Jump to content

Battle : Science vs. Religion


Genius13
 Share

Recommended Posts

I received an email message from the moderator about suspending my account, to which I relied. I ask him to pass on my message.

 

Seems it was too much to ask, so I waited for my account to come unsuspended to pass on my own message.

 

I had been keeping this to myself, but once it got out, I felt I might as well contact someone I could trust to go over it with me, so I could be sure I had done everything correctly.

 

I just happen to have a childhood friend who is quite knowledgeable in the particular area I was working. He specialized in that.

 

We had a discussion and he pointed out where I had made a mistake. (Palm of hand to forehead).

 

So all this discordance was unnecessary. I am retracting my claim to have developed a proof of the existence of God.

 

You can all relax and forget about it.

 

Sorry to have gotten some of you stirred up.

 

Still, I did did not see how it made any difference to anyone's opinion. Without seeing the supposed proof, no one had any reason to take it seriously.

 

It was something I was personally comfortable with, and that I never intended to let out at all. Sadly I reacted emotionally to a challenge letting slip and got dogged over my response.

 

Quite frankly, I felt harassed, about something that I made it clear that I did not care to discuss, with the moderator even threatening me and suspending my account.

 

I made it clear that I did not want to discuss it further on religious grounds, but my religion was not respected.

 

This is a religion forum and if you cannot respect a person's religion on a official basis, I find this to be quite offensive and contrary to standards of human rights.

 

If such harassment is to be tolerated here, I really don't want to be here anymore.

 

I will be leaving now.

 

I wish you all the best.

 

 

Ponderer, you made a positive assertion, then refused to support it, then you acted put upon because we would expect you to support the positive assertion. then you got rude and boorish about the idea that we would have the audacity to think that you should support a positive assertion you had made, I wish you a long and interesting life....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no one had any reason to take it seriously.

<snip>

my religion was not respected

My advice? Get used to it. This will likely be the way your entire future continues unless you release your childish beliefs and ground yourself in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ponderer,

 

Religious freedom and the laws of the U.S. that protect it are wise to allow us each to hold our own understanding and relationship with God/Universe/Nature/Reality. They don't call it a personal relationship for nothing.

 

Our founding fathers were very right to consider that a union of men and women, established to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, could not by definition include the forcing of a particular "belief in a personal god" on others. And attempts have been made to keep church and state out of each other's hair.

 

Science and religion though have not been thusly divided, and science is not either state, or religion. The state is upheld by both the religious and the scientific minded.

 

You feel your religion is not respected. I feel you are not respecting my right to challenge your assertions.

 

The law was made to protect each of us from being abused by the will of the other, and to keep any belief, even the belief of the majority, from being forced down the throat of a non-believer. Otherwise, there would not be freedom of religion.

 

If you have a belief, that you believe it would be reasonable for me to hold as well, then you should give me the reasons and defend the reasons against my counter arguments. It has nothing to do with me respecting or disrespecting YOUR beliefs. It has everything to do with me agreeing with or disagreeing with your BELIEFS.

 

Personally I think God/Reality/Nature/Universe and I are OK with each other, and I don't really think what anybody else thinks makes a whit of difference in the matter. Its sort of between me and it.

 

You, telling me I am wrong in this determination is not respecting MY religion, and my personal relationship with the entity we are referring to. But I will certainly entertain sensible arguments that would make me change my mind.

 

But, you are off to greener pastures.

 

Stay well. Stay happy. And give everybody else the latitude you would have them give you.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conversely the absence of evidence is not evidence of presence either, i.e. an absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

 

Correct.

 

Always have an open mind for evidence, but untill you find any, the use of an argument is futile (except when testing for evidence). There are plenty of things left to discover that we have no evidence for yet, who knows if God is among them - alot of people care, but theres other reasons for that. Knowledge doesn't seem to be among them though.

 

Edit: Almost entirely, people with religious beleifs don't seek the truth, they only care to believe what they think(or are told) is the truth. Such is the nature of faith and there too lies it's perils.

Edited by Sorcerer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ponderer,

 

This is a public forum. You came onto it, agreed to its rules, and posted a question - publically. We're not here to sit back and listen to a preach, we are here to discuss.

 

And a discussion ensued, based on the rules and etiquette of this forum.

