Truth : Science Vs. Religion

[digibucc]

the greatest scientists who were religious? like newton, who was wrong?
einstein, who was not? darwin, galileo, who both earned the wrath of their
respective religions for putting forth ideas that contradicted them?

you also have to recognize we are at a different time now. for the first time
in history, we can speak our minds about this ideal without being slaughtered
or imprisoned for life.

i don't think you can realistically compare the belief in a creator across centuries,
we have knowledge now that we didn't then, and i wouldn't be surprised if most great
historical scientists changed their views in because of that.

Can someone explain to me why people argue between something based on empirical data and something based on faith?
It's like saying my rock song is better than your omelette. They have nothing to do with each other.

well i already did once, but here goes:

they are competing ideals. they both seek to explain the nature of existence. they both seek to answer
the big questions in life: why are we here, where are we going? etc.

how can THEY NOT be compared when they seek to accomplish the same thing? they have absolutely
EVERYTHING to do with each other. there is more than one occasion where you have to choose between
which of the two to believe in. faith healing for example. abortion, etc.

truthfully i can't for the life of me understand how you guys can say they are not related. it's too obvious they are.

and can you seriously not think of a way to compare a rock song and an omelet? how about: which of these are
better to eat in the morning? which of these are better to listen to on the radio? there, compared. not being
snarky, but say: which of these ideals is more likely to give me a verifiable answer? which of these ideals is more
likely to give me platitudes & supernatural belief, without any observable evidence to verify it?

 

[twilyth]

the greatest scientists who were religious? like newton, who was wrong?
einstein, who was not? darwin, galileo, who both earned the wrath of their
respective religions for putting forth ideas that contradicted them?

you also have to recognize we are at a different time now. for the first time
in history, we can speak our minds about this ideal without being slaughtered
or imprisoned for life.

i don't think you can realistically compare the belief in a creator across centuries,
we have knowledge now that we didn't then, and i wouldn't be surprised if most great
historical scientists changed their views in because of that.




well i already did once, but here goes:

they are competing ideals. they both seek to explain the nature of existence. they both seek to answer
the big questions in life: why are we here, where are we going? etc.

how can THEY NOT be compared when they seek to accomplish the same thing? they have absolutely
EVERYTHING to do with each other. there is more than one occasion where you have to choose between
which of the two to believe in. faith healing for example. abortion, etc.

truthfully i can't for the life of me understand how you guys can say they are not related. it's too obvious they are.

and can you seriously not think of a way to compare a rock song and an omelet? how about: which of these are
better to eat in the morning? which of these are better to listen to on the radio? there, compared.

Do you even know the point we're discussing? You said that once you bring god into a discussion, the science goes out the window and I called bullshit. You certainly haven't said anything more to prove your point except to selective point to specific cases that have no relevance whatsoever.

And no they both don't seek to explain the nature of existence - at least not with the same meaning of those words.

 

[razaron]

The meaning to life and those sort of questions lie more in philosophy than in science or religion. Science seeks to answer how not why and religion dictates an answer. Philosophy would be the proper thing for meaning of life etc. debates.

So who wants to argue philosophy with me...

 

[twilyth]

The meaning to life and those sort of questions lie more in philosophy than in science or religion. Science seeks to answer how not why and religion dictates an answer. Philosophy would be the proper thing for meaning of life etc. debates.

So who wants to argue philosophy with me...

Exactly. Religion deals with the metaphysical world. Science deals with the physical world. The 2 couldn't be different if they tried.

 

[digibucc]

Do you even know the point we're discussing? You said that once you bring god into a discussion, the science goes out the window and I called bullshit. You certainly haven't said anything more to prove your point except to selective point to specific cases that have no relevance whatsoever.

wow, calm down. no need to get heated.

I said once you give the answer "god did it", then by default yes,
science is no longer involved.

i would argue the people who do not see it that way, have a sort of duplicitous belief
system in their mind, fragmented allowing them to switch between the two.

the more pure separation of beliefs can be seen in history, with our time being muddled.
god and religion plays a fraction of the role in people's lives as it used to.

i say that so you can see my thinking, the idea is that if you truly believe "god did it",
then where does the scientific inquiry come from?

if the question is already answered for you, why are you still questioning? well, either
the answer did not satisfy you, or you're crazy. imo.

