Truth : Science Vs. Religion

[razaron]

which would be fine in theory, but that's not how we work.

some ideas take more of a hold than others in our minds. we
can theorize about them being separate all we want, but at the
end of the day they offer different ways to see the world:

science says take what you see and make it make sense, religion
says make it make sense even if you have to add stuff you can't
see.

they are both about making sense of the world and our existence.
physical or spiritual - they are both mental constructs that affect
our thinking. in that way they cannot be completely separate.

Wait wait wait wait. Don't tell me this thread is about the effects of science and religion on our mentality? If so I feel like an idiot.

 

[digibucc]

i don't expect a world based on it. i recognize that there is an unknown
to life and that most people are not comfortable with leaving it that way.

i am. i don't need to fill unknowns with myths, and i don't think anyone
else NEEDS to either. i think as i said most people are simply not comfortable.
oh well. as i also already said that's not the most important thing. if you do
think being comfortable is more important than knowing the truth... i think you
are wrong and i understand, but don't accept, why you would feel that way.

well what does truth matter unless it's in our mentality for it to?
truth : science versus religion
what truth, and do you care? science and religion directly influence
your MENTALITY to form the answers to those questions.

and that's not even what the thread started as, it was the name given
when it was moved to it's own thread from the other one.

 

[razaron]

I see. Then about the "Truth: Science vs Religion" thing, science gives you factual truth and religion gives you an opinion based on faith. Which is what more or less everyone who's posted in this thread has said albeit in different ways.

i don't expect a world based on it. i recognize that there is an unknown to life and that most people are not comfortable with leaving it that way.

I was being general because a few people were mentioning it. Twas not directed at you.
Also to clarify I wasn't referring to the unknown, I was referring to the fact that-in a world based on pure science/logic- you need a bias to apply the science/logic to. The bias being the end to your means (world domination, keeping the planet healthy etc.) and the logic being the means to your end (in the case of keeping the planet healthy just wipe out humanity, that's about as efficient and logical as you can get...).

 

[digibucc]

i thought i answered that, i must have deleted it.

but it was basically: what if your bias, your goal, is
to get the most objective truth possible? granted that
isn't always, but i would say it's false if you think it's
never the goal, or even that that isn't often the case.

your example is unlikely. only hippies care more
about the environment than humanity, and they aren't
scientists. i do get your point though.

and as i have said i few times:

this is not a difficult concept. i am not "pretending" to get it.
physical / spiritual. defined as different things.

that could be true or not. seriously. but at it's core they are both constructs
of our mind. they are both things we have created. in that way
the one thing we CAN know, is that they are related.

they both seek to make sense of the world we live in. that is their
end goal. regardless of their methods, their goal is the same,
so how can any of you honestly call them completely separate?

 

[razaron]

Rather than being the same their goals are parallel*. Their respective goals are similar but can never be the same. One tries to make a quantifiable and physical sense of the world, the other a spiritual and metaphysical sense of the world. Similar but different.



*For the sake of my arguement non-Euclidean geometry doesn't exist => parallel lines don't meet at infinity...


EDIT: However this is an opinion, so yeah...

 

[AphexDreamer]

If God has no creator why can't we stop at us and say we have no creator?

If God does have a creator then who created him and then who created the God before him and so on and so forth.

If we are to stop at any point and say it is this God who is the absolute God with no other creator. Then I'd just stop with us.

 

[digibucc]

@razaron
then why does it seem the more science we perform and knowledge
we gain, the less religion plays a part on our lives? even looking
at the last 100 years, let alone the last 1000?

would you say that's a coincidence?

in theory they may have different goals, but i don't see it work
that way in reality. laws get based on one versus the other,
people decide how to view the world based on one or the other.

maybe some people make use of science while seeing god as the ultimate,
but that's not hard. rather, it's hard to argue that god invented the
microwave, or cell phone, or satellite photos. so religion just backs off a little more, to what is
now the unknown , because that's where it resides, perpetually.

 

[razaron]

Most religions were formed in times and places where life sucked. They were formed as a way of making said times and places suck less. The arguably first religion was made to make life as a hunter-gatherer suck less. It is our intelligence that allows us to realise how much suck we're surrounded by but it is also our intelligence which allows us to overcome it, whether that be by religion or science. They are both tools.

Also I agree laws shouldn't be based on the intricate parts of religion. However you have to agree that the general idea of religion (the don't be an asshole part) is basically what modern law comes from.
Countries who are stupid enough to keep archaic laws that are based on the intricate parts of religion were probably asleep when secular humanism came about. But seriously when it comes to change humans generally choose not to unless it's absolutely necessary.

