Religion, what do you think?

[Stardust]

Not necessarily science, but some of the theories can be classified at the same level as religious theories (or at least I believe so). Evolution, for example, is at the same level as Creationism, which is seen by the deadlock that was created. Science itself, the study of evidence, is definitely NOT a religion, but some scientific theories are.

Saying that, it makes me wonder why they're called "scientific" theories at all. Hm...

 

[Ocean]

A lot of evolution has been observed and has a lot of good evidence on its side. Something like the origin of species is different and I think that's what people might be referring to. God isn't observable. If God has effects on the world, then it should be possible to test it. They did one on prayer, had people praying for one group to recover, and the other group didn't have anyone praying for them. Surprise surprise, no noticeable difference between the 2 groups.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4681771.stm

Also, something being called a theory in Science is very different than people throwing out the word "theory" using it to mean something more like "An idea I came up just to counter religion, but I don't have good evidence for it".

 

[westingtyler06]

I don't want to detract from the previous posts' weight and clarity, but I want to point out how silly I find a couple concepts in religion.

1) The implication that prayer has an impact is that 1) God wasn't paying attention, 2) you brought something to his attention, and 3) you changed what he was planning to do. Also, in the Noahs' ark story, it says that God CHANGES HIS MIND. Does anybody else see a massive problem with this? There aren't exactly DEGREES of omnipotence, you know. "Oh, I hadn't thought of that before. Now that new information has been brought to my attention, SINCE I'M GOD, I'll change my plans and act accordingly."

2) People claim to know God's intentions and will and act accordingly, and then when someone points out how things God does don't make any damn sense in the traditional light, like killing off a baby with pneumonia, they just respond, "God works in mysterious ways and we can't claim to be able to understand his plan." So which is it? Either you CAN'T understand his intentions, or you can. Why do preachers EXIST if we can't CLAIM to understand God's will? Why do we follow the Ten Commandments if we admit that nothing we do makes a difference in God's plan AND that we don't understand what is right in the eyes of God?

But if you're just reading this post, read the few before it, because they're excellent.

What's the difference between a religion and a philosophy? Science is definitely a philosophy: to BELIEVE that the study of evidence is a valuable use of time is a philosophical pretext, right? I mean, we can't PROVE that science is valuable. What is valuable? Is it that which preserves and extends life? Or is it that which also enriches life?

 

[Venetia]

Science is not a religion.

A religion is a set of morals and beliefs which is accepted as a truth.

Science is the pursuit of data to better understand what we can perceive. It should not be accepted as infallible truths and it should not guide moral decisions.

Some people treat certain theories as a religion (i.e. they accept them as infallible "truths"). But that is false. Nothing in science is 100% proven. You can't even prove that you're staring at a monitor, depending upon what kind of scientific theory you're following.

Evolution doesn't deny the existence of God. It explains a specialized system of adaptation over millions of years. You can't "believe" in it, you read it in a book, and think about it. Period.

 

[Incognitus]

I have to ask: How is Science a religion?

It's not.

At it's root, science is based on verifiable evidence. Religion is completely free of that, and when challenged, the religious are rarely made to produce their evidence. Most scientists will gladly jump throw burning hoops to show you what they know and why they know it, and also what it means.

I can believe in evolution - whilst superficially, this may seem like faith, but if I am challenged, I can provide the vast evidence which backs up my point of view. If a religion is challenged on the same grounds, they have *nothing* beyond circular reasoning, dogmatic half-truths, and just plain ol' fashioned nonsense.

It is true that some scientists may favour a theory, and may fake or misread the evidence available, but the whole nature of the game means that these people will be shown to be wrong sooner or later and will either have to back up what they produced, or fade into obscurity (unless they are one of those central to a paradigm shift). Religions would rather schism.

Scientists don't try to justify what they write by declaring their words to be a metaphor, or to say that aether or the like are symbolic.

One is supported by evidence and logic, and the other is supported by tradition, authority, revelation, and "gut instinct".

In conclusion:

SCIENCE IS NOT AN EFFING RELIGION!

 

[nikki]

I hate when people start using words like "validate, strawmen, platitudes" in discussions like these.

then you're setting ridiculous standards for your discussions. when people make claims such as "our side has more proof" without bothering to clarify, it becomes necessary.

if you're going to rely on "natural miracles" such as the grand canyon to plead creationism's case, you should really look up Darwin's finches. by these criteria of yours, the finches alone should be enough proof of evolution to at least set it on an even keel.

why are you assuming that evolution necessitates a godless universe, anyway? I think any religious scholar worth their salt has long since stopped thinking of the bible as a literal history of the universe, and it's not as if whoever might be up there couldn't set a natural process in motion to accomplish Its ends. acts of whatever god you're into don't necessarily have to be flashy physics-breaking miracles.

