| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and uploads. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Science Vs. Religion; Self explanatory | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2008, 11:05 PM (286 Views) | |
| calvinist | Apr 30 2008, 11:05 PM Post #1 |
|
What is science? Do things, complex things like light, reproduction, gravity, etc, just happen, or are we discovering, one small thing at a time, the acts and works of a more powerful being?? |
![]() |
|
| Goda | Apr 30 2008, 11:33 PM Post #2 |
|
Topic Starter
|
Science: a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. I think that only certain perceptions of religion contend with science. Even certain perceptions of the Bible, can coexist with science. I really dislike this current extreme ends of the spectrum situation going on with the evolutionist vs creationist deal. |
![]() |
|
| d0nk3y | Apr 30 2008, 11:34 PM Post #3 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
Most religious people will tell you, their deity(s) created laws that govern our realm... what we are discovering, though, is that this is a needless explanation. We know enough about particles and their forces or behaviors to really analyze why things happen. We know enough about evolution to say that reproduction has become more complex but that was necessary for the development of more complex species... It's a little stretch to say it "just happened", I think... but we are here, and it is therefore reasonable to assume conditions were adequate for us to be here. (See the weak anthropic principle). It is far slightly less majestic when put this way, but the principle is pretty much universally accepted. edit: beaten by one minute again. Edited by d0nk3y, Apr 30 2008, 11:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| calvinist | Apr 30 2008, 11:35 PM Post #4 |
|
is science though the acts of God?? All sciences. Is it just by chance that a sperm fertilizes an egg and it always creates (to some extent) a normal (10 fingers 10 toes) human 99% of the time? Can you link Science and Religion or did stuff just appear one day as we see them now? |
![]() |
|
| Goda | Apr 30 2008, 11:43 PM Post #5 |
|
Topic Starter
|
Well they just did appear one day as we see them now, but the way we see things now is constantly changing. Things cause other things, it happens all the time. To say a deity "simply" made things happen, or is supernatural, or magic, is something i disagree with. Many religious people see it that way, and many atheistic scientific people like to scorn that view. In the words of Arthur C. Clarke "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." So perhaps a being(s), incredibly advanced, decides to create our world/solar system/galaxy/universe/ or everything we perceive as existing, and then tells us things in one of the ways set down by one of the religions. Is that so improbable? Perhaps there is an existance beyond our universe that we can neither observe, or even comprehend, where said being might dwell. Just because something is unobservable, does not mean it is nonexistant. |
![]() |
|
| calvinist | Apr 30 2008, 11:54 PM Post #6 |
|
i think i have to agree with that. Big Bang Theory. Maybe, but where did all of that matter come from?? And from there, people have to be stumped. |
![]() |
|
| d0nk3y | May 1 2008, 12:11 AM Post #7 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
There is a valid argument to be made for a "computer-simulation" model... and then a solipsist argument is just as flawless. Both of these are essentially unprovable, and for the sake of that, science tends to set them aside. In Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, he only goes so far as to say "there almost certainly is no god". Science and religion are not mutually incompatible but there is plenty of information within the bible that is just wrong... there is a difference between science, which generally attempts to reform its theories when inconsistencies arise, and religion, which claims to be the absolute truth. And you will notice that, for the most part, it is scientists who make advancements in science, not priests or other religious officials (with the biggest exception I know of being Mendel, and there is plenty of controversy over that..) Part of the nice thing about science is that it follows logic... We pass down genes (why else would we look like our parents). Sometimes, those genes get messed up (why else would some people have additional fingers/toes (I believe the pope has already made it clear we cannot be responsible for our ancestors sins)). Because the genes get passed on, and occasionally messed up, the people with advantageous genes (mutated or not) generally survive and reproduce better. I realize it's an over-simplification but to me, it is perfectly logical. Now, contrary to Ben Stein's propaganda, creationism is different from evolution. There is a very different different branch of science that attempts to deal with that (see Abiogenesis). And plenty of progress has been made here. (Regarding evolution and the exclusiveness of it, though, I would say that the only form of theism compatible with evolution is deism. I do not understand why a god would have let bacteria and dinosaurs run free for 4 billion years before stepping in to create "us". Further, should he care for all animals the same, all religions as we know them would have to be completely false, right?) To answer the question "did stuff just appear one day as we see them now?" I look again to the Weak Anthropic Principle. There may very well be a few set of axioms, postulates, that cannot be simplified further (see the search for a unified theory in physics). But had gravity been a little stronger, and the electromagnetic force a little weaker, who can say where we would be? What if the Weak Nuclear force had a range of 10-17m instead of 10-18m? We can't really say. What we do know is that we are here, and conditions must have been adequate for us to be here. An infinite amount of "time" could have good by, and therefore it may have been a case of the Strong Anthropic Principle. It would be necessary for us to eventually arrive. The question concerning the original matter of the big bang is of great wonder in the scientific community, and there are several theories which I couldn't begin to outline. I would say to read into string theory, or the multiverse... (edit:) I've said it before, maybe God was a particle that popped into existence to allow for the big bang. I don't know.