 

No one forced you to continue posting rebuttals, and multiple members and moderators gave you ample notices -- and ample time -- to change the way you decided to present your rebuttals. If you didn't want to talk about this, you could have left on your own accord.

 

This wasn't your thread, it was a thread that existed before you. No one forced you to participate in it, and once you had, we discussed your points.

You were sent on suspension because you insisted on trolling (by nitpicking posts, ignoring arguments, and answering against the point) and preaching (by claiming definitive answers, repeatedly, based on your personal belief with disregard to the points made and evidence raised. These are against the forum rules of conduct. They were pointed out to you multiple times before the decision was made to suspend you. They were also explained in the suspension email.

 

This isn't your personal website blog. If you come here, you come here to debate. If you don't want to discuss your personal religious beliefs, don't post them.

We don't do religious "hit and run" here. And our 'respect to beliefs' is equal to *all* beliefs, as in it involves the discussing of all beliefs and all claims equally.

Yours included.

 

~mooey

 

You feel your religion is not respected. I feel you are not respecting my right to challenge your assertions.

 

The law was made to protect each of us from being abused by the will of the other, and to keep any belief, even the belief of the majority, from being forced down the throat of a non-believer. Otherwise, there would not be freedom of religion.

 

Well said, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must not be a battle. They can unite peacefully and together be even better then alone. A third partner in the game could be the arts. This may be a very rewarding perspective. See www.ars-una.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can unite peacefully and together be even better then alone.

 

Virtually every major scientific development since the inception of the scientific method has been opposed by the church and the list of scientists who have suffered persecution at the hands of religious establishments reads like a who's who of significant contributors.

 

Whilst many people use apologetics to try and reconcile the two philosophies, it's extremely difficult to find an example of religion aiding a scientific development and extremely easy to find many examples of the religious establishment directly impeding science. Harmony between the religious establishment and secular science is largely wishful thinking.

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1027380

http://www.annclinlabsci.org/cgi/reprint/37/3/295.pdf

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristianity.htm

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost entirely, people with religious beleifs don't seek the truth, they only care to believe what they think(or are told) is the truth. Such is the nature of faith and there too lies it's perils.

In short, religion generally seeks to define the truth regardless of the facts while science seeks to find the truth based on the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virtually every major scientific development since the inception of the scientific method has been opposed by the church and the list of scientists who have suffered persecution at the hands of religious establishments reads like a who's who of significant contributors.

 

Whilst many people use apologetics to try and reconcile the two philosophies, it's extremely difficult to find an example of religion aiding a scientific development and extremely easy to find many examples of the religious establishment directly impeding science. Harmony between the religious establishment and secular science is largely wishful thinking.

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1027380

http://www.annclinla...nt/37/3/295.pdf

http://cscs.umich.ed...rshalizi/White/

http://www.huppi.com...hristianity.htm

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626

but:

http://www.ars-una.net/thealltheory.htm

 

All these arguments, of course, are undeniable. But that exactly is the reason why nowadays such a strong difference is made between religion and religiosity. Religion in a modern sense should always mean religiosity and thereby exclude all the establishment. Only the establishment can hinder new developments, but personal religiosity certainly is a way to insight and can help as kind of a guideline to where the borders of knowledge are, - something of importance for scientific work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arete,

 

Interesting links. Did not read them through...but got the drift.

 

In the whole thing, I would not discount the importance of authority, and politics, and economics in the "stupid" things that were done in the name of religion.

 

Were we are now, and what we consider right and wrong, is not the same as where people were in the past.

 

Some of the "power struggles" exist yet. And people still do stuff "for their own benefit", or for the benefit of their group.

 

I like to think that the stupidity of the past is not the same stupidity that currently exists.

 

And what is good for me or my group, may well be bad for some other person or group.

 

There is a benefit to "following the rules" of the groups you identify with. And if you think about it, its hard to identify with a group at all, if you do not go by its rules.

 

I just say this, not to apologize for religion's evils, but to defend any "evils" I may myself be engaging in, currently, that to me and my groups are "good" and proper ways to be.

 

Take loaning money for interest. You could argue either side, that it should not be done and it is "taking advantage" of your fellow man...or you could argue that the providing of capital to worthwhile endevors powers our economy and prosperity.

