DOMINICI.COM
News:
Home FORUM Help Search Calendar Gallery Login Register *
Welcome to the Official DOMINICI Website and Forums!
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down
Add bookmark | Print
Author Topic: Science vs Religion  (Read 16912 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
faemir
Officially unworthy of a custom title
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: N/A
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 50



« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2008, 12:52:45 PM »

Quote
First off, it's not a straw man to examplify how teaching stuff going against scientific consensus would be.

wrong.

Quote from: wikipedia
# Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

Which is what you did in your 'What if someone believed that drinking cyanide WA....' paragraph. You half admitted it at the start yourself.

Quote
Religion should not be taught as fact in school.

I never said anything contrary to that. In fact, I agree. Obviously you didn't read my post about how I said that evolution should be taught in science and creationism in RS (as one such religious belief, as not all Christians are literalists, incase you didn't know.)

Quote
It should be taught as history or sociology courses - on the line with all other religions.

History? Are you just trying to be offensive? I mean, it really sounds like you are, since as you could of just said it could be taught as RELIGION.

 The Running Free by Coheed and Cambria from Good Apollo I'm Burning Star IV, Vol. 2: No World For Tomorrow
« Last Edit: March 16, 2008, 12:58:46 PM by faemir » Logged
nimrod
Resident Big Thinker
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 1120
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 249



« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2008, 02:01:46 PM »

Why choose one religion to talk about as fact over any other religion? Once you interject beliefs into what is being taught over that of science consensus, you are creating a dangerous and misleading society.

Wikipedia defines intelligent design as the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". I do not see anyone claiming that intelligent design is about the Christian God, many believe this to be so as the article then goes on to say, but ultimately intelligent design is about a designer and this could be from many religions. Therefore, if one were to teach intelligent design in schools they would not be choosing "one religion to talk about as fact over any other religion".

On the one hand, contradicting a 200 year old scientific consensus with a religious agenda, and presenting it as science is simply cheating science out of its importance. It's purposely used to create doubts against science to which there should be NO DOUBT.

Throughout each of your posts you talk about science as if what science says is final. As you said yourself, science does not have all the answers. As for "cheating science out of its importance", are you not trying to cheat religion out of its importance here as well? There is no need for this because nobody is trying to cheat science out of its importance, it has already been suggested that God could have used scientific methods to create man and the Universe etc. The importance of science has been acknowledged yet you think there is some "religious agenda". What exactly is that? To say science is wrong about everything? No. If anything religion is actually a very good test for scientific theories as it brings up all sorts of questions that science must answer for its theories to work.

Science NEVER claims to know 100%. It claims to purposely model everything that we can observe as thoroughly and accurately as possible as testable hypothesis and theories. Paradigm shifts happens due to new discoveries that are revolutionary concerning how things works. That's one of the magnificent things about science. It's self-correcting, and when we learn that something is wrong WE CORRECT IT.

It's very interesting that you said earlier in your post when referring to religion, "It's purposely used to create doubts against science to which there should be NO DOUBT". However, it seems here that you are saying science never claims to know everything, so why did you say there should be no doubt over what science has to say?

At no point was there anyone thinking to fit in a "god is moving the plates around" into the theory. Which is what intelligent design is trying to do. Intelligent design is a desperate move by desperate religious people who cannot accept that science has explained how humans evolved from common ancestors of the apes - and NOT created in Gods image as the bible states.

Intelligent design is most definitely not trying to say "god is moving the plates around". Find me a single source that says otherwise.

What's wrong with making the hypothesis that god created man through evolution? In scientific terms: it's a unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore not useful in science at all. Another such unfalsifiable hypothesis is the Flying Spagetthi Monster - or the Russels Teapot.

