"Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revalatory Nature of Faith?"

[Harry Bosch]

I see where the above poster is coming from God can fit into Science (it should never be the other way around). However the total lack of evidence for God makes it just a belief and not fact. I think we should only really be concerned with what we can see and leave the fiction up to writers.

"I think, however I cannot see it, so I must not think, so therefore I am n-" *poof*

Nice but we can measure thoughts, emotional responses and a lot of Brain activity in the lab, using Science. As for evoluition it pretty much a slam dunk in the scientific community.

 

[TheBluesader]

Must be a religion-oriented thread. Posts that aren't 3 pages long are filled to the brim with editorial links.

Of course, the Bible has 66 books of inconsistent editorials, so maybe it's just the nature of the beast.

(Funny, though, how most people consider scientific papers too long and boring to understand. It's interesting to see what most people are willing to put up with, but only when we think Invisible Space Superman is going to send all the people we don't like on a permanent bad vacation.)

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I see where the above poster is coming from God can fit into Science (it should never be the other way around). However the total lack of evidence for God makes it just a belief and not fact. I think we should only really be concerned with what we can see and leave the fiction up to writers.

"I think, however I cannot see it, so I must not think, so therefore I am n-" *poof*

Nice but we can measure thoughts, emotional responses and a lot of Brain activity in the lab, using Science.

You can measure them, but that doesn't mean you know why they are there. You can't explain where everything come from. And you can't explain direct religious/spiritual experience. If there isn't a god, humans are hard-wired to perceive one.

As for evoluition it pretty much a slam dunk in the scientific community.

Even if this was true (a lot of evolution is still a complete mystery) what that does that have to do with anything except some of the more dogmatic religious fundamentalists?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I see where the above poster is coming from God can fit into Science (it should never be the other way around). However the total lack of evidence for God makes it just a belief and not fact. I think we should only really be concerned with what we can see and leave the fiction up to writers.

Just because you do not see or except the existence of God does not mean that he does not exist. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of some higher power. Is there absolute proof, no, but that does not make mine or anyone else faith illegitimate or fictitious.

I really don't see any evidence which in my eyes means it's not real. I understand a lot of people take strength and comfort from it (I don't) but I really don't think God or the creator is a real thing. In court we use facts not beliefs and people who say god talked to them normally wind up in prison.

 

[Ezekel]

I see where the above poster is coming from God can fit into Science (it should never be the other way around). However the total lack of evidence for God makes it just a belief and not fact. I think we should only really be concerned with what we can see and leave the fiction up to writers.

"I think, however I cannot see it, so I must not think, so therefore I am n-" *poof*

Nice but we can measure thoughts, emotional responses and a lot of Brain activity in the lab, using Science. As for evolution it pretty much a slam dunk in the scientific community.

That's because it has to be, without evolution there is no scientific explanation for the existence of anything. I would also argue that evolution does not explain first cause, and that there is no scientific theory that can. I would also argue that there has been no observable macro evolution, nor can scientist, with any and all things given to them, make life out of non living material.

 

[LewsTherin]

Both sides are equally bigoted, and irritating, and I really do think both sides should gather to discuss this matter away from me. On a volcano somewhere.

Agreed. And why is it that the people arguing for Science always talk like tossers trying to win a 'longest sentence' competition?

Because of course, more words=better points and smarter discussions

 

[Specter_]

Believe what you want to believe, but if you feel you need to infringe on what ANYONE else believes, you can go fuck yourself.

This, exactly this and nothing else but this.

Necro, you should write a guideline to religion or life or something, you just summed it all up. If all mankind, believers, nonbelievers and believerhaters would act in this way, this pile of rock would be a much more peaceful place (but it would probably lead to a lot of selffucking, thus maybe reducing the fucking of others and thus reducing the human population, which would in itself be a good thing but now I'm trailing into offtopic)

 

[Harry Bosch]

"You can measure them, but that doesn't mean you know why they are there. You can't explain where everything come from. And you can't explain direct religious/spiritual experience. If there isn't a god, humans are hard-wired to perceive one."

Yeah thats true but I really think we need to apply Occam's razor here. Is the most logical thing to believe in a man in the sky who is everywhere at all times or is there maybe a more rational answer. For example quantum is apparently a promising field when it comes to the Brain box. Oh and I would hardly say we are hardwired to believe in God. We are hard wired to find answers and God was the one that made sense when we where killing eachother with clubs.


"Even if this was true (a lot of evolution is still a complete mystery) what that does that have to do with anything except some of the more dogmatic religious fundamentalists?"

Well for a start the scientific consensus of evolution is true (Observed instances of speciation google it). I feel this example best illustrates the gap between religion and reality. Evolution only explains the diversity of live not how it started yet it is constantly bastardised into something it?s not perphaps showing how little people really know about science.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

"You can measure them, but that doesn't mean you know why they are there. You can't explain where everything come from. And you can't explain direct religious/spiritual experience. If there isn't a god, humans are hard-wired to perceive one."

