Science Is/As A Religion

[westwall]

Your attempt to get every red blooded man on this MB to explore his so called feminine side has not gone un noticed.

But enough about you...

The OP suggested that there can be a legitimate parallel path of faith and science. This has been supported by many others drifting back to the old arguments. I guess in a sense that is what is called progress. Not enough. The Christian filter has no place in science other than the study of mental disorders.

I disagree. While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are. Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables. It is a distinct appetite from science.

It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.

I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such. I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE! He "sounds" like a real scientist. Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!! Yet he still stands there with the funny collar. If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.

The Catholic Church has employed actual real scientists for over a century Huggy. Better catch up!

 

[Madeline]

We all have our pet biases, I suppose. Me, for instance, I always imagine the men of USMB writing in their underwear -- and all of them are cute.

 

[westwall]

We all have our pet biases, I suppose. Me, for instance, I always imagine the men of USMB writing in their underwear -- and all of them are cute.

Jeez, are you dreaming!

 

[Intense]

I would agree except faith generally explores morals, not ethics. Small but significant distinction. Ethics is usually evidence based and logically supported, whereas morals are generally blindly followed because someone told you it's how you ought to act.

I do respect your input, especially related to science, yet I find you doing to religion, exactly what you point out people here are doing to science. Consider that some of what you claim is more related to human nature, rather than being rooted in someones foundation being in science or religion. Fundamentalism, or the abuses of it, even growth patterns, effect both fields. From a practical perspective, I can sight the changes in understanding in Magnetism, Electricity, the value of Ethanol V.S. the damage and cost. Life is a working model where stuff gets passed on, some good, some bad. Theories sometimes get turned on their heads, in Science, in Religion, in life experience. It is in part human Nature to resist change. It's in all of us, but there is more to us than that. There are alway's others that see what we don't, and can make something of it. Ethics and Morals both have a place in Religion.

 

[Intense]

I disagree. While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are. Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables. It is a distinct appetite from science.

It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.

I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such. I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE! He "sounds" like a real scientist. Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!! Yet he still stands there with the funny collar. If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.

The RCC has a terrible history of opposing science. Just awful. I think they got around to apologizing to Gallieleo like last year.

I guess they are trying to rehab themselves on that account.

Sort of like watching snow melt, huh....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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."

I am guilty of that myself. I openly scoff anytime anyone mentions ghosts, probably because everyone who claims expertise in them talks about stuff I know is bogus as proof that ghosts exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd be happy to knock over the second domino for you. Creationism and evolution are not compatible. The idea of religion proposing how life began and evolution taking it from there works, but generally creationism is the idea that all organisms were created unchanged and unchanging, while evolution says they can change. People like to make weird mashups where the two can somehow exist, but you'll find these people basically mutiliate evolution into some convoluted shape that goes against evidence to have it match up.

You know you lost that debate, and with that knowledge comes the idea that your beliefs are wrong. Not a fun place to be in. I recommend you reconcile to either jettison your scientific knowledge, or change your faith to acknowledge the facts.

[/quote]

Why do people have the need to restrict the opposition to narrow definitions that make it impossible to argue a position rationally? Even Wikipedia doesna't agree with your definition, even if it acknowledges it.

Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.[2] As science developed from the 18th century onwards, various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Genesis creation narrative.[3] At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation" but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists" became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups who believed in various concepts of creation.[4]

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.

The problem with that is that the leaders of religious groups invariably want to control the information and religion. Acceptance of new ideas is generally not tolerated too well. Imagine if someone came forth and claimed in a virgin birth today. How would the church respond and why?

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.

STAH: This right here is better known as a generalization. I recommend you steer clear of them.

Edited, Credited Quote.

How ironic that you counsel against using generalizations when you insist on doing so yourself.

 

[asterism]

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.

I'd be happy to knock over the second domino for you. Creationism and evolution are not compatible. The idea of religion proposing how life began and evolution taking it from there works, but generally creationism is the idea that all organisms were created unchanged and unchanging, while evolution says they can change. People like to make weird mashups where the two can somehow exist, but you'll find these people basically mutiliate evolution into some convoluted shape that goes against evidence to have it match up.

While you are free to define your version of creationism, you are not free to define my beliefs. Creationism as I have been taught is simply that God created the universe as described in the Book of Genesis.

You know you lost that debate, and with that knowledge comes the idea that your beliefs are wrong. Not a fun place to be in. I recommend you reconcile to either jettison your scientific knowledge, or change your faith to acknowledge the facts.

I know I lost? I was declared the winner. The prof. made a poor assumption and ignored further information. My religious beliefs do not stem from the Baptist leaflet he cited and he stated I was lying when I said the first chapter of the Book of Genesis could be a colorful way of describing the origin of the universe in terms that a person could understand 3000 years ago.

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.

The problem with that is that the leaders of religious groups invariably want to control the information and religion. Acceptance of new ideas is generally not tolerated too well. Imagine if someone came forth and claimed in a virgin birth today. How would the church respond and why?

I suppose Christians would resist because the Bible describes the uniqueness of it and the second coming of Christ. However, the Roman Catholic Church investigates miracles all the time. Your assumption is wrong and cannot be applied to me.

 

[asterism]

O c'mon. "Threadmother" is a fabulous new word. You know you like it.

Dun be a new word denier, now, Huggy.

it is not new, madeline.

i however am extremely appalled. all the name-calling distracts from the serious discussion about sciencers and how they suck.

Tis new! Tis! Tis, tis tis. I checked the urban dictionary and when it did not appear there, I promptly contributed it, stealing asterism's fabulousity for myself.

LOL @ "sciencers". I may have to go back and contribute that, too. If I knew what it meant!

