Science vs. Religion

Remove all ads!

An educated guess is still a guess. Better than something pulled out of a hat? Yes, but not proven, hard fact. Religion teaches that we should lean not on your own understanding but acknowledge God in all things and he shall direct your paths (Proverbs 3: 5-6).

But if you aren't having sex, your risk is reduced. I said greatly reduced, not eliminated altogether...

I find that view point has been abused almost as much as the Name of God over the last several millenia...

Of course these things do not connect, but what desire is there to reconcile these theories with Creation? These theories would perhaps be more widely accepted if they would not be shown adversarial to religious accounts of Creation.

Actually the account of Creation that I'm familiar with states that there has always been "matter unorganized", and whether there was anything before God is not discussed. The assumption is that how this is possible and how it works will be known at some point--long beyonf our lifetime is over...

 

Your existence is not a proven, hard fact. Does that mean that you'll go away if I stop believing in you? It's exactly this kind of dismissal of science by religious fanatics that people are so worked up about. And before you say it, I'll say it for you: You have every right to be worked up about secular fanatics dismissing religion too.

But honestly, don't do it so ridiculously as that.

 

If you have nothing, then there is nothing that prevents it from becoming something.

 

Ah, Joacqin, the age old question. Isaac Asimov dealt with it in "The Last Question". Is creation circular? Will we ever know the answer? I don't think we will in this lifetime. Maybe the next; only the Cosmic AC knows.

If the above sounds as if I'm being silly; I am not. We do not know the answer and can only guess either using science or religion. And your guess is just as good as mine. I'm happy with my guess but know that "I do not know".

 

I've always held the belief that the universe was never 'created' it just always WAS. There doesn't need to be a start and a finish to some things. The universe has always been there and it will always continue to be there.

So far science has yet to be proven wrong about the creation of matter. You can NOT create something from nothing. Therefore nothing is ever new. It's just taking different forms. 'Stuff' has always been here, it just keeps changing.

 

And here we have both sides of the debate shown in all their color.

Please note this didn't say science was wrong.

A perfectly reasonable request.

A perfectly reasonable answer.

Notice the loss of the word 'absolute' in the proof issue. There is, arguably, no absolute proof for anything, so everything is faith, but that doesn't fit his idea, so he begins the long process of twisting words.
Also note the attack on the beliefs of the other. This didn't exactly come from anywhere and really doesn't fit the facts of the matter, anyway, but that's ok, its close enough.

And it continues.
No one said anything about the Bible being against the natural world, we're talking about "regardless of any independently verifiable evidence to back it up." And we're also not saying the Bible isn't independantly verifiable, we really aren't, nor are we dismissing it without investigation, not yet anyway, but that's ok, its close enough.

At this point Blackthorne begins to sort things out, but he only begins. He then says this:

This infers that the Bible is contradicted by evidence, which he just said he wasn't saying. If he's not saying that, then this is pointless. If he is, then he was lying earlier, but that's ok, its close enough.

And here we have a disection of the real 'Science vs Religion' arguement. Everyone thank Bassil Warbone and Blackthorne TA for a wonderful demonstration.

As for God, first causes, the beginning of the universe, etc., well, everything in this universe must have a cause, but note that requirement, this universe. If God created the universe, and all the physical laws that govern it, then there's nothing to say that logic and the cause-effect law aren't under His sway as well. By this reasoning, God could have always been, have no beginning or end, literally, and be the ever-sought First Cause without needing anything to cause Him. Of course, there are a lot of assumptions in there, but none of them are that far fetched, so this is a valid possibility.

@Abomination:
Actually, M-theory is starting to question whether or not matter and energy really are permanent. On the quantum scale of M-theory, that's not neccessarily true, though it isn't neccessarily false either.

Andi finally, God can be 'read into' any scientific theory because science doesn't touch on the meta-physical. Science looks at the processes of X, not the purpose of it. Science will never, ever say either 'God is' or 'God isn't'. Such wouldn't be science, it would be religion. The truth is that there is no conflict between science and religion. Believe it or not, the Bible doesn't actually contradict evolution. Both can be true at the same time.

 

Absolute proof simply doesn't exist for anything. As I said to Gnarf, I will say to you as well: There is no absolute proof of the existence of either of us, or even of this board or the entire universe, for that matter. Does that mean it's faith to believe in one's own existence, or of the chair you're sitting in? Absolute proof, as an unreachable extreme, is not an adequate standard.

Only someone already defensive about their beliefs would have taken that as an attack. Chill.

No, it doesn't, and again you jump on the defensive when there has been no attack. It was a simple condition, with two conditional "would"s thrown in to make it clear. He was neither saying nor inferring that the Bible was contradicted by anything, only that it would be illogical to believe IF it were.

Okay, to satisfy your apparent lust for battle, I'll say that if you consider hypothetical statements to be pointless then you should take a long, hard look at the stories of miracles in the Bible, and ask yourself how they could have been done without divine influence. (Though even if Jesus was not strictly the son of God, he sure did have divine inspiration for some of the stuff he pulled off. ) Science has already answered some of these questions, like walking on water. I did it in science class, and I'd hardly call the great time I had doing it pointless.

