|
So I just had a very satisfying talk with my buddy about Religion vs. Science after lunch. Just so you know he has been a Christian for most of his life and he is studying Physics at the same university with me.
This is mainly adressed to Rebelheart and jtan (I enjoyed your blog alot), although anyone interested is very welcome to give some more insight and share thoughts.
So during that talk I was forced to review my thoughts on religion. I have now come to the point where I accept religion and science being the two sides of the same coin. just the primary assumptions and the methods differ.
Religion assumes there is a pattern in all things, and that is God. He created everything around us and what science does, from their point of view, is seeing chaos where there is a pattern, and pattern where there is chaos.
Now, science assumes that in the very beginning, there was only chaos, the most popular theory being that of the Big Bang, and that within all this randomness and coincidence, there formed regularities, systems, laws, that can be described with math and physical methods. From their point of view, religion sees a pattern where there is none, and miracles and divine intervention where something happens by coincidence.
My friend quoted Albert Einstein in the end, saying that religion needs to take a step towards science, but science needs to stop trying to disprove God's existence. After all the goal is the same: understanding, enlightenment, whatever you want to call it. They both try to explain existence itself. They just utilize completely different methods and assumptions to start from.
Which brings me to my last, but very important point:
The fact why I still prefer science over religion, why it isn't even a competition, is that science, much unlike religion, is progressive. Religion urges you not to question the primary assumptions and to accept anything some guy in a robe tells you is right. After all, he is the pontifex and therefore infallible. If science has taught me anything, it's two things: Everything is to be questioned, tested, and proven, and humans are not infallible. In fact they are the opposite.
The fact that I am able to write this alone makes science superior to religion. I get some input, give it some thought, and if the new idea proves to explain things better than the previous one, I discard it and accept the new theory. Religion, speaking in technological terms, stopped evolving after the invention of the wheel. Everybody was so happy not to have to carry heavy stuff around anymore that they simply stopped thinking and just kept producing more and more wheels.
I accept it when people choose to believe in God, after all I claim their tolerance as well, so that is only fair. What I cannot accept however, is the impeding of scientific advance by religion. Some Christians (and people of other religions too, I jsut happen to know more Christians than Buddhists) are just too ignorant to accept the necessity of science.
We are not just another religion. We are a whole different institution of people who seek the truth. And unlike you, we change with time, we progress, we advance. You guys on the other hand are still mourning a guy who died over 2000 years ago.
 
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
Liar, you don't have a buddy except Moltke or have you been talking to your reflection in the mirror again.
Worst.
|
My post from another thread:
Science is trying to find an answer. No matter what the answer is. If the answer is that god exist then ok we have our answers and we are done. No hard feelings. Theories are updated and if it come up that one particular theory is wrong then it will be replaced by better one.
On the other side the Christians have their one particular answer and they are trying to prove that science is wrong so they can assume the they are right. Bad logic. They are trying to twist the bible and explain it in ways that it will finally add up a little.
So you think that earth is 6000 thousand years old? What an idiot. There are trees that are 10 000+ years old. How you can proof that? Well throw seed of some random tree to soil and after 20 years take it down with chain saw. How many rings do you see? Then go to some museum and count the rings of that Pine and do the math. Plus in Valley of death you can find plant that is 20 000+ years old.
Regarding that retarded video debunking big bang. That retarded kid didn't take physics classes beyond high school level. First of all time and matter are not correlated. Time and space are not correlated. You can destroy matter => it will becomes energy and energy doesn't occupy any space.
Science is not an religion by any means. In religion you believe that you know. In science you know that you don't know and you are trying to find answer. So science is searching for answers and religion is defending ONE answer no matter the evidence.
Oh and I love how christians thinks that their fairy tales are better then fairy tales of other religion.
Oh and that idiot who believes that all books are lying (except brainwashing christians books ofc but they are all based on one single book) but only one particular book is not lying. What if it's other way around? From stand point of probability theory that chance is pretty slim (that all books are wrong and bible is right).
Is there god? I don't know. There is plenty of evidence that he doesn't exists. But we don't have ultimate theory (thanks to what is called Planck's time). If god come to me and says "hello" then ok it won't change my life because I'm living good life and I don't have the reason change it. No big deal.