Ok, let me point out you quoted ME then proceeded to attribute FallaciaSonata's statements to my own. I never mentioned anything about darwinism or the grand canyon or anything. Ive tried to address this discussion in a dispassionate manner, not propping up any sort of religion. I just find it a shame that people are so stubborn and angry about religion that they cannot even consider the notion that time, space and matter did not just spring up out of nothingness.

 

[Guest]

;D

 

[nikki]

Why the hell does it matter how old I am?! Religion is what people believe in, "just so people wouldn't be scared of dying." Im not talking about religion. Thats what Im trying to point out is that some people just cant separate the idea of a creator from earthly religions.

its obvious to me that for whatever reason, some people are just plain hostile to the notion. This attitude is also present in scientific circles, with people losing their jobs and such just from mentioning intelligent design.

If you are not creative, or into fantasy/sci fi, what on earth are you doing on this forum? is it for the gritty, realistic games about one man's journey of self-discovery after the tragic loss of his only child? Or is it for the games about dragons, magic crystals and saving the world?

Yes, Im pretty certain I know what arrogant means. If you think not rolling over for anyone who disagrees with me as being arrogant, then sure. Im arrogant. I just dont see it as a huge stretch for me to assume that a person who says they are certain how the universe was created is being arrogant. Im humble enough to admit that, no...human beings do not now nor ever will know the truth of the matter.

 

[Ellie]

its obvious to me that for whatever reason, some people are just plain hostile to the notion. This attitude is also present in scientific circles, with people losing their jobs and such just from mentioning intelligent design.

While this is probably true, and is my position on things, it is exactly the same the other way around:

"its obvious to me that for whatever reason, some people are just plain hostile to the notion [of non-intelligent-design]. This attitude is also present in religious circles, with people losing their jobs and such just from mentioning science."

If you are not creative, or into fantasy/sci fi, what on earth are you doing on this forum? is it for the gritty, realistic games about one man's journey of self-discovery after the tragic loss of his only child? Or is it for the games about dragons, magic crystals and saving the world?

Having an interest in fiction does not mean believing in fiction. (NB: probably not the best wording, read as "...does not mean having a mind more open to strange views")

 

[nikki]

its obvious to me that for whatever reason, some people are just plain hostile to the notion. This attitude is also present in scientific circles, with people losing their jobs and such just from mentioning intelligent design.

While this is probably true, and is my position on things, it is exactly the same the other way around:

"its obvious to me that for whatever reason, some people are just plain hostile to the notion [of non-intelligent-design]. This attitude is also present in religious circles, with people losing their jobs and such just from mentioning science."

If you are not creative, or into fantasy/sci fi, what on earth are you doing on this forum? is it for the gritty, realistic games about one man's journey of self-discovery after the tragic loss of his only child? Or is it for the games about dragons, magic crystals and saving the world?

Having an interest in fiction does not mean believing in fiction. (NB: probably not the best wording, read as "...does not mean having a mind more open to strange views")

Its the duty of scientists to consider all possibilites, not just throw the ones they dont like out the window and refuse to discuss them. Intelligent design is just as valid a theory as "we havent figured it out yet" Its the duty of religious organizations to adhere to their tenents. If someone comes to a baptist church and starts preaching zoroastronism then of course he will be thrown out.

Intelligent design is fiction? Its a "strange view"? How do you know? How can you be so sure? The idea that the universe just popped out of nothingness for no reason seems to me a pretty strange view, as does the idea that human beings can assert with certainty that is what happened because some scientists studied some radiowaves and crap.

 

[Ocean]

Why the hell does it matter how old I am?! Religion is what people believe in, "just so people wouldn't be scared of dying." Im not talking about religion. Thats what Im trying to point out is that some people just cant separate the idea of a creator from earthly religions.

Well, if all the creator did was make the earth (edit- sorry, I meant universe) and do nothing else ever again, then it wouldn't be useful to be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or anything really as the creator wouldn't be the same as the ones mentioned in our existing religions. So basically, all he's there for is to explain something instead of saying "I don't know, but let's see if we can find out".

its obvious to me that for whatever reason, some people are just plain hostile to the notion. This attitude is also present in scientific circles, with people losing their jobs and such just from mentioning intelligent design.

It's sort of like having a Doctor that believes that diseases are caused by demons. Do you want this doctor to be your doctor? No.

If you are not creative, or into fantasy/sci fi, what on earth are you doing on this forum? is it for the gritty, realistic games about one man's journey of self-discovery after the tragic loss of his only child? Or is it for the games about dragons, magic crystals and saving the world?

