I find science to be fascinating because it really puts things in perspective and don't know why people hold such bias towards it when it comes to conflicting with religion in some way when it only is trying to further our understanding of certain things.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." -- Albert Einstein
I do take care, as there is fake science and fake religion to be wary of, but I have never seen anything where religion and science inherently clash.
They both have their place.
I think problems arise when one is used, (or attempted to be used) to explain the other.
Scientific 'experts' and religious 'leaders' both expect us to believe that they are purveyors of some special knowledge, both are full of themselves, among other things. Science has gotten to the point where they want us to believe the strangest things, and so are getting more and more like religion.
I believe in both..Both are equally important for me
The only problem with believing in science is that it isn't a belief system. It takes no belief to accept science, because science works on factual data that eventually becomes theory. However, I'll stop playing semantics and just say I accept science over religion any day of the week.
I believe that all things stem from my perception and how things pertain to said perceptions.
I see religion and science as the left and right hand of the same person. Both have their place in order to achieve a balance.
I don't think 'science' is a belief system - it's a method for making observations, asking questions, guessing at answers, testing possible outcomes, asking more questions. There's nothing to believe, and the premise is that nothing is proven, because someone else can come along and disprove any hypothesis.
Religion IS a belief system. But religion also offers a lot for people seeking more philosophical answers - it serves a purpose, supports community, it should provide a moral base....
So, to answer the question, they both exist without contradiction, and have their place without need for belief.
Both are important for human beings as one tells the way you need to follow and other how to make life easy and enjoyable.
I'm not really sure why religion and science are seen as opposites. The vast majority of people can live quite happily with both. It's only the extremists that think one must be eliminated for the sake of the other.
A great book that addresses this topic is "What's so Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza. It discusses philosophy, history, science and theology. Christians became great scientists through the ages precisely because they believed the universe was created with order and purpose that could be discovered.
The belief that we were made to be curious by our creator and that the whole universe was put here for us also informs the Christian scientist. The whole of creation is significant and in that way it becomes a worthy pursuit. Remember much scientific knowledge was preserved and expanded by religious in monasteries.
The idea implies a disparity where there really isn't one.
I wouldn't say that's unique to Christianity. Medieval Muslim scholars were responsible for many advances for more or less the same reason, and also preserved the knowledge and discoveries of the ancient (and also non-Christian) Greeks and Romans during a time when most Christians rejected science, often to the point of burning both books and scientists.
I don't believe in Religious people who claim that their religious principles are scientific.
I don't believe scientists who believe in what they say so religiously.
Science is not about the believing it or not. Science is a form of recognition of the world. Religion and science cannot be compared together. Religion needs believing. Science don't. Religion is a state of mind and science is a form of exploration our world. These discussions about science versus religion in my personal opinion are worth nothing. It is impossible to compare things that cannot be compared.
I believe that sciences and religions both exist, because they obviously do.
I only practice sciences, personally.
Science is not a problem to religion.. But religion becomes a Problem to some people... and those people would love to disprove Religion... So Science is their Great White Hope to discredit theology.
They might very well get allot of people to go along with them also... but the truth will remain truth.. and their reasoning will be shown for what it is.. self serving Anti-theology which is in itself... A Religious belief.
I think the two can be compatible, providing that you remember that much of the Bible was written over two thousand years ago, at a time when it was impossible to prove that the earth was not flat, and not the center of the Universe. I beleive in Science, and I beleive in a Higher Power responsible for creating the Universe, and I don't like the idea that everything is the way it is just because of God and there is nothing you can do about it.
Bible actually teaches of a spherical earth... flat earth was just an opinion of the middle ages.... Bible also taught the cycle of water, Clouds etc that is today called the Horological cycle... Bible also taught about the Belts of Orion being a bound cluster... etc...
all of these things have only just recently been found by science or are being theorized by astro physicists today.
Baloney. That's a cheap type of salami, isn't it?
You keep showing your ignorance!
Keep it up. We're having a good laugh at your expense!
No, Bologna is a cheap type of salami. Baloney is nonsense.
Yes, keep showing ignorance.
Bologna is the correct spelling and only sounds like baloney, which is the slang modern version when referring to the meat product. Baloney is used to indicate nonsense, hence we can distinguish between the two.
It's informal when referring to the meat product and slang when referring to 'nonsense'.
Again, it's both.
Someone is full of baloney.
Someone is full of bologna.
See the difference?
I referred to your post where you said
"No, Bologna is a cheap type of salami. Baloney is nonsense."
Baloney is an informal spelling of balogna. I pointed out that it also refers to the meat product, whereas your statement indicated that it only refers to nonsense.
I did see your examples, but the word 'baloney' refers to the meat product and the slang term. You said it only referred to the slang term. I just corrected you.
Yes, it's frustrating when you have to accept that you were wrong, isn't it?