It may be unfalsifiable, but kindly tell me how it could be falsifiable without a time machine? Furthermore, why does it need to be falsifiable? It is accepted in science that the Earth consists of several layers including what is called the mantle. Nobody has ever seen the mantle and therefore it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that it exists yet it is accepted scientific theory. I accept this theory even though it is unfalsifiable and so do you, therefore it is irrelevant to say that God creating man through evolution is not useful in science at all just because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Logged

Join the DOMINICI Groups at: last.fm - Facebook - StudivVZ.net (German)
noxon
HyperGeek
Forum Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 38
Location: Norway
Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2008, 03:32:18 PM »

Faemir: a straw man is stating YOUR side as something other than it really is. The discussion here was whether science and religion should be accepted as equals and coexist in class. If you DIDNT MEAN THAT, then of course you would think that my quote was a straw man. You have to look at the discussion as a whole, not just a singular quote taken out of context. The discussion was: "why is intelligent design thaught alongside evolution a bad thing". The example I chose was "why is it the poisionous effects of cyanide not thaught alongside the positive effects". This is NOT a strawman in the same discussion - because they are both sides of the same story: one is based on scientific principles, the other on a belief that are NOT based in science. I do not know how I can make that any more clearer for you. If that STILL is a straw man for you, i think you need to learn about straw man arguments. A straw man argument is more like saying "evolution is ridiculous - macro evolution is saying that fish can evolve directly into apes". I never said that any intelligent design proponets do beleive that cyanide is not dangerous - so i never made a straw man attack either. I used it as an example. An example of how two conflicting accounts - one scientific and one non-scientific - should not be taught alongside eachother as equally valid.


Nimrod: Intelligent Design IS of christian source. There is no doubt about this. Intelligent Design is a politically disguised christian agenda created specifically to lure in creationism into curriculums - whereas creationism now is such a laden word that they cannot use it anymore (creationism is instantly recognizable as christian). The main proponents (and some might say creators) of Intelligent Design is the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/). It has clear ties with many christian organizations. But they TRY to be coy about it and make it seem like it's not of a christian agenda. It's all about politics. I mean, come on. What is the largest religion in the US? Who do you think have to gain by having ID taught in schools alongside evolution? The whole "it's not a christian thing" argument is shoddy at best. It's of the same shoddyness as the AA "you need to believe in a god, but it doesn't matter which one" argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute


It is a very common ploy to downplay science, first claiming that "science proponents are just as rigid as religious people". I've never once said that science is absolute. What I said was that you should not go against the teaching of what is the accepted scientific consensus. You are creating doubts of the validity of -the scientific method- whent there should be no doubt. If that sentence makes more sense to you. Cause, when we talk about science, what we talk about is the scientific method. Not -what- science knows. But -how- science knows. When you purposely go out against science (such as with Intelligent Design) - you are going against the scientific method.  If you don't see this as a religious agenda - I do not know what can convince you. If the importance of science was as established as you say - why is there even a QUESTION whether ID should be taught in schools? Why WOULD you need to mix religion and science? The only reason I can see is to protect a religious agenda and belief system. Not to further science.

As for ID and plate tectonics - sorry, that wasn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to explain the equivalent of ID and Evolution - and plate tectonics and "god is moving everything magically". Not that ID has anything to say about plate tectonics (although many ID proponents vehemently claim that plate tectonics do not exist - but thats another case Wink).


Unfalsifiable claims are of no validity. You CAN find out whether the mantle theory is correct - you just have to drill a hole deep enough. And we've come pretty far at doing exactly that. And there are other things that fit into the whole mantle theory that confirms the hypothesis so it's pretty much why it's accepted that it is thus. We've observed the effects, and we have testable hypothesis. It's NOT an unfalsifiable statement.

As for "god created man through evolution" - we really wouldn't see that even if we observed the evolution - if god didn't appear to us and proved that he existed. But that would be another point completely. For all intents and purposes, it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a valid scientific hypothesis.


