Printable View
science or religion?
science eventually has to prove god exist is its ultimate task . it has not done that yet because it is too busy proving ufos do.
religion cannot prove god exist but what it has is a script that says it does. not enough arguments to prove god does not exist either.
or may be both will eventually outdo each other and time will take it all.
what do you say?
Why is it even a competition in the first place? That's what I'm wondering. Plus this is just going to turn into another "can science and religion coexist" thread.
it is not a competition it is a questionQuote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
which o f the two would last longest ?
I do not have sound. what's the lyrics about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eman Resu
They're rioting in Africa,
They're starving in Spain;
There's hurricanes in Florida,
And Texas needs rain.
The whole world is festering
With unhappy souls:
The French hate the Germans,
The Germans hate the Poles;
Italians hate Yugoslavs,
South Africans hate the Dutch;
And I don't like anybody very much!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud,
For man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud;
And we know for certain that some lovely day,
Someone will set the spark off - and we will all be blown away!
They're rioting in Africa,
There's strife in Iran;
What nature doesn't do to us,
Will be done by our fellow man!
I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said: 'Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions.'
That said, I personally believe the two can exist. I find it impossible to look upon the wonders of our universe that science is slowly unveiling without feeling a deeply spiritual sense of it all.
It is up to individuals to decide. Religious people seem stupid to ateists and vice versa. If it looks like science is proving the existence of god it is only the religious people point of view, I guess.
Hey Eman, what a morbidly merry song! Sometimes I wonder do people really know what is good and what is evel. Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise because they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I really doubt it, sometimes. :)
great stuff thank you Eman.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eman Resu
We already won for keeps.
What does that "spiritual sense" consist of? If it's "just" a feeling of awe and wonder, can that really be described as religious? "Google define" defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods", which seems close to everyday usage today. You may be using the OED variant 35 definition, as used in medieval times, but that's just confusing matters!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Even in spiffy leather dungeon attire, I can't imagine any sane person worshiping Mighty Mouse.ą
ąCaveat: I'm no expert on mouses, mighty or otherwise.
I would argue that religion, or perhaps the human need for religion, was born out of the sense of awe and wonder that you describe - I think that's part of the human condition. Even if things have a logical and scientific explanation, if we are unable to comprehend how those processes work then they are indistinguishable from magic. We know exactly why the Spring comes, or why the sun rises, but our distant ancestors would not have been able to even understand our explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I believe that it is observation of the universe that gives rise to gods, and that process is still very much part of the human condition. I'm only a layman with a passing interest in science, but what I (think) I have understood about how our universe works certainly fills me with a wonder that I can only describe as spiritual.
Funny how words change meaning over time, even over a day, it's all very confusing. I blame Oprah and her guests:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4138121.html
Diana: God is "humanity and is the love of humanity”,
Oprah: "awe and the wonder and the mystery, then that is what God is."
Moral: less swimming & hosting, more thinking & dictionary reading.
The joys of a dynamic language, I suppose...
I like how you put that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
I do think science is dragged down by false metaphysics, but in some ways it doesn't matter. Since the metaphysics is false, eventually science will remove its ball and chain.
Well, the title of the thread is "which should win," so I hope you understand my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Good luck to science in that adventure. Science's only business is dealing with material things. It's not like they can take a giant q-tip, swab a cloud and grow God-spores in a petri dish.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
However, I don't really think that's science's ultimate goal. Any scientist who adopts that as his dream better just drop his career and move onto something that's actually possible.
What if everything is material? Then *everything* is science's business. As many scientists are thorough-going materialists, for them *everything* is their business, even including mystical experience:Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6664802
Scientists only go looking for things they believe have a good chance of existing. For instance, there were good theoretical reasons for thinking that that the Higgs particle existed, so it was worth looking for. Scientists don't wake up and think, "What shall I look for today?", and stick a pin in the Dictionary of Mythology. "Ah, Medusa, today, better use the reflecting telescope!" They wouldn't get many grants if they took that approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
well science believes god does not exist. they could prove it. instead they want to prove the big bang.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
How? He may be the "God of Epicurus", and be so well hidden that no one could ever find him. If he is locatable, where do you look?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
How do assert that science doesn't believe God exists? Many scientists do.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
If God is the author of any thing and every thing as we believers postulate, then God more than exists. He's also actual in science and in magic.
