Truth : Science Vs. Religion

[Wrigleyvillain]

Ummmm.....so this means that there is a chance that all these carbon dating were a bit off ?

Yes....finally a good news.

Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe?

Like Mailman said we really have no idea when it comes to the universe and religious Creationist theory is likely the epitome of that ignorance.

Very interesting. Nice find.

 

[W1zzard]

Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe?

nothing in science speaks about a creator nor can science ever make any statements to that

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

nothing in science speaks about a creator nor can science ever make any statements to that

Technically as understanding of the mind grows science can make plenty of statements about what and why we believe the things we do.

 

[W1zzard]

Technically as understanding of the mind grows science can make plenty of statements about what and why we believe the things we do.

yes but that has nothing to do with a creator. any answer science can give you can ask "why? how?"

 

[The Witcher]

Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe?

Like Mailman said we really have no idea when it comes to the universe and religious Creationist theory is likely the epitome of that ignorance.

Very interesting. Nice find.

What ? you just read United ARAB Emirates and automatically assumed I'm a Muslim ?

I just find it funny when things like that happen, I mean when I see other people defending concepts just because everyone believe in it. I'm a free thinker myself, I'm extremely skeptic about everything.

Anyway I was just being sarcastic....

 

[TheMailMan78]

Good news why? Cause it bolsters the belief that Allah created the universe?

Like Mailman said we really have no idea when it comes to the universe and religious Creationist theory is likely the epitome of that ignorance.

Very interesting. Nice find.

Religion is not the epitome of ignorance. Mans arrogance is. Be it his faith in an interpretation of mans science. Or his faith in mans interpretation of a book. Its all self severing stupidity and the message is always lost.

Some say man uses religion to explain the unknown. Some say man uses science to explain away his misunderstanding of G-d. Bottom line? Nobody knows and anyone who holds judgment over one or the other is worse then who he holds judgment over.

Both science and religion are about having an open mind. Yet both extremes seem to be the most closed.

 

[JATownes]

Religion is not the epitome of ignorance. Mans arrogance is. Be it his faith in an interpretation of mans science. Or his faith in mans interpretation of a book. Its all self severing stupidity and the message is always lost.

Some say man uses religion to explain the unknown. Some say man uses science to explain away his misunderstanding of G-d. Bottom line? Nobody knows and anyone who holds judgment over one or the other is worse then who he holds judgment over.

Both science and religion are about having an open mind. Yet both extremes seem to be the most closed.

This post needs to be put on a billboard and shared with the world! Very good outlook on science & religion. I liked it a lot. Kudos to you!

 

[TheMailMan78]

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking

From the man who "proved" there is no G-d sitting in a wheelchair.

 

[digibucc]

bunch of stuff.

except he never said religion is the epitome of ignorance,
he said that religions' creationist theory is, and i'd like to
see the great mailman dispute that!

 

[TheMailMan78]

except he never said religion is the epitome of ignorance,
he said that religions' creationist theory is, and i'd like to
see the great mailman dispute that!

Religion is the corner stone of the creationist theory.

Disputed.

 

[streetfighter 2]

From the man who "proved" there is no G-d sitting in a wheelchair.

I don't recall that ever happening. Douglas Adams did that.

Originally written by Douglas Adams
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

On a more serious note I don't see how science conflicts with deism.

The problem I have with your criticism of science is that you seem to neglect the burden of responsibility that exists in science.

To explain that idea a little better . . . Often the question of where to go for lunch will come up between my friends and I. Being a troublemaker, I'll often suggest a restaurant I like. Someone will inevitably complain that they don't like ______ food. My standard response is thus, "In life you won't get very far by only stating that a choice is inadequate; you have to suggest another option which works better." Then I put on my troll face.

This metaphor extends to science and begs the additional questions:
How do we know when we know it? Or, how much evidence is enough to be positive proof?

Human ego is pervasive in science, but this is incidental and unavoidable. What aspect of life is not subject to bias? Nevertheless we must be diligent in removing obstacles, including the illusion of knowledge, to scientific progress.

Originally spoken by Richard Dawkins
I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionately keen on a particular theory for, oh, a number of years, and one day an American visiting researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man's hypothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said, "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you, I have been wrong these fifteen years". And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal, of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a theory, and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced.

 

[digibucc]

exactly, science at the very least makes an allotment for human egotism,
and that's why there are so many checks and balances, proof argument
and counter-point. it's goal is to find the most objective truth we can
- whereas religion's goal seems to be to ignore as much proof as possible,
so as to maintain the grip you have on people's minds.

and note:i mean organized religion, though i think the belief in god alone has
it's harmful effects, in making one MORE willing to accept inconsistent claims
on "faith". but it's nothing compared to the effect of the abrahamic religions
in particular.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I don't recall that ever happening. Douglas Adams did that.


On a more serious note I don't see how science conflicts with deism.

The problem I have with your criticism of science is that you seem to neglect the burden of responsibility that exists in science.

To explain that idea a little better . . . Often the question of where to go for lunch will come up between my friends and I. Being a troublemaker, I'll often suggest a restaurant I like. Someone will inevitably complain that they don't like ______ food. My standard response is thus, "In life you won't get very far by only stating that a choice is inadequate; you have to suggest another option which works better." Then I put on my troll face.

