dropsoftruth1 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The video, which include Scintist quotes about Religion and God. It is educational and useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The video, which include Scintist quotes about Religion and God. It is educational and useful. Useful in what sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dropsoftruth1 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 It's useful for knowing connection between science and religion. I see it's useful, because this connection was determined by science experts, in this video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 It's useful for knowing connection between science and religion. There isn't one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dropsoftruth1 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 I didn't say, "it's the one" , I say it is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I didn't say, "it's the one" , I say it is one of them. Science and religion are two entirely distinct entities with no real connection. Some people say that they're just different methods of finding truth-each suited to its own set of questions (called Non-Overlapping Magestra). That is simply false. One is a method of finding truth while the other only claims to be. All of our knowledge of the universe is via the senses. That is the foundational principle of all modern philosophy (It is what was called Empiricism to distinguish it from the Rationalist tradition it opposed when it began). This means we map the universe from how the universe appears to us via our senses; We use these observations to build our models of reality. As Kant pointed out, since we can only know things as they appear to us via our senses (rather than the things in and of themselves), anything beyond that is forever beyond the capability of human reason. Simply put, we can only know how things interact with other things; if it doesn't interact, we can't know anything about it or if it even exists at all. In philosophy, your arguments are based on premises that are derived from other arguments, observed, induced from observations, or assumed. Bad philosophy uses assumed premises. In good philosophy, you can trace it all back to that which comes to us from our senses. When an area of philosophy gets sufficiently good, we call it "science". Science is the perfection of philosophy. If we can have knowledge of it (remember that all knowledge traces back to observation), then it is within the scope of science. Some people claim there are valid questions that science cannot answer; I disagree. For the above reasons, if there is a knowable answer, science can answer it. Said questions are usually of "why are we here?" and "what is our purpose?" and the like. As why is a question of intent of a causal agent, "why" is a silly question to ask if there's no causal agent. You have said several times that physics does not show that there must be a causal agent. Purpose is similar, though it is not quite the same. With purpose, you can divide into the intended purpose (which is roughly synonymous with the "why") and actualized purpose (which is how it is used). There are two main ways of answering these questions and both are scientific. One way phenomenologically and the other is behaviourally; We either ask the intentional agent and/or we observe it and it's interactions with the byproducts of the causal event. If there is no overall intended purpose due to a lack of a causal agent, that does not mean there is no actualized purpose. If there is no purpose from gods, then there is still purpose from humanity; your purpose is up to you. Science is grounded in reality and it gives us a method of knowing. Science is checking your answers. Science is the best philosophy. Religion gives us no such method. If you think science cannot answer a question, then what possible reason is there to think religion could do any better? Science and religion are two completely antithetical modes of thought. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The video, which include Scintist quotes about Religion and God. It is educational and useful. Argument from incredulity, mostly. The system is so complex, so it must have creator! I find this argument weak, because the system is actually many smaller processes given incredibly vast amounts of time to work in. This type of system needs no one to oversee it. And if there was a creator, why didn't he do a better job with our eyes, our backs, our legs? Why are there so many flaws in the design if they stem from an omnipotent, omniscient creator? You can't claim we're so perfect we must have been created and then overlook the flaws that preclude being perfect. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomc Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Science and religion are two entirely distinct entities with no real connection. Some people say that they're just different methods of finding truth-each suited to its own set of questions (called Non-Overlapping Magestra). That is simply false. One is a method of finding truth while the other only claims to be. All of our knowledge of the universe is via the senses. That is the foundational principle of all modern philosophy (It is what was called Empiricism to distinguish it from the Rationalist tradition it opposed when it began). This means we map the universe from how the universe appears to us via our senses; We use these observations to build our models of reality. As Kant pointed out, since we can only know things as they appear to us via our senses (rather than the things in and of themselves), anything beyond that is forever beyond the capability of human reason. Simply put, we can only know how things interact with other