 

Just so happens that there are winners and losers in a number of human interactions. Power and authority are not by their nature completely evil, or completely good. I don't know exactly how one would determine what is objectively good or bad. It seems it is pretty much up to us to decide.

 

What has been established in law and religion and state and philosophy and ethics, is not without its rationale. Not horrible in my mind to "go along with it". And not a bad idea to maintain the "good" stuff, and look for improvements...regardless of the fact that it may look stupid and evil later...or to somebody else.

 

You think there is "objective" good? That can be scientifically obtained?

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think there is "objective" good? That can be scientifically obtained?

 

I take the Eisensteinian viewpoint in that morality is a humanist concept independent of religion i.e. God doesn't tell us right from wrong, humans make that decision. There's interesting, well supported behavioral evolutionary theory which goes to explaining the rules of human societies and why humans sometimes choose to follow - and break those rules. A good book on at least the sexual aspects of such science is Sperm Wars by Robin Baker http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0788160044

 

Because humans made up the concept, good is rather by definition relative. While on certain issues I'm sure the majority of us can agree on the "good" and "bad" perspectives to, there's always going to be grey on many others and thus, conflict between ideological standpoints.

 

Whilst secular freedom of spirituality is in my humble opinion a very good thing, it allows a variety of dichotomous stances on virtually every issue. This isn't an inherently a bad thing in itself (and any scientist worth their salt should agree that viewing an issue from many perspectives and angles is often advantageous), until those differences of what is often fundamentally unsupported opinion are forced on others who choose to believe something else - which impinges on secular freedom and something I vehemently and passionately oppose (be it through legislation, sociopolitical pressure, billboards, TV ads or knocking on my door at 8am on Saturday morning - *insert bad words here*) and there is a "battle" we need to fight to preserve spiritual and intellectual freedom.

 

Science and religion both try and explain how the world around us works - one is faith based and one is evidence based. Viewing it through the warped perspective of a scientist - it's not all that dissimilar than any other situation where there is two methods of investigating a problem. Sometimes the answer from both methods is the same, sometimes one method is more appropriate than the other, sometimes the answer from each is different and a judgement must be made as to which is more acceptable: and sometimes both methods return non-significant results... ;) It reminds me a lot of the scuffle between nested clade analysis and statistical methods... http://scienceblogs....lysis_worth.php

 

The problem is that science is by and large, is ideologically OK with the possibility of being wrong. This means that parts of scientific theory are allowed to be wrong and thus modified, and an entire theory can be dumped out in favor of a better one. In being faith based, most widely accepted religious doctrines are absolute - if part of the ideology is wrong, it's all wrong. This means that when scientific advancements contradict accepted religious doctrine inevitably lead to conflict.

 

Whilst through apologetics, religion can be reinterpreted in light of scientific advancements and people (and religious organizations) can come to a point of reconciliation between the two methods, this is as a result of inherent and unavoidable conflict between methods of viewing the world around you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems you're right there ralfy, we are stupid humans.

 

I'm thinking of starting another thread on knowledge. I have had some fun arguments with the most rational atheists and rational religious (I know hard to find) people I know. It's fun because they care so much about something that matters so little.

 

I haven't seen things as a dichotomy for a while. I see things in a spectrum. Netwons theory of gravity was on a spectrum of knowledge just as Einsteins general relativity is.

 

It seems funny to me that people assume the current paradigm is the be all and end all of knowledge. Just because something is said to be true is it really?

 

Question everything.

Edited by Sorcerer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with "question everything" but I also realize that both religions and science is Human created in that we name and define everything in order to have meaning to us. The argument between science and religion is really about how life was formed - Science - undirected, no goal verses - Religion - directed, goal

 

No one has witnessed a "God" shouting from the Heavens that claims its responsibility for creating life nor has science determined how the first cell originated with solid evidence. There is no third party life form that has existed since the beginning that speaks our language that can tell us which version is correct or provide us with the correct version of the story of life. The third party would have to know how it came to exist with evidence too.

 

If everyone decided to believe in the science version of how life was formed, would this be based on reality since no Human was here to witness it therefore no evidence to support it? Is our word choices capable of defining life in its exact detail of its processes that reflects reality as the absolute truth? As soon as we begin combining those words together to create a story this is where different slants of the story emerge and it results from the limitations of human condition.

