| [I.M.P.] Monday, August 24, 2009 11:35:11 PM | |
|
Well, I didn't read THAT post for some reason! Guess I had a short attention span and decided to reply to the first one down that caught my attention.
Yeah, that is interesting. Good summary of the way each operates.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 11:13:46 PM)| |  | Head banger wrote: | | which oddly is the theme of the book I got all those quotes out of. unholy domain by dan ronco
| | | I.M.P. wrote: | | If there was no more mystery, oh well!
The day there is no mystery is when we're all run by machines anyway.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Eventually, maybe that will be it's end. They day we unlock the mysteries will probably be the day the earth explodes. Then, if wont matter!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | could science be a religion then? explaining that which can not be understood?
| | | spapad wrote: | | Ya know I read something about this subject the other day which was a philosopical theory, that stated that mankind must be born to instictively to believe in a power greater to themselves, unless that instinct is counteracted by Parents, society, etc... As all cultures through time have had a need to seek out powers higher than themselves, I could consider this to be a Viable theory.
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts.
|
Edited at: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, August 24, 2009 11:13:46 PM | |
|
which oddly is the theme of the book I got all those quotes out of. unholy domain by dan ronco
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Monday, August 24, 2009 11:08:28 PM)| | | I.M.P. wrote: | | If there was no more mystery, oh well!
The day there is no mystery is when we're all run by machines anyway.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Eventually, maybe that will be it's end. They day we unlock the mysteries will probably be the day the earth explodes. Then, if wont matter!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | could science be a religion then? explaining that which can not be understood?
| | | spapad wrote: | | Ya know I read something about this subject the other day which was a philosopical theory, that stated that mankind must be born to instictively to believe in a power greater to themselves, unless that instinct is counteracted by Parents, society, etc... As all cultures through time have had a need to seek out powers higher than themselves, I could consider this to be a Viable theory.
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts.
|
Edited at: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, August 24, 2009 11:12:01 PM | |
|
both are music fans (well, you know what I mean). a scientist has more in comon with a priest than a metal head with a miley fan....
dunno, its an interesting point of view.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Monday, August 24, 2009 11:06:02 PM)| | | I.M.P. wrote: | | Your previous post explains perfectly why science is not a religion-it is the stark differences between scientists and clerics. Facts=/=Faith. No way, no how.
The differences in approach is what defines each.
Can a cleric who claims things based on a book be called a scientist?
The emotional attachment that scientists have to their specific area of study, and who are part of hot button issues (like global warming) might be similar to a cleric's attachment to their religion. But that attachment is simply a by product of their persuit. The fervor of clerics and scientists is based on two completely different things. An imperfect analogy would be to compare the fervor between a Priest fan at a Priest show and a tween at a Hannah Montana show. The tween is not a metal head, despite the similarities in enthusiasm. The cleric is not a scientist. Both seek answers, both are defined by their method.
That is my two cents anyway.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | could science be a religion then? explaining that which can not be understood?
| | | spapad wrote: | | Ya know I read something about this subject the other day which was a philosopical theory, that stated that mankind must be born to instictively to believe in a power greater to themselves, unless that instinct is counteracted by Parents, society, etc... As all cultures through time have had a need to seek out powers higher than themselves, I could consider this to be a Viable theory.
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts.
|
Edited at: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, August 24, 2009 11:10:56 PM | |
|
that could be.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, August 24, 2009 10:12:28 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Eventually, maybe that will be it's end. They day we unlock the mysteries will probably be the day the earth explodes. Then, if wont matter!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | could science be a religion then? explaining that which can not be understood?
| | | spapad wrote: | | Ya know I read something about this subject the other day which was a philosopical theory, that stated that mankind must be born to instictively to believe in a power greater to themselves, unless that instinct is counteracted by Parents, society, etc... As all cultures through time have had a need to seek out powers higher than themselves, I could consider this to be a Viable theory.
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts.
|
Edited at: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [I.M.P.] Monday, August 24, 2009 11:08:28 PM | |
|
If there was no more mystery, oh well!
