to epistemology, I'd say that science offers better methodologies for finding 'truth' than dogmatic religion. If science is epistemologically better than religion, then that seems to undermine religion.


Science has disproved faith-based beliefs.

It's irrelevant to compare religion and science because they don't exist in the same realm -- Science is in the world of logic and religion is in the world of feeling.

fixed

I knew you were the one with the lost shoe.

Not really. Religion is more a realm of law based upon centuries old reactions based on a civilization with different technology than exists today and different circumstances than exists today. It's old law that still has some sway over the people who are still superstitious enough to believe that there's an all-powerful boogieman who picks favorites.

I personally take much of science on faith as I haven't done the experiments or performed the analyses myself. To an extent, I do have to trust the authority of scientists who do this stuff for a living. I can think about it and get an idea that it impressionistically seems to make sense; I can read books and magazines explaining the theories and latest findings; yet I cannot personally absorb all branches of the natural sciences for myself. I take scientific theories as approximate understandings of how the universe works to the best of current knowledge and nothing more or less; I don't particularly want to build an altar to it and start making sacrifices in its name. A Fundamentalist minister, however, has an interest in claiming the world works exactly as stated in a millennia-old book because they have specifically tied their concept of society ought to function and how people should behave with respect to one another to a belief that this book is literal truth, infallible, and inspired by their god. This prejudice makes them closed to the progressive building of theories and facts that is how science works, and I consider the scientific route better than deferring to ancient books to gaining an understanding of physical phenomena.

I would not in particular turn to a physicist for advice on political impasses or questions of wisdom, but again I wouldn't be turning to a Fundamentalist minister either. Fundamentalism in itself is a sign that wisdom is probably lacking, but that is an induction.

I believe that religion comes from the material conditions of society. And can only be overcome if the material conditions are overcame. I will quote some Karl Marx from Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law.

"Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again"

"It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence because the human essence has no true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly a fight against the world of which religion is the spiritual aroma."

This last quote means that the critique of religion only becomes real if there is a critique of the of the society that lays the material base for religion. That is what he meant when he wrote: "It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Material force can only be overthrown by material force, but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses". What he means is that theoretical critisism alone is not sufficient (as the old idealist school believed).

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions"

And again:
"To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions"

So, religion can only be abolished if the material conditions that give birth to it are overcame.

Last edited by Wedge on 26 Jul 2010, 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious is noticeably silent on issues involving supernatural events that manifest themselves.

You guys seem to spend about 99% of your effort trashing the first 9 chapters (out of 50) of 1 book (out of 66). I think that we've established that the account of creation was watered down to a bronze age level of scientific understanding, so why don't you give it a rest? The creation story does not stop people from converting to evangelical Christianity when your secular wisdom leaves them with their lives empty and in a state of disarray. When your social philosophies that glorify doing what you feel like ends up ruining lives, who is going to fix it? Atheists doing more of the same? It is the evangelicals that take them in and do things to turn their lives around by a means you deny exists and you will never understand by sitting around poking holes in straw man arguments over the internet.

You mean that I don't believe in them and don't find them worth discussing for that reason? Well, that's absolutely right. Miracle claims seem to me to be in the same category to me as UFO abductions, conspiracy theories, parapsychology, and the rest of that stuff. I don't usually talk about that stuff. I consider it a waste of time. The reason I say that is because any of these claims stands against what we currently know about the world to a great degree, the evidence usually isn't sufficient to justify that any of these things actually did happen, and the kinds of people who tend to propagate these claims tend to have their own mental problems to deal with.

Miracles are even worse in that every group of people has their own set of miracle claims. You may be coming from a more mainstream Protestant Christianity, but we both know of Pentacostals roaming around talking about laying hands on people, and folks(quacks) such as Benny Hinn healing people. Do I think that a man who is obviously a fraud actually heals people? No, but there are obviously witnesses to these claims. Hinn is more believable than the average miracle is, but the fact of the matter is that miracles aren't that believable, and there is a lot of reason to believe that Hinn himself is a fraud, even from a Christian standpoint.

Well, how about with cases where religious groups have taken a critical eye to whether or not a miracle occurred. Well, we actually see this in Lourdes, where millions of Catholics go for healing. Over 100 years and tons of Catholics going to the area and claiming to be healed, do you know how few the Catholic church is willing to acknowledge? 67 people. Now, I would just be willing to write that off as also likely false. After all, if we have tons of people, and only 67 having a miracle, who is to say that this isn't just a judgment error on the Catholic's part? Anybody who knows a bit of statistics knows that there is a good chance of a false positive, and certainly there is no reason to think that the Catholic church isn't going to have false positives, so, for a person who doesn't believe those things exist, don't you think that the amazingly small proportion of people validated by the Catholic church is also small enough to just be false positives? I see no reason why not. And the fact that the Catholic church, no skeptical body itself given that it has an exorcist, only validates that small of a number just brings into question how valid any of the miracles you might think exist.

