PDA

View Full Version : Science and religion



Haglund
2003-Oct-08, 08:26 AM
If you believe in the Bible, can you still have some room left for science in your mind? Well, let's see.

The earth and the entire universe were created in 6 days
Do you believe this, then you must disregard the observations that seem to suggest that solar systems take much longer than 6 days to be "born". One must also disregard the fact that stars did not appear within a week after the first moments of the universe.

The earth and the universe were created 6000 years ago
If you would believe this, then you must disregard the fact that there were human cultures before that, you must disregard the majority of the fossile record, including the dinosaurs, and you must disregard most dating methods. You must disregard the fact that the universe, according to the latest observations, is around 13.7 billion years, and that the earth have been dated back to 4.5 billion years.

Evolution never happened
In order to believe this, one must disregard the entire fossile record and the observed cases of evolution and speciation.

The climate was the same all over the world
I've heard people say this as if it was true. If it was, then we can forget the polar bears. That is, unless you are ready to accept evolution. :-)

The missing day
In Joshua there is apparently a story about how the sun stood still for an entire day. To believe this, means one must disregard almost ALL physics and celestial mechanics. One must be able to believe that despite the enormous mass of the Earth, it can still stop its rotation and then continue as if nothing happened. No comments. :-)

Earth existed three days before any stars did
If this is to be true, you must completely disregard the fact that there are stars far older than Sol and therefor older than our Earth.


I guess that the more room you make for religion, the less room is left for science. Imagine if the Bible said that objects with rest mass can reach the speed of light. What, then, should you believe?

Fraser
2003-Oct-08, 05:58 PM
I'm going to watch this unfolding conversation very warily. Some of the previous ones have gotten a little heated.

Everyone... be nice.

Tinaa
2003-Oct-08, 09:37 PM
Although, not a deeply religious person, I do believe in God, the Supreme Being. I also believe the Big Bang theory and that dinosaurs walked the Earth millions of years ago. I also believe there are beings on other worlds even if we never get to meet them (I think we will meet someday). I, unlike Planetwatcher (though he is very knowledgable and has the right to believe as he does), believe the Bible is a book written to help mankind understand the universe. Psychlogically, man needed some kind of moral code to live by. Though, if anything could stop the Earth from turning, God could! So I believe in God and I believe in science. Both need the ability to accept that are just some things we can't understand right now.

Hadrian
2003-Oct-08, 10:08 PM
Naughty, your nitpicking Parker. While I agree totally with all you state, many people tend to forget that the bible represents just one of countless religions through the ages, and as garbled as this book is, it is still far more sensible than the majority of those other religions.

Through the ages our kind have dreamed up every possible scenario our over active imaginations can conceive to explain existence. Strange, not really – especially when we take into account all the other legends from our past.

Religion, well its not about to be recognized for the sham it is, its far too profitable. Look at America, it’s a thriving industry there, with a twit a week professing he has discovered the true meaning of gods word. – While usually making a fortune on the way by convincing his gullible followers he can telephone/post/email their messages straight to god.

One only has to take a good look at the history, wealth and present antics of the Catholic Church to get a good spin on religion.

Science at least gives us the modern technology we enjoy so much, our medicines and many of the answers we could never hope to find in some dusty, confused and ancient tome, written by a people who thought the earth was flat.

Makes one wonder if insanity is built in to our DNA.

Haglund
2003-Oct-08, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Tinaa@Oct 8 2003, 09:37 PM
Although, not a deeply religious person, I do believe in God, the Supreme Being. I also believe the Big Bang theory and that dinosaurs walked the Earth millions of years ago. I also believe there are beings on other worlds even if we never get to meet them (I think we will meet someday). I, unlike Planetwatcher (though he is very knowledgable and has the right to believe as he does), believe the Bible is a book written to help mankind understand the universe. Psychlogically, man needed some kind of moral code to live by. Though, if anything could stop the Earth from turning, God could! So I believe in God and I believe in science. Both need the ability to accept that are just some things we can't understand right now.
I have no doubt that there are things that we do not understand. But I try not to draw certain conclusions about something, based on little or nothing. For example, I fail to see any evidence that would support the existence of a god, as I see no evidence that support the existence of life on Mars, or, for that matter a firebreathing dragon in my garage (and not only because I have no garage). But sure, anyone can believe anything they like, supported or not.

Haglund
2003-Oct-08, 10:53 PM
Naughty, your nitpicking Parker. While I agree totally with all you state, many people tend to forget that the bible represents just one of countless religions through the ages, and as garbled as this book is, it is still far more sensible than the majority of those other religions.
Indeed, there are many many other creation myths out there, that speaks of a god or gods or other very imaginative concepts. In the Norse creation myth, it all apparently began when a hot and a cold world met, which resulted in thawing the cold world, which resulted in a frosty giant, Ymir. Then from this Ymir came one woman and one man and their son, and four cows. These cows fed Ymir. Some gods killed him, and then world was made from him, the blood became the oceans etc. Quite a story.