The day there is no mystery is when we're all run by machines anyway.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, August 24, 2009 10:12:28 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Eventually, maybe that will be it's end. They day we unlock the mysteries will probably be the day the earth explodes. Then, if wont matter!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | could science be a religion then? explaining that which can not be understood?
| | | spapad wrote: | | Ya know I read something about this subject the other day which was a philosopical theory, that stated that mankind must be born to instictively to believe in a power greater to themselves, unless that instinct is counteracted by Parents, society, etc... As all cultures through time have had a need to seek out powers higher than themselves, I could consider this to be a Viable theory.
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts.
|
Edited at: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [I.M.P.] Monday, August 24, 2009 11:06:02 PM | |
|
Your previous post explains perfectly why science is not a religion-it is the stark differences between scientists and clerics. Facts=/=Faith. No way, no how.
The differences in approach is what defines each.
Can a cleric who claims things based on a book be called a scientist?
The emotional attachment that scientists have to their specific area of study, and who are part of hot button issues (like global warming) might be similar to a cleric's attachment to their religion. But that attachment is simply a by product of their persuit. The fervor of clerics and scientists is based on two completely different things. An imperfect analogy would be to compare the fervor between a Priest fan at a Priest show and a tween at a Hannah Montana show. The tween is not a metal head, despite the similarities in enthusiasm. The cleric is not a scientist. Both seek answers, both are defined by their method.
That is my two cents anyway.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 10:03:15 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | could science be a religion then? explaining that which can not be understood?
| | | spapad wrote: | | Ya know I read something about this subject the other day which was a philosopical theory, that stated that mankind must be born to instictively to believe in a power greater to themselves, unless that instinct is counteracted by Parents, society, etc... As all cultures through time have had a need to seek out powers higher than themselves, I could consider this to be a Viable theory.
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts.
|
Edited at: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
|
| [spapad] Monday, August 24, 2009 10:12:28 PM | |
|
Eventually, maybe that will be it's end. They day we unlock the mysteries will probably be the day the earth explodes. Then, if wont matter!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 10:03:15 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | could science be a religion then? explaining that which can not be understood?
| | | spapad wrote: | | Ya know I read something about this subject the other day which was a philosopical theory, that stated that mankind must be born to instictively to believe in a power greater to themselves, unless that instinct is counteracted by Parents, society, etc... As all cultures through time have had a need to seek out powers higher than themselves, I could consider this to be a Viable theory.
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts.
|
Edited at: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, August 24, 2009 10:03:15 PM | |
|
could science be a religion then? explaining that which can not be understood?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:05 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Ya know I read something about this subject the other day which was a philosopical theory, that stated that mankind must be born to instictively to believe in a power greater to themselves, unless that instinct is counteracted by Parents, society, etc... As all cultures through time have had a need to seek out powers higher than themselves, I could consider this to be a Viable theory.
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts.
|
Edited at: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
| [spapad] Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:05 PM | |
|
Ya know I read something about this subject the other day which was a philosopical theory, that stated that mankind must be born to instictively to believe in a power greater to themselves, unless that instinct is counteracted by Parents, society, etc... As all cultures through time have had a need to seek out powers higher than themselves, I could consider this to be a Viable theory.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts.
|
Edited at: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:01:51 PM |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, August 24, 2009 9:56:25 PM | |
|
Scientists and clerics have much in common. Both take a world that can’t be fully understood and try to explain its fundamental properties
Clerics postulate beliefs that can never be proven; they demand you accept these postulates as your faith, which will guide your actions and thoughts. It’s a top down way of thinking; start with the big picture and derive rules for living. Fundamental knowledge is static. Even the derived rules rarely change.
