Sciences vs. Religion

[MorpheusSandman]

What a lot of people don't understand - and Richard Dawkins is among them - is that there is nothing wrong at all with religion until it head-butts with science. This is something the Catholic Church realised a long time ago. It is the people within religion who try to use it as a battering ram to force their beliefs onto others that are the problem.

Although I agree with you in the abstract, the question becomes: how can religion--which deals with everything from history, to law, to morality, to metaphysics--stay "merely personal" and NOT affect the society in which it operates? While the conflicts between science and religion are amongst the most obvious clashes that display the harmful effects religion can have, certain civil struggles like same-sex marriage and feminism are also in large part due to religious conservatism, where a great many feel homosexuality is a sin and women have certain "places" in society. What I would say, however, is that I feel that these negative aspects would probably exist without religion (especially since I feel religion is man-made and merely an expression of what people feel about these issues anyway); but I also feel that religion gives people a sense of security in their opinions, as if those opinions aren't "their own," so much, but are decreed by an omnipotent, omniscient God who wrote them down in a Holy Book.

[Pendragon]

Question for you Pendragon. How can you believe God created the world, but then state evolution is a fact? This would imply that you believe man is a product of evolution and not a direct creation of God's. The Holy Bible makes it very explicit that God created Adam, and then Eve from one of his ribs.

I'm just curious how you differentiate between the creation of the world and the appearance of man, and how you accept God creating the earth, but accept science's theory of evolution? The juxtaposition between the two is pretty big from my point of view.

I want you to know that I am just curious how you reconcile your beliefs with science here and your reasoning for these statements you have made.

God created man, animals, plants, etc. Yet obviously the ones here now are not the same as the originals. For example, we know a modern horse came down to us from a Eohippus. Big cats came down from Sabretooth tigers. Man has gone through quite a few changes, although with some of their fossil evidence, I wonder if perhaps that single skeleton was merely a diseased or odd looking person. If we took the Elephant Man's skeleton alone, we might think man was deformed badly. If we took Robert Wadlow's we would think men almost nine feet high. If we went by Jyoti Amge and He Pingping (which gives us both sexes) we would think man was barely 2 feet tall and less than 20 pounds.

We know animals migrate and have to change to do so. When I was in elementary school, armadillos were only in Arizona and New Mexico near the southern border. Now they are seen around Nashville, a much colder clime for which they would have to adjust. The Coyote was a western pest, now they howl in the mountains here in Virginia just up the road a mile or so from where I sit typing this.

Why would it be odd to think things evolve from their creation point. If you believe that chance is the father of the universe, then what chance made had to evolve. As I believe it all began with God, the same applies. Things change adapt evolve from their creation and will continued to do so until their place in nature is no longer there.

Maybe I'm a bit strange, but I hope this answers your question.

God Bless

Pen

[The Atheist]

Although I agree with you in the abstract, the question becomes: how can religion--which deals with everything from history, to law, to morality, to metaphysics--stay "merely personal" and NOT affect the society in which it operates?

Some churches seem to manage it - or get very close to the ideal - while many christians treat their faith that way.

The Anglican church is the best example of a religion which tends to stay arm's length from insanity & interference.

They have their petty squabbles over gayness and women bishops, but they generally keep their religion under their hats.

Rastafari would be another [almost] harmless religion.

Few & far between, I'll grant you.

[Vota]

"Yet obviously the ones here now are not the same as the originals."

The Bible says God created man, not a chimpanzee or a neanderthal. From Adam and Even you get the whole lineage of their tribe. This directly conflicts with the theory of evolution. There is no evolution going on here except that descendants lives' gradually became less and less long-lived. If you believe in the theory of evolution AND that God created man then you either believe in God, but not Judeo-Christian God, or there is a direct conflict here.

"Why would it be odd to think things evolve from their creation point."

The thing is, in the bible they don't. In most religions they don't. I guess knowing what religion or spiritual system you proscribe to would clear this up. For some reason I assumed you believed in Jehova, but if you don't then that would clear things up.

Do you believe that God, or an all-powerful benevolent force exists and presides over the universe, but independent of any particular belief system? If so, then I could see how that would not necessarily conflict with evolution.

Thanks.

[Vota]

Another thought popped into my head. My philosophy professor made a comment that there are potentially as many religions as there are people that hold religious beliefs because everyone practices their religion THEIR way. I think it would be amazing indeed if you could find a single person that completely, perfectly, and literally lived their life according to their specific religion's or belief system's codes. I doubt such a person truly exists, for even one transgression, one violation of the prescribed codes however trivial would be this person's conscious or subconscious decision to do what they want regardless of any outside moral or civic influence.

Some of this sounds like some info I was reading about Sartre yesterday. Its funny how things you read sometimes work their way into your consciousness without you even realizing it.