Through the ages our kind have dreamed up every possible scenario our over active imaginations can conceive to explain existence. Strange, not really – especially when we take into account all the other legends from our past.
And I can actually understand that they came up with all these stories, since at the time, they really didn't have many answers to everything around them. I mean why not at least have a little fun, right?


Religion, well its not about to be recognized for the sham it is, its far too profitable. Look at America, it’s a thriving industry there, with a twit a week professing he has discovered the true meaning of gods word. – While usually making a fortune on the way by convincing his gullible followers he can telephone/post/email their messages straight to god.

One only has to take a good look at the history, wealth and present antics of the Catholic Church to get a good spin on religion.
Anything can be manufactured, packaged and sold. Fascinating and worrying.


Science at least gives us the modern technology we enjoy so 0much, our medicines and many of the answers we could never hope to find in some dusty, confused and ancient tome, written by a people who thought the earth was flat.
Well if they did it because they knew they didn't know as much as we do now about cosmos or the nature, they could make up stories for fun. But I actually think that they must have realized that they made them up, and nothing else.

And sure, science is very useful when we need a surgery, or when we want to use the latest mobile phone, or when we want to watch TV, store food in a refrigerator or fly to another continent. Science becomes very inconvinient when it provides answers that goes against personal belief, then many refuse to change that. But if no one changed those beliefs when observations suggest it, then we would still blame diseases on demons, the earth would be flat and be the centre of the universe.

Deep_Eye
2003-Oct-08, 11:46 PM
The earth and the entire universe were created in 6 days
Do you believe this, then you must disregard the observations that seem to suggest that solar systems take much longer than 6 days to be "born". One must also disregard the fact that stars did not appear within a week after the first moments of the universe.
For one thing, no one knows how long one of God's days is. The Bible says that time has no meaning to God, so for all we know one day to god is a thousand of our days, maybe a century, a million years, or even a billion of our years.

The earth and the universe were created 6000 years ago
If you would believe this, then you must disregard the fact that there were human cultures before that, you must disregard the majority of the fossile record, including the dinosaurs, and you must disregard most dating methods. You must disregard the fact that the universe, according to the latest observations, is around 13.7 billion years, and that the earth have been dated back to 4.5 billion years.
Evolution never happened
In order to believe this, one must disregard the entire fossile record and the observed cases of evolution and speciation.
The 6000 years comes from the Jewish calandar, which is heedless of B.C. and A.D. differenecs. Who's to say that Adam didnt start off extremely short and then work "evolve?" Personally though I don't belive that man came from apes. God could have also created animal life before he created humans-say the dinosaurs and all the one celled oraganisms up to 3 billion years ago.

The climate was the same all over the world
I've heard people say this as if it was true. If it was, then we can forget the polar bears. That is, unless you are ready to accept evolution. :-)
At this time when you hear the term "all over the world" or the "whole world" it usually refers to just the Middle East. That is pretty much all anyone knew about for a while.


The missing day
In Joshua there is apparently a story about how the sun stood still for an entire day. To believe this, means one must disregard almost ALL physics and celestial mechanics. One must be able to believe that despite the enormous mass of the Earth, it can still stop its rotation and then continue as if nothing happened. No comments. :-)
Do you doubt the power of God? If he can create the universe, then stopping a planet from rotating is nothing. God can do anything. You try to explain everything with science, but the rules to science are not always followed. Even though a rule is "known," such as why something happens, all of them (the rules) bend to God's will and change at his command.

Earth existed three days before any stars did
If this is to be true, you must completely disregard the fact that there are stars far older than Sol and therefor older than our Earth.
Again, God's day could be so long that distinctions like this come up. Science cannot explain God. He is undefinable by human words.
Not everyone in the ancient world thought that the world was flat! That was mainly England in the 1400's or so. Some ancient cultures such as the Phoenicians even as early as 3000B.C. knew that the earth was round because the sailed the oceans.

Science at least gives us the modern technology we enjoy so 0much, our medicines and many of the answers we could never hope to find in some dusty, confused and ancient tome, written by a people who thought the earth was flat.
Maybe so, I will agree that science has brought us many advantages and "advantages" in the world. However, what does science show you about God? What does science tell you about being God's children? What about Jesus, heaven and hell? Science is good, don't get me wrong, but some take it to the extreme, and try and use it to explain everything away. In itself some people have made it a religion, which is not good. They use it as a replacement for God.

zephyr46
2003-Oct-09, 04:32 AM
I think that the big bang will make as much sense as Genisis a hundred years from now, if you want to probe through the bible to the bit where god reveils to a curious sheperd in Israel 5000 years ago what the great Attractor is, good luck, if you want to know why it took a few hundred years for the church to forgive Galileo for letting them know a bit of the truth, I don't think the bible will help much. If you are looking for advice on how to deal with ideas like, the sun will ingulf the earth or a meteor may get us long before that, check out Revelations. I would put myself in the basket of Mystics, that is, faith in the Mystery of Mysteries, but you should never stop looking for answers, and you should only narrow your search if you find what you are looking for, but you will not find all answers in one place, certainly not in one book like the bible, or Koran, or veda, damapada, but all will have pecies of the answer. Not even Scence has the Ultimate Answers.