Yeah thats true but I really think we need to apply Occam's razor here. Is the most logical thing to believe in a man in the sky who is everywhere at all times or is there maybe a more rational answer. For example quantum is apparently a promising field when it comes to the Brain box. Oh and I would hardly say we are hardwired to believe in God. We are hard wired to find answers and God was the one that made sense when we where killing eachother with clubs.

No, no it isn't. Not logical at all. But when you reduce religion, in its entirety, to "a man in the sky who is everywhere at all times" this demonstrates you have close to zero understanding or knowledge of the concepts involved.

The least logical thing is to dismiss something you have no knowledge of.

"Even if this was true (a lot of evolution is still a complete mystery) what that does that have to do with anything except some of the more dogmatic religious fundamentalists?"

Well for a start the scientific consensus of evolution is true (Observed instances of speciation google it). I feel this example best illustrates the gap between religion and reality. Evolution only explains the diversity of live not how it started yet it is constantly bastardised into something it?s not perphaps showing how little people really know about science.

In some religions, evolution is not only accepted but is a core part of their belief system. Does that mean that those religions are fully accurate in every way? Also, do bear in mind that evolution is used as a tool by some atheists to berate religion with, and the connections they make are false. The complexity of life, the scale and diversity of the creatures and plants that live here, all altering form in order to continue to live, is not the antithesis of the theory of a spiritual being. It is in fact very strong evidence for it.

 

[Pimppeter2]

erased

 

[Jumez]

more of a question then a legitimate statement for this thread.

i'm not religous simply because i find it hard to believe that some infinitely powerful being doesnt have better things to do, you know instead of the whole judging and watching you ALL the time.yet i dont like being called an atheist but am i?

 

[Arsen]

Arguing that an omnipotent needs to be "Scientifically proven" is both ignorant and downright insulting. You prove it through the methods given to you within faith.

Problem solved.

Edit - Science should not be denied and religion should be discounted. The problem is the former names and tries to label everything it "discovers" without the knowledge that it could just be our perspective of the said power.

 

[Labyrinth]

You probably believe in morality, right? That some things are good, some things are bad? How do you "prove" that?

My morals are abstract constructions. I accept that. They're based around making it easier for people to live together, not some benevolent paternal figure sitting up there flicking sinners down to the Oven.

 

[Labyrinth]

Are they really based off making it easier for people to live together? In that case, if you discovered a substance that could rob people of their free will and would cause them to live together in harmony, your morals would say that you should dose everyone with that compound.

In other words, can you think of situations where you would make life between people harder for the sake of some greater good? If so, then your morals are based around that, in addition to being based around making it easier for people to live together.

Ah, but I think that being a mindless drone is nowhere near as fun as being an intellectual. So no, I wouldn't. Making life easier for everyone is a very broad statement when you think about it. Dosing them with chemicals doesn't really come into it. That is but one factor of my moral sense. It's one of those "why can't we get along?" things. There are a lot of other morals involved.

 

[Hawgh]

You should always change your beliefs to reflect newly discovered truths, if a religion cannot bear to evolve along with the rest of the culture it is nested within, I cannot see how it should be capable of surviving.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

"You can measure them, but that doesn't mean you know why they are there. You can't explain where everything come from. And you can't explain direct religious/spiritual experience. If there isn't a god, humans are hard-wired to perceive one."

Yeah thats true but I really think we need to apply Occam's razor here. Is the most logical thing to believe in a man in the sky who is everywhere at all times or is there maybe a more rational answer. For example quantum is apparently a promising field when it comes to the Brain box. Oh and I would hardly say we are hardwired to believe in God. We are hard wired to find answers and God was the one that made sense when we where killing eachother with clubs.

No, no it isn't. Not logical at all. But when you reduce religion, in its entirety, to "a man in the sky who is everywhere at all times" this demonstrates you have close to zero understanding or knowledge of the concepts involved.

The least logical thing is to dismiss something you have no knowledge of.

"Even if this was true (a lot of evolution is still a complete mystery) what that does that have to do with anything except some of the more dogmatic religious fundamentalists?"

Well for a start the scientific consensus of evolution is true (Observed instances of speciation google it). I feel this example best illustrates the gap between religion and reality. Evolution only explains the diversity of live not how it started yet it is constantly bastardised into something it?s not perphaps showing how little people really know about science.

In some religions, evolution is not only accepted but is a core part of their belief system. Does that mean that those religions are fully accurate in every way? Also, do bear in mind that evolution is used as a tool by some atheists to berate religion with, and the connections they make are false. The complexity of life, the scale and diversity of the creatures and plants that live here, all altering form in order to continue to live, is not the antithesis of the theory of a spiritual being. It is in fact very strong evidence for it.

That's a very human perception, given the way we generally are conditioned to think, but I think it only appears to be.
Remember that not everything changes to adapt, one animal (or plant or germ) changes in a beneficiary manner, and so it survives and so does its offspring, while many others of its species are born with traits that end up with them becoming dinner or just dead, or their offspring do. In the end the only results we actually see are the beneficial ones, leading to the false perception that all evolution moves for the better. I think the whole idea of evolution is slightly flawed, seeing as the modern concept of evolution implies that things move a certain way, that all moves for the better, but in the end it is just a luck of the draw mutation.