(/edit) What I do know, though, is that with the information we have so far, it is currently supported, and that's all you can ask for in a scientific theory. Scientists know very well how particle behave at high energies (temperatures). They know that the galaxies are traveling away from each other. They know how elements are formed, how the early stars would have been hydrogen and helium, and they would go on to form heavier stars of heavier elements. What they are uncertain of, though they have plenty of minds and several hypotheses working on it, is how particles would behave immediately after the big bang. With the construction of new particle colliders, we hope to test them. But the best science can ever do is to look at the information, make a decision based on it, and reform its theories should they be falsified. Religion, contrarily, reforms its decisions to become more and more broad, by saying (I'll paraphrase) "it was a metaphor", or "it's a forgery", or "god did that, too." Edited by d0nk3y, May 1 2008, 12:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Goda | May 1 2008, 01:04 AM Post #8 |
|
Topic Starter
|
My gosh...what kind of scientist are you? Your stereotyping appalls me. "Religion, contrarily, reforms its decisions to become more and more broad, by saying (I'll paraphrase) "it was a metaphor", or "it's a forgery", or "god did that, too."" "religion, which claims to be the absolute truth." In my church, we believe that there is lots of things not told to us by God, and that education and science are very important things. How very arrogant are you to assume that just because you LACK THE ABILITY to prove something, that it is not real? Logic is very good, but logic doesn't disprove a god. And believing in a god is not illogical. SCIENCE AND THE BELIEF IN GOD IS COMPATIBLE! |
![]() |
|
| d0nk3y | May 1 2008, 02:07 AM Post #9 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
I'm not a scientist, I'm a 16 year old kid who happens to have an opinion. It's difficult to summarize religion because it comes in so many forms, and what may be true for most of them may be false for one, and that religion will take offense... Additionally, I don't go to your church, but I was attempting more to comment more on history. (Most) Christians consider their canonical collection of scripture the inerrant word of God. But when Christian officials look at some books (or even some verses) they call them false. Furthermore, they differentiate between literal and spiritual meanings... I can say "the world was created in seven days." and you can say "no it wasn't, that's dumb." and I retort, "each day could have happened over millions of years. By seven days I meant it didn't happen all at once." Or perhaps, when the Bible says pi = 3, one may say, "that one was written by just a guy," or "the bible has nothing to do with math so it doesn't matter." As you know, snakes don't eat dirt; Bats aren't birds; Rabbits don't "chew the cud"; Insects don't have four feet; Snails don't melt; and the Earth is not flat. What I was going for was that religion has an easy escape from most accusations. It is not falsifiable. I'm sorry you were already offended but perhaps we can discuss mormonism later... Theologians no more have evidence for a God than I do to against one. That is an argument for agnosticism. But agnostics have been called 'weak atheists' because it has been shown that the possibility of a God existing is very slim. |
![]() |
|
| jesusfreak574 | May 1 2008, 04:39 AM Post #10 |
|
Well, this is interesting. In my readings of the Bible, I haven't had the pleasure of reading about pi, which is another of my favorite subjects. I was wondering where all these references came from? Also, has anyone here actually seen Ben Stein's Expelled? I've read so much about it from both sides, and I can't believe everything that must have been packed into one single film. Just wondering what sort of experience everyone had with it... Furthermore, some of the theories being proposed by a certain religion basher are absolutely preposterous. When one has to turn to multiple universes (unobservable, by the way; what wonderful science!) or philosophical musings about whether one actually exists or not to explain one's supposed existence, one might consider that they have a bit of a problem with their world view. That crap is not science! Science is observable, factual, and explains why things happen. The fact is, science cannot explain why we are here. We know from science that energy is only reduced to less useful forms, but it is not created or destroyed. We know from science that the universe is accelerating in its expansion. We can track the universe back to its origin, which has conventionally been labeled the Big Bang. What science cannot answer, and never will be able to, is where that matter and energy came from in the first place. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Philosophy & Debate · Next Topic » |






8:55 AM Jul 11