Comparing faith and science
- jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years ago
0A basic rule of scientific inquiry is that you start from something you already know, something that can be proven, repeatedly, by other investigators in exactly similar circumstances. From something that is known for sure, one can make further hypotheses, and investigate. New questions come in and challenge currently accepted premises, sometimes to prove the original theories false.
A second rule is to always reserve room, even if it's very small, for further information to enter the picture.
Honesty is a prerequisite for the advance of science.
How does this requirement for science sit with anything "believed" in religion? In religion one starts from what one believes, then adds more beliefs and more beliefs, etc. There might be a scientific discovery which confirms or excludes some religious presumption, which can give confidence in the beliefs. But this cannot allow a presumption that other aspect are equally true.
Anything that comes solely from belief cannot be "proven" to be true.To be fair, let's think about yours statement from the angle of a believer.
Something you already know---
Life exists. In an ever expanding infinity. We are just beginning to be aware of this.
Something that can be proven---
We know it exists and we prove it by existing and observing the universe surrounding us.
From something that is known for sure, one can make further hypotheses, and investigate---
Science enhances the investigation for all of us. Conclusions are made by each of us. None of our conclusions (believers and non) can, as yet, be proven; on a universal scale.
New questions come in and challenge currently accepted premises, sometimes to prove the original theories false---
This applies to the religious as well as the non believer. We should allow both equal respect.
A second rule is to always reserve room, even if it's very small, for further information to enter the picture---
I am not sure how this would exclude the believer. Most allow for fine tuning belief with the input of more information; whether they be religious or otherwise.
Honesty is a prerequisite for the advance of science.
As it is for the advancement of understanding our reality from any perspective.
How does this requirement for science sit with anything "believed" in religion?
The only 'belief' that begins religion is a belief that our universe began in an organized and intelligent manner. The believer then uses this original premise to expand on the what and how. This is no different from the basic premise of the 'non believer'. They believe the universe began in a different manner.
In religion one starts from what one believes, then adds more beliefs and more beliefs, etc.
How is this different from our armchair uneducated 'scientists'? They start with a basic belief and then use tidbits of information supplied by others to solidify their original premise.
There might be a scientific discovery which confirms or excludes some religious presumption, which can give confidence in the beliefs. But this cannot allow a presumption that other aspect are equally true.
This is also true with scientific discovery. One observation, or an experiment which proves a simple basic premise cannot be used to imply that all other premises are true. It simply adds some information and a very miniscule amount of credence to the base belief one is working toward proving.
Anything that comes solely from belief cannot be "proven" to be true.
I'm not sure I agree with this, in the context you are presenting it. Because this applies to any hypothesis or belief which attempts to ultimately resolve universal questions. An hypothesis on that level is little more than belief; no matter how much we would like to believe otherwiseFaith and science are two very different things. Faith deals with that which cannot be seen, science deals only with what can. The mistake is often made that these are two opposing choices for a point of view, but they are not. They each deal in two completely different aspects of reality and are not interchangeable.
If something is observed in science, it no longer requires faith. Faith deals with what cannot be empirically determined. The fact is science cannot account for all that reality is. There is more beyond what science can detect, yet this must also be accounted for. This is where things like religion and philosophy come into play. Where the jurisdiction of the physical sciences and all its methods ends.Science is concrete. As you stated it is proven. In the scientific community there is also room for theory. Theory has yet to be proven. Theory is also referred to as hypothesis. Some theories can be put to the test to see if they are right or wrong, while others such as the "big bang theory" take in much analysis of creative scientific thought.
Religion is a "horse of a different color" figuratively speaking. Things do not have to be proven. Belief is at the core of our western religious teachings.
A presumption of innocence does not need to be proven. In a criminal case the prosecution bears the burden of proof. What kind of presumption are you making?
In the United States, freedom of religion (First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment) is upheld by the constitution. A challenger of a religious belief would bear the burden of proof.
What religion (belief) are you referring to?
After seven years a missing person is presumed dead.
Believe it or not science requires faith in dealing with nature and its forces of development processes.Religion is the greatest offender of salvery, prisoner, wars, destruction of the natural environment.
If this is Religion greatest morality contribution to mankind and bio diversity. Than I will take ethical science and understanding every time.
