Science Is/As A Religion

[rdean]

As I don't have the time/patience to read through a gajillion posts (most of which will be the same, lame talking points), I'll just jump in here.

It's pretty simple, really:

Science is a man-made venture to describe the natural world. As such, like the law, it is governed by man-made rules like the "Scientific Method".

The rules of science do not permit the idea of a supernatural power to be entertained. Science is mute (neither for nor against) the concept of God.

Therefore, there doesn't really need to be a conflict. However, there still is. While the evolutionists have a few bomb-throwers like Richard Dawkins. Most of the bad actors come from the Creationism/Intelligent Design side of the house.

If anybody truly wants to see how desperate the modern creationists are (and how desperate), read the opinion of the judge at Dover.

If anyone really wants to see an enlightening discussion of evolution, science, and religion; take the time to watch Dr. Ken Miller discuss it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Every times these threads pop up, I post Dr. Miller's lecture at Case Western. Few take the time to watch it and continue to spout off their silly talking points.

This is a great lecture. Nice that he goes after "transitional forms" and "irreducible complexity". Take both of those away from "magical creation" and the entire proposition falls completely apart.

 

[Old Rocks]

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.

 

[Madeline]

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.

Are there "non-sciencers"? How do they account for such things as the common cold? The evil eye?

 

[asterism]

Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter. What you have left is "nothing". Nothing: The most extreme form of "cold". We do not measure "cold". What we measure is how much or how little heat there is. It's just that simple.

Can your conclusion be proven?

Yes, we call it "outer space".

Wow. So it has been proven that taking away every bit of energy and matter (is that a scientific concept from some peer-reviewed study?) results in "nothing?"

I'd like to read the study that proves it. Can you find it?

 

[asterism]

Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?

Different "sciencers" believe in different things.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

The obvious question is "Why does asterism believe that "sciencers" there is no God when there's no evidence to support it?"

Answer - christians lie

You wanna try that again? You made no sense there.

 

[asterism]

Different "sciencers" believe in different things.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively. That doesn't make either side correct.

That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you. You have faith in something even you don't understand. How funny is that?

Why did you say that "sciencers" (a made up term) believe that God doesn't exist when you know that is a lie?

I guess I've been criticized too much for having Faith while at the same time believing the evidence supports evolution and quantum mechanics. It's not a lie, my college astronomy professor challenged me to a formal debate on evolution and used it to disprove creationism as what he called, "the first domino of faith to fall." It was his belief that if Heaven existed we'd have seen evidence of it by now since we can measure energy from the outer reaches of the known universe. When I said that I thought creationism and evolution were completely compatible he read from a Baptist leaflet telling me what I believe. I then read from the Book of Genesis and explained how there was nothing "false" about it. He, like you, would not accept my stated beliefs and went back to his cherry-picked sources to again assert that I was lying.

The panel declared me the winner because he couldn't make his point without impugning me his opponent. I was annoyed because I won on a technicality and not the merits of my argument. But a win is a win. Perhaps you've not experienced such "sciencers" (I like that term and I'm glad the English language is flexible enough to allow the creation of new terms) and therefore can't accept that they exist. They do despite your opinion.

 

[daveman]

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.

I know, as I've made quite plain throughout this entire thread.

However...not everyone knows they're different...including some who don't believe in creation.

 

[asterism]

Take away every bit of energy and every speck of matter. What you have left is "nothing". Nothing: The most extreme form of "cold". We do not measure "cold". What we measure is how much or how little heat there is. It's just that simple.

Can your conclusion be proven?

Can you stop the flow of protons, neutrons and electrons? Some one once had a Thread about proving that Time exists. Great Thread. There is alway's where we were, where we are and where we are going as opposed to where we think we are going. Perspectives and limitations change with knowledge. When speaking on Religion or Science, or Politics, there are common factors that seem to always trip us up. That is my whole point.

Yep. Although I am heartened by the fact that the scientists I'm debating in this thread are actually not very competent. This is like doing the long jump at the Special Olympics. Even if I win....

 

[asterism]

Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.

Quite poorly, too.

"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."

Um, the same can be said about Faith.

When I was in the boy scouts, many years ago, we went on a 9 day camp out. The scoutmaster's 7 year old son came along. One morning, we woke up to the sound of that poor child beating a tin pan with a metal spoon in the middle of the camp. Because all the older kids were spending their days earning merit badges, this child felt alone and unwanted. So he was just trying to get a little attention.

You have just been nominated for the "Tin Pan and Metal Spoon" award.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...8-science-is-as-a-religion-8.html#post3129613

Looks like I struck a nerve.

"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."