Finally, it isn't even as if only Christian sects have miracles. Every group has miracles. Do you want me to explain away the boy who has Koran verses written on his legs? Do you want me to explain the Hindu mystic who claims to have transcended his need for food, and stopped eating for years being sustained by the spiritual energies of reality? How about Mormon claims to miracles for their church? The miracle claims of scientologists, such as with one man who claims to have perfected his vision through scientology? I see no reason to do that. In fact, I think it wiser to actually ask YOU to explain these things.

Heck, even further, why are most of the miracles of the world concentrated in Africa? I mean, I hear all the time about witches in Africa. About resurrections in Africa. And well, I just have to wonder, either God loves that godforsaken land more than the rest, so that he performs miracles a lot over there, OR people are really really suggestible. Honestly, my money is on the latter. I mean, heck, the West had its share of witchcraft claims for a very long time, sort of like Africa is having now, but the issue is that now we don't believe as much in witches or these matters, so we see them less often? I mean, that's pretty much what a "suggestibility" theory would predict. Why is the "real miracles exist" claim better? How is the "God performs real miracles" compatible with the miracles by people who do not follow the right faith?

Which is why non-religion is one of the fastest growing groups in America? Somehow I think that something isn't really said here, particularly given that Christianity isn't really growing, at least not by a significant degree. So talking about the "growth of Christianity" seems kind of silly to me.

Now, do I think that non-theism glorifies "doing what you feel like"? Well, it depends on what we mean by that. If you mean the crassest forms of hedonism, umm... most atheists don't actually promote that. Somehow I don't think you mean more than that though. Atheists do promote that people live their lives freely, but that's a far cry from hedonism.

As for Christianity fixing this.... yeah, right.... Look, if you just look at the history of Christianity, it isn't a history of people guided by a text so much as a history of a people pillaging the text for verses to maintain their relevancy, while ignoring the actual meaning of it. This is the standard Christianity, even today, and even in evangelical circles, and a large number of commentators know this, including former Christian leaders. I mean, the hypocrisy of the Christian church that is seen out there in the world isn't just existent, it is obvious, it is palpable to a person with even a meager understanding of the demands of scripture. And perhaps you disagree with me, but I am willing to point out the problems, and without even having to point to Fred Phelps at that. You can just even try to limit what groups you call Christian, as we both know that the behavior within the Catholic church with the scandals is enough ammunition for anybody to use.

I think the reason for that is that some extremist Christian still haven't grown out of the fact that these 9 chapters are completely incompatible with basically all the evidence we have found so far. There are for some reason still Young earth creationists ... o_O even in this forum... If non-theists didn't give these 9 books their good share of bashing periodically the extremists might actually take it as a chance to keep pushing their odd beliefs.



The account of creation is so inconsistent with evidence that it does not even qualify as being a "watered down" version. It hardly qualifies as a metaphor.


I don't see what connection you are trying to make between "Just doing what you feel like" and atheism.


Definitely not theists. 5000 years of history show that religions are useless at fixing anything at all.



9 books out of 50 , it is not like the remaining 41 books are that great either. Plus Jesus' teachings say that those who deny those books are in the wrong. I think that as much as you would like to avoid it, you cannot be an evangelical or a christian without accepting all the BS in the first books of the bible as "the truth". And that's actually a conclusion from Jesus own teachings... How about this, you mention a single book in the bible that is not full of BS, and I'll show you where the BS was hiding from you.

I was quite a christian until I decided to actually read parts of the bible, and honestly, the crap in that book is offensive to me. When you are a kid or young they would only share with you the nice do-gooder parts of the bible and ignore all the complete non-sense, trash, violence, obsolette morals, etc... Ultimately I concluded that I , as a rational person just cannot live under a religion that takes that book seriously. I think the bible should have its place somewhere close to the Oddysey , Edipus rex and other old books of fiction that also included some rules to live in the world (back then, not now), but for this age, it won't work.

Evangelicals don't really do a lot more than any other branch of christianism and religion and have their share of intolerance that is just not acceptable under my moral compass. I think that it is more of a business or club or something due to charging 10% of your salary for 'salvation' :/ If you joined Atheists you would be able to invest all your salary in fixing the world instead of seeing 10% of all your money become your reverend's car

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

'nuff said

Although he was Jewish, Einstein was neither Christ nor God.

Sand, do you follow me from post to post just to correct me....surely you have something better to do

Do I threaten you with my comments? You seem most to benefit with a bit of perception and I am merely exercising my generosity.

That's an interesting quote from someone who was a deist.