But what if it will be proven that god doesn't exists? What would you do, dear religious zealot?
|
|
|
Religion is dangerous if you take it too seriously and disregard science.
Science is the most important thing we have. Science is our understanding of the world, religion is just assumption and belief. It doesn't matter that science can't explain everything. We will, eventually, be able to do so. It takes time. But it's very important that we understand the world for ourselves, and make sure that this understanding is based on tests, facts and evidence. Something you can grasp.
For everything that science can't explain yet, there's room for a god, so there's basically nothing wrong with religion. Ideally, religion and science should be unrelated. It gets dangerous when you begin to mix these things or when religion makes you ignore scientific facts. Science should ALWAYS have the highest priority, even for the most religious person.
|
On September 25 2007 21:16 xM(Z wrote:
finally
finally what?
-----------
sundance, I am inclined to agree with you on most of your points. However, it is not a given that scientific evidence stands above anything religion claims just because "it's evidence, duh". That would be the same like saying "Well, God's will, duh". Scientific evidence is after all only based on human percaption, and even though the average scientist might put more thought into what he does, ultimately his perceftion is as flawed as that of a religious person. There are limits as to how far we can possibly understand things and grasp concepts. Still, science tries to improve whereas religion doesn't. And THAT makes it superior.
|
I dont waste too much effort on thinking about religion, it expired already in the smarter people of our society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species
Religion has been shrinking since 24 November 1859, I dont see possibilities of it starting to grow again. Cause there arn't any knights running around killing us if we don't believe, as it was when christianity first was introduced.
maybe not relevant to the topic but its what i think when religion pops up infront of me
|
What Einstein said is true. The rest is just debatable.
|
On September 25 2007 20:54 Cpt Obvious wrote:
Some Christians (and people of other religions too, I jsut happen to know more Christians than Buddhists) are just too ignorant to accept the necessity of science.
I've certainly never heard of a Buddhist that was hostile toward science.
|
I simply cannot argue in these matters because I always end up insulting people arguing for the existance of god.
Sundance pretty much sums up my thoughts, nice post sundance.
I mean, sure, if god exists the jokes on us non-believers, if he doesn't, jokes on you. Question is if you want to dedicate your entire life to something you don't know exists. It might have been created by humans.
Now I know that religious people will probably counter me with "You need to have faith" "I have met god, I just can't explain it" etc etc Well you know what, that's not good enough for me and I don't like being told "I can't explain it" because we all know why you can't.
Look at me I got upset and insulting anyways 
|
On September 25 2007 21:57 Cpt Obvious wrote:finally what? ----------- sundance, I am inclined to agree with you on most of your points. However, it is not a given that scientific evidence stands above anything religion claims just because "it's evidence, duh". That would be the same like saying "Well, God's will, duh". Scientific evidence is after all only based on human percaption, and even though the average scientist might put more thought into what he does, ultimately his perceftion is as flawed as that of a religious person. There are limits as to how far we can possibly understand things and grasp concepts. Still, science tries to improve whereas religion doesn't. And THAT makes it superior.
That kind of pessimistic thinking is dangerous.
|
And the Christians who were hostile to science (that is, the original meaning of the word) died out in the middle ages. I think the scholasticists have had their way since the Church adopted Aquinas as their official theologian. Christians know more about science than atheists know about theology.
The problem is that very few people who think themselves progressive, and still believe in the notion of progress, bother to dust off those old books and discover those antique ogres which they try to exterminate. Hence we produce a new age of witch hunts, and take renewed satisfaction that we are good because there are forces of evil (we call it ignorance) to oppose us.
But as Charlemagne proclaimed, those who believe in man-eating witches are already under the devil's influence.
|
On September 25 2007 23:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:
And the Christians who were hostile to science (that is, the original meaning of the word) died out in the middle ages. I think the scholasticists have had their way since the Church adopted Aquinas as their official theologian. Christians know more about science than atheists know about theology.
The problem is that very few people who think themselves progressive, and still believe in the notion of progress, bother to dust off those old books and discover those antique ogres which they try to exterminate.
The Catholic Church may no longer be hostile to science, but a large number of Protestant sects are. You may not see them in Europe, but here in America, they're quite influential.