A belief loose morallities most often floats around lost in space. Where a grounded knowing business like ethic can take action in changing for the better.Don't know whether you have noticed this, or not. Science has allowed us to poison our environment and our bodies in ever increasing ways. Science helped to build the H bomb and has enhanced our ability to provide electricity at an ever increasing cost to our environment. So, we'd need to define 'ethical' science carefully.
Religion was not responsible for the 2 world wars, the pograms of communism or many other atrocities. Religion has its down sides, to be sure. It has its atrocities and crimes against humanity. But it is no different from the rest of life and, in our lifetime, has not been responsible for anywhere near the amount of loss of life of other impetuses. It's always fun to bash religion but let's be reasonable in our complaints.Live to Learn, thanks for your input.
"Science" does not, has not, allowed us to poison. Humans, we, us, poison the environment and our bodies. It is careless, ignorant, sometimes deliberate action that allows us to do so. Not science itself.
Scientific knowledge allowed humans to design development of the H bomb. It also allowed us to design and develop defenses against disease of all kinds, to build machines which could produce electricity and enhance our way of life. In all cases, it's humans who take responsibility for it....some times, admittedly, in IR-responsible ways. But we cannot blame science. Chernobyl did not happen because of the science. It happened because of careless and irresponsible application of the science, leading to faulty technology. Institutional (governmental) application of communisim led to shutting off contact with modern technical enhancement, thereby putting their systems at risk. It was lack of science.
Closed religious presumption can have the same disastrous effect. (By the way, that word "disastrous" comes from the religious belief that our misfortunes were somehow dictated by the stars.)
This discussion is an attempt to throw light upon the arguments. It is not a complaint, therefore cannot be regarded as unreasonable.Without genetic engineering we wouldn't have genetically modified foods. Without science our food wouldn't be over processed and contain ingredients that you have to read twice in order to pronounce; which contribute to a host of health problems as the consumer ages. Without science we wouldn't be medicating ourselves to relieve one symptom while creating a host of problems on top of that by the medications we take. We wouldn't have nuclear waste without science. Or nukes.
Of course, humans are the scientists. We can't blame the individual for what others choose to do with their inventions but we wouldn't have others doing something with the inventions if they hadn't been made.
I think it is short sighted to attempt to attack religion because people use it unwisely but claim the same doesn't hold true for things such as science.
I agree with you that science has brought us a host of benefits. It has also caused a host of problems. Which, science will resolve; but will again result in a host of problems.
I'm not anti science. I'm just pro reality. As to your assessment of Chernobyl I never blamed communism for Chernobyl. There have been enough reactor failures and problems to know that something such as Chernobyl can, and will, happen again. But with this defense, you attempt to separate the consequences from the initial action. Science gave us nuclear power. We are dealing with the problems of this gift.
Closed minded presumptions, no matter what belief structure which brings them about, can have disastrous effect.So, how would you try to separate the "good" use and the "bad" use of scientific research?
In a world which has seen a very rapid rise in its human population, mainly as a result of scientific research, this brings with it a mix of anti-social behaviour. Another area for research.
But what you do about it? Promote prophilaxis? The pill? Condoms? Abortion?
Or maybe support same-gender partnerships so reproduction rates are reduced? Anything to control our population.
Is further science needed?That's a slippery slope. Take medical advances, for example. Are we really doing good to extend the lives of people beyond what they should have lived, or are we ultimately undermining our own evolution for future generations? Are we allowing genetically inferior information to pass along when nature would have weeded it out without our interference?
There is good and bad in everything so it is difficult to separate. That would determine on the individual perspective. I say judge by how much harm is done, to how many, and how much good. But, there are levels of harm and good so even that is difficult.
Seriously, I don't see science as responsible for the rise in human population as much as simple procreation. Yes, we can cure some diseases and prevent some. But, third world nations don't have access to the same medical science we do and they don't have any problem multiplying.
I don't see anti-social behavior being associated with over population as much as I see it tied in to the inequities prevalent in the world. Unemployment, poverty and frustration in response to a sense of social inequities causes anti social behavior more, in my opinion.