IN ANY CASE: all we are doing here is dancing around the same arguments and we're not getting anywhere. I see no point in further continuing this discussion if it's not going to lead anywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
« Last Edit: March 16, 2008, 04:11:54 PM by noxon » Logged

faemir
Officially unworthy of a custom title
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: N/A
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 50



« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2008, 03:44:22 PM »

So do you have any qualms in this situation: x school teaches about evolution in science as basically what they believe to be correct (and that no other theory will prove it wrong etc), and then in religious studies they teach that some people believe in creationism?

Also, I never disagreed with your original statement about how they should put creationism over evolution. As basically outlined above, I think that evolution should be taught in science, and creationism in RS, along with many other religious-born ideas. Is there anything wrong with that?

 Hearwork by Carcass from Heartwork \m/ \m/
Logged
noxon
HyperGeek
Forum Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 38
Location: Norway
Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #54 on: March 16, 2008, 04:24:14 PM »

Your first post about the matter said "Teach both, let them make their own mind up.". This was in direct respons to my quote about ID proponents trying to replace evolution with creationism.

Of course I interpreted this as you disagreeing with my stance that creationism has no business in science classes. Whether it shall be taught in social studies or wherever (and religion is a social studies class - just as phyisics is a science class - so you don't go off on a tangent against me again Tongue) is another case entirely. Keep religion out of the science classroom, that's all I'm saying. Of course people should be taught religion in school - but I would also stress that this MUST be on a fair basis - which it unfortunately rarely is. Usually, the cultural major religion is what gains the focus in religion class, and is taught as fact - while other religions are reduced to myths. Understandable, but I don't have to like it. A deep and broad understanding of human history, religious history, myths and science history (philosophical history) is of great importance, i think. And unfortunately, many people do not have the basic knowledge required to make rational decisions about life, the universe and everything. They just follow the stream.
Logged

Phantasmatron
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 30
Location: good ol' PA
Posts: 276


What the Jenkins?!


WWW
« Reply #55 on: March 16, 2008, 04:57:53 PM »

Whoa.  This thread got long. 

Uhm, for a non-believer, what is the "considerable amount of validity" of a religion?

Nothing, really.  If you don't believe in it, then of course you don't think it's valid.  But what I was trying to say is that I think both science and faith have some good stuff to offer.  Neither one has all the answers, but they're both worth looking into.


Science CANNOT coexist with religion because religion is about explaining that which is supernatural. The supernatural, by its very definition, cannot be tested by science, because science can only test that which exists in nature.

That doesn't make any sense to me.  Just because they're based on different things doesn't mean they can't complement each other. Peanut butter is made of peanuts and jelly is made of fruit, but they make a delicious sandwich.  To me, science is about understanding how the world works and faith is about understand what the world is for.  We're made out of little particles called atoms that are also made out of smaller things?  Wow!  But that in no way disproves the existence of God. 



The core difference between science and religion is faith. Science professes to know ONLY based on testable evidence. Religion professes to know ONLY based on faith. Science covers for its uncertainties by stating that yes, we do not know everything, nor do we CLAIM to do so either, BUT whenever we DO claim to know, we also put forward testable hypothesis that can either prove or disprove our claim of knowledge. Religion covers for its uncertainties by stating "it is god, god is mysterious" and leaves it at that.

Religion uses testable hypotheses to a certain extent, too.  Some religions encourage people to pray about what they believe to find out if it is true, although I do admit that the results of this "testing" aren't exactly concrete or quantifiable.  But saying that religion covers for its uncertainties by saying "god is mysterious" and leaves it at that isn't really giving the really faithful people the credit they deserve.  You make it sound like all religious people are backwoods wackos who blindly believe in some popular mythology and think the internal combustion engine is run by little devils inside of it.  A lot of religious people are blind believers, and that's unfortunate.  But a lot of religious people honestly and truthfully believe to have had some kind of personal communication with God that has validated their beliefs in their minds.  And I don't think that's something you should brush off too easily just because you don't get where they're coming from.  That's like me saying that quantum physics is a load of crap because I read something about it once and I didn't understand it.