Actually, the first game sounds more interesting than the first, the 2nd one is way overdone. But yeah, I could easily imagine and create a fantasy world, but that doesn't mean that I believe these things actually exist in real life. It's one thing to add a Ghost that has 33 HP and gives 15 EXP in my game, it's another to think that Ghosts really do exist in real life. Also, real life can be pretty interesting too.

Also, no one will ever tell you that we have 100% proof that God doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative.

 

[nikki]

Im talking about creative people who should have open minds especially when it comes to something as awesome as the creation of the universe. Dont try to put words in my mouth like Im saying all scifi authors/fans should believe in fairies and goblins.

Havent you ever layed awake in bed, pondering the vastness of space and the mysteries it holds? Doesnt the concept that something can be infinite astound you? I know I sure have. And these nights have never ended with me saying to myself "well, the scientists have already figured it out. It was math that wrought the universe." Nope, I am always ended up with the idea that there must be something truly incredible behind it all.

 

[Ellie]

But the scientists haven't figured it out. They are trying to figure it out, which is what all the theories are about. They come up with an idea, they test it for accuracy. If it's accurate within reason then it is accepted until it can be disproven, at which point it is thrown out.

There may well be something incredible behind it all. But saying science shouldn't try and find out whether there is or not is silly.

Like you said, don't you ever wonder if there is something big out there? So let's find out rather than accepting what people have said before, huh?

 

[Ocean]

Im talking about creative people who should have open minds especially when it comes to something as awesome as the creation of the universe

Saying "Goddidit" and that's all is not having an open mind. It's good to keep an open mind, and I'm sure many who don't believe that a god created everything have already considered the possibility, but think that it's unlikely given what we know.

And these nights have never ended with me saying to myself "well, the scientists have already figured it out. It was math that wrought the universe." Nope, I am always ended up with the idea that there must be something truly incredible behind it all.

Nope, the scientists have not figured everything out. In fact, we're still discovering new species on our own planet. There's still many things that we have yet to know and mysteries to figure out, but we're not going to simply say "it was god" and then go home and stop searching for the answers, unless we have good evidence that "yes, it is in fact god". The universe doesn't even need to have an amazing beginning for us to still think that it's a very interesting place now.

 

[Ellie]

I don't get why science and god have to be seperate.

Science and math (since you brought up math) are very real things, and surely if we did come about by intelligent design then it was the big G who created said science and math, and so using them to discover more about the universe can't possibly be a bad thing. Unless there is something bad that could be found by science and math, such as disproving a religion.

 

[Incognitus]

I just find it a shame that people are so stubborn and angry about religion that they cannot even consider the notion that time, space and matter did not just spring up out of nothingness.

*sigh*

Scientists don't believe that the universe sprang out of nothingness. There are many competing theories about what existed beforehand, such as another universe. Ex nihlo views are actually a tiny minority.

Scientists would consider the notion of a creating entity if they had evidence evidence of the hand of a creating entity at this moment, and at which point they would attempt to understand this entity and from whence it came. As it happens, a creating entity is a superfluous constant in both the evolution of what we define as life on Earth, and that of the universe as a whole.

The fact is, they cannot find any evidence that a sentient being such as that described in many religious books was involved in the creation of the universe, and have found a lot against the hypothesis. If there was something quantifiable (which may yet be discovered) that showed that either the Biblical God, Fairies or Chuck Norris were involved in the creation of the universe, then scientists would certainly pay more attention to the notion.

Most scientists don't give much weight to a creating deity's involvement at the beginning of the universe for the same they do not give weight to the hypothesis that Zeus throws lightning bolts from Mount Olympus.

 

[mawk]

Ok, let me point out you quoted ME then proceeded to attribute FallaciaSonata's statements to my own.

get over yourself. only my first paragraph pertained to you.

 

[nikki]

I just find it a shame that people are so stubborn and angry about religion that they cannot even consider the notion that time, space and matter did not just spring up out of nothingness.

*sigh*

Scientists don't believe that the universe sprang out of nothingness. There are many competing theories about what existed beforehand, such as another universe. Ex nihlo views are actually a tiny minority.

Scientists would consider the notion of a creating entity if they had evidence evidence of the hand of a creating entity at this moment, and at which point they would attempt to understand this entity and from whence it came. As it happens, a creating entity is a superfluous constant in both the evolution of what we define as life on Earth, and that of the universe as a whole.

The fact is, they cannot find any evidence that a sentient being such as that described in many religious books was involved in the creation of the universe, and have found a lot against the hypothesis. If there was something quantifiable (which may yet be discovered) that showed that either the Biblical God, Fairies or Chuck Norris were involved in the creation of the universe, then scientists would certainly pay more attention to the notion.

