An Incompatibility Between Science and Religion? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-31-2009, 11:56 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnRKeyintheUSA View Post
True a lot don't, but a lot do. I have seen them in action myself. I have seen kids in the library being told they can't look at a book on dinosaurs because it's full of 'lies'. I was in school with kids whose parents forbid them to listen or participate in classes where things older than 6000 were being taught, and they had to leave the room. This was excused for religious reasons just as the Jehovah's witness kids were not allowed to make any holiday items, for any holiday. There was also a news report on TV of a religious group taking kids through a museum with dinosaur bones, the group leader literally making fun of the things the museum had written on the display and telling the kids why it was all fake. Some people, too many, really do believe it's all an evil plot by Satan to destroy your faith. I've been told this in so many words.
On the flipside, there are atheistic parents suing to get even a moment of silence removed from public schools because a child in class may, may, use that time to pray. So little confidence have they in their own beliefs I guess.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 01:05 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The meat and bones of the essay is that it isn't impossible for religious people to accept science, but that ultimately religious beliefs cannot fit into the scientific paradigm; they are faith based positions that cannot be falsified no matter what evidence is brought to bear
The supernatural Christian god is necessarily beyond the reach of empirical science--external and eternal. Therefore, science can only assume there is no existence other than the observable material world. Thus it is dogmatism for science to claim to have the monopoly on truth and knowledge.

There is only one truth. Without the knowledge of reason AND the knowledge of faith one cannot possibly hope to discover the entirety of it.

Or, as better stated, "Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trusts in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfillment, so faith builds upon and perfects reason."
--Pope John Paul II 1998
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 01:48 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 09:14 AM
Do you have a specific truth in mind?

Belief in god doesn't make him so. Nonbelief in god doesn't make him not so. The answer is outside of reason or faith. For now.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 04:19 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The supernatural Christian god is necessarily beyond the reach of empirical science--external and eternal. Therefore, science can only assume there is no existence other than the observable material world. Thus it is dogmatism for science to claim to have the monopoly on truth and knowledge.

There is only one truth. Without the knowledge of reason AND the knowledge of faith one cannot possibly hope to discover the entirety of it.

Or, as better stated, "Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trusts in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfillment, so faith builds upon and perfects reason."
--Pope John Paul II 1998
I don't think science makes such a claim.
I think science itself is about the search for empirical truth. It would be all-inclusive to any new discovery, embrace it with arms and move on in it's quest for absolute truth.

To me, this is a quest a Creator could be proud of. Trying to help their fellow man by understanding this world we are stuck in. Being open to change, to new evidence, to new paradigms, is what science is all about.

Faith and it's dogma starts from where you stated "there is only one truth" and works backwards from there. You have it completely backwards. Science would accept two, three 'truths' if that were the one truth. Faith already holds court on the "one truth" and force-fits.

"Faith has no fear of reason" and science claims a monopoly on truth...?
I think you just airballed, Indy. Although maybe you could play for Tom Crean!!!
__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 07:18 PM   #35
War Child
 
AnnRKeyintheUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not coming down
Posts: 603
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
On the flipside, there are atheistic parents suing to get even a moment of silence removed from public schools because a child in class may, may, use that time to pray. So little confidence have they in their own beliefs I guess.
Now I do think that's going too far, it's not fair to everyone else. If they don't want to pray they don't have to but don't deprive the others. That's THEM forcing THEIR beliefs (or lack thereof) on others!
__________________
AnnRKeyintheUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 07:26 PM   #36
War Child
 
ShipOfFools's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 814
Local Time: 09:14 AM
I don't give it much thought, either. I accept both, and I think both are true (both a Christian God and scientific knowledge.) Somehow, the pieces fit; we don't know how they fit right now, but I'm sure one day we will.
__________________
ShipOfFools is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 08:28 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The supernatural Christian god is necessarily beyond the reach of empirical science--external and eternal. Therefore, science can only assume there is no existence other than the observable material world. Thus it is dogmatism for science to claim to have the monopoly on truth and knowledge.