Where, exactly, are you going to promote these things? In countries which have a large percentage of their population starving? In developed nations? Part of the problem we are witnessing in Europe at the moment is countries which have developed and gravitated toward smaller families being inundated by refugees from countries which wouldn't think to promote any of those things, which refuse to develop and cannot offer a decent standard of living. Here in America we are constantly pondering the massive influx of workers from south of our border. We may all see a change in the fabric of our individual societies within the next 100 years. That, in itself, appears to be contributing to anti social behavior and unrest.
Beg pardon? Push same gender relationships in order to control population? I'm laughing here. We've just come out of a phase where those attracted to their same sex were forced to live in a closet. Do the same thing to those of us that aren't? I'm afraid I'm not willing to sleep with a woman just to avoid pregnancy.
Further research is what drives our species. It protects it and endangers it simultaneously. Of course it is needed. We simply need to cross our fingers and hope we don't kill ourselves in the process.Did I or anyone suggest that? Surely not! I was simply suggesting that those who wish to enter into same-gender relationships should be encouraged and supported to do so. Just as heterosexual partners are.
Not that I have anything against anyone finding happiness, and if that's what they want I have no issue with that other than the fact that everyone who enters into a same sex relationship removes their genes from the gene pool. That I find troubling. When you consider just how much those genes had to go through to exist on this planet in this age, good genes too, intelligence, empathy, compassion, all gone and no longer represented in future generations. Survived for millions and billions of years, only to be removed from the gene pool, never to be seen again. Sad.
The alternative is to require everyone to reproduce - in this culture that pretty much means marrying someone they don't love solely for the purpose of raising children. I would submit that that isn't a reasonable course of action.
Over population harms the natural environment.
Gross happiness can replace the gross toilet paper dollar.
Spiritual good intentions can transform water and genes.
Greedy dumb genes get pass on to dumber genes.Overpopulation is not something we're going to need to worry about for a long while. It seems highly populated to us because we live in densely populated regions. But there's miles and miles of land in between, and we're well capable of feeding all of humanity and then some if we just put our minds to it. Overpopulation is not a concern.
"Greedy dumb genes get pass on to dumber genes."
That right there is what I'm concerned about. The gay people I've known in my life were truly some of the finest people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. Yet none of them are having children. The people I do see having children are not the ones that necessarily have anything of quality to pass on. I just hate to see the genes that make up these friends of min being plucked from the gene pool and erased from future generations.
I mean, I know every generation tends to look at the next in a certain way, but I'm not seeing a lot that fills me with hope. This is the generation that's going to be in charge and running things when you and I are playing backgammon at some retirement home. All I see are trends heading the wrong way.Aren't you making the false assumption that if gays did not marry who they wanted (foregoing children) that they would then marry who they did NOT want and then have children? I think that would be a rare person indeed.
No, I'm simply pointing out what I find to be ultimately harmful. If homosexuality is truly something one is born with, then it is genetic. But for it to be genetic, it suggests all of those who had this gene and passed it on at some point procreated with the opposite sex. If that is the case, then it would seem it is very much not a rare happening.
And it does not seem all that rare. In addition, there are lots and lots of recessive genes that are passed through generations before showing up; adding in that homosexuality seems to be a combination of many genes rather than a single gene means that it is not unlikely at all that it is genetic in nature and passed through heterosexual reproduction. Lots of genes, for instance, are linked to the sex gene whether male or female; that trait will not exhibit unless the XY chromosome is the correct one regardless of whether the gene for the trait in question is there or not.
But consider that homosexuality is, from a reproduction standpoint, harmful rather than beneficial. The species, again from a reproductive standpoint alone, is thus better off with those individuals NOT reproducing.I'd be interested to know if there are any links to common familial lines and homosexuality. If there's any data that supports that or not. Not being homosexual myself I can only speculate, but it makes a lot more sense to me that it would be a characteristic developed as the personality develops in our formative years. More of a social kind of behavior or characteristic. More nurture, less nature. It tends to be a touchy subject, but it is something I'd like to discuss and get more information about if that conversation can be had without hurting feelings.
That would be interesting, but I'm not sure that any study would or could provide meaningful numbers. The problem being that so many gays are still "in the closet", and not a chance they would ever reveal the truth.