Haglund
2003-Oct-09, 07:22 AM
DEEP_EYE:

In my opinion, to explain away problems with such things as "what is a day in god's eye?" seem very desperate, actually. If we are to read it as a scientific text book, then we can't go around interpret it whatever way we like?

Of course I doubt the power of god. I doubt the existence of a god! And tell me why I shouldn't? After all, there is no evidence. Why, then, should I believe blindly in something that has never been observed, not even indirectly? I do not believe there are invisible unicorns flying around either. Do you understand why I don't believe in them?

Haglund
2003-Oct-09, 07:27 AM
ZEPHYR46:

I am aware that the theory of the Big Bang will change in the future. This is of course one of the strengths of science, its ability to change when it is needed. Another strength is the principle to cut out as much excess baggage as possible, the Ockhams razor, which says that of two equally good theories, chose the simplest one. I can not see how "god" is necessary to explain any observed phenomena. Can you? Show me, in that case. I am sure that people who strongly believe in god, actually have some good evidence in support. Why would they otherwise be so sure?

Dan Luna
2003-Oct-09, 05:02 PM
What I don't understand is why some religious people are concerned that science should support their beliefs. Presumably God could have used his infinite powers to create the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago, complete with all those objects that appear to be much older, such as fossils, galaxies etc. I do wonder though why he'd want to mislead people like that?

Haglund
2003-Oct-09, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Dan Luna@Oct 9 2003, 05:02 PM
What I don't understand is why some religious people are concerned that science should support their beliefs. Presumably God could have used his infinite powers to create the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago, complete with all those objects that appear to be much older, such as fossils, galaxies etc. I do wonder though why he'd want to mislead people like that?
Maybe it will support one or two things from their myths, maybe not. If it does, then that's simply a coincidense. Science doesn't care about myths, simply because it doesn't matter. And another thing... Gods don't mislead people, people mislead people.

Deep_Eye
2003-Oct-13, 01:15 AM
Dan Luna- maybe it is a test. In the begining he didnt mean for man to sin, but it happened. Thats why we are where we are today, in doubt, and hate, violence, war, and all the other unpleasantries of the world like hunger, and starvation, disease, and many more. It is our own fault, and with God's help will be rectified in the end.
I take it Parker, that you're a strong believer in the big bang. So tell me, where did all that matter-condensed as it was-come from? Matter comes from something!
And the "day in the eyes of God thing" as you put it is just my explanation. The Bible says that time is meaningless to God. He is the "Alpha and the Omega" (the begining and the end) Have you never felt God in anything you see? Have you never read the Gospels? If not, I'd suggest you read one or maybe all four of them, it won't take you very long-they're at most 30 or so pages each. And again-as for the existance of God, take the Bible for example. The books in it were written in a span of time of about 2000 years, and had about 40 or so different authors throughout that period. Now tell me, not once in the Bible is anything "contradicted." The authors would have no chance to collaborate, so without God's help, how else could the Bible have been written? More than likely, some of the writers of the Bible didn't even know of the other books existance.
Look at the pictures of space, how vast it is. How can you still doubt supernatural intervention? Do you think everything in the universe happened by chance? There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. and maybe a trillion times that many stars. Approximately 10^80 atoms. Do you really think it is all coincidence?
And if you're really interested in the war of religion and science-read "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown. Its not a religous book, but does offer some very interesting aruguments on both sides. Its a good fictional read. Science may "explain" many things, but look what it has cost the human race. God didn't intend for us to explain everything away, but he made us with free will-for better or worse. He will be the Judge in the end. Science and religion can coexist- but it will take a lot of work. Not all scientists are atheists, but sadly it seems a lot are.

Planetwatcher
2003-Oct-13, 02:05 AM
Fraiser said to be nice, but you know, I tire from people who ask questions, claim to be scientific, and have the gall to call one's spirital beliefs hypocrosey. :angry:

To those who claim to be scientific minded I'll give the benifiet of the doubt AGAIN,
but this time I&#39;m calling the bluff, <_< and will go so far as to say that if those asking the questions don&#39;t at least read the answers given before, then it is they, not the religious people who are the hypocrites. :o

Now if you read the answers and don&#39;t aggree that is another matter, and I will respect a seeker who really does search for the answers sought, rather then just keep asking the same sorry questions which were answered before. :blink:

For Parker&#39;s benifit, the answers that Parker asked for are in the following strings.
Here in totally off topic, Please refer to early postings in "The Big Bang" and the Bible. (Pages 1 2 )
Under Astronomy please read early posting in Genesis flood.
Finally look in early postings under Earth&#39;s Tilt.