No, I just can't believe I'm involved in this ridiculous argument.
Tell you what, if you just accept the actual meanings of words, then you won't have to be involved in stupid arguments.
A Troubled Man: 'The dictionary is stupid, words only mean what I say they mean.'
So, if I said you were full of bologna, would that mean you were full of the meat product or full of nonsense?
I replied to your assertion that the word baloney only refers to 'nonsense'. I simply corrected you that it has more meaning than that.
Baloney = (informal)the meat product -or- (slang)nonsense.
So, if I said you were full of bologna, would that mean you were full of the meat product or full of nonsense?
How would you know what we were talking about?
Yes, in context you can determine the meaning of a word.
I didn't reply to what you said in context, I just corrected your definition of baloney.
So, you can't determine what I meant by using either spelling considering the two words sound identical. When speaking, spelling is irrelevant. When writing, it is tantamount to understanding.
I knew what you meant in context, but your definition was incomplete so I corrected you. In case you didn't know, the slang 'nonsense' meaning derives from the meat product, as it is widely considered low-quality 'crap' meat.
And someone is full of both!
BTW, I don't touch the stuff, so it sure ain't me!
Did you come up with that incredibly clever side splitting joke on your own or did you have some help?
I spy a hilarious, absurdist debate about deli meat and silliness up ahead!
Baloney is right. Of the three stars in Orions Belt, the center one is over 400 light years further away than the other two, which are both about half the distance the center one is.
The stars are not in a straight line at all, but in a triangle where the stars are at least 450 light years apart. There is absolutely no possibility that they are a "bound cluster".
And... I learned recently that the constellations don't even look quite the same today as they did thousands of years ago! Maybe that's why I always had difficulty picturing a hunter when I saw Orion in the night sky?
I just keep imagining (hyperbole incoming!) that back when Orion was given its name, you'd look up and the stars would form something like a black and white TV image of some hunter with a deer over his shoulder - and they just gradually drifted out of that orientation over time! Sounds like a Gary Larson cartoon, huh?
Where in the Bible does it say that the "belts" of Orion is a bound cluster?
"What do you believe in? Science or Religion or Both?"
Both and yes this can really put me in the middle of things at time.
Want to believe in both, but I know there's no way to resolve the questions of the believers of one view verses the other and come to a happy compromise, so I never discuss the issue in mixed company, and live in my happy little state of mind where both could be possible...don't try to burst my bubble...although my college age children being taught to think for themselves have certainly tried...damn colleges!
Let there be light! and there was a big bang of an explosion.
Science, if done honestly and properly points to Design and design speaks of God.
But bear in mind that you are what you are because you are on a solid world with an abundance of water, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, not the other way around.
You are what you are because the forces of gravity, EMF, the strong and weak nuclear forces are what they are, not the other way around.
You are what you are because hydrogen, in the right pressure and temperature conditions, will become helium and energy.
Were any of these things any different, even minutely, you would not recognize yourself.
To think otherwise is egocentric in the extreme; that manner of thinking went out with Galileo.
There you go, inteligent design is in fact stupid design:
For who didn't saw, this clip is from Beyond Belief 2006 you can find all the conference in youtube, enjoy!
As every designer knows, there are always trade offs. Its just the way it is.
What tradeoff required our eyes to have a blind spot that squids eyes do not have? Why are their eyes "designed" better than ours? Is God a Squid?
"To adopt the explanation of design, we are forced to attribute a host of flaws and imperfections to the Designer." Kenneth R Miller, Finding Darwins God.
The Vertebrate Eye
Miller wrote: "we would have to wonder why the designer placed the neural wiring of he retina on the side facing the incoming light. This arrangement scatters the light, making our vision less detailed than it might be, and even produces a blind spot at the point that the wiring is puled through the light-sensitive retina to produce the optic nerve that carries visual images to the brain."
The answer to this is an important physiological reason. Within the overall design of the system, its a tradeoff that allows the eye to process the vast amounts of oxygen that it needs, yes this creates a slight blind spot but that's not a problem because people have two eyes and the blind spots don't overlap.
Biologist George Youb a specialist and professor of cellular physiolgy of the retina concludes: " The vertebrate retina provides an excellent example of the functional design. The designof the retina is responsible for its high acuity and sensitivity. It is simply untrue that the retina is suboptimal, nor is it easy to conceive how it might be modified without significantly decreasing its function."
Lets take a look at your laptop computer. Could the screen have been bigger? Could there have been more ram? Could the keyboard have been easier to use? If you answered yes to these questions then we can look further. Sure the screen could have been bigger but then portability would have been impacted. Could the memory have been larger, yes but then the size would increase.
These are the types of tradeoffs engineers experience when designing. We cannot look at one aspect and think oh yah bad design, especially when the design does all it supposed to do. Personally i think the eye is a wonderful instrument for seeing. It does just what it is supposed to do and it does it well.