Do you not see the difference in science asking "where does the sun come from" and answering "it was born from a huge cloud of matter condencing into a ball of fire" (great simplification for illustrative purposes) and religion askin "where does the sun come from" and just answering "it was created by god".

Both answers to that question are valid.  I don't see the conflict. 


Or when it comes to questions that goes against the religion, such as "where do humans come from", towhich science has answered "evolution" but creationists claim are "intelligent design".

Again, I don't see the inherent conflict.  To me, neither one of these theories irrefutably contradicts the other.  Evolution could have simply been a tool God used in creating the universe, as faemir said.  I believe both happened, and I don't have a problem with that.
Logged

That reminds me, I found your pants in the fridge this morning.

I have no idea what just happened, but I can only assume that I was an indispensable contributor.
charliedominici
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: N/A
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 17, 2008, 12:00:27 AM »

God has a toolbox?
Cool! I could use a sawzall right now to RIP THIS STUPID F*KING THREAD  TO PIECES!!!
 
Logged




"I'm just a singer in a rock and roll band"....
..................."The Moody Blues"
xoxoch
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Age: 37
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 526



« Reply #57 on: March 17, 2008, 12:50:27 AM »

chill guys  Cheesy

like phantasmatron says, why do we have to prove this or that theory as being the right one?
Logged
noxon
HyperGeek
Forum Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 38
Location: Norway
Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #58 on: March 17, 2008, 02:30:04 AM »

Phantasmatron: I'm just going to repeat a set of questions, now directed for you:
Try to answer these questions:  Why do you believe in the religion you do? Is it because of heritage and/or your surrounding culture? Why do different cultures have different religions? Can you trace the history of religion (even yours) through earlier versions of the religion or related cultures religions? What makes your religion unique - and conversely what makes it similar to other religions? All in all: why do you believe what you believe, and not something else?

Or rather, in the context of your reply to me: WHICH religion has "the answers" to the question "why is the world here"? Do you see that religion doesn't really answer any questions objectively, but give plenty of alternatives, none more provable than others?
Logged

Phantasmatron
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 30
Location: good ol' PA
Posts: 276


What the Jenkins?!


WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 17, 2008, 09:22:24 AM »

Phantasmatron: I'm just going to repeat a set of questions, now directed for you:
Try to answer these questions:  Why do you believe in the religion you do? Is it because of heritage and/or your surrounding culture? Why do different cultures have different religions? Can you trace the history of religion (even yours) through earlier versions of the religion or related cultures religions? What makes your religion unique - and conversely what makes it similar to other religions? All in all: why do you believe what you believe, and not something else?

Why do I believe the religion I do:

It's not because of my heritage.  The religion may have been in my family for several generations, but that's exactly why I've tried to step back and tried to look at it differently.  I don't want to believe something just because it's what I was taught.  And I've kind of decided that my religion is the one that makes the most logical sense to me.  And to a lesser extent, I think I've seen some minor evidence in my life that confirms some aspects of my beliefs.

Why different cultures have different religions:

Because they're different cultures.  Of course they'll have different takes on things.  Just because religions come from different roots, splinter and evolve and can trace their origins back through countless different "versions" doesn't mean they don't have some truth to offer.

Or rather, in the context of your reply to me: WHICH religion has "the answers" to the question "why is the world here"? Do you see that religion doesn't really answer any questions objectively, but give plenty of alternatives, none more provable than others?

My religion answers the question "why is the world here?"  And it answers it to my satisfaction. 

As far as proof goes, of course religion can't be proven.  That's kind of the whole point.  Although I think individuals can get personal evidence of it, and that works for them.  But just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it can't be true. 
Logged

That reminds me, I found your pants in the fridge this morning.

I have no idea what just happened, but I can only assume that I was an indispensable contributor.
Matt Gillis
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 253


« Reply #60 on: March 17, 2008, 10:29:56 AM »

Wow guys, there are some very EXCELLENT points, and there is A LOT that I want to comment on.