That is as far as I will go to dignify Parker&#39;s questions. He can read them and believe or not believe whatever he wants. B)
If someone doesn&#39;t like the answers I and others provided, that&#39;s fine, and I&#39;ll aggree to disagree but after reading the answers please don&#39;t ask the same questions again. :(

zephyr46
2003-Oct-13, 02:27 AM
Parker,
Sorry, did you you just ask me to provide you with evidence for the existence of god? :D
Nice try man, read it again, faith in the mystery of mystery not guardian of the answers. I will say, your question should remind every beleiver in this discussion of the fear and trepidation every scientist should rightly feel around religious discussions, I don&#39;t no any scientists who suggest that every religion should be wiped out, the same connot be said of fundamental traditions in any system of religious beliefs. I&#39;m all for argument, and regularly fall into the cold universe with nothing spiritual about it, there is just energy and matter, but I keep stumbling over serindipity, coincidence and Karma. Parker, your right, we don&#39;t need a creator to explain the universe, if he is though, could we read the bible as a crime fiction that badly needs some explaining today, particulaly on the subject of the great attractor. And the sort of mystisim I like is like, what would a fruitfly ask Gaia :)

Haglund
2003-Oct-13, 10:43 AM
Ok sorry about that zephyr, apparently I didn&#39;t read it closely, it seems. I do wonder what you meant, though. What is the mystery of mysteries?

Haglund
2003-Oct-13, 10:52 AM
I did skim through those threads, and I have yet to find anything that proves the Biblical creation to be anything but a fantasy story, a badly written one at that. All I see is desperate attempts at proving a few points where the Bible doesn&#39;t go against actual observation.

Haglund
2003-Oct-13, 11:09 AM
And finally...

I can prove that Santa Clause exist. It&#39;s really obvious when you look at the evidence which is plentiful. I am talking about that big whitebearded guy in a red suit, flying about in his reindeer powered sleigh while distributing presents through the chimneys. For one, the christmas tales do not only speak of Santa, they have pictures too, as do lots of christmascards. Some of us can even claim to have seen people with that appearance, usually around christmas time (what are the odds?). Furthermore, I think we all have seen christmas presents. Surely this proves a christmaspresent-giving entity? Sure, some presents have been proven to come from ordinary humans, but not all of them. Not convinced? Well, people have reported not only that they&#39;ve seen marks in the snow from sleighs, but some have even seen a real sleigh. The existence of the reindeer is surely not in doubt, either, is it? Now, I understand it&#39;s difficult to accept the concept of a flying sleigh, but after all, we humans have the technology to build planes and helicopters, so who are we to doubt the divine power of Santa? I am sure he can build a flying sleigh if he so wishes. And remember, the theory of Santa as a christmas-gift-giving spirit does in no way contradict neither the Big Bang nor the evolution, and that says alot about its validity.

Dan Luna
2003-Oct-13, 05:05 PM
I was just thinking that if you based all your reasoning on the belief that the Bible is literally true, rather than starting from the scientific world view, then the Bible would prove science wrong, not the other way round. From this point of view, why does the scientific approach work? From what I remember of Sunday School, God did seem very fond of testing people.

all_isone
2003-Oct-13, 10:05 PM
science and religion work on different spheres, its like mixing oil with water, no way one can take religious books scientifically, its a waste of time. really. :rolleyes:

Planetwatcher
2003-Oct-14, 07:12 PM
Dan Luna makes some very good points.
And thank you Parker for going back and reading the prior threads, as boring as that likely was to you.

The Bible does not go against any observations made by mankind as far as our observation of space. In fact the Bible itself mentions the stars and a few different constalations a few times.

As for a desprete attempt to prove something, I&#39;m not trying to prove anything, because I have nothing to prove, therefore no reason to prove what it&#39;s being said I&#39;m trying to prove. Any proof is in the pages and context. I can at best only elaberate and explain sections which for centuries have been misunderstood.

But even at that, the misunderstandings are not because the Bible is a difficult book to read, but because it is not read for what it says of itself. Then some of those who have not or do not read it claim that they have and do read it, and go on to propound their own ideas as Gospel truth. Then they quote some obscure scripture which has nothing to do with the subject to impress upon people that they are speaking for God, when in fact they are not.

I have very little time for people like that, except for I derive much satisfaction in exposing those phoney people for the hypocrites they are.
And to me it doesn&#39;t matter if they wear a collar, a suit, or a robe.
But I&#39;m getting off the subject here and into other tangants so it&#39;s time to click the &#39;add reply&#39; button.