We need to look at the whole bigger picture and realize that there are numerous parameters that must be accounted for when designing.
You can say that squid eyes are designed better but most cephalopods are color blind. Watasenia scintillans are credited with having three visual pigments, does that make it better? since most squids rely heavily on lightness and darkness contrast to discern images, I do not think God is a squid.
That has nothing to do with the blind spot.
Your designer is a lousy engineer.
You quoted Miller, he is well known for is opposition to creationism and intelligent design...
It's like quoting the bible trying to prove god don't exist...
That's odd, it's only been a few decades that HUMAN engineers have taken a computer that would fit into a large room and made it into a small handheld device, far more powerful than the one originally designed then.
It would appear that HUMAN engineers aren't satisfied with trade-offs.
And this is the book discription:
"Question: Who made us?
Answer #1: God made us.
Answer #2: Evolution made us.
Which is it? What is the true answer to the age-old question of where we came from? Is it even possible to know for sure?
In Finding Darwin's God, Kenneth R. Miller offers a surprising resolution to the evolutionism vs. creationism debate.A distinguished professor of biology at Brown University, Miller argues that the genuine world of science is far more interesting than either the scientific mainstream or its creationist critics have assumed. He begins by systematically demolishing the claims of evolution's most vocal critics, showing that Darwin's great insights continue to be valid, even in the rarefied worlds of biochemistry and molecular biology. As he puts it, evolution "is the real thing, and so are we.""
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-G … 0060930497
Yah i liked his statement here:
"The issue of God is an issue on which reasonable people may differ, but I certainly think that it's an over-statement of our scientific knowledge and understanding to argue that science in general, or evolutionary biology in particular, proves in any way that there is no God." Today Program, BBC, 29 April 2009.
He is on both sides of the fence.
In 2002 he said "Evolution is not anti-God."
Micheal J behe has a mousetrap example that Miller referred to. I can expound in length but i won't. Millers rebuttle didn't hold up because Miller started taking the role of designer and worked backwards from a finished product, something nature does not do and said other parts could be other things before they became a mousetrap, which is speculation about how they got to be a mousetrap etc. I think Miller likes to be controversial, maybe gets a thrill off the rush.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q … 0.8.3l11l0
Nobody says evolution disproves god, but for life to evolve there is no need for the god hypothesis. Also evolution clearly disproves creationism or intelligent design.
Can't use nobody... because thats an absolute and there are always exceptions. Some do say just that.
For life to exist there is strong persuasion of a God hypothesis, again, Many believe this even though they are not creationists.
Evolution does not clearly disprove creationism or ID
But thank you for your opinion.
Indeed! In fact, I have always thought it the most ludicrous thing that theistic people seem to hate the idea of evolution so much. Out of all the theories out there and theoretical evidence that suggests that perhaps there are even other whole universes (which leads to certain paradoxes that are incompatible with the notion of God, anyhow), theists choose evolution to wage ideological war against!
Whether evolution is a correct theory or not has NO logical implications concerning the existence of God. You can argue and debate about it all day long and, in the end, even if you manage to totally convince your opponent to your side of that issue you will have gained absolutely no ground in demonstrating whether or not God exists. So, stop talking about it already, everybody! It's a moot point in the grander scheme of things.
Evolution may have no logical implications concerning the existence of God.
But what does answer the majority of implications concerning existence?
God and design
When you look at all the non answers and theories turned fact before their evidence we see that science has no real answers. But where are the answers. The answers lay toward the conclusion that fulfills the answers and each time God fully answers those areas. When you see how close science to a God answer, it stops. Makes a bunch of theories and then ignores what logically lay behind that stop. God.
You'll have to expound on this a little bit for me, sorry. I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say.
Is it basically "science doesn't discount God, but actually implies His existence in the places where it fails?"
I think that was the idea you were trying to convey, but I'm not sure really.
For the record, despite the comment I posted a little further below, I think your arguments are generally quite well-composed and reasonable. That includes this one.
Your argument that inefficiencies in certain areas are not at all implications that something WAS NOT designed is absolutely correct.
Just out of curiosity, where do you get your information about these things (the squid thing, for example)? You should start a Hub series on how to research stuff and list some good resources for those type of things.
I seldom document my research but I have my own desk at the library due to my copious hours of rummaging. I think i actually googled the squid thing.
when i research, I look at the credentials of the people. The longer the list the better. I like to have 10 or more credentials, plus books they have written. Libraries are wonderful places full of surprising books. The university in town's library has good resources too.
