Darwin would be ashamed

[Sniffles]

It doesn't change religion being mythology. Nor did I ever deny that a religious person could also believe in science. That doesn't mean all scientists or more fact appreciative people, will accept fiction as truth.

You get an A+ in sophistry.

 

[Costrin]

It's highly ironic to posit a contrast between the Periodic Table and Christianity, when its own developer believed in Christianity. Kinda like how the first astronomer to develop the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest.

So goes to further show that the ditchomy between religion and science is a false one.

The two theories are separate, even if a single individual can hold both of them. So yes, there isn't a dichotomy between science and religion. They aren't both on the same scale, where an increase in one decreases the other, or something.

However, there are people on both sides who think there is a dichotomy, and try to point out flaws in one by showing the strengths in the other, or there are others who think they are the same thing. Both these positions are incorrect.

So um... I guess I agree with you.

 

[01011010]

That isn't really the point. He just wanted to twist the issue so that religious hatred would seem like the same thing as defending your life.

Religious crimes are among the worst that have happened in history. Really, none are honorable.

You get an A+ in sophistry.

I learned from religious people. I should get an A++.

 

[Sniffles]

That isn't really the point. He just wanted to twist the issue so that religious hatred would seem like the same thing as defending your life.

Considering that fighting for ones country is based upon devotion to a civil religion, trying to claim a difference between that and fighting for ones faith is once again hair-splitting.

 

[Sniffles]

I learned from religious people. I should get an A++.

Ok if you say so...............

 

[Jeremy]

I, honestly, don't see why people don't believe in it- it's stunning, and I find it common and practical sense for evolution to have and be taking place! I wonder what people think if they don't believe in evolution? So much of science is based around the theory of evolution, and there are facts regarding the theory. Is it those believing in Adam and Eve as the first humans that don't believe in evolution?

If believing in evolution means disbelieving what you believe the world to be, it would be much harder for you to do so.

I think a lot of people don't realize that science, while helpful in some regards, is ultimately as unreliable as religion. Neither adequately explains everything about life, or about the nature of the universe. You can't understand the box while you're inside it, and I think that's something a lot of people need to understand. We don't even know if the box we're in exists. To say that one thing is right, or wrong, is to say that we CAN know. And we simply can't. We have no idea who is right or who is wrong, and to believe completely and wholly that something is real, including the people and lives around you, is false.

Question everything, but at the same time, accept everything. You'll be able to make some sense out of the chaos for yourself. But don't believe what others tell you blindly. They might think they know the truth. But don't let the truth be handed to you, because it may be a lie. You need to reach out to the truth.

(Lol Persona 4)

 

[Venom]

The Jewish Existentialist Lev Shestov made an insightful remark on the issue:

modern day 'reform' Judaism is practically a secular religion... (they make no comment on eschatology, they dont follow all of their own rules anymore, God is now all of the sudden not an asshole, even though they stopped making sacrifices...etc)

Alright then, but let's also get scrap the erronous philosophy of scientism in order to achieve that.

you know what your problem is? you're putting the HISTORICAL method above the method of science. There are 10 steps to showing why science is a superior method to reading out of a 2000 year old book:


1. Religious people wish to make "Gods Word", the most undeniable truth there is (ahead of scientific studies, etc).

2. However, even in a world where God's words were true, his *word* couldn't be the most undeniable thing there is because you have to be *here* *experiencing* the *reading/seeing* in order to read the word.

3. The most *fundamental* anything is actually the fact that we are experiencing something.... right... *NOW*

4. Math and Logic are the best truth seeking methods because they are the least ambiguous and have component simplicity.

5. Science methodology attempts to apply these methods to repeatable experiences in the *now* in order to determine what is *NOW*

6. Historical methodology attempts to determine what *NOW* was way back in the past.

7. The two methods, when at their best, really have no difference! They both strive for convergence and consistency and make use of logic and math when possible, due to component simplicity and lack of ambiguity.

8. The difference is that history has the disadvantage of trying to determine and work with *NOW*, LONG AFTER its already happened!

9. You were not there to see if Jesus actually performed miracles (ie you are relying on the historical method to actually discern this)

10. As methods go, the science method trumps the historical method simply because the farther you get from *NOW*, the more issues arise with accurately describing that moment.

(PS - evolution of the past can be inferred because we can perform radio carbon dating *NOW* and observe virus/bacteria evolution *NOW* ... you cant exactly go see the burning bush *NOW*)

Faulting the method of science is laughable when your proposed alternative is reliance on the historical method.

 

[Venom]

If believing in evolution means disbelieving what you believe the world to be, it would be much harder for you to do so.