There is only one truth. Without the knowledge of reason AND the knowledge of faith one cannot possibly hope to discover the entirety of it.

Or, as better stated, "Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trusts in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfillment, so faith builds upon and perfects reason."
--Pope John Paul II 1998
What is your problem with materialism, how do the limits of scientific knowledge justify your theology?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 06:04 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
What is your problem with materialism
What's the matter with materialism? (pun intended)

Nothing, except when it ventures from science to philosophy. There is nothing scientific about summarily dismissing the possibility that anything exists outside the observable realm of matter and energy.

Quote:
how do the limits of scientific knowledge justify your theology?
Just the opposite, the progress of scientific knowledge (our understanding of the universe, nature and life) only strengthens my theology. The difference between us being you see coincidence after coincidence where I see design.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 06:09 PM   #39
War Child
 
ShipOfFools's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 814
Local Time: 09:14 AM
Quote:
On the flipside, there are atheistic parents suing to get even a moment of silence removed from public schools because a child in class may, may, use that time to pray. So little confidence have they in their own beliefs I guess.
I agree, that's really ridiculous.
__________________
ShipOfFools is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 06:41 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
I don't think science makes such a claim.
But many people speaking on behalf of science certainly seem to hint as much.
Read past threads on Intelligent Design. Why the hysteria about exposing kids to the idea that maybe evolution and astronomy can't answer all the questions about the origin of man or our universe?
Why are people called "anti-science" simply because they dare to question the ethics of allowing human embryos to become a buyable commodity on the order of wheat or pork bellies.
And what the hell did President Obama mean when he said, "We will restore science to it's rightful place." Really, what is that supposed to mean? What is it's rightful place and where has it been hiding the past 8 years?
Quote:
I think science itself is about the search for empirical truth. It would be all-inclusive to any new discovery, embrace it with arms and move on in it's quest for absolute truth.

To me, this is a quest a Creator could be proud of.
Couldn't agree more. We were made in His image with the capacity to reason (lacking in all other creatures) and given nature to study.
Quote:
Trying to help their fellow man by understanding this world we are stuck in. Being open to change, to new evidence, to new paradigms, is what science is all about.
Religion changes too. Through revelation, testing, tribulations and reformation but also by adaptation to the world around us, including our body of knowledge.
Quote:
Faith and it's dogma starts from where you stated "there is only one truth" and works backwards from there. You have it completely backwards. Science would accept two, three 'truths' if that were the one truth. Faith already holds court on the "one truth" and force-fits.
Ultimately can there really be multiple truths?
Quote:
"Faith has no fear of reason" and science claims a monopoly on truth...?
I think you just airballed, Indy. Although maybe you could play for Tom Crean!!!
funny line but it was really a pass that the small forward just laid in for an easy basket. North Carolina St won a championship that way you know. 1983
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 06:49 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
What's the matter with materialism? (pun intended)

Nothing, except when it ventures from science to philosophy. There is nothing scientific about summarily dismissing the possibility that anything exists outside the observable realm of matter and energy.
I agree that the methodological materialism of science is not the same as metaphysical materialism.

My understanding of science probably leads me to a physicalist type of position.[/QUOTE]Lets be very clear on this point about design, if you are proposing intelligent design then you are flat out wrong, if you are suggesting a divine lawmaker how does that validate Christianity.

Complexity in living systems deliver no evidence for a creative intelligence behind it. The fact of evolution is well established, and a mechanism like natural selection is capable of designing complex organisms through a mindless mechanical process. Complexity emerges in living systems, that this is a result of the physics of the universe might leave room for a sort of God, but one which becomes effectively indistinguishable from the universe.

I don't see complexity as an infinite series of coincidences, it is the continuous culling of life and the selection of forms which succeed at reproducing; this model has more explanatory power than an intelligent designer (which leads to the infinite regress of how that intelligence came to be).