That i noticed inefficiencies are not implications of something not designed, flowed off the back of the giraffes laryngeal nerve. Some fellow thought that God did not exist because the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe goes all the way down its neck and back up again - quite a distance - his idea that this was sloppy, was to go from A to B, the shortest route and that he called intelligent design. But i thought wait a minute, what does the laryngeal nerve do? It services the voice box giving the giraffe its 'distinctive' sound. All animals need their own sounds and it appears each one does. This would be a reason for its design and not a reason against.. and so the hypothesis flowed into other areas. We can say that ford car evolved but it did not evolve from the bottom up. No one brought in a wheel and said, here's a car. The car was created with four wheels, motor, seat, steering wheel etc. In essence from the top. It was created working and functional, implicating Design.
If evolution were to continue rampant and unchecked we would have all sorts of hideous things, but everything is beautiful, which is an element of design - except for the angler fish of course, but who can agree that it just decided to grow a fishing rod out of its forehead or who can rally to the idea that evolution determined this should be. It looks more like design and its rugged appearance blends into its habitat, rocky areas on the bottom of the ocean.
Well, I must agree with you about the Anglerfish! What a sorry-looking fish!
Yes, this is exactly what I meant. People are far too eager to leap upon any and all supposed "affirmations" of their own belief system without really considering the possibility that it might not be really so! That said, I'm honestly not sure that I would pursue the "intent of design" argument if I were on either side. Arguing from a theistic perspective, it sounds like you are claiming to understand what would have motivated God to build a thing this way or that, at best. At worst, it sounds like you are comparing human-wrought processes to the divine act of creation! But, if arguing from a non-theistic point of view, it just sounds like you didn't stop to consider that a Creator-God might not (if it did exist) have the same priorities of "efficiency" as you. It's just a bad argument for either side to compare creation to engineering, I think.
But that's just my opinion.
Also, I lament leaving the university town in which I used to live for that very reason. My local library now doesn't even begin to compare to the resources I used to have.
Science is conducted honestly and does not support design or your god.
Believers however, will dishonestly claim science does point to design and their gods.
Reality alone contradicts gods and design.
Same to you.
In what way?
As in, specifics, experiments, etc... I'm looking for real information, rather than 'Science disproves God' generic-type statements.
Same to me, what?
Really? So, when you view reality, it shows you gods and design?
Can you show us how reality does that?
I mean, the same as I asked the previous poster.
You made the claim that reality contradicts God, you have to support it. How so?
Reality has shown me God, yes. However, I can't take my personal experiences and show them to you, unless you figure out how to make a working Pensieve.
How very dishonest of you to make the claim. If reality has shown YOU God, why has reality kept God hidden from so many others? Are you "special" somehow?
Your personal experiences could be delusions or mental issues, too.
It is dishonest of me to tell the truth? That's a new one.
By you calling me dishonest, you are claiming to know for a fact that I haven't experienced what I have claimed to experience. You are claiming to know everything that has ever happened to me. Now that's dishonest.
I didn't claim to be special, I simply stated a fact. I don't know why some others have experienced what I have, and I'm not in a position to judge those situations. Maybe God is preparing them, or maybe they didn't notice... I don't know.
My personal experiences could also be the dreams of a butterfly... It's good to know that you feel qualified to diagnose my mental health.
No, it's dishonest to claim reality showed you God.
You are free to claim any fantasy your imagination can dredge up and call it a personal experience. Reality will not agree with you.
No, you are basing your ridiculous claim on your religious beliefs and nothing else.
It's easy to diagnose mental disorders when you make claims of reality using fantasies.
Not if it did. If reality didn't show me God and I said it did, that would be dishonest. If reality did show me God and I said it did, that would be honest.
Oh, I see. You define reality.
No, I am basing my claim on experience. My beliefs are based on experience. Really, how is it that you know so much about people you have never met? How is it you know what I've experienced?
Right, reality is what you say it is... and you call me delusional?
In other words, you can make up any fantasy you wish, claim that it is part of reality and that is being honest.
Reality defines itself. I have nothing to do with it.
Institutions are filled with people who claim to have "experiences" which defy reality.
No, reality says what it is.
No. If I tell the truth, it's honest. If I lie, it's dishonest. You said I lied, I just want to know how you know I'm supposedly lying? You must be using a crystal ball or something like that.
Let's have a test.
1 - What's my favorite color?
2 - What's my favorite number?
3 - What's my middle name?
Surely you can answer those questions if you know what has and hasn't happened to me.
That's correct. Now, do you know every truth, every aspect of reality?
In what way do my experiences defy reality? You're amazingly vague and generic. Give me some specifics, backed up with logical or scientific proof.
You're the one saying what I've experienced isn't real...
Your belief in a particular set of ancient medieval myths and superstitions is a dead giveaway. No crystal balls are required.
Your claims of reality showing you God are apples and oranges in comparison to those examples.
Certainly enough to know people who claim reality shows them God is pure gobbledegook.
Simple, your beliefs came from a mythical holy book written centuries ago. No scientific proof is required. Reality has never shown any single one belief held from that holy book.
It wasn't real, it was all in your head.
Prove that it isn't true.