 

[digibucc]

However you have to agree that the general idea of religion (the don't be an asshole part) is basically what modern law comes from.

i most definitely do not. that is what leads to the idea that atheism is bad and
immoral, and because i don't have religion i will hurt people.

it's also logically flawed. if we made religion, then everything in it comes from
us. therefore it's in religion because it's in us, not the other way around.

and if you say "god gave us morality" , i say you are wrong. god is the most
vindictive immoral "hero" i know. if the bible did come from him then all the
hate and violence did as well. and then we are the ones who weeded it out
and left what we saw as good, the don't be a dick part.

either way you look at it, i do not agree.

and to your first point, you can't just draw a line in the sand and say that was
then this is now. are you really trying to argue that an increase in knowledge
does not lend itself to a decrease in faith/religion? numbers would prove you false.

 

[WhiteLotus]

I think the main key thing that needs to be addressed here is, why Digibucc's posts only take up half the screen?

 

[TheMailMan78]

A fucking enlightened utopian paradise. Provided faith = organized religion as we know it today and not spirituality in general.

Oh yeah it would be great. First on the agenda, population. We have way to many people on this planet. We cannot sustain them all. Thats what current science says......I mean thats what the majority of science says not all. So we need to always follow the majority of accepted fact. Therefore we need to start euthanizing populations.

Where to start? Well lets start with the already sick. No need for them. Almost all of Africa is now gone. Next China and India. Ok now that we have killed off a few billion people the world is a better place. Next up we need to control population and growth so we don't make the same mistake. We need IQ and DNA tests for everyone. If your IQ is to low no need for you to reproduce. Bad DNA? Same thing. However if your IQ is low but you are healthy we still need manual labor to support the educated class so anyone with a low IQ will be bred and worked for the labor force.

We will also need some kind of ASVAB test for the educated class. Something to test children in early childhood for strengths and weakness. We don't want to waste a good mind on something trivial like art when it can be served for the betterment of man right? So all children will be tested and trained from early childhood in their tested strength. No need for dreams in this scientific world.

Thats means most entertainment should also be removed unless it has some kind of scientific merit. As a matter of fact ANYTHING that cannot be sustained or justified for the good of all man needs to be removed and anyone practicing such things needs to be more educated so they do not contaminate the populations logic. If they continue then they will be dealt with swiftly. Logic and the pursuit of truth cannot be disturbed.

Beautiful world indeed. Oh man I could go on for hours! Almost sounds like a book I read once.

 

[razaron]

and to your first point, you can't just draw a line in the sand and say that was
then this is now. are you really trying to argue that an increase in knowledge
does not lend itself to a decrease in faith/religion? numbers would prove you false.

That point was explaining why you're right (about religion becoming less important)...


Also I haven't used the word god or morality once (until now...) because I'm talking about the idea behind religion, not the individual religions themselves. I've basically been argueing philosophy this entire time hence why I haven't mentioned creationism or the afterlife either.

It's not nice to put words into other peoples mouths.

I think the main key thing that needs to be addressed here is, why Digibucc's posts only take up half the screen?

Some people find it easier to read several short lines rather than one long line, so he uses the enter key a lot.

 

[digibucc]

that''s just so over the top mailman, and i think you know it.

@razaron - i did read it wrong - but i posed a question, exactly because i wasn't sure your point.
and re reading, it still sounds more like you are saying the process happened then but not now.

obviously that's not your point, i know that now. but it reads that way to me.

 

[TheMailMan78]

that''s just so over the top mailman, and i think you know it.

@razaron - i did read it wrong - but i posed a question, exactly because i wasn't sure your point.

Is it? Thats pure science and logic. Like I said checks and balances need to be made or man will not survive.

 

[digibucc]

so you are talking about a philosophical world of pure science, not simply a realistic world devoid of religion. i think both myself and
wrigley thought the ladder.

of course if we weren't human, if we didn't have emotions and weren't capable of empathy that would be the case. but it is not a reasonable
possibility.

bam, longer. it goes off my view so i hit enter so i can read it... then it comes out like that. i don't care what you guys read

 

[streetfighter 2]

Think of a world with absolute science. Think of what would happen without the balance of faith. What do you think would happen?

Those are two different scenarios, re:

1) Think of a world with absolute science.
2) Think of a world without faith religion.​

1) Science isn't absolute, as a couple people mentioned, but it's the closest we can get to truth at any particular point in time. If science were absolute, that is it was always correct (infallible), then I can't imagine we would have any problems .
2) I'm assuming you are using faith as a synonym for religion (just so we're all using the same definitions). Therein lies a problem because in order to imagine a world without religion you need to have a very clear picture of what religion is. Religion appears to encompass a very large gamut of beliefs and behaviors and removing any one aspect of it would not critically impede the effects of the whole. Many religious beliefs overlap with philosophy.

It has been my experience that there are impious people who believe unscientific things, such as superiority of the white race or that man never landed on the moon. In this way it is my belief that even if you used a heavenly microscope to remove religion, you'd still end up with plenty of crazy unscientific people (and not a whole lot changed).

If God does have a creator then who created him and then who created the God before him and so on and so forth.

Turtles all the way down

Therefore we need to start euthanizing populations.

That's ethics, which is philosophy.

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

Oh yeah it would be great. First on the agenda, population. We have way to many people on this planet. We cannot sustain them all. Thats what current science says......I mean thats what the majority of science says not all. So we need to always follow the majority of accepted fact. Therefore we need to start euthanizing populations.