About 97% of the best scientists in the British Commonwealth (i.e., FRS level) don't believe in God. The figures are 93% for the USA, for scientists of a similar standing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the figures are more than 97% in continental Europe, as they are such a radical lot. So it's reasonable to say 'science believes god does not exist'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Yeah... all them there science guys are atheists. Occam, Aquinas, Bacon, Wilkins, Boyle, Ray Linnaeus, Owen, Mendel, Pasteur, Lister, Herschel, Newton, Brahe, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Joule, Faraday... buncha atheists, ever' one.
Not according to this article.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...ci24-2009nov24
Who knows, maybe the numbers are off a bit, but close to 100% of scientists are atheists? That's entirely untrue.
Don't make so much fun of these idiots. They might actually believe you and fart they know it. ROFLMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by Eman Resu
Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
If you drew up a document which said, "I hereby denounce God in any and every form, and will stand by this declaration if there truly is Life eternal or eternal damnation," I'd bet that you couldn't find a hundred living people out of seven billion who'd willingly sign it.
.
hi mal4mac would you say the big bang overrule god?Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
where to look is a good question. how to look is another one? I don't know. here is a point:
does ''to believe first then find'' the correct way? because science does the opposite she finds then she believes.
I specified figures for top tier scientists, NAS in USA and and FRS in UK, available in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins FRS. FRS & NAS level scientists are probably the equivalent of Bishops in status and authority. The figures you link to are for AAAS, which even high school students can join, members are the equivalent of any practising Roman Catholic.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
I am surprised at that . religion is big. how is that not a good chance of existing. a particle is tiny and so is big bang. it does not make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Knowledge advances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eman Resu
Before Newton, even the greatest scientists would have failed the exam on the laws of motion & Gravity. Since Darwin, "the argument from design" looks as convincing as Aristotle's explanation for falling bodies. Why stop at Faraday? Here's a list of great atheist scientists since Darwin:
Edison, Einstein, Freud, Bohr, Bethe, Dirac, Chadwick, Schrödinger, Turing, Oppenheimer, Chandrasekhar, Feynman, Alfvén, Watson, Crick, Anderson, Dawkins, Hawking, Penrose, Higgs.
Can you produce an equivalent list of believing scientist since Darwin?
There are examples of atheist scientists from earlier eras, but you usually find they were persecuted. For the top scientists it often came down to a choice: "Pretend I'm a believer and get a top job at Oxford, or remain in obscurity (or worse!)" In 1691 Edmund Halley (the comet guy!) sought the post of Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, but, due to his well-known atheism, was opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who controlled the chair.... a bit like Dawkins having control over appointment of the Pope! The post went instead to David Gregory (who?)
The big bang is big now. Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is big but scientists don't go looking for the ghost of Christmas past.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
it's big but its particle minute. the ghost is host it only appears it wants. Christmas is big too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I don't count Dawkins as a scientist. I wouldn't trust anything he said without having a real scientist confirm it. I'm pretty sure he's an atheist. I do my best to not associate him with others who call themselves "atheist" unless they deliberately side with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
The so-called "science" he claims to be part of is just a belief system. He uses science as a way to assert self-righteous superiority over others. When atheists do such things, I view it as delusional, irrational thinking. Hardly scientific.
The current atheistic influence over science I hope is coming to an end. Not only are militant atheists a nuisance to authentic, theistic religions, they are a drag on scientific activity.
Here's a video of Rupert Sheldrake presenting ten dogmas of science. Scientists like him give me some hope. It is an 18-minute summary of his book "The Science Delusion".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zamrs3nE9ys
I don't count you as a gatekeeper.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Sheldrake is best described as a "former scientist", who nobody in science takes any more seriously than Uri Geller. Actually Geller had more success in fooling some scientists into believing that his ideas had validity than Sheldrake; he's a much better conjurer.Quote:
Here's a video of Rupert Sheldrake presenting ten dogmas of science. Scientists like him give me some hope...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
Hocus Pocus. Take Bohr and Oppenheimer out of that list of insanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Edison? A robber of patents.
Freud? A parricide and phylogenetic biopisser.
Etc.