 

If everyone decided to believe in the religious version of how life formed based on faith, would this be based on reality since no Human can be taken on his word or provide actual proof of a God that exists? There was a time when most if not all people did beleive in a "God" but the problem with that is every culture had their own interpretation of the story and even those individuals that have the same faith didn't always share the same interpretation of its meaning. To add more confusion to this version is that God started out being plural meaning many Gods that were assigned to nature and then new Gods were named to defined each of our emotions when we were adjusting to living in large groups of people when prior to that we were mostly hunters and gatherers which did not require our emotions to be held accountable as later in time.

 

The bottom line is Humans may never really know the truth based on our physical limitations as a species. The fun part is we can certainly convince ourselves that we can and debate these subjects on forums like here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair points, however, unless I'm mistaken, mathematics arrived at the possibility of multiverse; all things equal math is objective, if you will. The same cannot be said for Religion.

 

-AH

 

 

This strikes me as a bit hasty. There may be assumptions here - about the nature of reality and the scope scientific methodology - that are not true. I think there are facets of human experience in which questions are not adequately addressed scientifically. Does this automatically validate existing religions or the concept of religion in general? Of course not. But I would not say that existence is wholly reducible to the scientific. Are you sure about this? To my way of thinking, the grounding of scientific truth is a negative pragmatism and this actually justifies a deep openness to the unknown. To absolutize our concept of science and its methods is unwarranted.

 

For example, there may exist an infinite multiverse, the nature of which is completely beyond our powers of comprehension or even the range of our mathematical toolkit (or just in some way outside the scope of science - forever inaccessible perhaps). Okay, but then it doesn't exist, right? It's unknowable. In some subjective sense, I suppose; but it may be knowable to descendants of ours millions of years from now, and either way, if it exists, it is "reality." The problem I have is simply this: the assertion that scientific epistemology defines the actual bounds of reality.

 

And no, I'm not trying to validate religion per se; I only suggest - if I may invoke the Hitchhiker's Guide - that we may be like tea leaves trying to understand the history of the East India Company.

 

On a more personal note, I am fairly open to the possibility of something that might be called the supernatural. Perhaps that is not the ideal word. I find philosophical problems of mind, the ontology of mathematics, the experience of personhood, and many other things, to be quite suggestive of largely unknown vistas of reality. I must be clear that I reject illogic, bad epistemology, pseudo-science, superstition, and the like. That is not where I'm trying to go with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is, we are probably both rational and irrational. Sometimes, we act based on logic, and sometimes based on emotion, belief, a hunch, etc.

 

Sure, but "science" doesn't define just our "rational side", it's a methodology meant to reduce the amount of emotional/illogical/irrational/subjective effects while examining reality empirically.

 

That's the point of peer-review, of substantiating claims empirically, of experimentation, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is Logos, logic, because the bible says that, "in the start, the word was with god" and word means logic, they are both always true, and what is true exists, so they both exists forever, this topic is childish, how can science go against our believes while science is our believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter is real because JK Rowling says that "It is my belief... that the truth is generally preferable to lies," and what is truth exists, so this topic is childish. How can science go against our beliefs while science is our beliefs?

 

 

Oh my... It hurts me sometimes when I see just how broken some people's minds are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is Logos, logic, because the bible says that, "in the start, the word was with god" and word means logic, they are both always true, and what is true exists, so they both exists forever, this topic is childish, how can science go against our believes while science is our believes.

 

sorry but logos does not mean logic. in the context it probably means either word or more likely story or conversation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