. . . But for once in my life, (brace yourself) I won't say anything at all. We can debate this to all ends of the earth, in fact, I think in our own heads we all even argue with OURSELVES to figure this out. But I just want to draw attention back to one of my first posts (I think it was the first). To quote an author I enjoy:

" Faith is not granted by tangible proof. It comes from the heart and the soul. If a person needs proof of a gods existence then the very notion of spirituality is diminished to sensuality and we have reduced what is holy into what is logical"

Why does this matter? Because this thread doesn't matter, that's why. Sure, we've all said some good things, and accomplished things, but in the end, these two things are mutually exclusive. And I am not talking about science and religion (since some people think you can combine the two, and I won't say their any more wrong than I, or anyone else is) but I'm talking about a difference of views. Don't diminish each others view; faith doesn't NEED to make sense, in fact, it almost NEVER does. And as for science? That's wrong too. Since we are in a prog forum, I think its good to mention "The Great Debate" by DT. They had a quote in there that said "Of course this is new and we don't know where we are going, but that is what science is all about". And I think that's entirely true; science isn't about the known, its about discovery and new knowledge, which often, can be wrong (or right as well).

So each hold their ground, and this debate goes nowhere. I'm obviously not the arbiter here, and I am not trying to be sagacious, but I mean let people believe in what they believe. What I find funny, is that there is scientific "evidence" of faith helping people, whether it was the "faith" is wrong or not. If I feel comfortable and I can bond with a group of people like in a church (and no, I don't go to church and I have no religion) I will be happy. And in the end (all huge fights caused by religion aside) isn't it this glee that makes the world spin? If someone told me everything I believed in was wrong, I'd be less likely to hold the door open for him walking into a restraunt, get my drift? By you saying that science is right and religion is wrong (whether your argument is solid or not) is just like me saying hinduism is right and christianity is wrong. Let people believe in what they believe, and its their personal choice, not yours (and this goes two ways).

So I know we are not being hostile, but lets put this to bed before we all waste too much of our music time!  Grin
Logged
nimrod
Resident Big Thinker
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 1120
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 249



« Reply #61 on: March 17, 2008, 11:30:25 AM »

Overall I think you probably score mmm.. 8 out of 10 for a good thread-ender there Matt

I am glad that this thread achieved some serious discussion and I hope that we can continue to have political and religious discussions here. Well done to everyone involved for your thought-through arguments. The problem with this thread has largely been the inability to accept the view points of others so I think we should all remember this in future.

On a lighter note it has been very interesting to hear your views. I will lock this thread in 2 and a half hours (seemed like a good time) so that gives any of you who may wish to post a final thought some time.
Logged

Join the DOMINICI Groups at: last.fm - Facebook - StudivVZ.net (German)
reapsta
Forum Member
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17



« Reply #62 on: March 17, 2008, 11:32:52 AM »

Why Science vs. Religion. Both are good.
Logged
nimrod
Resident Big Thinker
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 1120
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 249



« Reply #63 on: March 17, 2008, 11:35:35 AM »

Why Science vs. Religion. Both are good.

This is true. Probably caused problems from the start. Balls (quote from MP Tongue)
Logged

Join the DOMINICI Groups at: last.fm - Facebook - StudivVZ.net (German)
xoxoch
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Age: 37
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 526



« Reply #64 on: March 17, 2008, 11:40:29 AM »

that was a good one to start it off  I admire you guys for being so silver tounged about stuff like this Grin I find it extremely difficult to get such a matter across in written 
Logged
Phantasmatron
Forum Elder
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 30
Location: good ol' PA
Posts: 276


What the Jenkins?!


WWW
« Reply #65 on: March 17, 2008, 12:26:57 PM »

Why Science vs. Religion. Both are good.

Damn, why did it take me two paragraphs to say that? 
Logged

That reminds me, I found your pants in the fridge this morning.

I have no idea what just happened, but I can only assume that I was an indispensable contributor.
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
Add bookmark | Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc | Website © Copyright 2008 DOMINICI.COM
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!