 

[digibucc]

The meaning to life and those sort of questions lie more in philosophy than in science or religion. Science seeks to answer how not why and religion dictates an answer. Philosophy would be the proper thing for meaning of life etc. debates.

So who wants to argue philosophy with me...

i''m up for that too always up for philosophy...

but i do disagree, in that religion makes scientific claims.

the nature of life after death, when life begins, whether homo-sexuality
is natural or not?

these are scientific claims made by religion. and they should just be ignored because..
why again?

 

[twilyth]

wow, calm down. no need to get heated.

I said once you give the answer "god did it", then by default yes,
science is no longer involved.

i would argue the people who do not see it that way, have a sort of duplicitous belief
system in their mind, fragmented allowing them to switch between the two.

the more pure separation of beliefs can be seen in history, with our time being muddled.
god and religion plays a fraction of the role in people's lives as it used to.

i say that so you can see my thinking, the idea is that if you truly believe "god did it",
then where does the scientific inquiry come from?

if the question is already answered for you, why are you still questioning? well, either
the answer did not satisfy you, or you're crazy. imo.

Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about. Why are you unable to distinguish between physical and metaphysical. If you get that difference, then you should see your argument has no merit.

 

[TheMailMan78]

testing, retesting. verification. open-ness to new and contradictory ideals.

the mindset that we CAN figure it out, we just have to try. versus the mindset
that we CAN NEVER figure it out, so let's just wait for the rapture.

When the shit hits the fan and there is a good chance you are going to die is it testing that pull your through? Does verification of scientific principles give you comfort when you are powerless to change a given dire situation? No. Nobody reads a book about the Hubble telescope when a bugler breaks into their house.

See thats the issue I have with pure scientific thought. We are not robots. In the end we are animals. We have emotion. We decide on it far more then logic. To deny that you do no good for yourself. Religion is a constant that can give you the psychological tools to survive an emotional attack on your normal existence. It can also do great good for your fellow man IF you follow the principles it teaches. NOT the principles of a mans interpretation.

When you complain about "the mindset that we CAN NEVER figure it out, so let's just wait for the rapture" is a mans interpretation. The Bible for example never taught that. Hindus don't even have the word rapture in their vocabulary. Yet they both have peace and the concept of good will toward man written. I can list many atrocities that have been committed in the name of junk science. Millions of people dead. HOWEVER thats not sciences fault. Thats the fault of man misusing it. Much like religion. Man is a child when in a group. Like a child he missuses the tools given to him.

Its easy to say "there is no G-d" because you have seen no proof. Yet science tells you it will rain tomorrow and yet it doesn't. My point is there are facts and there is emotion. Man needs both to survive. Emotion is to G-d what math is to science. Deny one and you deny yourself.

 

[digibucc]

@twilyth
so abortion, what happens to our consciousness when we die, or whether gay terry chooses to be gay or , are not questions with scientific merit?

i would disagree.

@ mailman

see this is why i LOVE talking with you! in the beginning, almost
always - we are stark opposite. but then by the end (if we make it)
i come to see that you see the same things as me, and just wind up
on a different side of the coin. fascinating

i'm really talking about the abrahamic religions. i do believe that
telling yourself you know for a fact that something exists which
cannot be verified, whatever religion - isn't great. but it's the big
three that take this belief and do BAADD things with it, and they
also happen to hold the majority of people of the world, in their grips.

i don't give every scientific claim full merit though. i know that meteorologist
can be just as likely wrong based on past experience.

but i think the schism here is your separation of man from his creations.

he created science, and he created religion. in science he created a method
to weed out bad science, and to let everyone who wants be involved.

in religion he created a structure that speaks from authority, and in the
vast majority doesn't condone disagreement, or people speaking against it.

as for hard times, etc. it does give me comfort. knowing that all i've
accomplished has not been ordained. it wasn't me being watched over,
it was me getting hard knocks and dusting myself off and keeping on.

yes the harsh indifference of the universe can be cold and scary. or it
can be awesome and amazing. i think each person has to find it within]
themselves to have the strength to see it for what it MOST LIKELY is.

if i was wrong, oh well. i worked with what i had. any creator who would
punish me for that doesn't deserve my praise in the first place.

 

[twilyth]

@twilyth
so abortion, what happens to our consciousness when we die, or whether gay terry chooses to be gay or , are not questions with scientific merit?

i would disagree.

coming mailman

LOLWUT?

What exactly was the question there? Is life after death a metaphysical question and therefore the province of religion? Sure. But that should be obvious.