Once the ball gets rolling and life, or proto-life, which has the properties of heritable variability, replication, and differential survival then more complexity seems highly likely.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 07:01 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
And what the hell did President Obama mean when he said, "We will restore science to it's rightful place." Really, what is that supposed to mean? What is it's rightful place and where has it been hiding the past 8 years?
As his predecessor was a person who is wont to musing "I'm a faith based guy" I think it's a reasonable aspiration.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 07:09 PM   #43
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
And what the hell did President Obama mean when he said, "We will restore science to it's rightful place." Really, what is that supposed to mean? What is it's rightful place and where has it been hiding the past 8 years?
I cheered when said that. Out loud. Literally cheered.

It has been in hiding the last eight years. The Bush administration fired scientists for daring to contradict the faith-based pseudo "science" that the administration supported.


Its rightful place is back in public discourse, an informed and intelligent discourse. Bush and his pals had no respect for science that didn't support whatever environmental destruction their friends would profit from.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 07:18 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
But many people speaking on behalf of science certainly seem to hint as much.

Read past threads on Intelligent Design. Why the hysteria about exposing kids to the idea that maybe evolution and astronomy can't answer all the questions about the origin of man or our universe?
Yes, "teach the controversy", the political message disseminated by the Discovery Institute following the last failure to get creationism taught in public schools.

The "hysteria" is genuine concern about science education and secularism. Teaching special creation alongside real scientific theories is like putting alchemy into the chemistry classroom.

The hot tip from an insider is this, the evolution is even more established than gravity, if you want to teach the controversy then a syllabus that looks at questions of biological limitations, the strength of natural selection, the role of embryology, what controls the rate of evolution etc. would be required. These are the sorts of topics that are published in peer reviewed journals, for all the talk the creationists who have adopted Intelligent Design have not had a single paper published to validate their assertions, they have spent millions on public relations but have not produced any original research.

The fact that we are apes is well established, the homologies were debated in the 19th Century before Darwin published (we have the same parts, even our brains have the same structures). This has been reinforced by the palaeontology of early homonids and more recently the genetic evidence which validate our degree of relatedness to our living ape cousins.

The beginning of the universe has a set of observations and a cosmological theory (the Big Bang) to explain them. Although I think Hawking was right when he described the idea of "what was before the Big Bang" as "what's north of the north pole" most churches have no problem accepting the universe began with a rapid expansion around 13.7 billion years ago and that we live on a planet that orbits an unassuming star, one of the innumerable ones that exist in the universe.
Quote:
Why are people called "anti-science" simply because they dare to question the ethics of allowing human embryos to become a buyable commodity on the order of wheat or pork bellies.
And the social agenda comes into play, a secular society is an immoral society, genuine change can only come by putting religious beliefs in their rightful position at the top. You want your definition of morality to rule over the rest of society, frankly I would have a problem with that.
Quote:
And what the hell did President Obama mean when he said, "We will restore science to it's rightful place." Really, what is that supposed to mean? What is it's rightful place and where has it been hiding the past 8 years?
No more distorting global warming research, no more cutting science funding, no more public denigration of science from senior public figures (we may hope).
Quote:
Couldn't agree more. We were made in His image with the capacity to reason (lacking in all other creatures) and given nature to study.
An unjustified assertion, ignoring your claim of special creation what about Neanderthals? their brains were larger than ours and even though they may have differed in some structures they must have had similar types of capacities.

The extinct homonids that seem to show increasing brain size through time aren't strictly human, they probably didn't lack the capacity to reason.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2009, 07:58 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
We were made in His image with the capacity to reason (lacking in all other creatures).
I take it you believe man was created by God, as opposed to evolution.

The case for God creating man out of nothing would be stronger and perhaps even credible if man were unique.
The argument could be won hands down by the creationist if there were only human hands.

If we lived in a world with no chimpanzee, and other primates that are 99.X % the same genetic makeup as humans, and if there were no fossil remains of pre-humans before homosapiens the creationists' case would be very persuasive.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com