|
| Thread: Science Vs. Religion |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
posted October 24, 2002 09:41 AM |
|
|
Well, given that science is just formulating a hypothesis and testing it, its safe to say that barring government/ecclesiarchical intervention, there will always be scientists.
As for religion, well:
If by religion, you mean people accepting what is told to them because they no know better, then that can only exist as long as people aren't educated. I honestly believe that if the quality of the public school system was raised, that church attendance would decrease dramatically.
If you mean spirituality, and the knowledge that just because science hasn't explained or proven the existence of certain things YET, then that simply won't go away, as long as people keep an open mind.
*sigh* Boring enough for ya?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 03:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course no one can say, that's why I call it betting! If not, it would be cheating - like Vegas. 
Fine. Christianity will outlast the Theory of Relativity. 10 gp.
Physics will outlast Christianity. 10 gp.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 24, 2002 08:43 PM |
|
|
|
Einstein had a great system, he made theorys that can never be proved wrong. The theorys are set if the world never moved, but it is always moving.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2002 06:35 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 26 Oct 2002
|
Quote
“Einstein had a great system, he made theorys that can never be proved wrong. The theorys are set if the world never moved, but it is always moving.”
I am not a scientist…but that is a very intriguing observation.
Quote
“I think the normal answer if you believe in an omnipotent God is "Yes, but he could still lift it even though he couldn't lift it." The reasoning being that an omnipotent God could create paradox.”
Interesting perspective
Quote
“science and spirituality are by no means mutually exclusive.”
Well stated
Quote
“i have seen a lot things made by science
i havent seen anything made by god so far”
That is pretty hilarious….what has God made….look at everything your eyes can see…..that is what God has made….let alone your eyes that are doing the seeing. Funny…really quite ironic statement that was made! Science/technology on the other hand has made NOTHING…..it has only SHAPED what already is. When science makes SOMETHING out of NOTHING…then it can debate with God.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 26, 2002 06:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Einstein had a great system, he made theorys that can never be proved wrong. The theorys are set if the world never moved, but it is always moving.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. I'm not actually a physicist, but Einstein was already proven wrong in at least two cases - the expanding universe (he didn't think the universe could be expanding so he introduced the cosmological constant to keep it steady. He later admitted this was an error) and that quantum was correct (so far) - the infamous "God does not play dice." comment (he does, and the dice are loaded.) [also, another example that science and religion are not an either or decision].
Relativity could be proven "wrong" by, for instance showing a case where there is no time dilation at high speeds or by passing the speed of light and I'm sure there are other ways it could potentially be proven "wrong."
|
|
HeyYou
Known Hero
and beloved food provider.
|
posted October 26, 2002 06:58 AM |
|
|
Speaking of Relativity . . .
Einstein married his first cousin.
Just thought I'd share. Carry on.
____________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
~ Hanlon's Razor
|
|
bizud
Known Hero
Mighty Donkey
|
|
posted October 26, 2002 07:40 AM |
|
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2002 04:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I undermine science here because I find too many people errantly think it is the wonder cure and totally objective and trustworthy...but don't get me wrong...I love science
Ah, then we say exactly the same, dARgOn, we just started reasoning from opposite sides. Now I think of it, only in this thread already this is the second time I agree with you and since I am usually behind Lews' posts as well....doesn't that sound hopeful that you can come along  ?
About the question: Can God create a stone which is so heavy that He cannot lift it?
Quote:
I think the normal answer if you believe in an omnipotent God is "Yes, but he could still lift it even though he couldn't lift it." The reasoning being that an omnipotent God could create paradox.
That's a very creative answer, Bort...one I hadn't thought of. Thank you too for the answer dARgOn, you are one of the first Christians who don't evade the answer.
By the way, if you believe in multiple gods, this one isn't hard to answer, since one God makes the stone and the other lifts it. Together they are almighty.
I've read a few times in this thread that science is just a modern religion. I think there are some important differences:
-Science is based on progress through falsifying theories.
-Religion is based on holy books, interpretations of it by holy/enlightened people, prophets and the word from (a) God.
-Different sciences usually don't contradict each other. A biochemist can perfectly agree with what a psychotherapist says.
-Different religions usually differ on some important points, such as if there is a deity and which deity should be worshipped. Their holy books differ as well.
-Science 'progresses' faster or at least differently from religion. Religion often keeps referring to centuries old books (although the interpretation may change).
-Committing science demands research, education and thinking logically.
-Committing religion demands worshipping, praying and self reflection, but not necessarily thinking logically.
-That what scientists call 'prove' should ultimately be able to reduced to empirical knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong).