 

Why? Cause and effect? On our planet, maybe that's the case but when we're talking a universal scale that stretches for infinity I don't think it needs a beginning since the universe itself has no end.

My theory is as valid as any other. There was no beginning to the universe, it's simply always been there yet it has also always been changing. Planets, systems, even galaxies come and go. Stars supernova and stars form. The cosmic balance continues.

 

@Fel:
My point wasn't that absolute proof shouldn't be a standard, I neither said nor meant that. What I was showing was how the topic slowly changes from an innocent discussion of the validity of beliefs to attacks on others.
When someone claims you believe something "regardless of any independently verifiable evidence to back it up", I think that qualifies as an attack on the beliefs.
Read this again:

He says that 'people who believe certain things that the Bible says despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary'. I think that infers pretty well that such evidence exists, and thus that the Bible is contradicted by evidence. And only one of those 'would's is conditional, the second one. The first is unneccessary, it's saying 'I want to say this', or 'I would like to say this', which is useless because he is saying it. The second is a link that says the second portion is only here claimed to be true if the first portion is met, thus the conditionality of it doesn't change the meaning of the arguement, but rather forms it. He is saying that the Bible is contradicted by evidence, and if he didn't want to say that, then he should have been clearer.
As for:

What I meant was that if he wasn't trying to communicate the infered meaning then the statement didn't have any other value. You can't take it any other way that contributes to the converation, or at least I can't find any. If you can, then please tell me it.

But all this is beside the point, because I wasn't trying to attack either position, but rather the process of arguement and logic that both used.
I also find it interesting that you have only complained about my analysis of Blackthorne's part in this.

@Abomination:
Ok, I should have said everything we've found a cause for had a cause, and we suspect everything else has one, too.
Also, the universe doesn't neccesarily strech to infinity. The mass is distributed in a finite space, and we have no clue how far the potential for mass to exist stretches, since there's nothing there to tell us, nor do we know if the universe has an end or not, in either a spacial or temporal sense. We haven't gotten there yet, but that doesn't mean one can't exist.
And you're right that you're theory is just as valid, I never said it wasn't.

 

Right, that's what I said. Not everything is about you.

Who said that? Certainly not BTA. He never once related that phrase to anyone at all. Check out the definition of hypothetical when you've got a moment.

Again, hypothetical. You're finding an attack where one does not exist. Let's try something else hypothetical, with the same word structure: "Only people who believe that George Bush is a frog despite overwhelming evidence of his humanity would be considered illogical." Now, does this make you think, for even one instant, that I thought anyone actually believes that the President of the United States is a frog? (And furthermore, did you immediately jump to the erroneous conclusion that I was trying to equate the two things? It was just an example.)

Because I don't know Bassil well enough to know if you were wrong in your analysis of his posts. But I do know you're wrong about BTA's. He would never attack religion in any way, shape, or form.

 

I stand corrected on your meaning and intents, but surely you can see, through this latest arguement if not yours with Bassil, how one side can actually mean nothing offensive and yet end up starting an arguement. What we mean to say and what people hear/read are rarely the same thing. This is because what you understand to mean one thing in your head means something totally different in someone else's head. We are trying to communicate ideas, but only communicating words. I am as guilty of this as anyone, plenty of people have misunderstood my posts on previous topics.

@Fel:
I admire your restraint and wisdom in your complaints. You were right about Blackthorne's intent. I wonder how accurately I got Bassil's.

 

As for the whole secular view not having faith issue, all I can say is that most of the people I know believe in evolution simply because their highschool Bio teachers said it was true. If that isn't faith, I don't know what is.

 

So, unless a non-religious person has the time and energy to recreate every single scientific experiment ever made, they're "operating on faith?"

Even if one considers it faith of a sort, it's quite different from the faith involved in religious beliefs. It's not like I worship science. I don't believe it will save my soul.

Some might think that science has taken the place of God. It might be difficult to grasp that there doesn't have to be a 'slot' in your mind reserved for something to worship, and that that slot isn't always occupied by something.

 

To build on what BTA said, it is practically required in any science that established theories are continually challenged. That's how theories improve over time. If a theory predicts outcome X and you get outcome Y, either your experiement is flawed, or your theory is flawed. So faith really doesn't have to enter into it. There is no shame in having a failed experiment or a failed theory. In fact, in the long run it is more useful to disprove a theory in that you can begin working towards the correct interpretation of the observed facts.

Also, you shouldn't think people with only a high school understanding of the sciences to be authorities in the field. If you want to speak to an informed person about Christianity, you wouldn't go to someone who only knew the basics - you'd ask a priest, minister, or theologian. Similarly, if you wanted to learn the ins and outs of evolution, don't talk to someone who only knows what he/she learned in high school, talk to a biologist or a geneticist.

 

And the wise men step into the ring!


Yes, thats you two.


I completely agree with both of you though, especially with Susi's phrase:

Which is precisely the difference! Religious faith is a worship of otherworldly being(s) with the intent of salvation. Science isn't salvation, it is an explaination.

 

Which is why they should not be mutually exclusive, but when some issues arise where these sides seem to conflict, that's where little schisms become huge rifts...