I have stated a belief. You have stated a fact. Prove it.
Let me guess... 'It's gobledegook'?
So, now you're claiming that reality showing you God was just a belief and not a fact?
Then, I would agree, it's just a belief.
My experiences are subjective fact. I have no way to prove an experience happened, just as you have no way to prove an experience happened.
My knowledge of God, in an objective sense, is a belief. In a subjective sense, it is knowledge. If you don't understand the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, I would suggest you do a little bit of thinking on the subject.
No, they are just subjective and are not facts.
I can show evidence of many types of experiences.
Your so-called experiences are based entirely on an ancient holy book and nothing more.
Your knowledge of God comes from a holy book. That is an objective fact.
So, you don't think subjective facts exist?
Evidence isn't the same thing as proof.
My experiences are based on what has happened to me in my life, not on a book.
Here's an experience in the category of life-saving: Driving through a city, I heard in my mind 'Lean your seat back'. A curious idea for me to come up with on my own, and one which has never reoccurred. I leaned my seat back, and about 10 seconds later a bullet flew through the driver side window, right where my head had been.
But maybe I just imagined it...
Prove it. If it's an objective fact, then you must have empirical evidence.
I never said that.
But, evidence is tantamount in supporting a claim.
That's nice. But, your religious beliefs are based on a mythical holy book.
So, you concluded that God told you to 'Lean your seat back'
The evidence is in your beliefs that coincide with a mythical holy book.
You said my subjective facts aren't facts. How do you know?
And evidence of a personal belief is subjective evidence.
On a book, and my personal experiences. I wouldn't believe in the book without the experiences.
It's just one of many experiences. What do you think caused that?
That's not evidence. Prove that the book isn't real and prove that the God I believe in doesn't exist. Proof.
Facts are based on hard evidence. Subjective facts are simply peoples opinions that may or may not be shared by others. You have a set of beliefs that certainly aren't shared by billions of people.
That is why is it useless in supporting claims.
Isn't that the other way round?
The same thing that causes every single scenario as the one you described, guesswork. There were probably many such thoughts you have in your mind that never came to the same fruition. People only tend to focus on the ones that do.
Prove that Allah doesn't exist.
Prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Prove that dragons don't exist.
Prove that [place anything your imagination can conjure here] don't exist.
The list goes on and on.
So, the fact that one time I heard a voice tell me to lean back, and I do, it saved my life, was just coincidence? What about the dozens, or even hundreds of other similar experiences? I must be the luckiest person alive, except my luck doesn't apply to the Powerball.
I'm not the one trying to prove things don't exist, you are. You are so sad, you can't back up your assertions.
Sure, just like all the other times the voices in your head told you what to do and nothing ever came from it.
Yes, just like I can't prove Allah doesn't exist, or Santa Clause, or the Tooth Fairy, the list goes on and on...
Why not just lay this entire argument to rest and show me your god?
lol dishonest to claim a personal experience
whatever happened to beelzedad?
You can call it dishonest if you want but unless you offer some support of this claim of yours, its just your opinion.
I have reviewed a ton of information about design, darwinism, the universe and there is much persuasive information or evidence that draws people right toward creation, design and against evolution.
People are not as stupid as you make them out to be as many people read and assess information as it comes to them and I would think they are well able to pick and choose honestly what the evidence or information or facts show them.
Recall that jesus talked about honesty and to think christians side step this easily is well, not to near an accurate assessment. I have found that christians I am connected to, enjoy truth and abide in it.
What i have found is that people disregard creation, design and prefer darwinism because the ramifications of admitting a God are just to much for them to bear.
Dishonest claims from believers are all over this forum and the internet. It has nothing to do with opinion.
You've done no such thing, but you'll dishonestly claim you have.
No, they exercise their right to be stupid.
No amount of facts will ever change your beliefs.
But, you don't follow Jesus' words, so your recollection is irrelevant.
How dishonest of you to say so, par for the course.
Confusionism says: man who sling mud soon find bottom to be over his head.
In what way do you mean they are dishonest?
I don't find it to be the case that theists are, by definition or even by characterization, dishonest. Sure, there are dishonest believers - those who, without any sort of rationality, will blindly dispute a logical assertion made by a non-theist and then claim some kind of epistemological victory. That is quite dishonest, and there are those who do just that.
But, I think that many believers approach the topic from an honest perspective. Please note that there is a difference between someone getting their facts mixed up or even blatantly being under the impression of a clear falsehood and actually being "dishonest."
Just a thought. Think of it what you will.
I get that. But, the former is far more prevalent than the latter. If believers did get their facts mixed up, wouldn't they then admit the error? I have yet to see that.
Perhaps, you could point out those who make such errors, understand what it is they erred and then admit to the error?
I suspect we may be waiting a long time.
Maybe this is what you should do instead of just of pointing your finger.