[MorpheusSandman]

Some churches seem to manage it - or get very close to the ideal - while many christians treat their faith that way.

I'm still skeptical. Assuming the people of such churches vote, and assuming their religion has opinions on what they're voting on, their religions really aren't keeping out of society.

[The Atheist]

I'm still skeptical. Assuming the people of such churches vote, and assuming their religion has opinions on what they're voting on, their religions really aren't keeping out of society.

I know it's different in your neck of the woods, but among christians down this end of the world, few few of their votes are swayed by their religious belief.

Our former Prime Minister, for example, was a fairly forthright agnostic/atheist, yet a massive number of christians voted for her, while the christian party polled under 1%.

A lot of religion in the western world outside of USA is actually both liberal and quiet.

[MorpheusSandman]

Fair enough. Perhaps it's just the prevalence of religious extremists in certain parts of the world that have engendered the notion that such "religious poisoning" (as Hitchens called it) is as prevalent everywhere.

[Pendragon]

The Bible says God created man, not a chimpanzee or a neanderthal. From Adam and Even you get the whole lineage of their tribe. This directly conflicts with the theory of evolution. There is no evolution going on here except that descendants lives' gradually became less and less long-lived. If you believe in the theory of evolution AND that God created man then you either believe in God, but not Judeo-Christian God, or there is a direct conflict here.

Man didn't descend from chimpanzees Volta. A Neanderthal is a man. 'chuckle' A few people still look like Neanderthal's. Check professional wrestler "Hacksaw" Jim Dugan!

The thing is, in the bible they don't. In most religions they don't. I guess knowing what religion or spiritual system you proscribe to would clear this up. For some reason I assumed you believed in Jehova, but if you don't then that would clear things up.

Citation please for this Bible statement. What religions think I am unconcerned. If horses have not evolved show me an Eohippus. Among their fossils appear not a single modern horse. Among fossils of mammoths, sabretooths, giant sloths appear no modern elephants, current big cats, or two toed or three toed sloths. They evolved and changed.

For the record I believe in Jehovah. You seem to say He couldn't allow animals and humans to adapt to changing environments. Tell me, what right do you have to say Jehovah is so limited in power that He cannot allow change? With God all, and when it says "all" it means "all" things are possible.

Do you believe that God, or an all-powerful benevolent force exists and presides over the universe, but independent of any particular belief system? If so, then I could see how that would not necessarily conflict with evolution.

Thanks.

Abraham Lincoln was asked during the Civil War if he believed God was on the Union Side. He stated: "I am not concern about God being on our side, I am concerned with being on God's side, because God's side is right." As for belief systems, to which are you referring? Christianity has as many beliefs as there are stars in the sky. The Jews also worship Jehovah, but Jewish sects are many. Islam believes in the same God as Christians and Jews whom they call Allah. How many interpretations of what Allah desires are there?

God operates outside of belief systems or even among Christians the vast majority would be wrong and a small group right. God is subject to no laws. We cannot limit God.

God Bless

Pen

[glennr25]

Science is a liar...sometimes. Take for example the pyramids of Egypt. To this day mainstream scientists are convinced that the pyramids were built with primitive tools such as hammers and chisels. However, there is massive amounts of evidence that shows they had to have had much more advanced technology to move these massive stones miles and miles, and then shape them into bricks as big as minivans. What scientists can't explain, they usually give up trying to come up with a viable explanation, or come up with something that makes no sense at all. Nicola Tesla was shunned from the scientific community when he tried to convince the world that AC power was more efficient and cost-effective than Edison's DC power. So you see, science, in many ways, is no different than religion at all. Both are flawed.

[The Atheist]

Science is a liar...sometimes. Take for example the pyramids of Egypt. To this day mainstream scientists are convinced that the pyramids were built with primitive tools such as hammers and chisels. However, there is massive amounts of evidence that shows they had to have had much more advanced technology to move these massive stones miles and miles, and then shape them into bricks as big as minivans.

Quite right - it was aliens. I thought everyone knew that.

Maybe if you checked what scientists involved with the pyramids actually say about their construction, you wouldn't make such ill-informed comments.

Also, please note that science does not lie. Cannot in fact. Scientists lie all the time - some to try to find fame, others a following. Just look at Michael Behe as a glowing example. Unquestionably a scientist, he lies all the damned time.

Science itself cannot lie, because it's a process, not an entity.

What scientists can't explain, they usually give up trying to come up with a viable explanation, or come up with something that makes no sense at all.

Utter nonsense, the evidence is enormously overwhelming that that's not what happens at all.

How many billion dollars have we spent on the LHC at CERN? The global array? Space exploration? Molecular biology?

And where have all the scientific discoveries from? Pasteur? Rutherford? Curie? Fleming?

Every scientific achievement has come about because scientists didn't know, so tried to find out - and we're still doing it, with CERN finding out new information and confirming or refuting theories in sub-atomic physics.