I think a lot of people don't realize that science, while helpful in some regards, is ultimately as unreliable as religion. Neither adequately explains everything about life, or about the nature of the universe. You can't understand the box while you're inside it, and I think that's something a lot of people need to understand. We don't even know if the box we're in exists. To say that one thing is right, or wrong, is to say that we CAN know. And we simply can't. We have no idea who is right or who is wrong, and to believe completely and wholly that something is real, including the people and lives around you, is false.[/URL]

(Lol Persona 4)

1. yes we do know! the reality we live in, IS the reality we experience. Even if there was some matrix or Cartesian demon, if we could never cross over to the "TRUE" reality, then this reality would for all intensive purposes BE our experiences. No need to "question reality".

Therefore, unless you have some other existence to tell us about, you can simmer down about "well we arent even sure if any of this exists!"

2. Science doesnt have an explanation for everything . Religion has no such monopoly. There are naturalistic explanations to everything from beauty, love, morality to existence, how we got here, etc. The very fact that naturalism can even postulate viable ideas, is a blow to religion. Naturalism talks about actual things. Religion talks about immaterial things. there is no fundamental difference between immaterial things and 'nothings'. There is your religion: nothing.

 

[Lateralus]

I don't believe in Gravity. Nor Germ Theory. Nor the Theory of the Atom.

Which theory of the atom?

 

[Lateralus]

So for those who don't believe in evolution, which part of the theory do you disbelieve?

1) That generations of life have variation.
2) That the environment culls which part of life survives to create the next generation

Note, many scientists, ans religious people have stated that evolution and religion can co-exist.

The objection I've run into most often is the arbitrary line they draw between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution".

 

[Jasz]

Poll: Just 39% believe in evolution - First Read - msnbc.com



I don't believe in Gravity. Nor Germ Theory. Nor the Theory of the Atom.

i would guess that darwin wouldn't care much for a gallup poll. he would be too busy exploring life forms at the bottom of the ocean - the new frontier - anyway ...

 

[Virtual ghost]

I will be provocative and say that evolution is not something you believe in.
It is true or it is false there is no third option. Plus evolution is not religion.

Since I am someone that can be placed in category evil evolutionist this data is nothing really new to me.

What if find interesting is that there are two evolutions and people only pay attention to one of them. First one is evolution of life and another less famous is evolution of the planet.


The fact that North America and South America have so large and high mountains on their western parts is not something that is unexplained. Or the fact that southern Europe is build mostly by the limestone is not nearly as coincidance as it could look like.
Etc.


One member asked me to explain this in not too much detail and I will do that in not too far future.

 

[01011010]

You get an A+ in sophistry.

There are plenty of people that believe in science. They're not religious. The two are hardly synonymous with each other. In fact, that's the point of the OP. Regardless of what is being taught, polls show religious people are more likely to choose the fictional idea, than an explanation of logic.

As for historically noted (religious) scientists... How many were genuinely adherents? Many are born into a religion. It doesn't mean that carried over into adult life.

There is your religion: nothing.

Agreed.

Science does prove the physical nature of our world. Evidence is real and tangible, with consistent results. Religion, requires one to just 'believe'. No proof whatsoever.

 

[Lateralus]

Science does prove the physical nature of our world. Evidence is real and tangible, with consistent results. Religion, requires one to just 'believe'. No proof whatsoever.

I take it you can't delved too deeply into quantum physics.

 

[01011010]

I take it you can't delved too deeply into quantum physics.

I was under the impression the thread is regarding objective data vs religion. Not a semantics quibble.

 

[iwakar]

I actually think I recall this "idea" from my earliest Sunday School coloring sessions in Texas.

/sigh

 

[ajblaise]

Darwin would be flattered at how popular the theory of evolution has become. Rednecks might not believe it (but does evolution really apply to them?), but in the science world, it's a mainstay. And the theory is only going to get more popular.

 

[Jeremy]

1. yes we do know! the reality we live in, IS the reality we experience. Even if there was some matrix or Cartesian demon, if we could never cross over to the "TRUE" reality, then this reality would for all intensive purposes BE our experiences. No need to "question reality".

I am not a very religious person, but even from a scientist's perspective, you should eliminate any possibility, right? Not questioning reality is taking everything at surface value. Assuming that everything you see is all there is is making a very dangerous assumption.

 

[Venom]

I am not a very religious person, but even from a scientist's perspective, you should eliminate any possibility, right? Not questioning reality is taking everything at surface value. Assuming that everything you see is all there is is making a very dangerous assumption.

my point is not that there cannot possibly be another reality. my point is that unless you have some other reality to postulate, then statements about this not being the "true" reality are effectively meaningless. If you think we live in the matrix, then there are agents to be found and machines that originate in the "real" world. Those elements are important because they differentiate the two realities. If your alternate world theory lacks these postulated differences, then you really haven't postulated a reality that is any different than our own.

 

[Sniffles]

modern day 'reform' Judaism is practically a secular religion... (they make no comment on eschatology, they dont follow all of their own rules anymore, God is now all of the sudden not an asshole, even though they stopped making sacrifices...etc)

And that addresses Shestov's argument how exactly?

you know what your problem is?

Yeah, I actually take time to read your posts. I really should stop doing that.