things; if it doesn't interact, we can't know anything about it or if it even exists at all. In philosophy, your arguments are based on premises that are derived from other arguments, observed, induced from observations, or assumed. Bad philosophy uses assumed premises. In good philosophy, you can trace it all back to that which comes to us from our senses. When an area of philosophy gets sufficiently good, we call it "science". Science is the perfection of philosophy. If we can have knowledge of it (remember that all knowledge traces back to observation), then it is within the scope of science. Some people claim there are valid questions that science cannot answer; I disagree. For the above reasons, if there is a knowable answer, science can answer it. Said questions are usually of "why are we here?" and "what is our purpose?" and the like. As why is a question of intent of a causal agent, "why" is a silly question to ask if there's no causal agent. You have said several times that physics does not show that there must be a causal agent. Purpose is similar, though it is not quite the same. With purpose, you can divide into the intended purpose (which is roughly synonymous with the "why") and actualized purpose (which is how it is used). There are two main ways of answering these questions and both are scientific. One way phenomenologically and the other is behaviourally; We either ask the intentional agent and/or we observe it and it's interactions with the byproducts of the causal event. If there is no overall intended purpose due to a lack of a causal agent, that does not mean there is no actualized purpose. If there is no purpose from gods, then there is still purpose from humanity; your purpose is up to you. Science is grounded in reality and it gives us a method of knowing. Science is checking your answers. Science is the best philosophy. Religion gives us no such method. If you think science cannot answer a question, then what possible reason is there to think religion could do any better? Science and religion are two completely antithetical modes of thought. Just as a thought experiment, if consciousness turns out to be verifiably a part of the fabric of our universe, how might philosphy absorb this data? Things would get pretty tricky i think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
searchingfortruth Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Science and religion are one in the same. If a scientist can't figure something out he will make a theory, a man of faith will call it an act of god. All of the universe is energy, and energy is all powerful, cannot be destroyed, except under certain circumstances cannot be seen, can be felt, always has, does, and always will exist. Ask a man of god what god is and he will tell you something very similar. Religion and science are just two different interpretations of the same thing. Science and religion are two entirely distinct entities with no real connection. Some people say that they're just different methods of finding truth-each suited to its own set of questions (called Non-Overlapping Magestra). That is simply false. One is a method of finding truth while the other only claims to be. All of our knowledge of the universe is via the senses. That is the foundational principle of all modern philosophy (It is what was called Empiricism to distinguish it from the Rationalist tradition it opposed when it began). This means we map the universe from how the universe appears to us via our senses; We use these observations to build our models of reality. As Kant pointed out, since we can only know things as they appear to us via our senses (rather than the things in and of themselves), anything beyond that is forever beyond the capability of human reason. Simply put, we can only know how things interact with other things; if it doesn't interact, we can't know anything about it or if it even exists at all. In philosophy, your arguments are based on premises that are derived from other arguments, observed, induced from observations, or assumed. Bad philosophy uses assumed premises. In good philosophy, you can trace it all back to that which comes to us from our senses. When an area of philosophy gets sufficiently good, we call it "science". Science is the perfection of philosophy. If we can have knowledge of it (remember that all knowledge traces back to observation), then it is within the scope of science. Some people claim there are valid questions that science cannot answer; I disagree. For the above reasons, if there is a knowable answer, science can answer it. Said questions are usually of "why are we here?" and "what is our purpose?" and the like. As why is a question of intent of a causal agent, "why" is a silly question to ask if there's no causal agent. You have said several times that physics does not show that there must be a causal agent. Purpose is similar, though it is not quite the same. With purpose, you can divide into the intended purpose (which is roughly synonymous with the "why") and actualized purpose (which is how it is used). There are two main ways of answering these questions and both are scientific. One way phenomenologically and the other is behaviourally; We either ask the intentional agent and/or we observe it and it's interactions with the byproducts of the causal event. If there is no overall intended purpose due to a lack of a causal agent, that does not mean there is no actualized purpose. If there is no purpose from gods, then there is still purpose from humanity; your purpose is up to you. Science is grounded in reality and it gives us a method of knowing. Science is checking your answers. Science is the best philosophy. Religion gives us no such method. If you think science cannot answer a question, then what possible reason