Nicola Tesla was shunned from the scientific community when he tried to convince the world that AC power was more efficient and cost-effective than Edison's DC power. So you see, science, in many ways, is no different than religion at all. Both are flawed.

I'm glad you mention that, because it's a perfect example of science changing and winning.

[glennr25]

Quite right - it was aliens. I thought everyone knew that.

Maybe if you checked what scientists involved with the pyramids actually say about their construction, you wouldn't make such ill-informed comments.

Also, please note that science does not lie. Cannot in fact. Scientists lie all the time - some to try to find fame, others a following. Just look at Michael Behe as a glowing example. Unquestionably a scientist, he lies all the damned time.

Science itself cannot lie, because it's a process, not an entity.



Utter nonsense, the evidence is enormously overwhelming that that's not what happens at all.

How many billion dollars have we spent on the LHC at CERN? The global array? Space exploration? Molecular biology?

And where have all the scientific discoveries from? Pasteur? Rutherford? Curie? Fleming?

Every scientific achievement has come about because scientists didn't know, so tried to find out - and we're still doing it, with CERN finding out new information and confirming or refuting theories in sub-atomic physics.



I'm glad you mention that, because it's a perfect example of science changing and winning.

Where did I say in my post that aliens were responsible for building the pyramids, or was that your own scientific theory? Science can't lie? Aristotle thought the Earth was the center of the universe, it was later disproved by another popular scientist, Galileo. But then Galileo thought comets were optical illusions, and that there was no way the moon could cause the ocean's tides, of course, his theory was later disproved by another well known scientist, Isaac Newton, who, mind you, would later die eating mercury. They all used science to come up with their theories. Thus science is wrong sometimes. Science is a tool, just like religion. If a smart guy tells you the Earth is flat, by God you believe him!

Here's a good article about the many lies of science: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...f-science.html

[The Atheist]

Where did I say in my post that aliens were responsible for building the pyramids, or was that your own scientific theory?

You didn't say it was aliens, but if it wasn't humans, who else is there? You say - with no evidence whatsoever - that the pyramids couldn't have been built with primitive tools. We know for sure Egyptians only had primitive tools, so if there's another explanation, I'd be glad to hear it.

Science can't lie? Aristotle thought the Earth was the center of the universe, it was later disproved by another popular scientist, Galileo.

Aristotle was a scientist, he was not science. But your example does again beautifully describe how science works - one scientist proposes a silly theory, another comes along and science changes. Bingo! Now, we all know - well, all except for the guy who used to try to tell us the earth is centre of the universe - that the universe does not revolve around planet Earth.

But then Galileo thought comets were optical illusions, and that there was no way the moon could cause the ocean's tides, of course, his theory was later disproved by another well known scientist, Isaac Newton, who, mind you, would later die eating mercury.

Apart from the idiotic premise that Newton died from eating Mercury, you're showing very nicely how science changes. As with the above example of Aristotle, science changed after developments by later scientists. You're contradicting yourself most brilliantly!

Newton possibly did die from mercury poisoning, but that's not by eating, it would be to do with chemical experiments and not recognising how poisonous is. SCIENCE has since taught us that mercury is a dangerous poison.

Here's a good article about the many lies of science: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...f-science.html

Riiiight.

Yeah, that contradicts science alright. All those guys with Nobel prizes and PhDs in science, and you're listening to some bloke who writes a blog.

Sounds legit.

[glennr25]

Science changes. Really? Is that the best you can do? Rats change, birds change, planets change, everything changes. You have to be a bit more specific.

As for the guy in the blog. I'll believe him over all those hotshot scientists out to pad their million dollar homes any day of the week. By the way if you did a little research you'll find that Denis Rancourt is a SCIENTIST.

[The Atheist]

Science changes. Really? Is that the best you can do? Rats change, birds change, planets change, everything changes. You have to be a bit more specific.

My apologies, but I can't be more specific than that. It's why science claims things as "theory", like evolution. Every scientist agrees it happened, but there are trillions of pieces of information to piece together, and since we lack evidence for a lot of it, the theory can only ever keep changing and improving.

If you want something rigid and inflexible to rule your world, try religion!

As for the guy in the blog. I'll believe him over all those hotshot scientists out to pad their million dollar homes any day of the week.

Yep, those scientists are so damned rich! Look at how many of them there are on the Forbes rich list!

As to money, check out how much your blogger pal makes from the ads splattered all over his site.

Look, you're welcome to believe what you like, but your nonsensical posts are not really arguing a point so much as going "Waaa, I hate science!".

I'll never understand why people feel that way, but since you're typing messages on a keyboard attached to/inside a computer, using the internet, powered by electricity, fibre-optic cables, servers and binary codes all given to us by science, it all seems a bit hypocritical.