The problem with recognizing ones facts are distorted are myriad.
They may have no problem believing that science is not an Aristotelian double doctrine ology. Some may just have an agenda they desperately want to not be shaken by cumulative persuasive argument. Some consider the ramifications of believing in God to be something that will affect their lives and they cannot live with this idea. Some may just be ignorant and self serving to the reality that are never wrong and go around bullying others and insulting every chance they get.
So perhaps you could point out the errors and place some decent input into the conversation since you embrace all of what i have said above.
Pointing out the errors in your belief system in contrast with reality is as easy as pointing out why the Kraken hasn't sunk any ships lately.
I think you may be suffering a bit from confirmation bias. It's really rare to see anyone on the forums retract a statement in the face of rational argument or even blatant counterexample! That includes theists and non-theists alike, in my experience.
So, while I suppose it might be a long wait to find a believer who recanted his argument, I think it would likely take just as long to find the same example from a non-believer. About ANYTHING.
Even the correct usage of "balogna/baloney"
I can't tell if that's full of balogna or baloney. Perhaps, you can explain the difference?
I hadn't honestly considered which spelling/usage combinations were canon until now. I don't think there's anything wrong with your system, and it is in fact the one that I think I'd agree with mostly.
But, I think using "balogna" for both meanings is also just fine. However, I would not agree that "baloney" should be the lunch meat, since that is the original spelling and meaning (ie, the Italian town of Balogna, home of Michelangelo).
I have to agree with the people who say that religion and science can coexist. I believe that when God created the universe, he gave man the ability to study the Earth and the universe. Science came from God and should not try to discredit Him. Of course, this is my opinion and I would never try to change your mind if you disagree.
I believe in both and I believe in neither.
Science has earned it's validation. It uses experiments, trials and a specific process before something is fact. But science is so precise to a fault. It attempts to take the mystery out of life, and yet, always raises more questions than it can ever answer. Religion has also earned it's place in the world. Religion has always been in human history. From Mesopotamia to today religion has been incredibly powerful. And with power comes corruption. I think that neither should be taken too seriously. Science explains why good things and bad things happen. Religion gives good advice to make bad things into good things. Both are important for society, but both should be kept at arms length.
Only science is real. Religion is no more than a control mechanism.
Will someone please tell me who is doing the controlling?
I, for one, come under no such authority, (whoever that may be), so how can it be a controlling mechanism in my life.
But, if you mean God is, or wants to control me, that's a different matter.
As I said, religion, or those that run the various religions, are the controllers, they use it to control you, not always for the worse, I must add but they operate the mechanisms that ensure that you live as they want you to.
You still haven't answered my question.
WHO are THEY? I am not in amy organised religion.
Where's the control?
I have served in the military, now that's control. You can't do what you want, but what your superiors want.
My life has no such superiors.
TV controls. You watch a 1/2 hour sitcom with couples fornicating out of marriage and think this is okay. You see lesbians trying to have a normal life and sympathize. You see that Al bundy bought a new tv set with the money from cheating on his taxes... In all these subtle ways and more we are conditioned - that is the new control. Indoctrination. Tv is a great indoctrinator and subtly the masses are brainwashed by it.
Marketing learned a long time ago you cannot tell people what to buy but you can put their brand name in their head and they will pay attention to your product when at the store. They will have faith in that product.
The catholic church did not have this new age media indoctrination machine, so they used violence to control. That age is long gone and now we have tv.
Even though you say your life has no superiors, who do you let affect your life. Where does your ideology come from? What caused your firm values to change over time? Who's bandwagon are we really on?
Just food for thought, not pointing a finger.
I see no thought in your response, but it is interesting that you have yet to distinguish tv from reality, while others have already made that distinction. Or, have you been brainwashed by tv, too?
Lots of valid points. I believe in religion to an extent but also believe in science as well. However, both have unexplained phenomena.
I have made a pathway that makes sense. It is my science, and I believe it religiously. It may not resemble what science or religion you hold to, but I believe it nonetheless.
I have just finished making a pathway that makes sense, from a scientific perspective, and like Druid Dude I believe in it religiously. It is designed specifically to allow everyone to get to my front door - except the postman when he is carrying an electricity bill. I set it so that if he is carrying the electricity bill then he will be electrocuted when he tries to open the gate.
Is it peaceful? Do you intend to insist that others share your beliefs?
If you answered yes to the first and no to the second, then good for you!
Both science and religion are beneficial, as long as they are utilized for good and socially-responsible purposes.
I believe in science, though not necessarily the scientists; for they are fallible and prone to human foibles and prejudices that pollute their "science".
I believe in God, though not necessarily religion; for though He may require religiosity, not all religiosity is what he requires.
I believe that we were created, and that science (I think you mean evolution? but maybe I'm wrong) is and can be a mechanism that helps us empirically understand the 'concept' of a creator(s)
I don't think mankind is hardwired to understand 'that which is beyond our understanding' much like my cat doesn't understand the concept of immortality.
