God and Science are not mutually exlcusive......

Page 2 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,150
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

14 Sep 2014, 10:06 am

Lets try covering the topic this way perhapse:

Religion should never invade peer-reviewed journals as objective reality when nothing's been empirically tested. Science is a method, religion is a dogma - so on the real 'science' end of it they're mutually exclusive even if science and establishment by chance start discover something like....oh....consciousness is the core nature of the Totality - that's a discovery of a sort that might sound religious but it would still need to be probed in a scientific manner and need the same old review to validate and those reviewing would have to keep out all religious wording. The tabloids and newswires of course would go wild with religious speculation and generating hype and advertising dollars is what they do best but that's what they do on everything. The Yahoo article titles I'm sure would hit a whole new level of disturbingly ignorant.

On the other hand the notion that someone can't be a valid scientist and theist and have their theism in a line that isn't mutually exclusive with what we know about the world and are part of a ontic/spiritual tradition that they themselves didn't just make up to suite their whims - that's very much on the table and available. However yes it can inspire their science, it just can't 'be' their science. If it motivates someone to do great science then it served its purpose. If it guided a scientist to new ground-breaking hypotheses to test then even better. Science done right though, as a method, isn't mutually exclusive to things necessarily but can't be interrupted or subverted by things that aren't on its track.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2014, 10:17 am

Cash__ wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
This is what Penn Jillette said in their Penn & Teller BS series, in the Bible episode: "" If you're religious and you believe the Bible is real because of faith, we can't touch you. It's an automatic tie, no one can bust you. But if faith isn't enough, if you want history or fact in your Bible, you are so screwed."
Debunking creationist stuff doesn't matter if the person has already decided to take it all on faith.
That Penn & Teller BS series is so great btw. Most episodes are on youtube I think, at least the Bible one is. Can't post it here because of the language. They use profanity because they can't call people frauds, but it's legal to call them as*holes.


That's it in a nutshell. People can believe in anything in their "holy book" be it the bible, Koran, Upanishads, whatever, but if the believer steps into the realms of reality and facts, they are in for a shock; the evidence doesn't agree with their holy book and something has to give. They either have to accept that their holy book has some serious errors/misconceptions in it or go the route of self delusion and either turn their back on science, facts and evidence or invent ever more crackpot beliefs to try to reconcile the disparity such as "intelligent design" or that wacky creationism museum in America. :lol:


For theological books, you forgot to mention the Necronomicon. THE GREAT OLD ONES SHALL NOT BE DENIED!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !


Just don't forget to say "Clatto Verata Nicto" before picking up the necronomicon or you'll release the Army of Darkness.


That, and it stops the robot Gort from continuing his rampage in The Day The Earth Stood Still.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Spectacles
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 175
Location: Va

14 Sep 2014, 12:20 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
God and Science are not mutually exclusive provided everyone follows the evidence wherever it leads. Once you refuse to do this due to an ideological bias then the two become separate.


Agreed. Though there are a lot of progressive religious scholars (ie, they know their s**t) who are religious who don't discount science. There are ways to work with science that allows religious convictions to survive as a peer, but that requires a full restructuring of one's hermeneutical relationship with religion/God(s)/holy things/etc. I don't find the OP's argument convincing, but there are ways around religion/science mutual exclusivity.

That said, I'm still an atheist. There are other holes in religious belief that I don't think are patcheable, but I don't consider science one of them.



Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

14 Sep 2014, 4:59 pm

I like the Dalai Lamas quote: "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

The Abrahamic religions should learn some of that.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

14 Sep 2014, 5:03 pm

^ +1


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

14 Sep 2014, 5:40 pm

YourMum wrote:
1. Naturally.
2. Naturally.
3. Depends what you mean by 'wants'.
4. 'Cares' is probably the wrong word.
5. Ethical, perhaps.
6. Pardon?
7. By 'arbitrary rules which make no sense' do you mean 'rules which I don't understand'? What do you mean by 'morality' and why should any 'rule' meet the standards of this definition?
8. Yes. Christians don't care so much about that because Christianity starts off much later on in the story, but it's an accepted element of Jewish history. What's your point?
9. I'm not sure about the word 'meet', but fair enough.
10. You really want creation to match your ideals, don't you.