Look. Observable phenomena are the province of science. Issues not subject to empirical inquiry are the province of religion. And never the twain shall meet.

You're the one who said we shouldn't be going back centuries for examples. Fine. How many mainstream Christian denominations read Genesis or any part of the bible literally? Virtually none. Do any of them use religious dogma to explain things that can be investigated empirically? No.

Therefore your objections are inapposite. They don't apply to anything being discussed.

 

[razaron]

Exactly. Religion deals with the metaphysical world. Science deals with the physical world. The 2 couldn't be different if they tried.

I think you meant "the same even".

whether homo-sexuality is natural or not?

Homosexuality is natural... for a hydra...

Yet science tells you it will rain tomorrow and yet it doesn't.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle/chaos theory... sorry...

 

[digibucc]

well you're the only one who seems to think so, and it seems rather convenient
that my thoughts - that obviously bother you - simply aren't part of the discussion.

i don't care. don't reply if you want. i don't care. i'm still here.

 

[Red_Machine]

or whether gay terry chooses to be gay

You don't choose to be gay, you either are or you aren't.

 

[erixx]

So far all religions, specially the most known, are so extremely man-made and local it is laughable.
And the goal was not any truth, but dominance...
Believers should be beaten until they abandon faith. Or helped to quickly enter their netherworld.
I leave it here as I am eating and don't want to waste it.

 

[digibucc]

You don't choose to be gay, you either are or you aren't.

my point.

religion would disagree, science agrees
that's a physical example of science and religion clashing in a real way, that twilyth chooses to ignore.

for clarity, obviously you're right - to any rational person.

 

[twilyth]

I think you meant "the same even".

It should have read 'couldn't be more different if they tried' - thanks.

well you're the only one who seems to think so, and it seems rather convenient
that my thoughts - that obviously bother you - simply aren't part of the discussion.

i don't care. don't reply if you want. i don't care. i'm still here.

I can be afraid of your argument if I don't know what it is.

 

[digibucc]

I can be afraid of your argument if I don't know what it is.

i never said afraid. interesting you did though.

this is a joke, i'm trying to calm you down.

i thought you were angry, not afraid.

 

[twilyth]

my point.

religion would disagree, science agrees
that's a physical example of science and religion clashing in a real way, that twilyth chooses to ignore.

for clarity, obviously you're right - to any rational person.

Absolutely not. You are taking the views of extreme right wing fundamentalist Christians and trying to paint all of Christendom with that brush. That is bullshit. I would disown fundamentalists as legitimate Christians.

 

[twilyth]

i never said afraid. interesting you did though.

this is a joke, i'm trying to calm you down.

i thought you were angry, not afraid.

Really? :shadedshu

 

[digibucc]

Absolutely not. You are taking the views of extreme right wing fundamentalist Christians and trying to paint all of Christendom with that brush. That is bullshit. I would disown fundamentalists as legitimate Christians.

no, i'm not.

religion gives them a backdrop to not be called on their BS.
and i'm trying to paint all religion with that brush, not just christendom.

religion makes the israeli-palestinian conflict "muddy waters" and fosters inaction, when it is anything but.

religion dis-allows athiests to take office. you guys HATE us! look at the polls. try not believing and
see how you are treated in this "moderate" america. that's a joke.

 

[twilyth]

no, i'm not.

religion gives them a backdrop and not be called on their BS.
and i'm trying to paint all religion with that brush, not just christendom.

religion makes the israeli-palestinian conflict "muddy waters" and fosters inaction, when it is anything but.

religion dis-allows athiests to take office. you want to talk about a small percentage hating gays - trying not believe in your god.

There are 2 issues here. Is it possible for certain groups of morons to use religion as a foil for their true agendas? Absolutely. So what?

Are most people of faith the sort of moron who engage in such perversions of their faith? Absolutely not.

Until you can make that distinction, you won't understand anything about faith.

 

[digibucc]

oh i make the distinction, but i also make the one
that you don't look down on them as much as you look down on me.

if you had to choose between those who are still kinda like you, but not entirely - or me,
you would choose them. it's human nature, and that's the way it has always been.

 

[entropy13]

Would have been nice if there are just as many members posting here in this thread and in the GN forums.

 

[digibucc]

there's not that many people posting here, just us repeatedly.

 

[entropy13]

there's not that many people posting here, just us repeatedly.

lolwut?