Even if a direct link between family and homosexuality were to be found, we'd never know if it was due to genetics or to families with known gays are more likely to have members "coming out" and making it known they were gay while other individuals in other families kept it hidden. A very difficult nut to crack in our culture.
No, I'm simply pointing out what I find to be ultimately harmful. If homosexuality is truly something one is born with, then it is genetic. But for it to be genetic, it suggests all of those who had this gene and passed it on at some point procreated with the opposite sex. If that is the case, then it would seem it is very much not a rare happening.
This is beyond logic. It seems nonsensical. Based upon your suggestions, it's apparent that all heterosexual reproduction will have to stop, in order to prevent those horrible genes from producing queers.What? No. It's really simple. If homosexuality is genetic, then those who carry the gene will in many cases be homosexual. If that characteristic dictates their behavior then they will not successfully procreate and their genes will not pass on. For homosexuality to be genetic, and for it to still exist in today's gene pool, then many ancestors who carried the gene had to procreate, which is only possible through heterosexual means.
I honestly don't care whether it's genetic or not.
What I DO care about is anyone who is thinking they have a god on their side dictating nonsense principles to those having no connection with such principles -- often against plain good sense.
Back to the main point of this thread: most of your argument does not appear to be scientifically based, Headly. Certainly not in the sense that your reasoning could be put to the test and be consistently true. If your reasoning is "faith-" based, my propositions would seem to be confirmed.
Thank you.Honestly, what you care about is irrelevant. It's about what's true and what isn't. What causes what. Nothing I have to say has anything to do with God or what I believe. The fact is, homosexuality is a reality. The mere fact that it had to be addressed in the OT is because it existed then too. It deserves to be understood just like everything else.
What God had to say about it is pretty clear. He was speaking specifically to the Israelites, and His stated priority where they were concerned was all about fulfilling His promise to Abraham that his descendants would be many. Breeding was the obvious priority, given all the rules specifically dealing with the acts of breeding. And just like is the case when a cattle farmer gets a stud bull who's not interested in impregnating his cattle, that stud is useless to him and detrimental to the process. Homosexuals in that particular situation, where breeding was the priority, were a detriment. That's why it says what it says.
Humans have used these lines to justify their hatred and ignorance, but hatred and ignorance is consistent in just about every human circle. It's not specific to religion.
I'm not making an argument. Just a statement. And nothing I have to say has anything to do with my faith. The fact is, homosexuality, in the context of biology and genetics, is a detriment. That's just a fact. And that fact points to homosexuality being a mental development, a psychological nurtured characteristic, and not something genetic. Not something born with, but something learned. Developed along the way."And that fact points to homosexuality being a mental development, a psychological nurtured characteristic, and not something genetic."
By the same reasoning, is sickle cell anemia a mental development? Hemorrhoids? Eye cataracts? The human body is chock full of such "detriments", all genetic and all in spite of all evolution can do. God isn't a very good biological engineer.Only you could look past all the wonder that is life on this planet to a few "detriments" and deem God a poor engineer. It's not all supposed to work continuously. Nature will kill each and every one of us. Nothing is forever in this place. It's all temporary. It's not meant to last.
What I mean is that it's a behavior, not a genetic characteristic. If it were genetic it would have evolved itself away. But it isn't. It's a behavior. Developed while the mind is developing in adolescence, most likely.That you think it's a behavior rather than genetic flies in the face of all psychological reports; do you have anything but a trumped up "reasoning" that evolution always eliminates such genetic "defects" to offer? I repeat that reasoning and logic are a poor substitute for observation.
Life isn't "meant" to end any more than it's "meant" to continue forever. As of yet we have no definitive answer to what will happen a trillion years in the future; that you think there is "meaning" or "intent" in the formation and lifespan of the universe is unsupported by anything but religious belief. I might offer that the outer planets will last forever in the most common theory that the universe will not "recycle" into another big bang but simply sputter out and go dark.Psychological reports? Please share. Like I said, I'd like to know more and discuss. If I'm wrong and there's data that shows it, I want to see it.
You're the one that brought up God. So I gave you an answer in that context. And in that context there is indeed purpose. Specific intent. If you're going to comment on God's capabilities as a designer, then I'm going to address it.