The particular TED talk I posted was temporarily censored. Here's Sheldrake's response to that:Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu...yer_detailpage
My view of the controversy is that militant atheists can't handle a scientific discussion. But that is to be expected. They have been a ball and chain around science.
It left TED in a difficult position, caught between the Scylla of allowing pseudo-science to pollute their offerings, and the Charybdis of appearing like book burners. Their rather clunky compromise was to remove the talk from the archive, and stick it in their blog with lots of warnings. Of course now others are posting the video without the warnings, calling it a TED talk, and not pointing out that the scientific panel at TED have disowned it. Note, also, it is not a TED talk, but a TEDx talk; TED does not vet speakers at independent TEDx events. TEDx talks are removed from the TEDx archive if they are wrong to the point of being unscientific, and that includes misrepresenting the scientific process itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
TED really need to vet their speakers and drop the confusing TEDx designation!
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....t-is-dropping/
The most militant atheist I know of is Francis Crick, he resigned from his College because they built a chapel, taking on Winston Churchill:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchi...mbridge#Chapel
Churchill wrote to him saying that no-one need enter the chapel unless they wished to do so, and therefore it need not need to be a problem. Crick replied with a cheque for 10 Guineas saying that, if that were the case, the money should be used for the establishment of a brothel.
Here's an article about the gravitational "constant" changing. The change in this "constant" is more evident. The article comes without an agenda unlike the one you referenced.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ate-slide-show
What are the metaphysical consequences of the idea that these physical "constants" are not like mathematical constants such as pi? Why does this idea bother some people so much? At some decimal point, I would expect such things to vary not just because the measurements are less controllable, but because these "constants" don't stay the same.
Also, as soon as an article, such as the one you cited, can be tagged as partisan, it becomes limited as evidence for me. Even the data that is cited becomes questionable. I don't trust it and would need to see the evidence from someone who isn't partisan or who takes the opposite position.
The idea that the gravitational "constant" changes is controversial, but it remains a possibility because it doesn't upset basic theories. If general relativity is correct, then the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames is a tautology from the geometry of spacetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
This makes it a lynch pin of physics, like the conservation of mass-energy. To question it is like asking, "Is the Pope catholic?" To question it you better have iron clad arguments, and it's probably best not to have a reputation as a failed biologist with pseudo-scientific tendencies.
Just as FYI, one can also consider the possibility that the fine structure "constant" is perhaps not constant as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constantQuote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
You don't need "iron clad arguments" to question something. If there is data showing that measurements differ that is evidence enough to suggest further research is necessary. If you think you do need more evidence than that, then Sheldrake is correct in claiming that this idea, that physical "constants" are the same as mathematical constants, is a dogma.
To question something does not mean that one has provided proof. That remains to be seen, but it appears that questioning whether these physical "constants" are fixed or not is mainstream science. It hasn't been proven one way or the other.
What I find interesting about the Sheldrake-TED controversy is that it seems as if TED's scientific board distorted data on the speed of light to try to justify stopping the distributiion of Sheldrake's talk. Here is Sheldrake's comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu...yer_detailpage (3:18-3:45 in the video)
"The statement [by the science board] was so ludicrously wrong, you know. It said my remarks on the speed of light had all been refuted and it didn't drop by 20 kilometers per second between 1928 and 1945. It was very easy to show that in fact it did and, you know, the figures they quoted simply left out those dates. It was very easy to refute every one of their points." (my emphasis)
I would think this data should not be controversial. Why did the board think it could get away unchallenged, or if challenged, not have to recant? It seems they felt they could rely on their authority to say anything, true or not, and get away with it. This is a serious problem and strikes at the credibility of such sources.
On the article I quoted:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....t-is-dropping/
The author is a real, top-notch, biologist, and he's quoting a world renowned expert on relativity. You may doubt the data but you better have some very good reasons! You can't say Sean Carroll is partisan, he's just putting forward the considered opinion of the world of physics.
"What the crackpots don’t understand is that (1) scientists would love to find that the speed of light has been changing, they’d be giving out Nobel prizes like Halloween candy; and (2) in some sense, the speed of light can‘t change. It’s a dimensionful quantity — it can only change relative to something else, and there aren’t any other absolute velocities in physics." - Sean Carroll
In the world of physics, questioning the constancy of the speed of light is like suggesting the earth is flat, which is why Carroll uses such a strong word as "crackpot".