Chook
2003-Oct-17, 05:16 AM
Dear Debaters,
Please be kind and respectful of oneanother. We are each special personalities possessing our own unique gifts and abilities and can positively contribute to each other’s searching for truth and insight into the marvelous mysteries of nature.

I would respectively suggest that, concerning science and religion, we employ two different mindsets – the one objectively analyzing observed phenomena; the other searching for “the reason for being”; both using different modus operandi.

The Scientific Method of observation, analysis, hypothesis, proof, and finally law has proven to be the solid foundation on which all of science rests. This is the mindset of the scientist and is not suitable for examining intangibles such as beauty/ugliness, right/wrong, love/hate, mens’ motives, war/peace, spiritual concepts, generosity/greed etc. etc. It even does a bad job at economic forecasting (because confidence and greed have to be factored in).

Consequently a different mindset must be used for considering religious concepts. Reasonable faith must be brought into play.

PARKER is particularly critical of some of the more extravagant stories of the bible – the so-called miracles – and this can be completely understood and appreciated. What sober, analytical person wants to consider Dragons in the Kitchen (or whatever he said)? But we must consider these bible-stories in a different light than reading Harry Potter insofar as to consider “miracles” as “phenomena we cannot yet explain by currently-known laws.” Take a transistor radio to a primitive tribe, switch it on ,and see how they react. To them it will be a “miracle” because they don’t understand how it works.

You will find, PARKER, that the bible, written over a period of thousands of years by many different writers, possesses a remarkable unity in many, many ways, as if were written by the same author. See what I’m getting at?

There are many thing we must trust in this life; and you will find that trust in a higher power will become more important to you as you grow – and that love is the strongest power you will experience.

“And a new commandment I give you – love oneanother….”

So please don’t try and use the Scientific Method on religion – it is inappropriate.

CHOOK

Chook
2003-Oct-17, 05:20 AM
Dear Debaters,
Please be kind and respectful of oneanother. We are each special personalities possessing our own unique gifts and abilities and can positively contribute to each other’s searching for truth and insight into the marvelous mysteries of nature.

I would respectively suggest that, concerning science and religion, we employ two different mindsets – the one objectively analyzing observed phenomena; the other searching for “the reason for being”; both using different modus operandi.

The Scientific Method of observation, analysis, hypothesis, proof, and finally law has proven to be the solid foundation on which all of science rests. This is the mindset of the scientist and is not suitable for examining intangibles such as beauty/ugliness, right/wrong, love/hate, mens’ motives, war/peace, spiritual concepts, generosity/greed etc. etc. It even does a bad job at economic forecasting (because confidence and greed have to be factored in).

Consequently a different mindset must be used for considering religious concepts. Reasonable faith must be brought into play.

PARKER is particularly critical of some of the more extravagant stories of the bible – the so-called miracles – and this can be completely understood and appreciated. What sober, analytical person wants to consider Dragons in the Kitchen (or whatever he said)? But we must consider these bible-stories in a different light than reading Harry Potter insofar as to consider “miracles” as “phenomena we cannot yet explain by currently-known laws.” Take a transistor radio to a primitive tribe, switch it on ,and see how they react. To them it will be a “miracle” because they don’t understand how it works.

You will find, PARKER, that the bible, written over a period of thousands of years by many different writers, possesses a remarkable unity in many, many ways, as if it were written by the same author. See what I’m getting at?

There are many thing we must trust in this life; and you will find that trust in a higher power will become more important to you as you grow – and that love is the strongest power you will experience.

“And a new commandment I give you – love oneanother….”

So please don’t try and use the Scientific Method on religion – it is inappropriate.

CHOOK

Chook
2003-Oct-17, 06:57 AM
:( Terribly sorry for posting this twice - I must have pressed the wrong button. I must use the Scientific Method next time. (Wish I could delete it&#33;) Oh dear ...

Haglund
2003-Oct-17, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Dan Luna@Oct 13 2003, 05:05 PM
I was just thinking that if you based all your reasoning on the belief that the Bible is literally true, rather than starting from the scientific world view, then the Bible would prove science wrong, not the other way round. From this point of view, why does the scientific approach work? From what I remember of Sunday School, God did seem very fond of testing people.
Not at all. If you had the bible as the base of your reasoning, then you might not use science at all in the first place, as Proverbs 3:5 (KJV) says "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." Science is out of the question, then? Of course if we refuse to interrogate nature, and if we refuse to see the real world and that it is different from the tales, then of course we would think we "proved science wrong". But we would not have proved real observations that would be possible to make, wrong, and we would not have proved the scientific method wrong. We would merely have shut our eyes and ears, in vain attempts at keeping reality out. But, if we can go beyond that little triviality, and still use science, we would eventually end up with a completely different worldview.