Most scientists don't give much weight to a creating deity's involvement at the beginning of the universe for the same they do not give weight to the hypothesis that Zeus throws lightning bolts from Mount Olympus.

dont *sigh* me. Thats not how you have a debate, dontcha remember how bad John Kerry looked when he sighed at Bush? The point Im trying to make is not that scientists all beleive it sprang out of nothingness, but that they dont want to even consider the intelligent design option. And neither do a lot of their "faithful".

"and have found a lot against the hypothesis." Err....what? Its not possible to disprove intelligent design. maybe they can show some of the things stated in religious books as being false, but not intelligent design.

Anyway, Im getting tired of this futile argument. You can think whatever you want to think, I dont care.

 

[Ellie]

"and have found a lot against the hypothesis." Err....what? Its not possible to disprove intelligent design. maybe they can show some of the things stated in religious books as being false, but not intelligent design.

Finding evidence against a hypothesis does not mean disproving it.

There is no evidence for it either, and it cannot be proven, so both sides of the argument are fighting over a matter which shouldn't even be a matter. It's one of those philosophical debates, like Shrodinger's Cat. You can debate it all you like on both sides of the argument and get nowhere.

All the same, there is no evidence for it. There is no proof. There is nothing to suggest intelligent design other than "wow, that's really cool, it must be the result of intelligent design rather than any reason other people are trying to uncover".

Anyway, Im getting tired of this futile argument. You can think whatever you want to think, I dont care.

Thats not how you have a debate

:box:

 

[Incognitus]

dont *sigh* me. Thats not how you have a debate, dontcha remember how bad John Kerry looked when he sighed at Bush?

I will *sigh* at you as much as I jolly-well want to *sigh* at you.

Bringing up an irrelevent example like that won't cover the fact that people like you are so exasperating, and frankly it feels less patronising to *sigh* at you than to type "For-the-love-of-the-Intelligent-Designer-people-like-you-are-so-f***ing-exasperating". I'm not especially bothered that it could been seen as bad form to speak down to people with whom you are debating: I don't see the reasoning behind legitimising Creation--- sorry "Intelligent Design" arguments as a reputable Scientific theory, anymore than I would to anyone attempting to pass off the Tooth Fairy as Scientific fact, and the dogmatic 'unreason' that has appeared in this topic, only to be parroted again and again is... well... *sigh*. It wouldn't be so bad if it had only appeared once...

I issued the classical little challenge because I hoped there might be some decent Creationists around here able to debate by making a decent case for Creationism: they do exist - and can make the case without feeling the need to run-down and pooh-pooh and eschew the scientific method.

There are basic principles which must and should be part and parcel of our modern technological culture, and - even if you don't want to, can't understand, or do not feel it necessary to comprehend the inner workings of your computer, your car, or the mechanics of the sun, moon and sky - you need to know the meaning of "logical conjecture", "evidence", and the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

For the moment, the role of an Intelligent Designer remains firmly in the realm of philosophical speculation and not physical observation. There is no necessary or essential crossover between the two.

The point Im trying to make is not that scientists all beleive it sprang out of nothingness, but that they dont want to even consider the intelligent design option. And neither do a lot of their "faithful".

Evidently you were too busy being indignant from being *sigh*ed at, you failed to read the rest of my post throughly. I recommend you go and read it again. There is still no comparison to those who listen to the Scientists and those who listen to the Priests, no matter how often you've insinuated since.

This is irrelevent. There are scientists who are trying to work out where it came from, and a group of people who would prefer to say "God did it" - whilst erroneously calling themself scientists. "Intelligent Design" is not an option.

Your earlier point about scientists needing the imagination and having an open mind in examining the creation of the universe is succinct, and it is this which (arguably) drives most Scientists (and then, often unwittingly). An intelligent designer has been dismissed as active agency because it is an unnecessary hypothesis: there is no evidence or requirement that the universe exists due to the whims of a sentient being - which is the central component of the Creationist's hypothesis and the fulcrum around which their entire argument revolves.

Hence, why it is giving little more attention than some other theories.

"and have found a lot against the hypothesis." Err....what? Its not possible to disprove intelligent design. maybe they can show some of the things stated in religious books as being false, but not intelligent design.

If someone is not capable of being disproved then it is not science. In order for something to science, it has to have falsifiability or refutability. Science doesn't advance by setting out to prove theories but to disprove them. A theory will last as long as it does until such time evidence is produced that disproves it. No Creationist has produced evidence that disproves any of these theories, whilst simultaneously proving the necessary role of an overseeing entity.

I can no more prove or disprove intelligent design, than I can prove or disprove "freedom" or "justice".

Thank you for, again, falling on your own sword.

Anyway, Im getting tired of this futile argument. You can think whatever you want to think, I dont care.

Good. I'm glad you don't care and hopefully you don't care enough to be uncommited to wasting public money and public time in schools and similar public establishments.

*sigh*