When its all been said and done .. there is just one thing that matters , did i do my best to live for you? Did i live my life for you? when its all been said and done, all my tresures will meen nothing, only what ive done for loves reward will stand, the test, of time. Lord your mercy is so great, that you look beyond our weakness.. and find pure is gold in my reclaim, making sinners into saints, and i wiill always sing your grace - here on earth and ever after. For you've shown me heavens my true home, when its all been said and done.. your my life when i've begun. Whens its all been said and done there is just one thing that matters - did i do my best to live for truth -i would live my life for you. Lord i live my life for you. Elohim; the creator that has created something out of nothing - You are all i need. Its your face i see. Where ever i look - In the skies, in the wind that touches my face. In the sun that scorches the earth, you made .. We bow down to you lord, And confess our sins amongst others - you are one, in this place. For a man without grace, is of all men without hope. I have been blessed with your sight - what men shall do in your name not according to your word is ultimately trivial against your command, and in search of the proofs which do not lead to their own satisfaction, but the satisfaction of others.. Why? Why should knowledge go so far but not weigh a thing.. Because they are not satisfied with Sight, or hearing, or being - their reclaim is in explanation of something which can only give representation. Your promise goes beyond explanation, represenation and proof, and if i had time to write all the fors and against, i would not be a man of God. Pleasing others is not my reproof. Giving hope is something which only you can give and i pray that you might give these people - who have been victim to society and all the things within the extrusion, a chance .. a search for understanding, a knowledge which opens the doors to the strength and understanding which you give us. Lord when you decide to return your son, In his name shall your purpose be exalted. In his name i will shout.. Your name. God, for my sins themselves will be the impurity of what others could not stand to be tried for, my falses are like that of a sheep - not a shephard. I will stand, i will come together from the 4 corners of the earth to gather the people of faith, I will protect and serve your name, and your word.. Not the word of the athiest who prays repeatedly, who boasts amongst others , who is quick to run to shed blood. Your Kingdom will come, on Earth - As it is in heaven. Give us this day our bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory - forever, amen.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When its all been said and done .. there is just one thing that matters , did i do my best to live for you? Did i live my life for you? when its all been said and done, all my tresures will meen nothing, only what ive done for loves reward will stand, the test, of time. Lord your mercy is so great, that you look beyond our weakness.. and find pure is gold in my reclaim, making sinners into saints, and i wiill always sing your grace - here on earth and ever after. For you've shown me heavens my true home, when its all been said and done.. your my life when i've begun. Whens its all been said and done there is just one thing that matters - did i do my best to live for truth -i would live my life for you. Lord i live my life for you. Elohim; the creator that has created something out of nothing - You are all i need. Its your face i see. Where ever i look - In the skies, in the wind that touches my face. In the sun that scorches the earth, you made .. We bow down to you lord, And confess our sins amongst others - you are one, in this place. For a man without grace, is of all men without hope. I have been blessed with your sight - what men shall do in your name not according to your word is ultimately trivial against your command, and in search of the proofs which do not lead to their own satisfaction, but the satisfaction of others.. Why? Why should knowledge go so far but not weigh a thing.. Because they are not satisfied with Sight, or hearing, or being - their reclaim is in explanation of something which can only give representation. Your promise goes beyond explanation, represenation and proof, and if i had time to write all the fors and against, i would not be a man of God. Pleasing others is not my reproof. Giving hope is something which only you can give and i pray that you might give these people - who have been victim to society and all the things within the extrusion, a chance .. a search for understanding, a knowledge which opens the doors to the strength and understanding which you give us. Lord when you decide to return your son, In his name shall your purpose be exalted. In his name i will shout.. Your name. God, for my sins themselves will be the impurity of what others could not stand to be tried for, my falses are like that of a sheep - not a shephard. I will stand, i will come together from the 4 corners of the earth to gather the people of faith, I will protect and serve your name, and your word.. Not the word of the athiest who prays repeatedly, who boasts amongst others , who is quick to run to shed blood. Your Kingdom will come, on Earth - As it is in heaven. Give us this day our bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory - forever, amen.

 

 

thepromise, didn't you promise to show real evidence of god when you first came here? if so put up or shut up... Proselytizing is not allowed on this forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter is real because JK Rowling says that "It is my belief... that the truth is generally preferable to lies," and what is truth exists, so this topic is childish. How can science go against our beliefs while science is our beliefs?

 

 

Harry Potter is not real, even in your own belief. And what is truth? Truth does exist. Childish? How can belief go against what you believe. It can't.. so where is Your explanation.

 

Oh my... It hurts me sometimes when I see just how broken some people's minds are.

 

thepromise, didn't you promise to show real evidence of god when you first came here? if so put up or shut up... Proselytizing is not allowed on this forum

 

 

I said, when im done.. I'll leave it up to you. Put up? What would you like me to put up? Something which you will deny anyway on ANYONES explanatipon? Proselytizing is one of those words that i really wouldn't be looking up on google so, im willing to listen to your evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.