EPTReligion vs. Science part 2 - Page 2
| Blogs > Cpt Obvious |
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
I see this title as contradictory. First lets address science. Science is the study of nature. It cannot prove or disprove God, and has no business addressing things that it cannot prove or disprove. Its kind of like Schrodinger's cat from quantum mechanics. Basically, there is a big philosophical question as to the state of the cat in the box, and there are different interpretations (some are seen at wikipedia). However, one that I always found very interesting was the argument for simply not answering the question. The reason is that it would take an experiment to look at the cat, but that would induce it to move into a certain state. Therefore, since no experiment can be performed to find out what the state of the cat is, any argument for what state the cat is in is simply metaphysics and will never matter anyway. Now to talk about religion. Really, how much is religion involved in science? 98% of most religious books is "love your neigbor", "don't steal", etc, or history, or prophesy. Thats basically it. Religious books don't say "if you drop two objects of the same weight, the heavier object will fall faster to the ground". In fact, if its true that science is simply the study of nature, and nature was created by God, then its conclusions can never be "evil", etc. Sure we all have our intuition about nature, and some religious people may try to leverage religious books to their point of view (is this any different than ad-hominem attacks in the scientific community?). But I challenge you to randomly open up any religious text and find something that conflicts with science in any meaningful way. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
Religion urges you not to question the primary assumptions and to accept anything some guy in a robe tells you is right. Unless you get out of your prejudicial view nothing you write regarding what Christians believe holds any weight. It's as stupid as saying black people are all criminals, or that Asian people are bad drivers. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On September 26 2007 11:33 RebelHeart wrote: Unless you get out of your prejudicial view nothing you write regarding what Christians believe holds any weight. It's as stupid as saying black people are all criminals, or that Asian people are bad drivers. I love how you are only able to find one thing to reply about because the rest of the post you have no idea how to respond to, because you have no evidence of anything. If it's prejudicial, tell us what DOES happen in a church then? Do you study scientific theories? Do you try and prove them? Do you try and search for answers on questions, or do you accept what you believe? What he wrote seems to be true, unless you can prove otherwise. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On September 26 2007 12:54 Superiorwolf wrote: I love how you are only able to find one thing to reply about because the rest of the post you have no idea how to respond to, because you have no evidence of anything. If it's prejudicial, tell us what DOES happen in a church then? Do you study scientific theories? Do you try and prove them? Do you try and search for answers on questions, or do you accept what you believe? What he wrote seems to be true, unless you can prove otherwise. What the heck are you talking about? Yes we do study scientific theories in Church sometimes read Lee Strobel if you're genuine about finding out about what Christians believe regarding science, I doubt you will. most Christian scientists have bothered to study non-Christian textbooks on evolution. There's not a lot to add to the OP besides that Christians do study science so to say Christians ignore science is ignorant. And the reason I responded to that point is because the fact he says religion urges people not to question the primary assumptions is just crap. Says who? Atheists say that, a religious person doesn't (some might, but quote me one religious person on these message boards that has said our religion says we should not question our faith and accept whatever Jesus says). Everything else follows - the fact that religion stopped evolving after modern society, that we stop thinking - I mean what the heck am I supposed to say? He thinks he speaks on behalf of Christians when he says we don't think about how the world is changing and how the world advances. That's just a load of crap. | ||
|
Cpt Obvious
Germany3073 Posts
Maybe I should find something else to write my blog about. How about ponies? Everybody loves ponies... | ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On September 26 2007 07:48 fight_or_flight wrote: "Religion vs science part 2" I see this title as contradictory. First lets address science. Science is the study of nature. It cannot prove or disprove God, and has no business addressing things that it cannot prove or disprove. Its kind of like Schrodinger's cat from quantum mechanics. Basically, there is a big philosophical question as to the state of the cat in the box, and there are different interpretations (some are seen at wikipedia). However, one that I always found very interesting was the argument for simply not answering the question. The reason is that it would take an experiment to look at the cat, but that would induce it to move into a certain state. Therefore, since no experiment can be performed to find out what the state of the cat is, any argument for what state the cat is in is simply metaphysics and will never matter anyway. Now to talk about religion. Really, how much is religion involved in science? 98% of most religious books is "love your neigbor", "don't steal", etc, or history, or prophesy. Thats basically it. Religious books don't say "if you drop two objects of the same weight, the heavier object will fall faster to the ground". In fact, if its true that science is simply the study of nature, and nature was created by God, then its conclusions can never be "evil", etc. Sure we all have our intuition about nature, and some religious people may try to leverage religious books to their point of view (is this any different than ad-hominem attacks in the scientific community?). But I challenge you to randomly open up any religious text and find something that conflicts with science in any meaningful way. How about any creation story ever?;p Of course u could say it wasn't meant to be taken literally but it is all about how people interpret it. All too many christians actually believe the earth and the animals on it were created as-is 6000 years ago. I would definitely say that conflicts with science. And they are arguing to have THEIR theory taught in schools. If there is any sort of science vs religion war, it is started by religion. Science is learning new things all the time, and as soon as one religion rejects well established scientific theory or have their own theory that they think is just as credible, then there is a problem;/ edit: but i would agree that in most cases now a days people are are moderate and tend to think a lot like Incontrol. This isn't a problem unless science stumbles upon something else that the bible (or any religious text) disagrees with. I'll be interested to see how the christian community will react if something like that happens. Will they pass it off as "not meant to be taken literally" like they have before? Will they straight out oppose it? How many times would this have to happen before they sided with science or religion? Trying to ride the fence is nice and all but it would hardly make for a respectable opinion if stuff like this keeps popping up:O Most moderates barely believe in the same stuff as bible literalists and follow there own cherry picked version of the bible anyway. If most of these would choose to believe science if more conflict arises, then why even call yourself a christian in the first place?;p | ||
| ||