Haglund
2003-Oct-17, 07:21 AM
The Bible does not go against any observations made by mankind as far as our observation of space. In fact the Bible itself mentions the stars and a few different constalations a few times.

So the universe and earth are merely 6000 years old? The evolution never happened?

Matthew
2003-Oct-17, 07:51 AM
Both sides have made good points.

I believe in a supreme being, but I don&#39;t believe everything that the bible says. I believe in the Big Bang and that life evolved. Maybe God planted the &#39;seed&#39; for life.

Science and religion can exist together, but trying to use either one to prove the other wrong is wrong. Science questions much of religion, religion is based on belief.


Proverbs 3:5 (KJV) says "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

I do agree with Parker on the above extract from the bible. Without our own understanding the cristianity and other religions would not have been known to as many people as it is.

Many people have found religion to be something that they can find peace, happiness, and contentment. Even if it is incorrect, something that can do that is not evil.

Haglund
2003-Oct-17, 08:20 AM
Proverbs 3:5 (KJV) says "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."

I do agree with Parker on the above extract from the bible. Without our own understanding the cristianity and other religions would not have been known to as many people as it is.

That&#39;s not what I meant though. I see that above quote in a quite different light...



Many people have found religion to be something that they can find peace, happiness, and contentment. Even if it is incorrect, something that can do that is not evil.

I am sure this is correct, and religion in itself doesn&#39;t have to be evil (except when it comes to dogmatic teaching of things that simply were made up and nothing else). But I can not see that it is necessary to invent a god to find peacem happiness and contentment.

Haglund
2003-Oct-17, 08:24 AM
PARKER is particularly critical of some of the more extravagant stories of the bible – the so-called miracles – and this can be completely understood and appreciated. What sober, analytical person wants to consider Dragons in the Kitchen (or whatever he said)? But we must consider these bible-stories in a different light than reading Harry Potter insofar as to consider “miracles” as “phenomena we cannot yet explain by currently-known laws.” Take a transistor radio to a primitive tribe, switch it on ,and see how they react. To them it will be a “miracle” because they don’t understand how it works.

These are things that can not be explained, that is true. For example, the missing day, the Noah&#39;s ark, the entire creation and its implications, these are things that can&#39;t be explained simply ebcause they appear to never have happened. There is no evidence to support it, and since they go against observations and common sense, there is very little reason to believe it.



So please don’t try and use the Scientific Method on religion – it is inappropriate.

Why should we not investigate and put to test those statemensts made by religions? Are they protected from further questioning?

Matthew
2003-Oct-17, 09:36 AM
Why should we not investigate and put to test those statemensts made by religions? Are they protected from further questioning?

Religion isn&#39;t immune to questioning, but you should tred lightly when you openly question religion. People have very strong views on religion.

Planetwatcher
2003-Oct-17, 11:51 AM
So the universe and earth are merely 6000 years old? The evolution never happened?

Parker here is the short version of what you claimed you read before.

Of coarse the universe is over 6,000 years old. There was an Earth with life before the so called 6 day creation.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
You can&#39;t replenish something which was not plenished before.
Let&#39;s go back to what you missed.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This is a point of time prior to the so called 6 day creation.
Earth had everything it needed, including life. Now the Bible does not say anything more about that life on Earth, so it could have been absolutly anything.
Now the next chronicalogical event.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness came to be upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Some sort of event occured which caused heaven and Earth to become without form and void. The same event also caused darkness.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Light was the first thing God made, or rather remade. You can read the rest of the chapter and find nothing was created until God created man.
Everything else was simply brought back into existence because it existed before, and that did take 6 days.

That is the real story. But like so many other people you read into the Bible something that isn&#39;t there.
Perhaps you were told such a story growing up, and you didn&#39;t bother to check what the book really said, you just believed and assumed.
Now who is taking unproven fairy tales on faith. Not very scientific now is it?

You claimed that the Bible says there was a 6 day creation which was impossible, but you failed to supply scientificly a single shread of proof.

I aggree there was no 6 day creation, and unlike you who repeated an unsubstantiated story, I documented my information right from the book.

I would suggest that in the future, before you claim the Bible says something, that you find it and read it exactly as it is written.

trekgoddess
2003-Oct-17, 10:06 PM
You can not just dismiss the 4000+ years of religion, no matter far science has come these last few hundred or so years, you have to give some credit to the belifes of the people that our are ancestors. There is sssooooooo much unknown about the creation, the "creator" so much is to be gained from accepting anything you can as honest, then sift through the ideas to find the spects of gold in them. I&#39;m not saying there won&#39;t be any fool&#39;s gold, but never dismiss anything so easally that you son&#39;t take a moment to wash off the dirt.