Scientists work from the bottom up. They build a baseline of observations and formulate theories to explain these phenomena. Nothing is sacred, with new observations; theories are discarded or modified to fit the facts. |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, August 24, 2009 9:47:59 PM | |
|
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a hearless world and the soul of soulless conditions. it is the opium of the people
Karl Marx, introduction to "contribution to the critique of Hegels philosophy, 1844 |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, August 24, 2009 9:15:36 PM | |
|
and for another view
sicience without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, 1941
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Monday, August 24, 2009 8:53:40 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Nice HB!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | | science deals mainly with facts, religion deals mainly with values, the two are not rivals, they are complimentary. Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength to Love, 1963 |
|
|
|
| [spapad] Monday, August 24, 2009 8:53:40 PM | |
|
Nice HB!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 8:51:12 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | | science deals mainly with facts, religion deals mainly with values, the two are not rivals, they are complimentary. Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength to Love, 1963 |
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, August 24, 2009 8:51:12 PM | |
|
| science deals mainly with facts, religion deals mainly with values, the two are not rivals, they are complimentary. Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength to Love, 1963 |
|
| [Craig Wagenhoffer] Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:27:50 AM | |
|
Normally I'm a very sceptical person. For example: I really don't believe that Planet X will enter the solar system during December 2012 AD and destroy humanity. That's bullshit and it cracks me up. LOL! But the people you see in that documentary are A grade scientists who teach at universities like Harvard. All their theories are based on facts and proof.
It's scary, because it makes me realize how insignificant we really are. The amount of time that has preceded our lifetime is endless, the amount that succeeds it will be endless as well. Going back a billion years in time would still mean nothing. There's no beginning and there's no end. It just goes on forever. Just think of it. It's crazy. I don't understand why some of these scientists don't end up in a mental institution.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by J.D. DIAMOND from Friday, August 21, 2009 5:39:33 PM)| | | J.D. DIAMOND wrote: | | Yeah thats some pretty heavy shit there Craig. But very interesting.... thats a cool post.
Hey,maybe in a parallel universe..."Metallica" never "sold out" or Cliff Burton never died!! lol!
But seriously....that is a very interesting subject and it is "scary" as you said...but mind blowing....
| | | Craig Wagenhoffer wrote: | | Yeah, I've heard about dark matter. It's crazy, but it makes sense.
Have you ever heard of parallel universes? Don't ask me to explain what it's all about, because it's too bizarre.
Here's a documentary I saw about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7SDrj4Tjvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHzU3fgID3o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVfw1XOIFGk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-mLF23JzKA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRRBz9b6mvA&feature=related
| | | ron h wrote: | | Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
(Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
| |
|
I.M.P. wrote: |
| |
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
|
|
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:35:31 AM | |
|
Lol... Ive heard something like that once. Not a parallel universe, but this universe. Supposing that its infinite, that means that there is an infinite number of planets with life on them. No matter how rare they are, the number is still infinite. And it means that there is an infinite number of combinations of life, and an infinite number of planets like our, with an infinite number of worlds that are just like our, and an infinite number of worlds that are just like ours, save for a few details. No matter how rare, they are still infinite.
So, according to that logic, there are worlds without emos, worlds without Miley Cyrus, and worlds where George Bush wasnt taken from his chimp parents and adopted by humans.
Better start buliding a spaceship right away.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by J.D. DIAMOND from Friday, August 21, 2009 5:39:33 PM)| | | J.D. DIAMOND wrote: | | Yeah thats some pretty heavy shit there Craig. But very interesting.... thats a cool post.
Hey,maybe in a parallel universe..."Metallica" never "sold out" or Cliff Burton never died!! lol!
But seriously....that is a very interesting subject and it is "scary" as you said...but mind blowing....
| | | Craig Wagenhoffer wrote: | | Yeah, I've heard about dark matter. It's crazy, but it makes sense.
Have you ever heard of parallel universes? Don't ask me to explain what it's all about, because it's too bizarre.