And the Catholic Church was hostile to science at least until the Renaissance as is evidenced by Galileo's conflict with the Church.
|
On September 25 2007 23:39 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2007 23:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:
And the Christians who were hostile to science (that is, the original meaning of the word) died out in the middle ages. I think the scholasticists have had their way since the Church adopted Aquinas as their official theologian. Christians know more about science than atheists know about theology.
The problem is that very few people who think themselves progressive, and still believe in the notion of progress, bother to dust off those old books and discover those antique ogres which they try to exterminate. The Catholic Church may no longer be hostile to science, but a large number of Protestant sects are. You may not see them in Europe, but here in America, they're quite influential. And the Catholic Church was hostile to science at least until the Renaissance as is evidenced by Galileo's conflict with the Church.
Galileo's conflict with the Church (or more specifically, with Urban VIII) was partially his own responsibility. Nor does it hold that because the Church was inclined toward a geocentric model of the universe (the Aristotilean view, which at the time was regarded as the authority on metaphyiscal and natural matters) was it against the pioneering of empirical knowledge, nor can it be claimed that Galileo was not given a forum to present his arguments. At worst, you may fairly say that the Church held a prejudicial view on that matter, but to claim that Copernican heliocentricism represented "science" and all other views superstition (including Brahe's own proposal for the geocentric universe) is a prejudice of hindsight as well.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
The big problem right now, is that the internal discourse of religious communities is still not focused on human problems, rendering religion a counterproductive force in public life. Religion is now 'an issue,' rather than a source of inspiration for many progressive movements, such as the ones that gave legitimacy to the notion of equal rights for slaves and nonwhites.
As things stand, the conflicts around religion in the west is one of cultural reaction. there would ordinarily be few people motivated enough to 'fight' religion had the serious religionists (here talking about not merely a belief or a metaphysics but a form of life, like Southern Baptists or Mormons) not stand for cultural and social reaction at every turn. To argue with a fundamentalist who also finds no problems in accepting say 'fornicators should burn in hell,' it is almost necessary to destroy his form of religion, in which God is the source of legitimacy for everything that goes under the sun, meaning, the fundamentalist's moral indignations are not susceptible to civil arguments or appealing to human interests, he just doesn't give a shit whether you burn in hell or get imprisoned, so long as you are not homo or whatnot these sinful samarians do. To reform such a mentality, necessarily the metaphysics will be attacked, even if it is not the source of the moral sentiment, it is the first line of defense and justification. Arguments within the 'God is supreme judge' framework is distasteful, for one, and also ineffective. Talking about the ordinary interpretations of the Bible, no clear, dominating argument can be found to challenge the entrenched sentiments.
So, people who argue against certain social attitudes are inclined to 'attack' religion. The religious communities most serious about these stuff will react in unproductive ways, like a hedgehog. What is needed is internal reformation in greater christian circles, which hopefully will blunt the fundamentalist edge and swing the attention of nonsrs christians back to productive issues.
Attacks on religious metaphysics, basically the foundation of legitimacy for your most dearly held beliefs, is not personal. It is just the way some atheists' and humanists, with very good reason, address what they consider is a serious social problem. The real problem is just this, when reactionary and harmful sentiments are lent legitimacy and respect by a divine God.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
A little reflection on 'UFOers.' They believe in UFOs and aliens, in such detail as to make them modern day metaphysicians of the off-the-beaten-path variety. But they are not a problem, nor are they attacked by popular publications. Their beliefs are accorded a measure of civil respect. But, the second they begin to justify say terrorist bombings with their UFO theories, the first thing that will be attacked is their UFO theories, even though nothing has changed in these theories or the general attitude toward them in relevant circles.
So, if you cannot revise your faith in God, just realise that this is not personal. Hopefully you can see that, persecution of nonorthodox life styles does not make for a civil society, and talk wtih your christian friends about stuff like this.
|
Canada7170 Posts
I want to come from a completely neutral standpoint. Forgive me if I sound overzealous.
I am Christian. Although not well versed in science, I have never found a theory that I find completely unacceptable. Evolution is certainly a valid theory.
Yet, I do not contradict myself. The two (Christianity and science) can work in tandem- they are not polar opposites.
Science progresses every time something new is discovered.
