Science vs. Religion

Remove all ads!

On a side note:

is incorrect.

Exactly.

 

Erm no. Scientists don't guess. They make hypothesis, and then back them up or find new ones. The goal of science is not to fill in the blanks that the Bible didn't cover, but to explain the same things using reason and proof.

 

Well, I'm not giving all scientists a free pass on this one. Many scientist reject religion and any belief in God completely out of hand. That's wrong too. In fact, it's doing the very thing that they criticize religous people of doing. It's saying that because you don't conform to what I believe, you must be wrong.

EDIT: This is a little but I'm curious about this:

Gnarff, I've also heard that some Mormons refrain from using any products containing caffeine (such as coffee, and most soda). Is this true? Is so, why is this? Caffeine, to the best of my knowledge, does not have any harmful effects. In fact, caffeine even has some pain-killing properties, which is why it is used in products such as Tylonol (which may be referred to as acetominophen in Canada).

[ April 14, 2006, 18:20: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

If you are a rational being capable of intelligent thought at least I find it to be rather reasonable to utterly reject the notion that some guy who spouted a bunch of views a long time ago was spouting the truth about life, the universe and everything. Just as I would find a neighbour worshipping his kitchen rag and claiming it has told him the meaning of life a bit silly and reject his ramblings as gibberish I reject whatever christians/muslims/hindus/whateverists ramble about. It is equally irrational and I dont see any reason to pay any heed to it whatsoever in rational discourse where matters of *reality* (or science) are discussed. If I would happen to be in a philosophical discussion I would pay equal heed to the man worshipping his kitchen rag as a christian minister or a muslim iman and would ponder their view on the metaphysical universe. In discussions about reality it is just silly and have no place whatsoever and should be rejected out of hand.

Aldeth, I dont think you have pondered the immense chasm between religious faith and rationality. As others have said, science is about what is, religion is about what people want there to be. In matters of science religion have no place, faith have no place it should be rejected the scientist who doesnt do that is a bad scientist in my opinion. A philospher who does not ponder what else there might be to the universe but what we can perceive would likewise be a very narrowminded philosopher.

 

@joacqin - Of course. But just as religion has no place in science, science has no place in religion. If you agree that the religious shouldn't try to impose what they want to be true in science, then scientists shouldn't try to make people believe what they don't want to believe.

 

The dispute between science & religion inarguably
steems from ignorance on both sides of the issue
as well as an intolerance of both sides for any view that does not fit thier view of how things should be. One side takes the position that an entity of cosmic proportion created all that we behold and more. The other side contends that we are here because of a cosmic accident that has been beating billion to one odds for billions of years. Whether your view is secular or religious both views require a great deal of faith. As such, does this not make science a form of religion in it's own regard.

 

As I understand science the theory of the creation of human life on Earth is based on the belief that life was carried here on a comet that collided with Earth billions of years ago... uhh no! wait! life started when single-cell life
forms combined with each other to make more complex life forms yea thats it uhh no! wait! single-cell organisims evolved in to multi-cell organisims. And how about monkies are our ancesters...uhh no! wait! it was fish or was that lizards or birds or dinosaurs oh heck! If only the fosil record were more complete Maybe, just maybe it was Why not There is just as much
evidence for alien intervention as any other theory. So if you believe these things without absolute proof isn't that faith.

[ April 15, 2006, 00:19: Message edited by: Bassil Warbone ]

 

Yeah, I'd have to say that BTA is completely right here. Read his post over a few times to see his logic.

Possibility backed up by some proof is not faith.

 

Who said the Bible is against the natural world?
Are you saying that nothing in the bible is independently verifiable?
You can say "I don't know, but here are some possibilities that I agree with the available evidence. I tend to favor this one because of such and such reasons." But the evidence you base those reasons on is incomplete and therefore taken on faith. Also it takes faith to dismiss What that holy man or book or whatever over there said without investigating it's evidence as I would hope you would secular evidence for the secular point of veiw on things. If you asked me about something in the Bible I could not explain and I say I do not know but can show you other things in the Bible that are provable does that make the bible less true than the Secular view of things. Science and the Bible are not at odds in my opinion Secular humanist and church orthodoxy are.

Edit: Possibility backed up by some proof is what
the Bible is yet people who believe it are considered illogical people of low intelligence.
Science is not pure logic.

[ April 15, 2006, 03:32: Message edited by: Bassil Warbone ]

 

First off if a man and a woman were to refrain from sexual activity until marriage, it would be logical that they would have no STD's. From there, if they restricted such activity to their legally and lawfully wedded spouses, where would they get an STD from? You science people ridicule my beliefs claiming that they go poof and the world is there, but then want to go poof suddenly they have genital herpes or something like that...

But what's the difference between a hypothesis and a guess? Besides, it's still filling in the blanks...

Caffeine is not prohibited, but it is advised to be taken in moderation. Coffee and Tea have something else in them that is harmful. Most Mormon socials I have been to have something chocolate on the snack tables...

 

A hypothesis is an educated guess, which means that it isn't random... it is based on either previous evidence or it is a logical statement, such as after Newton saw the apple fall: "There is a force that pulls things downward." Then (s)he does some tests, refines his hypothesis, and repeats until he has conclusive evidence.

 

Because STDs can be transmitted through other ways, not only sex.

 

I find evolution much easier to believe than the Bible's creation story, but that's just my personal view and I am happy to admit that neither theory is perfect. Evolution is more palatable to me, because I'm not sure I like the way that the Bible version places Humans on some pedestal as being the ultimate living thing on Earth, when I feel that Humans are just another animal, no better or worse or more special than any other.

 

I disagree with the above. I have frequently stated that 'nothing comes from nothing'.

I think Thomas Paine was correct. No matter what theory you believe there had to be a 'First Cause'.

Explain to me where the stuff that caused the Big Bang (which I think is questioned by at some scientists) came from?

I have no problem with evolution but it doesn't make a 'First Cause' unnecessary.

 

If nothing comes from nothing how can god come from nothing? If god is something and nothing can come from nothing god must have come from something, no? The problem with this very common concept is that it lends itself to an infinite loop. Sooner or later something must have come from nothing, be it a god or a bunch of matter. Which puts on back to square one really where even this one of the most logical arguments for the existance of a supreme being ceases to be as overwhelmingly logical at it may first appear.

 

I'll second what joacqin says and further add that it is this (and some other minor factors) that gave birth to my belief in the looping creation of universes. Someone in the first created the second, second created third, ..., last created first.