Awesome! I stole the word from someone else here and you documented it. Now I can cite it for credibility. I WIN!!!!

 

[daveman]

it is not new, madeline.

i however am extremely appalled. all the name-calling distracts from the serious discussion about sciencers and how they suck.

Tis new! Tis! Tis, tis tis. I checked the urban dictionary and when it did not appear there, I promptly contributed it, stealing asterism's fabulousity for myself.

LOL @ "sciencers". I may have to go back and contribute that, too. If I knew what it meant!

Awesome! I stole the word from someone else here and you documented it. Now I can cite it for credibility. I WIN!!!!

You know you lost that debate, and with that knowledge comes the idea that your beliefs are wrong. Not a fun place to be in. I recommend you reconcile to either jettison your vocabulary knowledge, or change your faith to acknowledge the facts.

 

[rdean]

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.

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

 

[rdean]

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.

It's the right wing that keeps trying to force mysticism down out throats. As soon as they are confronted head on and shown the ignorance, they whine, "Why can't people separate their....". You get the message.

Scientists don't care about mysticism. But they do care about protecting the integrity of science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Gilgamesh? The Aztecs? I could probably at least another 10 but what difference would it make since none of them were Democrats.

 

[Intense]

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.



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.

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Gilgamesh? The Aztecs? I could probably at least another 10 but what difference would it make since none of them were Democrats.

Navajo, Hopi. Something Cataclysmic happened. Ever been to Sunset Crater outside of Flagstaff? You all realize that Genesis has more than one Creation Story. Right?

 

[daveman]

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.

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.

For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.

 

[JBeukema]

So I see this thread is still going

something about the flood?


Yeah, at the end of the last ice age, near the fertile crescent, the retreating ice opened a path to the sea that flooded a rather large valley. They've found settlements and satellite imagery reveals what used to be rather fertile lands where the rivers used to still run prior to the flood.

There've been several specials about it on the tele.


There've been numerous localized floods throughout history.


When all you've known your whole life is a single valley or plain, and its flooded, and you can't travel beyond the flood zone, it's easy to believe the whole world has flooded.

It's no great mystery, really.

 

[rdean]

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.

That's the problem with those such as yourself. For some reason, your kind thinks the world revolves around your mystical beliefs. Until someone throws mysticism in my face, I don't even think about it. I write here to defend rational thought. Mysticism and the supernatural are "rational"? Belief in, in, "what"? Bogeymen? I don't get it at all.

 

[geauxtohell]

So I see this thread is still going

something about the flood?


Yeah, at the end of the last ice age, near the fertile crescent, the retreating ice opened a path to the sea that flooded a rather large valley. They've found settlements and satellite imagery reveals what used to be rather fertile lands where the rivers used to still run prior to the flood.

There've been several specials about it on the tele.


There've been numerous localized floods throughout history.


When all you've known your whole life is a single valley or plain, and its flooded, and you can't travel beyond the flood zone, it's easy to believe the whole world has flooded.

It's no great mystery, really.

I agree. I mean, as floods are a natural disaster that have been around since Rain, it's no mystery that every culture would have a story relating to some sort of cataclysmic flood event.

It's not terribly conclusive proof to support the biblical account of the matter.

 

[geauxtohell]

I find it funny that, in failing in it's original intent to try and cast science as a "religion" this thread has basically digressed to a theological debate over actual religion.

 

[rikules]

So many of our fellow board members have been generous with their advice, and explanations of the superiority of ‘science,’ and reason, compared to faith…

With respect to this ‘truth,’ how is is possible to accept the theory of evolution…as so much is based entirely on faith?

1. Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. Neanderthal : facts and myths - Europe Forum

a. "The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis). Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. PMC 33580. Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution ? PNAS. Retrieved 17 May 2009.

2. “According to Darwinian thought, millions of years ago ancestral monkeys began unwittingly evolving along a path that would eventually produce humans. Along the way, about 400,000 years ago, the first Neanderthal was born. Ancestral humans, however, supposedly continued evolving separately along a divergent evolutionary branch, becoming modern around 40,000 years ago.
According to this theory, Neanderthals and humans lived and coexisted together for tens of thousands of years before the less robust but smarter humans killed off, or out-competed, the Neanderthals. But because Neanderthal and human ancestors diverged into separate species so long before, interbreeding would have been impossible, even though, skeletally speaking, scientists admit that Neanderthal frames fall within examples of modern living humans.

a. This idea that Neanderthals represent a species similar to humans, but more evolutionarily advanced than apes is critical evidence commonly offered by evolutionists to prove that evolution is occurring. “ Cavemen Are People Too! | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

3. “We present a draft sequence of the Neandertal genome composed of more than 4 billion nucleotides from three individuals. Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development. We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other.” A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome | Science/AAAS

a. “Most people can likely trace some of their DNA to Neanderthals.…humans and Neanderthals are practically identical at the protein level….The differences are so slight that the researchers suspect them to be functionally irrelevant. If more genomes could be compared, there might be no differences at all.” Neanderthal Genome Shows Most Humans Are Cavemen | Wired Science | Wired.com

4. “[M]any evolutionists will be loath to accept the recent genetic findings….Here is the problem: Evolutionists can find lots of monkey bones. And they can find lots of human bones. They just can’t find the half-monkey, half-human bones. This presents a huge problem for them because if man was evolving from monkeys for millions of years, you would expect to find millions of these intermediary half-monkey, half-man bones." Op. Cit. Trumpet

a. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Now, don't be too concerned evolutionists...we in religion have also used faith at the vehicle in our beliefs!


Welcome, brethren of the religion of ‘science’!

religion is 100% faith based.

science is MOSTLY based on studies, investigations, research, analysis.