So moreso than 'believing in both' I believe in 'intelligent design' by ? and accept that I will never know, but I'm comfortable enough in my ignorance to want to spend my time on earth being the best that I can be and want to enable others to do the same.
Sorry for the long answer, but I couldn't think of a way to shorten it to a 'both' or one of the 'other' options.
Is it just me or do you find that those who believe in God to be more open minded. God never said man was to stupid to discover his mystery's. He did say that such knowledge would lead some men to believe that they were God. We of course have arrogant people on both sides but how do you argue with Atheists who are incapable of arguing? It makes the whole question useless if your answer to everything is you our stupid.
Actually it is the other way, being open minded doesn't mean believing in every story that you ear, being open minded is accepting the conclusions when the evidences point to that way, despite your own beliefs or what you wished the conclusion was, and the evidence points to there are no gods, being open minded is accepting that.
Just saw a video shared by another Hubber on the forum you should watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqa … re=related
If you're too open-minded your brain will fall out! :-)
Devoutly religious people tend towards narrowmindedness methinks, certainly with Christianity/Islam/Judaism. Although there are also the New Agers who seem to believe any old thing.
I believe in scientific method, which is a methodology that can throw up all sorts of uncomfortable truths. Science is more of an approach to how you acquire, assess, and categorize knowledge, rather than being a thing in itself, in my opinion.
But yes, I believe in science, not religion.
I believe in God and yes I think many Christians lock out the World and fear getting outside of the box on many topics. I believe in greater rules on free will but also believe everyone has a right to their own sanctuary and beliefs. My beliefs to free will is one where I accept the fact that many people will go to hell and its not my job at a certain point to make them believe. The bold attempt to explain everything without God and change theories into facts does not require any Godly argument at all. Regardless of the theory it still remains one and the answers remain unknown. Even now new discoveries are constantly changing the facts they once had and claimed to be the best answer. Nutrition, medicine, CPR and even the mathematics and models to all atoms are in dispute as we advance research. Science is still science and not a religion and that is what theist are trying to tell you. If science had any profits they would fail the test of being right about most everything at this point.
Yes, science is continuously changing, it is called evolution, progress, expanding and perfecting our knowledge of the Universe, and ultimately science will win the millennial battle Science vs Religion because Science works!
Yes science works and it shows what is already there and it stops at the point just before God and it makes up a bunch of theories and waits for some 'theory of everything' to land in its lap.
God is not afraid of science and scientists know that.
Scientists know how finely tuned the universe is. The cosmological constant is tuned to one part in followed by 10 and 53 zeros. If you increase the mass in neutrons by one part in 700 the stars would stop novae and there would be no source for life. The list goes on. In order to satisfy a system to establish life on this planet so so so many many many conditions have to be satisfied in the cosmos first and then on the planet.
I don't know what you are referring to, it stops before god, what does that mean?
Our knowledge of the universe is increasing at a good rate, some things are really difficult to grasp, it requires a lot of work, nobody is waiting for some theory to land on their lap, well, those are the religious people, apparently god talks to them and gives them great knowledge, in science people have to work really hard for improvements, somethings can only be discovered after other things are improved, take the Large Hadron Collider there is much science in that machine, it was impossible to build 100 years ago.
What makes you think that we came to the end of what we can learn about the universe when we have just started understanding it, yes there are many questions to be answered, and difficult ones, but eventually they will be answered, some maybe not in our life time, but somewhere in the future...
About "God is not afraid of science and scientists know that.", well, the great majority of scientists don't even believe in a god, about you knowing what god fears or fears not i'll give you a quote from Susan B. Anthony:
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
"it requires a lot of work, nobody is waiting for some theory to land on their lap" Scientists are they believe it will fill in the gap where science ends and God begins."
Also, God needs to be discovered and discovery comes by faith or an alternative route, hard work. No problem there.
"What makes you think that we came to the end of what we can learn about the universe"
I do not believe i said that. Science is ongoing and to believe that somewhere down the road lies the answer is partly true but at what point does expectation in this sense become absurd. We have been placed in such a position in the universe to examine all things and that is for the purpose of discovery. I certainly did not mean to allude to a statement like, 'we have discovered all we can'. Go science go!
"the great majority of scientists don't even believe in a god,"
In some areas of science there studies do not bring them into contact with God defining data. In other areas they directly confront design. So to say that many scientists don't even believe in God may be true but of those in direct contact within their areas of study that do contact this type of data, there are a good many scientists on the side of design and God. But you won't hear about them in the scientific magazines and at the nobel prize awards because they are filtered out. Other than that there is a thing called peer pressure.
susan was right, but if she ever read the bible she would know that God works in this way to fine tune a people unto Himself. She forgets that people are a work in progress and her distrust is very carnal in essence.