starrman
2003-Oct-17, 11:36 PM
It is with great trepidation that I enter this discussion. It seems to me that couching the question as "religion versus science" invites tremendous misunderstanding and needless argument. Unless my understanding of the scientific method is seriously flawed, I believe it is fundamentally impossible to apply science to religion. In order to ask a meaningful scientific question, one must posit a theoretical framework capable of supporting at least one testable and falsifiable hypothesis. Based on that hypothetical development, predictions regarding the behavior of observable (or potentially observable) events are made. One then designs an experimental approach capable of making the necessary observation and determines the validity of the predictions, and by extension, the validity of the underlying theory. By its very nature, therefore, science is capable of answering only very narrowly defined and delimited questions. Religion, on the other hand, is inherently based on deeply personal experiences, ones not subject to investigation by scientific means. The rational philosophers, most significantly (in my opinion) including Karl Popper, would ague that reality encompasses much more than those narrow realms that have thus far been addressed by scientific inquiry. This is not to say that realms of experience and thought not currently susceptible to a rigorous scientific examination will always remain outside that realm, but in order to apply meaningful scientific questioning, new paradigms not currently understood must be applied. I would further suggest that Heisenberg&#39;s uncertainty principle, while narrowly defined as applying only in quantum realms, might also be usefully considered as applying to larger mathematical systems, and that the incompleteness theorem of Goedel may apply in this instance, in that any scientific theory regarding physical reality must of necessity lie within a larger framework of reality which it is theoretically incapable of describing completely.

John

Chook
2003-Oct-19, 03:08 AM
STARRMAN - beautifully said&#33;
But, gee, I wish I could completely understand the last third of it - sounds interesting. Any change of a simpler explanation please John.

Haglund
2003-Oct-19, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by matthew@Oct 17 2003, 09:36 AM

Why should we not investigate and put to test those statemensts made by religions? Are they protected from further questioning?

Religion isn&#39;t immune to questioning, but you should tred lightly when you openly question religion. People have very strong views on religion.
But why do they have such strong views on it? If the religious myths are better at explaining nature, they would still stand for the tests, wouldn&#39;t they? Why worry?

Haglund
2003-Oct-19, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by trekgoddess@Oct 17 2003, 10:06 PM
You can not just dismiss the 4000+ years of religion, no matter far science has come these last few hundred or so years, you have to give some credit to the belifes of the people that our are ancestors. There is sssooooooo much unknown about the creation, the "creator" so much is to be gained from accepting anything you can as honest, then sift through the ideas to find the spects of gold in them. I&#39;m not saying there won&#39;t be any fool&#39;s gold, but never dismiss anything so easally that you son&#39;t take a moment to wash off the dirt.
So are we going to test all the creation myths that different cultures have come up with? Why would I take these stories seriously, when they were written at a time when we knew only a tiny fraction of what we know today, which also shows? If they managed to get something right, a phrase, a sentence correct with observations and evidence, then it would be pure luck. How could they have known without the knowledge we have today?

Planetwatcher
2003-Oct-20, 02:19 AM
Yeah, what Starman said, for what I understand of it. :unsure:
Now can we translate his wonderful post into English? :o por favor? ;)

starrman
2003-Oct-20, 03:20 AM
Sorry if I wasn&#39;t clear in my last post. Let me see if I can restate my position a bit more simply: First, and fundamentally, the scientific method views reality through a very narrow lens. In order to ask, and answer, a scientific question, one must follow a very specific set of steps. The first requirement is to set up a theoretical model, usually framed in mathematical terms, which allows the formulation of hypotheses - predictions, if you will. Once the prediction is in hand, the theory becomes falsifiable. That is, by applying the proper form of experimentation, the prediction based on the theoretical model can be shown to be false. If I put forth a theory of star formation, let&#39;s say, and based upon the structure of that theory, certain chemical components of stars must be present, then I have met the first requirements for scientific inquiry. Now an experimental test can be made, and a meaningful scientific question posed: Are the predicted chemical elements present in the category of stars about which the prediction has been made? If the answer is yes, then the theory succeeds in setting certain limits regarding the formation of stars. This does not mean that the theory presents a complete model for star formation, only that the theoretical assumptions are accurate to the limits of the experimental tests applied. If, on the other hand, the answer is no, then the theory is discarded as incorrect, together with any predictions made by applying the assumptions it contains. The narrower the field of inquiry (generally speaking), the more accurately this method can be applied. Very large questions, such as the nature of gravity, require much deeper and more wide-ranging experimental tests. This is the reason that Einstein&#39;s gravitational predictions are still being tested, and likely will be for some time to come.