I think you are missing the point. I'll make it simpler: Believing in a creator would not have necessitate religious beliefs. As all of that list would need to be fallible, then Christian beliefs would also need to be fallible. Most of the religious baggage attached simply isn't relevant, even as a proposed scientific hypothesis of creation.

As for 10, creation or abiogenesis, doesn't fit any ideal. Ideals are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you or I think about it. The whole idea of wanting it to fit an ideal is unscientific in a nutshell, and pretty much the point I'm illustrating.



YourMum
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 150

14 Sep 2014, 6:44 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Christian beliefs would also need to be fallible. Most of the religious baggage attached simply isn't relevant, even as a proposed scientific hypothesis of creation.

As for 10, creation or abiogenesis, doesn't fit any ideal. Ideals are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you or I think about it. The whole idea of wanting it to fit an ideal is unscientific in a nutshell, and pretty much the point I'm illustrating.


Of course Christian beliefs are fallible. The Church is a human institution and humans are very fallible.

Science and a particular sense of morality are your ideals, and it's beyond denial that they have influenced your approach to these matters. Your outlook is no more objective than any other.



blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

14 Sep 2014, 7:40 pm

I would have thought the OP was trolling.

rvacountrysinger wrote:
I believe God created Science.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

15 Sep 2014, 1:45 am

blunnet wrote:
I would have thought the OP was trolling.

rvacountrysinger wrote:
I believe God created Science.

Just like religious books, men (and women) created science.

But one of the biggest issues I have with religion is the theological and anthropological ignorance most religious people have or their own texts. And that ignorance is supported by the clergy, dumbing it down to make it easy for the masses.

I have yet to hear of one clergyman (of any ilk) start a sermon or bible study with one of these:

- Parts of the NT were edited long after they were written
- There are two creation stories in Genesis
- Moses didn't write the Torah
- Much of the OT was taken from older religions
- Myth wasn't about history (the modern agenda), but about other truths (the ancient agenda)

You can only make assumptions about why sermons and bible studies won't ever use any of those, but I can't think of a good reason for it.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

15 Sep 2014, 2:29 am

Is God and Creation the same thing?



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

15 Sep 2014, 2:42 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Is God and Creation the same thing?


Depends on what you think caused creation. There are credible hypotheses which show how creation occurs via purely naturalistic causes, which is far more credible than demanding a supernatural cause which has no evidence and relies upon lack of knowledge to support the belief.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

15 Sep 2014, 3:02 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Is God and Creation the same thing?


Depends on what you think caused creation. There are credible hypotheses which show how creation occurs via purely naturalistic causes, which is far more credible than demanding a supernatural cause which has no evidence and relies upon lack of knowledge to support the belief.


As soon as you have Creation all figured out, we will call it God.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

15 Sep 2014, 3:11 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
As soon as you have Creation all figured out, we will call it God.

This uses same logic as the natives on an island who think that the volcano erupting is caused by a god.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

15 Sep 2014, 3:41 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Is God and Creation the same thing?

For the pantheists.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,882
Location: temperate zone

15 Sep 2014, 5:15 am

In the Abrahamic religions -there is God- and then there is Creation (nature, matter, whatever). The Creator created everything- and they are two seperate things. And God sits in his throne rules over creation.

In the more Pantheistic (everything is god) religions they dont distinqish between the creator and creation. Creation is part of the divine.

So, take your pick.



Statto
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: UK

15 Sep 2014, 6:04 am

All the religious books contain many, simple errors that are scientific fact. They all strangely reflect the beliefs of man (beyond just that particular religion) at the time the texts were written and/or 'discovered'. If these texts were the word of whichever version of the all knowing god we are talking about you'd expect it to be completely accurate in terms of what we now know to be fact. I'm not even talking about complex theories, but things like the earth being round and rotating around the sun etc.

At absolute best they could only ever be considered interpretations of the word of god and given it is man doing the interpretation I'm sure you can't rule out some creative licence also.

As such it's science for me.