This metaphor extends to science and begs the additional questions:
How do we know when we know it? Or, how much evidence is enough to be positive proof?

Human ego is pervasive in science, but this is incidental and unavoidable. What aspect of life is not subject to bias? Nevertheless we must be diligent in removing obstacles, including the illusion of knowledge, to scientific progress.

I agree. However while scientists are willing acknowledge they do not know everything. They are also 100% positive there is no G-d yet can offer no proof. Its hypocritical and egotistical. There lies my issue with a lot of "science". I feel the same way when religion passes judgment on a culture or a person. They are being hypocritical to their own foundation.

My view is to keep an open mind. Until ether one can be proved without a doubt Ill practice what both preach.

exactly, science at the very least makes an allotment for human egotism,
and that's why there are so many checks and balances, proof argument
and counter-point. it's goal is to find the most objective truth we can
- whereas religion's goal seems to be to ignore as much proof as possible,
so as to maintain the grip you have on people's minds.

and note:i mean organized religion, though i think the belief in god alone has
it's harmful effects, in making one MORE willing to accept inconsistent claims
on "faith". but it's nothing compared to the effect of the abrahamic religions
in particular.

No thats not religions goal at all. Thats mans goal.

The same can be said about science and its misuse of the "green industry" to also gain control. Checks and balances are out the window when politics are involved.

Science and religion should team up and get rid of what truly ills man. Politics.

 

[digibucc]

I agree. However while scientists are willing acknowledge they do not know everything. They are also 100% positive there is no G-d yet can offer no proof.

that is the first time i have seen you say something that is outright false. i don't even want
to know your excuse, as that statement has no basis in reality.

any scientist, heck - any rational logical being worth their salt would say at most:

"I highly doubt there is any creator, though i can't say for sure." anything more than that
is either an ignorant person, or a straw-man argument.

 

[TheMailMan78]

that is the first time i have seen you say something that is outright false. i don't even want
to know your excuse, as that statement has no basis in reality.

any scientist, heck - any rational logical being worth their salt would say at most:

"I highly doubt there is any creator, though i can't say for sure." anything more than that
is either an ignorant person, or a straw-man argument.

Lots of scientist say for sure there is no G-d. When they do I toss them out as scientist.

Granted my statement was generalizing and that was a mistake.

 

[digibucc]

Lots of scientist say for sure there is no G-d. When they do I toss them out as scientist.

Granted my statement was generalizing and that was a mistake.

fair enough.

No thats not religions goal at all. Thats mans goal.

The same can be said about science and its misuse of the "green industry" to also gain control. Checks and balances are out the window when politics are involved.

Science and religion should team up and get rid of what truly ills man. Politics.

right but the difference is, religions are built around the idea of trusting a singluar
authority that has no basis in fact to back up their claims. at least with science and
enough desire it is possible to test the claims we are trusting.

religion inherently lacks a system to do this, and therefore imo is less reliable.

 

[TheMailMan78]

fair enough.



right but the difference is, religions are built around the idea of trusting a singluar
authority that has no basis in fact to back up their claims. at least with science and
enough desire it is possible to test the claims we are trusting.

religion inherently lacks a system to do this, and therefore imo is less reliable.

There used to be a show years ago that attacked the bible and its theory's with science. The parting of the red sea and such. Almost every single major "miracles" in the bible could be explained through science and in fact could be replicated in some way today.

It was an amazing show that pissed off both religious and scientific minds. Guess thats why it went off the air

Anyway it comes down to one belief. Do you believe in coincidence and all its likelihoods.

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

What ? you just read United ARAB Emirates and automatically assumed I'm a Muslim ?

I just find it funny when things like that happen, I mean when I see other people defending concepts just because everyone believe in it. I'm a free thinker myself, I'm extremely skeptic about everything.

My bad for jumping to conclusions but I couldn't come up with any other reason why this would be "good news" and your "explanation" didn't really change much in that regard. And as 76% of the UAE is Muslim I figured it was a safe assumption.

And yes I agree that mans arrogance is the epitome of ignorance but what is more arrogant in terms of believing one has "all the answers" (well, almost) than organized religion?

Religion is like a communicable virus that affects the mind.

 

[streetfighter 2]

They are also 100% positive there is no G-d yet can offer no proof. Its hypocritical and egotistical. There lies my issue with a lot of "science".

Wait, wait, wait -- what? I don't remember science saying god doesn't exist. Richard Dawkins said that and most of his peers regard him as a shock jock.

Whether or not god exists depends on how your belief system works. For instance if someone asserts, "if the earth is more than about 6,000 years old than god doesn't exist because the bible is literal", well I've got bad news for you, because god doesn't exist . If, on the other hand, the statement is changed to, "God is infallible but the bible is not a literal account of creation", then this says nothing about whether god actually exists or not.

You can only disprove god if you give god some testable criteria. Science does not define god, religion does.

As I said earlier, "I don't see how science conflicts with deism."