Given that the scope of scientific questioning must, of necessity, be a narrow one, the questions posed by theology seem to me to fall outside the realm of what can be meaningfully asked in a scientific way. If I were to propose the theory that God exists, how would I then approach the problem of asking a hypothetical question that was open to experimental falsification? Unless I&#39;m missing some very basic (and probably world-shaking) approach, any question about the existence or nonexistence of a deity would be meaningless in scientific terms. Philosophers and theologians have their own set of rules and requirements for asking meaningful questions within their fields of inquiry, but insofar as I understand them (and my reading in those areas is somewhat limited), those methodologies are not experimental in nature. Karl Popper, who spent his career exploring the philosophy of science and scientific inquiry, coined the term "paradigm shift," by which he was referring to a basic change in the set of hidden assumptions that scientists bring to the formulation of their theoretical models. Such a shift occurred when Copernicus introduced to wide audiences the notion of a sun-centered universe. Within a relatively brief period, the ideas in "De Revolutionibus" changed the paradigm for viewing the skies and accounting for the apparent movement of celestial bodies. Perhaps some similar shift of assumptions will occur in the future that will allow questions of theology to be addressed scientifically, but for now it seems to me that they fall outside its scope.

Kurt Goedel, in his Incompleteness Theorem, demonstrated with rigorous mathematical precision that any internally consistent theory will be capable of making true statements about the nature of the real world which the theory itself is incapable of proving. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead demonstrated that this was true for arithmetic, and other workers have made similar cases for higher-level systems. My personal conclusion is that the scientific method is a similar sort of system. It can answer with high precision questions which are formulated within its very strict and narrow rules, but those rules by their very nature exclude much which, while it may be real, is not open to scientific scrutiny. Religion and theology seem to me to fall outside that narrow region.

John

Chook
2003-Oct-20, 06:42 AM
Thanks STARRMAN John for the elucidation of your previous posting – a great read.
(PLANETWATCH and myself are deeply grateful.)

PARKER began by asking - Quote “If you believe in the Bible, can you still have some room left for science in your mind?”
FRAZER reframed the question as “Science and Religion – can they exist together?”

In reality – the answer to both questions would be a resounding and demonstrable “YES&#33;”
For example here are some scientists who were Christians –

Johannes Kepler - astronomer - the 3 laws of planetry motion,
Robert Boyle - chemist - Boyles law of gases,
Sir Isaac Newton – Physicist - laws of gravity and motion,
Carl Linnaeus - botanist - the binomial system of nomenclature,
Leonhard Euler - mathematician - navigators Euler’s line,
Georges Cuvier - a father of palaeontology and taxonomy,
Michael Faraday – electricity - transformers and electric motors,
Samuel Morse of Morse code fame,
Matthew Maury the pioneer oceanographer,
James Prescott Joule - physicist - Joule’s Law & 1st Law of Thermodynamics,
Louis Pasteur – microbiologist - demonstrated that micro-organisms did not appear spontaneously as required by the theory of evolution, and who gave us pasteurisation and vaccination,
Gregor Mendel the father of genetics,
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) – physicist - the father of thermodynamics,
James Clarke Maxwell - physicist - the thermionic valve,
George Washington Carver - agricultural scientist,
Wright brothers who gave us the aeroplane
Wernher von Braun the space rocket scientist,

And there are hundreds of contemporary scientists who also believe in the accuracy of the bible BECAUSE THEY LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE – the bible as a whole. They are able to see through the misty fog of miracles and myths to its Author who has delivered a clear message to all mankind down through the ages.

PARKER has come up with some good criticisms – but they are mainly concerning some Scripture which, to him, is unbelievable. It is agreed that there were phenomenon described in the bible for which we have no contemporary scientific explanation – but that doesn’t bother those who believe in the big picture because “one day science may discover how the transistor works”. Another source of uncertainty, mainly within the church, is whether to interpret certain Scripture as literal or figurative (sometimes leading to different conclusions).

But as to proof – no, they couldn’t use the Scientific Method, although some have tried and miserably failed (“Ask, and it shall be given to you.” Sorry – no lottery winners.)

I guess that “proof” may be looked at another way too – Christian people tend to be happier, more satisfied with life, and more able to cope with problems than non-Christians. I guess it’s a Spiritual thing.

CHOOK

starrman
2003-Oct-20, 09:03 AM
You&#39;re very welcome, Chook. I&#39;m glad I was able to help. I would, however, like to distance myself from any notion that I endorse the "accuracy" of the judeo-christian bible or any other religious document of whatever creed or dogma. I would also be curious to see any sort of supporting studies that demonstrate a greater level of happiness or "satisfaction," or any increased problem-solving capacity due to the practice of christianity or any other theistic belief system.

John

jimmy
2003-Nov-03, 10:39 PM
I can&#39;t prove a historical Jesus; but I heard he was treated pretty badly by the "Religious" leaders of his time. Seems he simplified some commandments they were clinging to. There is the Law=Science and the Heart=Faith. I personally see both as desirable. But even as I read my theory(Law and Science), I can find flaws immediately, because religion does not have a monopoly on Love. Oh well, let me think about it some more.
P.S. I just used Jesus as an example, I could have used Krsna, Buddha, Lao Tsu, Rama, etc.