But yes, you're right. Eventually, the energy that still propels the motion of this universe will eventually run out. The universe will go cold and dark and will sputter out. With a beginning comes an eventual end. Nothing here is permanent.
A same-gender couple could and can be a great asset to the community. Sure, some can be a detriment to society, just like some heterosexual couple can be. Therefore homosexual orientation is not essentially a negative for our species - I suggest it never has been.
Even that explanation for OT anti-homosexual relationships, I feel, is just conjecture. You cannot know for sure. Anyway, it does not set our laws in place for these modern times. We have science to help us make decisions.Biologically speaking, it is a detriment. The whole purpose of the human form is to make it capable of living and procreating. Same sex couples cannot complete this task through to the point that it makes a biological contribution. It doesn't matter how much of an asset that couple was to the community they lived in. One generation later, they may as well have never been there at all.
I'd say my explanation is more than conjecture. There's a very specific story being told, a very specific priority given for all that's being done, and sexual orientation in that context is very much relevant. Plus, you've got the fact that the two times actual laws were laid out that detailed what's acceptable and not acceptable behavior, sexual orientation was not addressed. Neither in the ten commandements or in what are called the "Noahtide laws", which were the laws that non-Jewish people who lived in a Jewish land had to follow.Nor can heterosexual couples where there is infertility in one of the partners. Modern science has led to technology which can in many cases allow the couple to reproduce. Do we call this natural? Do we accept human intervention in this situation?
There seems to be inconsistencies in your arguments here, Headly. I can help thinking it's somehow rooted in religious dogma. It certainly does not sound scientific in any way.
( A correction has been made in the first sentence. Originally I said "nor can same-sex couples....")Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Part of why I explained what the OT says is to explain that I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality religion-wise.
Having re-read this all this time later I find I didn't address the specific point in my prior comment, so I'd like to now. You and I have had many good conversations in the past I hope that can continue. But I have to say, I have a real problem with your assessment here that my argument isn't in any way scientific and that you suspect it's rooted in religion.
It seems to me your reaction is more from an emotional place than a logical one. I am talking about the nature of a couple in an environment where procreation has real value. The simple fact is, yes even scientifically, a same-sex couple is a detriment in this regard. It removes two otherwise healthy specimen from the gene pool. It's a characteristic that takes their genes out of the situation. If you're a cattle farmer and you invested a bunch of money in buying a stud bull to increase your herd's population, and that stud turns out to be homosexual, well then you're not going to get your money's worth. It's as simple as that. Call it science if you want or just call it the fact of the matter.
This is a fairly straight-forward point I'm making. Yet you decide to turn it back around on me and suspect me of motives that are religion-driven.
So I'd like to know what inconsistencies you're speaking of in my arguments? It seems pretty straight forward to me. And I, having no hang-ups religious or otherwise with same-sex couples, find it a bit irritating to be accused of such. I feel my point is perfectly valid on its own.
As for your comment about modern science leading to technology that allows same sex couples to reproduce, that isn't exactly true. You still need male sperm and female eggs. There's no getting around that, at least not yet. A same sex couple simply does not have the biological material to procreate. Period.
What I care about IS relevant. I live in this world, not an imaginary one.
You obviously care about what you perceive as true; what it suits you to believe, not what you can prove.
First you say "has nothing to do with God." Then, in the next paragraph, you talk about what God said in the Old Testament. "What God had to say about it is pretty clear. He was speaking specifically to the Israelites...." I am relieved that he was not talking to us in 2016.I have only spoke about God in the context of this conversation in response to comments that you and Wilderness have made.
HN
Since the top 5 threats to man kind is the destruction of the natural enviorment and human over population is a large part of this problem.
Your worried gays will turn most our human population into the gay gene.
I for one would never fu*k a guy, even if it would only help the earth into a gay kingdom rule.
Plus trying to force a gay to marry a women would ruin both their lives with lies.No, I'm not worried gays will turn most of our population into the gay gene. I'm saying that a gay lifestyle is potentially harmful to future populations because it removes good/strong genes from the gene pool.
I'm also saying that if it is indeed genetic then a lot of lives must have been ruined by lies for it to still exist. Normally, you'd think homosexuality would be a trait that would not survive evolution.