is there to think religion could do any better? Science and religion are two completely antithetical modes of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The video, which include Scintist quotes about Religion and God. It is educational and useful. That is one of the most dishonest videos i have ever had the bad luck to watch, shame on who ever made it... Science and religion are one in the same. If a scientist can't figure something out he will make a theory, a man of faith will call it an act of god. All of the universe is energy, and energy is all powerful, cannot be destroyed, except under certain circumstances cannot be seen, can be felt, always has, does, and always will exist. Ask a man of god what god is and he will tell you something very similar. Religion and science are just two different interpretations of the same thing. Nothing but horse feathers, it proves nothing and makes assertions that make no sense what so ever... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) If a scientist can't figure something out he will make a theory You've just described the exact opposite of a scientific theory - a theory is a hypothesis statistically supported by replicable, observational data. Examples are gravity, evolution by natural selection, thermodynamics and relativity. http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory As for answering the title of the OP - 97% of Royal society members and 93% of National academy of sciences members answer "No" to the question "Do you believe in a personal god?" http://www.humanreli...telligence.html www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html, so given the available empirical data, one would have to conclude that faith - as defined as belief in a traditional monotheistic deity is considerably lower amongst the scientific community than the general populous. edit - having watched the video, the attempt to present Einstein as a theist moves it from the intellectually dishonest realm of cherry picking the subset of scientists who support the proposition to plain dishonest. Edited January 17, 2012 by Arete 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purephysics Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 That video seems to take almost every quote out of context. And thus, can create whatever context the creator (of the video) wishes to fit the quotes into. Religious ideology seems to be more and more encroaching on scientific territory these days, like it wants a peice of the action or something. A magazine called "Awake" dropped on my doormat just the other day, out of curiosity I decided to read it, (it was a Christian publication) but it had a large section on cosmology, which it dealt with in quite a scientific manner. Unfortunately it decided to quantify the entire scientific article in the end, by relating it to a passage in the bible; the reason for all the cosmological phenomena observed was down to God. The problem here exists in the interpretation of science by religeon and vice versa. This is due I feel to the fundamental differences in science and religeon. Science is about fact, and this about questioning everything. To seek the truth you just question all that you can observe. Religion is about belief, an unquestioning belief. To be a true believer you must never question what you are told. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Science and religion are one in the same. If a scientist can't figure something out he will make a theory, a man of faith will call it an act of god. All of the universe is energy, and energy is all powerful, cannot be destroyed, except under certain circumstances cannot be seen, can be felt, always has, does, and always will exist. Ask a man of god what god is and he will tell you something very similar. Religion and science are just two different interpretations of the same thing. almost, except where religions rely on just-so stories, science rely on vigorous analysis and observations. That's not to say that religious analysis can't be vigorous or religious people analytical, but the observation part, when it comes to science is very important to justify inferences. Religion not so much. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Science is grounded in reality and it gives us a method of knowing. Define reality please. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Define reality please. Hmm. That which can be observed or effects can be observed within space and time? If it can't be observed or has no apparent effect on anything observable, then it isn't real. What's your definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
space noob Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) I got into astronomy when I got depression and obsessed about being dead, I got Thanatophobia, I wanted to answer questions, but obviously there is no answer for what happens when you die, I took in as much science as I could, I took only the new testament as the old was ridiculous and plus the fact that i'm Roman Catholic and then I applied science and found no flaws, apart from the Jesus miracles obviously, i'm still convinced that there is some truth behind religion by trying to explain with science about how eternal life could be possible, if there was a God The closer my relationship with science gets the beliefs I have about God don't shrink, sometimes they get stronger Science is absolute truth and God is belief, creationalism shouldn't really exist if you ask me but if you believe the Bible you would need to believe all of it right? Well even in the Bible it says that people have pretended to go forth in his name and spread his word, rio you can pick and mix what to believe Edited May 9, 2012 by space noob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now