"A puddle of water wakes up one morning and thinks, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"
This is actually a common argument that I've seen. I take issue, however, with the idea that (paraphrasing here) changes in how the universe started out would have resulted in a barren, lifeless universe. There's another counter-argument addressing the implication of a designer from that assumption even if this was the case, but I don't think that it is.
The example you gave was that with a change in neutrino mass, stars wouldn't make novae and there would be no life. I can't dispute the claim that stars would not behave the same way, as I am not very well-read in that subject. However, I'm not sure I understand why there would necessarily be no life in such a world. Is it really impossible that life could exist without any novae?
I'm not saying I know the answer to this, I'm just saying that I'd need a better explanation to buy it. That's all.
okay here it is and thanks for being in the conversation.
I got some information from:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/scien … novae.html
Thanks for the link! I think I see where you were coming from, now. Still not sure I agree, since I still don't quite get how the "heavy elements" referred to in the article are considered essential to existence of life. I'm no biologist, though, so I can't disprove it outright - I just don't know why those supernova-dependent elements HAVE to be hanging around outside the core of stars in order for life to exist at all in any form.
As usual, though, I do admire the depth of actual research and reading you invested to arrive at this conclusion.
Science also denies the facts in order to profit and has killed millions to advance failed agendas. Their is no science that promotes lies and lies all end in self destruction its going to be a wonderful World win they win nothing.
Rephrase : God or science or both. God said the Universe was perfect...mathematics backs this up....my answer is this: God is science and science proves God. If God created the universe...he used science to do it.
RELIGION IS: abunch of clueless humans who can't figure things out relying on other clueless people who can't figure things out to explain what everyone is clueless about. If we all listened to shepherds, we'd still be tending sheep. All of us.
Science all the way, lost my belief in religion a long time ago.
How can you live denying half of reality? I wasn't casting a vote up there. My vote is a firm belief in both.
And how do you know I'm denying half of reality, maybe I'm seeing the whole reality as it is?
Of course, I don't have a solid answer for your question but on the other hand I've got quite a bit of knowledge about religion (especially christianity). What I have noticed is nothing but corruption, cruelty, lust for power, greed... Things that I'm unable to look past and ignore.
Other dimensions. What are they for? What is in them? They might exist, they might not. Dark Matter...what is it, what does it do. Can't see it, but we know it's there. I think that deciding the outcome of a horse race as the horses are just leaving the gate...is very risky. Geuss atheists have a gambling problem.
Pretty things you talk about, you do realize those are scientific concepts, and the proof of the existence of those things will come from scientists, not from a religious nutjob who claims god has talk to him...
God doesn't talk to me...any more than he talks to you Bubba. Everything is a manifestation of energy...as in E=MC2. Consciousness is also included in the equation, because consciousness exists. We can, therefore, not eliminate the possibility of consciousness at any level of the equation. The presence of Dark Matter is also problematic. Care for a discourse? Hope you brought a sleeping bag! This will take a few days!
I see no conflict between science and religion. These are two approaches to life and two different ways to search and inquire in to the ultimate reality of life.The destination of scientist and spiritualism is the same . Every spiritualist is scientist and every scientist is spiritualist.Einstein is mostly admired scientist of modern age. see his core of heart that is totally religious and in resonance with religion The dichotomy of science and religion resides in our minds not in science and religion.science and religion are two wheels of life. Both are essential for progress and prosperity of life. science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame. one needs the other to walk.
by threekeys 2 years ago
"Science Without Religion is Lame. Religion without Science is Blind"-Albert EinsteinWhy cannot both co-exist? Why does it have to be one or the other? Both want to control both one's circumstances or another person's behaviour/action. Both want to predict the future. Both crave to be...
by Yoleen Lucas 3 years ago
Could religions merely be a precursor to modern science?I've noticed a lot of people here have become atheists / agnostics by STUDYING the Bible. It seems they got that way by knowing too much about Christianity. I've been looking into other world religions; they all attempt to explain how...
by seatle67 7 years ago
Why are this two always incompatible on each other? And why they dont correlated on each other? For what reason.
by Mikeydoes 7 years ago
This is not whether or not God exists or your religion is correct, because all that matters when it comes to religion is your opinion and how you cope with life. Every time I go to the forums there is a new religion thread and to me it just becomes more and more pointless. I got involved in those...
by mbuggieh 4 years ago
A recent essay published in salon.com entitled "Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. the right: “Cosmos,” Christians, and the battle for American science" made the following points:"The religious right has been freaking out about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos” for what feels like an...
by Jesse James 7 years ago
This is another religious topic, but unlike most that are posted. The basis of this thread is to gather the thoughts of atheists, evolutions or scientologists and christians can even chime in. Most evolutionists believe that the world wasn't created by a God, but rather formed through many...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|