Christianity progresses to a lesser degree, simply because the guidelines are already there. Everything was essentially "solved" (for Christians) 2000 years ago.
As a Christian, I make it my duty to "question, test, and prove" everything about what I believe in. And until someone witnesses something which science cannot explain, science is seemingly not only correct, but the only thing to believe in. This is one of the reasons why it is usually foolish to try and dissuade someone from what they believe in. The only reason they believe in it is because they have experienced it somehow. (Ahhhhhh... can't explain things very well today.)
Pretty much I'm agreeing with Brutalisk on most points.
btw sundance, if it is ever fully proven that God doesn't exist, I'm fully willing to denounce my faith.
Merz, that's exactly what we'll say to you. And no, what we say isn't good enough. Stick to your guns unless you ever choose to believe it.
I hope that was neutral enough.
And I promise this is my last religious post on TL unless something really offends me. I'm kinda tired of beating this argument to death. The people that argue against Christianity tend to make assumptions and stereotypes. Their arguments would be valid if all Christians were like that. I think all we can say is that as a human race, we are unsure of the existence of a God, and we lean towards whatever side has more evidence from our own personal experiences.
|
On September 25 2007 23:47 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2007 23:39 Mindcrime wrote:On September 25 2007 23:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:
And the Christians who were hostile to science (that is, the original meaning of the word) died out in the middle ages. I think the scholasticists have had their way since the Church adopted Aquinas as their official theologian. Christians know more about science than atheists know about theology.
The problem is that very few people who think themselves progressive, and still believe in the notion of progress, bother to dust off those old books and discover those antique ogres which they try to exterminate. The Catholic Church may no longer be hostile to science, but a large number of Protestant sects are. You may not see them in Europe, but here in America, they're quite influential. And the Catholic Church was hostile to science at least until the Renaissance as is evidenced by Galileo's conflict with the Church. Galileo's conflict with the Church (or more specifically, with Urban VIII) was partially his own responsibility. Nor does it hold that because the Church was inclined toward a geocentric model of the universe (the Aristotilean view, which at the time was regarded as the authority on metaphyiscal and natural matters) was it against the pioneering of empirical knowledge, nor can it be claimed that Galileo was not given a forum to present his arguments. At worst, you may fairly say that the Church held a prejudicial view on that matter, but to claim that Copernican heliocentricism represented "science" and all other views superstition (including Brahe's own proposal for the geocentric universe) is a prejudice of hindsight as well.
The Catholic Church called heliocentrism heresy.
The pope made no condemnation of heliocentrism while speaking ex cathedra, but the point stands.
|
On September 26 2007 03:19 mikeymoo wrote:
I want to come from a completely neutral standpoint. Forgive me if I sound overzealous.
I am Christian. Although not well versed in science, I have never found a theory that I find completely unacceptable. Evolution is certainly a valid theory.
Yet, I do not contradict myself. The two (Christianity and science) can work in tandem- they are not polar opposites.
Science progresses every time something new is discovered.
Christianity progresses to a lesser degree, simply because the guidelines are already there. Everything was essentially "solved" (for Christians) 2000 years ago.
As a Christian, I make it my duty to "question, test, and prove" everything about what I believe in. And until someone witnesses something which science cannot explain, science is seemingly not only correct, but the only thing to believe in. This is one of the reasons why it is usually foolish to try and dissuade someone from what they believe in. The only reason they believe in it is because they have experienced it somehow. (Ahhhhhh... can't explain things very well today.)
Pretty much I'm agreeing with Brutalisk on most points.
btw sundance, if it is ever fully proven that God doesn't exist, I'm fully willing to denounce my faith.
Merz, that's exactly what we'll say to you. And no, what we say isn't good enough. Stick to your guns unless you ever choose to believe it.
I hope that was neutral enough.
And I promise this is my last religious post on TL unless something really offends me. I'm kinda tired of beating this argument to death. The people that argue against Christianity tend to make assumptions and stereotypes. Their arguments would be valid if all Christians were like that. I think all we can say is that as a human race, we are unsure of the existence of a God, and we lean towards whatever side has more evidence from our own personal experiences.
Wow, I certainly never saw an open-minded Christian like that before. You sir have my full respect.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there are alots. just a private meditation kind of thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