Where to start? Well lets start with the already sick. No need for them. Almost all of Africa is now gone. Next China and India. Ok now that we have killed off a few billion people the world is a better place. Next up we need to control population and growth so we don't make the same mistake. We need IQ and DNA tests for everyone. If your IQ is to low no need for you to reproduce. Bad DNA? Same thing. However if your IQ is low but you are healthy we still need manual labor to support the educated class so anyone with a low IQ will be bred and worked for the labor force.

We will also need some kind of ASVAB test for the educated class. Something to test children in early childhood for strengths and weakness. We don't want to waste a good mind on something trivial like art when it can be served for the betterment of man right? So all children will be tested and trained from early childhood in their tested strength. No need for dreams in this scientific world.

Thats means most entertainment should also be removed unless it has some kind of scientific merit. As a matter of fact ANYTHING that cannot be sustained or justified for the good of all man needs to be removed and anyone practicing such things needs to be more educated so they do not contaminate the populations logic. If they continue then they will be dealt with swiftly. Logic and the pursuit of truth cannot be disturbed.

Beautiful world indeed. Oh man I could go on for hours! Almost sounds like a book I read once.

Seriously dude? This is just wacko overreaction and pure speculation. Who the hell said science = no morality? No you don't KILL people you ALLOW and ENCOURAGE use of birth control and family planning. You know, like the Pope doesn't? Jeez.

And I'm not trying to change the subject again (which is how we ended up here in the first place) but as to your first subject there this is a serious issue facing our (and other species) existance whether or not you "believe" in global warming etc.

The Impact Of Seven Billion People

 

[razaron]

Oh yeah it would be great. First on the agenda, population. We have way to many people on this planet. We cannot sustain them all. Thats what current science says......I mean thats what the majority of science says not all. So we need to always follow the majority of accepted fact. Therefore we need to start euthanizing populations.

Where to start? Well lets start with the already sick. No need for them. Almost all of Africa is now gone. Next China and India. Ok now that we have killed off a few billion people the world is a better place. Next up we need to control population and growth so we don't make the same mistake. We need IQ and DNA tests for everyone. If your IQ is to low no need for you to reproduce. Bad DNA? Same thing. However if your IQ is low but you are healthy we still need manual labor to support the educated class so anyone with a low IQ will be bred and worked for the labor force.

We will also need some kind of ASVAB test for the educated class. Something to test children in early childhood for strengths and weakness. We don't want to waste a good mind on something trivial like art when it can be served for the betterment of man right? So all children will be tested and trained from early childhood in their tested strength. No need for dreams in this scientific world.

Thats means most entertainment should also be removed unless it has some kind of scientific merit. As a matter of fact ANYTHING that cannot be sustained or justified for the good of all man needs to be removed and anyone practicing such things needs to be more educated so they do not contaminate the populations logic. If they continue then they will be dealt with swiftly. Logic and the pursuit of truth cannot be disturbed.

Beautiful world indeed. Oh man I could go on for hours! Almost sounds like a book I read once.

As I've explained this is a pointless arguement because there is a bias involved. The bias being to make the world a better place for us. What if the bias/goal was to make the world a worse place for us? or to make an omelette? or to make a rock song?
You can't just say "Imagine a world based purely on science". You took art in which case I'm sure you studied the yinyang sign at one point. In all darkness there must be light and in all light there must be darkness.

Then again I have a feeling you were trolling with that post. It doesn't seem to be your style.

 

[digibucc]

of course technically you are right, but i don't think any of us are talking under those ... less likely, conditions.

 

[razaron]

I'm just a sucker for technicality. I can't stand it when people make impossible statements.

EDIT: For "teh lulz" I came up with an idiom for this thread. Religion vs Science is like the xbox 360 vs ps3, everybody knows that philosophy/a PC "pwns" both.

 

[digibucc]

over-generalization, a ridiculous extension of an argument, they are common techniques,
for trolls! which we all know mailman is. lets keep him in context

 

[TheMailMan78]

over-generalization, a ridiculous extension of an argument, they are common techniques,
for trolls! which we all know mailman is. lets keep him in context

The same can be said for your "ridiculous extension of an argument" on religion. I was just showing two can play the same game. It sounded stupid didn't it? Well when you generalize religion like you have been the past few pages THATS what you sound like.

Spirituality and Science are two very different things and BOTH are needed for man. Ethics and morality are spiritually based. So unless we evolve into Vulcans or some crazy shit its here to stay. Ying and Yang.

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

over-generalization, a ridiculous extension of an argument, they are common techniques,
for trolls! which we all know mailman is. lets keep him in context

Yeah that last one made me think perhaps he got me...

Hey my combination of scientific and moral values dictate that I find this to be a good idea:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/07/19/birth.control.iom/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[TheMailMan78]

Yeah that last one made me think perhaps he got me...

 

[razaron]

Ying and Yang.

It's Yin and Yang. Mwuahahaha