In most cases, that land has not been utilised because there is lack of water, lack of top soil, poor access, etc. Your assessment of the geographical world is a bit skewed, Headly. Certainly when we look at the map of Australia, there are huge tracts of land "undeveloped." But in extreme heat, in that distant land, it could only be developed if you built "bio-domes" with huge dimensions. It would need huge capitalistic investment ... is that your proposed course for humanity?
This world IS over populated with humans. We ARE destroying the very environments which support our existence. Don't run away with the idea that humans are "god's gift to the world." An organism that is threatened by a virus develops very effective ways of dealing with it. The Earth and Humans are similarly related, in my opinion.
On the other hand, with intelligence and good scientific application, there is some hope for us and the world. "God" will not have a hand in it.Water can be routed. One of the earliest most successful farming communities was built in one of the most arid places in the world. Much of Israel has been converted to greenland using these practices. If overpopulation were truly a problem, there are solutions. Water can be routed to where it needs to go, ocean water can be purified, shade can be provided. These are not difficult things.
Yes, humanity is destroying it's environment, but that's because of our behavior, not our numbers. We are in many ways a virus in this environment. We eat up resources then move to the next area and do the same.
I hate to break it to you, but for what's coming in our future, intelligence and good scientific application isn't going to matter. Humanity is doomed to disappear when the universe does. Nothing can be done about that. No matter how good or bad we choose to live our lives, no matter our accomplishments during this life, none of it will matter. The universe won't even notice we were there.
Sorry, Headly, I find that line of thinking just not relevant at all. There has never been any chance of my genes continuing into the gene-pool. In a world of 7 billion people, and counting, it is not necessary for me to procreate. But I can offer help and assistance to those who do procreate. I can do my bit in the furtherance of family life and the nurture of young people.
I and many other people with a homosexual orientation can and do contribute intelligence, empathy, compassion . Often in a much more loving way than some heterosexual partners do. So, can we bring the conversation back to an honest, down-to-earth level?This doesn't get any more down to Earth. The single most valuable thing you have to contribute to future generations is your genes. The genes that make you such an intelligent, thoughtful, caring man will be sorely missed. It's not like these are characteristics that exist in abundance.
Yes, living in an age where humanity's population is above 7 billion may make it seem as though your contribution is unnecessary, but that couldn't be further from the truth. In less than a century all 7 billion of those humans will be gone and replaced with the next generation. A generation made up of what's left. Think of all the gay people you know now who have no children. Famous people, friends, family, none of the genetic information that makes those people who they are will play a role in that next generation. That's a big deal. I honestly find that tragic.HN
Now your saying the gay genes will weakened our total human population genetics pool.
Can any religious people talk straight as most I know are rasist ,bigoted and judgemental more than any kind of people I' ve ever known in the world.
No wonder 90% of wars are religious countries and homosexual is illegal in 80 countries and slavery is bigger than ever.Castle, I'm sorry, but your completely misreading my meaning. All the "bigoted" and "judgemental" stuff you're seeing from that point forward is you injecting it into the situation yourself. It's not coming from me, yet here it is.
Are you not implying that gays and the earth will suffer if gays do not and can not reproduce the next generation.
As far as talking to most christains about the destruction of natural earth, they just don't get it, because they don't care.
No wonder their attitude is God will destroy the earth.
As long as I'm alive, not on my watch.
Well, adults should do as they please and not need encouragement from others in order to do it.
Colorfulone, thank you for your input.
A "presumption," as I understand it, assumes something is true without having first proven it.
A "belief," in the religious sense is, I suggest, a "presumption."
This would be true of any religion.
After seven years a missing person is presumed dead. This complies with my definition. It can't be proven, but the evidence available leads one to that presumption, but it still can't be proven 100%.
Scientific investigation of natural processes does not need faith. It simply asks questions, designs experiments, tests hypotheses, observes and considers/reconsiders results of those test, formulates conclusions and tries to elucidate rules surrounding what has been observed. From those rules, further hypotheses may be made to see of the rules are consistent. If they are, then it's reasonable to suppose that proof has been made. Alternatively, if proof is not there, further investigation may follow. Sure, there might be a "belief" in the first instant, but it is not sustained.