-A religious conviction is based upon an immovable belief in the religion (for example: the presence of a God).
And probably there are lots more of differences between science and religion. Of course there are also similarities between both, but don't say that science is a modern religion.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 26, 2002 08:43 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 26 Oct 2002
|
Quote:
A biochemist can perfectly agree with what a psychotherapist says.
Dunno about that - I'm a biochemist and I think Dargon's a psychotherapist (am I right?) but we seem to disagree quite a bit.
Quote:
I undermine science here because I find too many people errantly think it is the wonder cure and totally objective and trustworthy...but don't get me wrong...I love science
You're absolutely correct about this. I feel similarly about religion - I don't think enough people think through their religious convictions and I think even fewer act according to their alleged beliefs, but that is by no means a characteristic that is exclusive to religious people.
I think the main problem with people blindly accepting science is where they get their scientific news from. Time and Newsweek or ABC news is not a good place to learn about scientific findings. The thing is, science is complicated, research projects that they report on took years to complete and even longer to learn the background necessary to even start the project. The idea that one could explain a finding in a 2 minute sound bite or a single paragraph is absolutely absurd. In addition, news by necessity has to be sensational and has to jump conclusions. For instance, when the ob gene (obesity) was cloned and identified as coding for the hormone leptin all the news organisations jumped on it saying "this will cure everybody of fat forever! Hooray hooray hooray!" when what the researchers who actually performed the research (I've met the lab head of the lab that did and continues to do this research. Nice guy. Sharp, too and a great lecturer.) were saying was "we've found a gene that appears to be involved in body weight regulation and we think it may be at least partially involved in obesity." Not very exciting unless you're a scientist. Turns out they were right, leptin treatment works very well on a relatively small subset of obese people in terms of weight loss and has also shown promise as a diabetes treatment, but that's not very interesting from a CNN perspective, now is it?
Edit : I think one thing does need to be pointed out -- regardless of what method you feel is best for arriving at "knowledge," science cannot, does not and does not claim to provide moral guidance. You have to get your morals from philosophy or religion or both. I think that's really why science and religion are not mutually exclusive by any means. You can accept every journal article that comes out and still get your morality from the Bible or from the Quoran or from the Sutras or from Kant or whatever you feel works best.
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted October 27, 2002 03:59 AM |
|
|
"Religion is the opiate of the masses"-Marx(Harpo I think)
Now adays with computers and TVs DVDs CDs etc. we could change that to "Science is the opiate of the masses"
a + b = c , x + b = c
a = c - b = x
a = x
Religion = Science
I hope that cleared everything up for you.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2002 06:45 AM |
|
|
Quote
“since I am usually behind Lews' posts as well....doesn't that sound hopeful that you can come along ? “
Yeah nice thought…but I don’t think Lews and I are ever going to see anything close to eye to eye about spiritual issues…but then a miracle could always happen
Quote
“By the way, if you believe in multiple gods, this one isn't hard to answer, since one God makes the stone and the other lifts it. Together they are almighty.”
Creative Only problem is that if there are two gods….who made who?
Quote
“Science 'progresses' faster or at least differently from religion.”
Or maybe religion has arrived and science is a long time in catching up
Quote
“I'm a biochemist and I think Dargon's a psychotherapist (am I right?) but we seem to disagree quite a bit.”
Bort being a logical thinker would agree with me a lot more often if it wasn’t for his subconscious mother/son conflict to which professional ethics prohibit me from expanding upon in a public forum…lol…jk
Quote
“I don't think enough people think through their religious convictions and I think even fewer act according to their alleged beliefs, but that is by no means a characteristic that is exclusive to religious people.”
That is true. Too much ignorance going around….since you are a biochemist can you create something to inoculate people?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 29, 2002 01:45 PM |
|
|
|
Hey! That's between my smother I mean mother and myself!
|
|
TheEverLiving
|
|
posted October 29, 2002 02:19 PM |
|
|
Science, theres no competition, but if you want to beleive in a dude that roamed this planet years ago with supernatural powers (hrrrrrrrrrr) then feel free to do so...LMAO. I dread to think what his father could do LOOOOOOOOOL
In the meantime i'm gonna grab a beer play some heroes 3 and LMAO at this thread and hopfully WIN
Umm...Peace My Brothers & Sisters
Oo_TEL_oO
David Gray: A Clean Pair Of Eyes
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 29, 2002 11:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Einstein had a great system, he made theorys that can never be proved wrong. The theorys are set if the world never moved, but it is always moving.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. I'm not actually a physicist, but Einstein was already proven wrong in at least two cases - the expanding universe (he didn't think the universe could be expanding so he introduced the cosmological constant to keep it steady. He later admitted this was an error) and that quantum was correct (so far) - the infamous "God does not play dice." comment (he does, and the dice are loaded.) [also, another example that science and religion are not an either or decision].