Um, the same can be said about Faith.

Really?

Perhaps you could share a few "examples"?

Scientific validation of the efficacy of prayer in relation to health remains in its infancy. Many of the early studies reflect a positive bias in research design in which the efficacy of prayer was often judged only on the basis of predefined positive outcomes, with no provision made for negative ones.

eMJA: Prayer as medicine: how much have we learned?

Certainly not a proven fact, but there is evidence.

 

[asterism]

Different "sciencers" believe in different things.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively. That doesn't make either side correct.

That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you. You have faith in something even you don't understand. How funny is that?

Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

At least they have a "methodology". With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.

Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics. That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.

So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.

Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?

I do. As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites. I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood.

 

[Madeline]

Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science? I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read. I still don't get the connection.

 

[asterism]

Atheism is not a belief. It's a "lack of belief".

Think of "heat and cold". Heat is energy. Cold is a lack of heat. Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.

Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence. Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.

Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.

Fine, I have no mystical nor occult beliefs.

Angels and spirits are as likely to exit as leprechauns and water sprites. In fact, the evidence for all supernatural beings existence is "equal".

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. I've long advocated for more tolerance in religious circles especially towards those who believe in the supernatural like ghosts, aliens, and psychic powers. "Hey, we believe a virgin got pregnant without any sex. You want kooky? THAT is kooky."

 

[asterism]

I guess I am simple-minded. What I have difficulty understanding is why a faith in God would lead one to reject "science", or even just evolution.

What do the Creationists believe accounts for dinosaurs?

Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?

Who says that they do, asterism? You speak as if teaching science will impair faith in God, but I dun see how.

The two -- faith and science -- serve different needs. Why would meeting one satisfy the other?

I don't speak that way and I don't hold that view. I think MORE information and knowledge is beneficial, never less. I argued (successfully) to expand the teaching of evolution at one of the religious schools my kids went to despite the opposition who said it would just lead to questions of Faith by the kids.

Science and Faith are completely different and not mutually exclusive.



----


The special blue font? Really?

 

[asterism]

"The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread. This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.

I shared an experience I had. Somebody got all butthurt about it. Shit happens.

Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?

Shit doesn't "just happen". You deposit it intentionally. Thanks. Grow up.

Get back to us when you admonish the other party in that pissing match. Of course he'll call you a liar, but at least then you'll have some credibility in playing threadmother.

 

[Madeline]

LOL @ "threadmother".

 

[asterism]

Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science? I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read. I still don't get the connection.

I can, Daveman can, Intense can. You haven't been paying attention?

 

[Madeline]

Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science? I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read. I still don't get the connection.

I can, Daveman can, Intense can. You haven't been paying attention?

I wasn't really addressing you, asterism. I know most people can; I should not have left the impression I didn't think anyone of faith was comfy with science.

I guess I'm confused as to why PC feels science is in any way antagonistic to anyone's faith. Seems so irrational....as if "believing" in astrophysics diminishes anyone's need for God?

 

[westwall]

Why can't people separate their faith in God from their confidence in science? I feel as if we're debating whether musicans can also read. I still don't get the connection.

I can, Daveman can, Intense can. You haven't been paying attention?

I wasn't really addressing you, asterism. I know most people can; I should not have left the impression I didn't think anyone of faith was comfy with science.

I guess I'm confused as to why PC feels science is in any way antagonistic to anyone's faith. Seems so irrational....as if "believing" in astrophysics diminishes anyone's need for God?

Actually most atheists can't seperate it out. In their view if a person is religious by definition they must also be irrational and mentally unbalanced, thus incapable of the ability to engage in a rigorous scientific discussion. This will extend accross many lines of thought as well. rdean, for instance will assume that if you are a "denier" of AGW theory you must be a religious fanatic.

 

[HUGGY]

I shared an experience I had. Somebody got all butthurt about it. Shit happens.

Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?

Shit doesn't "just happen". You deposit it intentionally. Thanks. Grow up.

Get back to us when you admonish the other party in that pissing match. Of course he'll call you a liar, but at least then you'll have some credibility in playing threadmother.

THREADMOTHER!!!!!?????

I was not taking sides in the mindless argument. The DaveBoy has taken over the CumHogs roll of threadkiller. It isn't about his pussy flap slapfest with anyone in particular..It is more about me enjoying the few threads that caught my interest over the weekend and finding them cluttered with shit. OK...so I singled out BoyDave..Big Whoop! I thought he could handle it. I wasn't concerned about his fan club.

 

[Madeline]

Rdean can be a little pedantic. I'm not an atheist but I doubt he's typical.

And just what is "AGW theory"? Global warming?