 

[digibucc]

There used to be a show years ago that attacked the bible and its theory's with science. The parting of the red sea and such. Almost every single major "miracles" in the bible could be explained through science and in fact could be replicated in some way today.

It was an amazing show that pissed off both religious and scientific minds. Guess thats why it went off the air

Anyway it comes down to one belief. Do you believe in coincidence and all its likelihoods.

well without seeing it, i would assume the science was shoddy - so scientists didn't like it.

and religions, as wrigley said, already have all the answers. anyone claiming something
else is obviously wrong, or else why have we been listening to these people for thousands of years.

if the science isn't shoddy, i would have something to consider. do you remember the name?

as for coincidence, i believe some things are going to happen. not "meant" as to signify
intention, but more like the answer to a math problem. the pieces are already in place so
it will happen regardless.

but a lot is simply chance. and i've heard no argument strong enough, that even combined
with the others lends any credence to the idea that there is a divine being that created our
world with intent, and/maybe still watches over us. absolutely nothing leads to this being
the most logical conclusion, so i dismiss it until maybe something does logically lead there.

it's not a matter of accepting the possibility, i have already done that. i just think it's
about as likely that there is a teapot orbiting our solar system. i could never prove that
wrong, but it doesn't mean there is an equal chance of it being correct as not.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Mans interpretation of religion is like a communicable virus that affects the mind.

Fixed.

So is bad science. The only thing they have in common is mans arrogance.

 

[CDdude55]

You can only assess the claims of God's depending on how you define a God. Some say God is love, some say it's the soil or air. But the problem has always been the lack of evidence, they all rely on faith which solely appeals to emotion, as faith is not a pathway to truth.

Religion and God are the easiest ways for our minds to comprehend the existence of the universe, but it doesn't help us understand the universe like we should. I consider God a cop out answer to such a large and complex question, it's the suspension of critical thinking for what feels right to the mind as well as what your parents told you growing up, they lie to you and then tell you to be honest.

God is possible, but so is the celestial teapot and flying elfs creating the universe, possibilities are infinite.

 

[TheMailMan78]

well without seeing it, i would assume the science was shoddy - so scientists didn't like it.

and religions, as wrigley said, already have all the answers. anyone claiming something
else is obviously wrong, or else why have we been listening to these people for thousands of years.

if the science isn't shoddy, i would have something to consider. do you remember the name?

as for coincidence, i believe some things are going to happen. not "meant" as to signify
intention, but more like the answer to a math problem. the pieces are already in place so
it will happen regardless.

but a lot is simply chance. and i've heard no argument strong enough, that even combined
with the others lends any credence to the idea that there is a divine being that created our
world with intent, and/maybe still watches over us. absolutely nothing leads to this being
the most logical conclusion, so i dismiss it until maybe something does logically lead there.

it's not a matter of accepting the possibility, i have already done that. i just think it's
about as likely that there is a teapot orbiting our solar system. i could never prove that
wrong, but it doesn't mean there is an equal chance of it being correct as not.

The science wasn't shoddy IMO. A lot of times they would say "we can't prove this" and they would chalk it up to fantasy. But when they did prove something it was awesome. They even had the red sea accounted for with a Neapolitan expedition and account. The whole thing had to do with the plates of the Earth shifting for some reason or another. Ill see if I can find the show. It was pretty mind blowing some of the stuff they were showing and proving and disproving. Sodom was one they couldn't prove. They theroized it was a meteor I belive. But the soil proved that wrong. Good stuff.

Anyway I GOT to get back to work. Ill rebuttle some of the other stuff tonight if I can.

 

[The Witcher]

Since this thread will get locked anyway, let's me toss my opinion

Well, regarding Dawkin's memes. I can clearly see that many of his concepts are being used here. But I've to ask the question, do some of you think about what you read or do you just believe it because it was said by a charismatic and a little bit authoritarian figure such as Richard Dawkins ? I myself always think about the process of the human mind accepting new ideas and how it accepts it (That's a whole different topic).

I myself is torn apart by the sheer number of ideas regarding science/religion. I've a constant inner conflict, it's like one part of me start saying that Richard Dawkins ideas "for example" are right but then another parts jump and start saying that there is still a possibility that there is some kind of grand plan.

The bottom line is, always be open minded and don't accept anything as a fact or close to a fact, because in the end you might get disappointed. Being neutral is good for me, at least in the mean time.

Oh one last thing, I bow for MailMan because he is one of the few people I've seen that do look really open-minded unlike some people that convince themselves that they are open-minded when they are not "I'm talking in general here, I'm not directing this to anyone "

 

[digibucc]

you're free to believe what you want witcher, but i disagree . not in your sentiment,
but in your analysis of the situation. being paralyzed by fear of the unknown is the
only reason to stay neutral.

though there is no definite answer either way, there is enough information to take a side.
you can be open minded while at the same time not giving more credence than deserved
to faulty ideals.

i mean, do you believe "god did it" is as good an answer as the theory of gravity, or general relativity?

atomic clocks are not worthless, they just aren't as infallible as we thought. and note, the article's title
is misleading. it may not be constant, but that doesn't mean the change isn't accountable.