Having arrived at a position of "knowing," as far as possible, that something is true, one can then build on that and grow the learning process. If the further learning is based upon flawed previous research, then the new knowledge will inevitably be flawed also.
Religion and politics are much the same by over authoritarian. You don't see communist system much anymore yet replaced by much happier Socialist systems.
You can't blame sciencist for over authoritarian rule, for it's a tool , much like the arts that has much more positive influence our cultures and nature.
Since 85% of the world's poplution is Religiously empaired. You can easily see how authoritarian drive the world into debtor economically salvery and given a race to extinction a 1000 times faster than any other time in recorded human history.
I love and trust my science and art. You can keep your athoritarian bullies to boss salve you around every day. Steal half your money and destory nature.Jonny
How do you view science?
To me science feels like a branch in the tree of life. Atheist strongly centre themselve around science, kind of way of thinking.
Where faith in Religion lacks sciencetific facts. Religion has a long history experience with so many myths like Hollywood today.
No matter how simple and directly you present facts of numbers and pattern, they ignore. It's seem to be based on attitude of social structure she was and fear of unknowns. Just another branch in the tree of life
My chooen elution is arts and nature. Art design is to please and nature is the only true religion or the base of the tree.The Incompleteness Theorem proves that science is incapable of ever answering "everything". Science has limits.
In the realm of studying ultimate causes and proof of the existence of God etc it is religion and philosophy that take precedence because science literally can't explain such things. Science deals very imperfectly with physical events and it's field does not cover the spiritual or religious or philosophical. Religion deals specifically with the ultimate philosophical cause (God etc) but science admits it can't deal with this. Hence the futility of atheists trying to debate such questions as it is non sequitur for them to even begin trying as they've divorced themselves from the philosophical discussion related to this topic ie their only recourse is religion which they don't admit into the philosophy.Science does not answer anything. Humans use scientific process to discover, know and understand things. There will always be further areas to explore. Always new learning and understanding. This is what makes science so enlightening and exciting.
Religious beliefs find an answer that suits the mood. Then the door is closed and God gets locked in to that understanding. Is your mind open or closed, Oz?
Carl Sagan speaks of earliest sciencetific pantheism of nature and comos being the beginning of philosophy and Religion emerge from that. The Arts and cultures even earlier than both.
Related Discussions
- 58
Intolerance Towards Religion
by thirdmillenium 8 years ago
It is quite understandable for the rationals to pity the believers for their purported ignorance and obstinate adherence to their religious beliefs. They think they know the truth which may well be the case. What I do not understand is the way they put down the believers as though they were some...
- 53
Hypothetical Question: What if it were proven there's only one true God and It w
by Kylyssa Shay 7 years ago
Hypothetical Question: What if it were proven there's only one true God and It wasn't your God?For this question, you must use your imagination. You must pretend the premise of the question is true and then answer it accordingly. The premise is that God has been discovered and it's been proven...
- 19
Religious Discussions On HubPages Seem Fanatical
by Justin R. Anthony 8 years ago
I normally pay no attention to religious discussions. Partially because people tend to loose their minds when the "R" word is mentioned. However, due to recent attention from the media on religious people who make fools of themselves by way of ridiculously over zealous beliefs that make...
- 49
The counter acting argument of the existence of a god
by Vapid Maven 11 years ago
So I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I've been involved in a lot of discussions on the lack of any physical evidence to the existence of any god (no matter what the religion)and it is always countered with there is also no physical evidence that a god "does not" exist which is a...
- 21
Why do people assume the worst of you the moment you mention religion on the Hub
by Zubair Ahmed 8 years ago
Why do people assume the worst of you the moment you mention religion on the Hub forums?There is no compulsion in religion so when we are having a debate on secular and religious topics why does it wind up the atheists. If you don't believe in religion then don't waste your time commenting on...
- 14
Is Religious Discrimination Wrong?
by marriedwithdebt 11 years ago
So, I generally try to stay away from religious topics, but I just got to thinking after reading an article about people who won't vote for Romney or Huntsman because they are Mormons.Is it really wrong to discriminate based on religion?Let me start out by saying that I'm 110% against...