Relativity could be proven "wrong" by, for instance showing a case where there is no time dilation at high speeds or by passing the speed of light and I'm sure there are other ways it could potentially be proven "wrong."
But it hasn't has it. Maybe you can?
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2002 08:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hey! That's between my smother I mean mother and myself!
LOL...I won't disclose anything
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2002 09:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
He later admitted this was an error) and that quantum was correct (so far) - the infamous "God does not play dice." comment (he does, and the dice are loaded.) [also, another example that science and religion are not an either or decision].
I don´t think that this often misused example serves well here. This is what Einstein said to clarify:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
and
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.
____________
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted October 30, 2002 09:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hey! That's between my smother I mean mother and myself!
LOL...I won't disclose anything
So that's the reason why!!! That explains a lot about bort's behaviour.
Hey Dargon, how about some therapy for me. Give me your account no., and I'll bill you.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2002 02:23 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 30 Oct 2002
|
Quote:
"A biochemist can perfectly agree with what a psychotherapist says."
"Dunno about that - I'm a biochemist and I think Dargon's a psychotherapist (am I right?) but we seem to disagree quite a bit."
Hmmm yeah, that example was somewhat loaded. But let's say that if you are up to it, it is perfectly possible to study biochemistry and psychotherapy at the same time. On the other hand it would be strange to believe both in reincarnation and afterlife. Or to be both a muslim and a christian at the same time (unless you have a split personality of course ).
Quote:
"science cannot, does not and does not claim to provide moral guidance."
That is quite a clear difference indeed. I knew I was forgetting something...
Quote:
"Only problem is that if there are two gods….who made who?"
I think if you are really polytheistic, you could believe that they both made themselves. Or that they have always existed. But that is actually the same question as how the God from christianity has been created. It's something I have asked myself a lot but can't get a satisfying answer on, in fact.
Quote:
"Or maybe religion has arrived and science is a long time in catching up."
It's funny how you use the same perceptions to approach a problem from an opposite point of view. But you could be right as well of course.
the holographic model
I am currently reading a book in which a theory is decribed that tries to unify science and religion in one holistic worldview. If it had been just another popular-scientific book, I had happily tossed it aside. But this seems to be or seems to have been a dominant theory in physical, biological and psychological science. It is rather complicating, but it is argued that 'modern' science (we're talking about the seventies here) cannot give a good explanation of the results of their experiments without assuming that there is a transcendental area, where time and space do not exist.
For short, the theory is the following:
The 'concrete' reality is a mathematical construction of our brain, which interprets frequencies from another dimension, a primary reality with a meaningful structure beyond time and space. The brain is a hologram which interprets a holographic universe.
Thus science tried to explain mystical experiences, telepathy, etc.
I was wondering if this theory sounds familiar to anybody else and if someone knows if our modern science still hasn't rejected this theory. I think it sounds interesting so I'd like to learn more about it.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2002 07:18 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Hey Dargon, how about some therapy for me. Give me your account no., and I'll bill you. ”
I think you may have the wrong….I provide therapy and I bill YOU…you don’t bill ME…hehe (that bit of life advice will cost you $100 American dollars..hehe)
Quote
“"Only problem is that if there are two gods….who made who?"
”I think if you are really polytheistic, you could believe that they both made themselves. Or that they have always existed. But that is actually the same question as how the God from Christianity has been created. “
Well I think it is a little easier for a theistic world view than a polytheistic world view. In Christianity…God is one, supernatural, omnipotent, everlasting, Alpha and Omega, God above all gods, etc.…so it is part of his nature to have always existed. Whereas in polytheistic religions…the gods seem to have a hierarchy and/or a creation story about how they were made. I am sure there are exceptions as there are thousands upon thousands of various gods…and I haven’t read up on all of em
Quote
“The 'concrete' reality is a mathematical construction of our brain, which interprets frequencies from another dimension, a primary reality with a meaningful structure beyond time and space. The brain is a hologram which interprets a holographic universe.”
I haven’t heard of that specific school of thought…but it sounds like its roots are from the philosophy of Idealism.
|
|
dapgeta
Disgraceful
Hired Hero
|
posted December 22, 2002 11:27 AM |
|
|
god is good science is bad
science is evil look at nuke's killing that all you need to know.
____________
|
|
|
|