Here's a documentary I saw about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7SDrj4Tjvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHzU3fgID3o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVfw1XOIFGk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-mLF23JzKA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRRBz9b6mvA&feature=related
| | | ron h wrote: | | Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
(Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
| |
|
I.M.P. wrote: |
| |
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
|
|
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [Bev] Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:18:09 AM | |
|
| May be of little relevence to some and more to others. I posted this link once before in the old religion thread, a year or so ago. In case anyone cares to share yet another perspective: www.greggbraden.com/ |
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:13:29 AM | |
|
WRONG.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ron h from Friday, August 21, 2009 9:50:11 PM)| | | ron h wrote: | |  Well Strat, neither the Spaghetti Monster nor the Giant Chicken has a history as a supreme being or a book to help support their existance in history...call the Bible or Koran or whatever books fairy tales if you'd like, but there's at least documented facts in those books as well...no insult taken as you stated nothing I would find insulting...You should always beware of ppl who insist anything upon you!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, proving that he doesnt exist is, imo... Pointless. Religion comes forward with the claim that there is a god - religion has to prove that there is. So long as it doesnt, we can consider god as non-existent. If we are going to play the "prove that isnt so game", then we can all think of tons of outrageous stuff that cant be proven, but cant even be properly disproven. I think that it was Dawkins who came up with the idea of the "flying spaghetti monster". Lets say that I claim that god is a flying spaghetti monster - prove that he isnt. I can claim that a giant chicken laid an egg, and that became the Earth. Prove that isnt so. If I really believe it, you wont be able to convince me that it isnt so, neither will I be ever capable of proving that it is so.
So, "prove that isnt so" logic clearly wont get us anywhere. Sorry, didnt mean to insult anyones religious feelings, the giant chicken and the spaghetti monster are there just to sort of illustrate the point.
And, so long as there are people who are not content with just being religious, but insist that we should all share their religious values, and want to make those same values into laws and constitutions, then I think that we really should know wheter they are right or wrong in their faith.
| | | ron h wrote: | | Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
(Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
| |
|
I.M.P. wrote: |
| |
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
|
|
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Friday, August 21, 2009 10:08:47 PM | |
|
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, August 21, 2009 10:02:15 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | You mean that I shouldn't have bought that year's supply of Extenze and invested the rest of my savings in gold?!? Oh crap!!!! (Quoting Message by ron h from Friday, August 21, 2009 9:50:11 PM)
| |
|
ron h wrote: |
| |
Well Strat, neither the Spaghetti Monster nor the Giant Chicken has a history as a supreme being or a book to help support their existance in history...call the Bible or Koran or whatever books fairy tales if you'd like, but there's at least documented facts in those books as well...no insult taken as you stated nothing I would find insulting...You should always beware of ppl who insist anything upon you!!!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Well, proving that he doesnt exist is, imo... Pointless. Religion comes forward with the claim that there is a god - religion has to prove that there is. So long as it doesnt, we can consider god as non-existent. If we are going to play the "prove that isnt so game", then we can all think of tons of outrageous stuff that cant be proven, but cant even be properly disproven. I think that it was Dawkins who came up with the idea of the "flying spaghetti monster". Lets say that I claim that god is a flying spaghetti monster - prove that he isnt. I can claim that a giant chicken laid an egg, and that became the Earth. Prove that isnt so. If I really believe it, you wont be able to convince me that it isnt so, neither will I be ever capable of proving that it is so.
So, "prove that isnt so" logic clearly wont get us anywhere. Sorry, didnt mean to insult anyones religious feelings, the giant chicken and the spaghetti monster are there just to sort of illustrate the point.
And, so long as there are people who are not content with just being religious, but insist that we should all share their religious values, and want to make those same values into laws and constitutions, then I think that we really should know wheter they are right or wrong in their faith.
| |
|
ron h wrote: |
| |
Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
(Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
| |
|
I.M.P. wrote: |
| |
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
|
|
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM |
|
|
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:02:57 PM |
|
|
| [guidogodoy] Friday, August 21, 2009 10:02:15 PM | |
|
You mean that I shouldn't have bought that year's supply of Extenze and invested the rest of my savings in gold?!? Oh crap!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ron h from Friday, August 21, 2009 9:50:11 PM)
| |
|
ron h wrote: |
| |
Well Strat, neither the Spaghetti Monster nor the Giant Chicken has a history as a supreme being or a book to help support their existance in history...call the Bible or Koran or whatever books fairy tales if you'd like, but there's at least documented facts in those books as well...no insult taken as you stated nothing I would find insulting...You should always beware of ppl who insist anything upon you!!!!
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
|
Well, proving that he doesnt exist is, imo... Pointless. Religion comes forward with the claim that there is a god - religion has to prove that there is. So long as it doesnt, we can consider god as non-existent. If we are going to play the "prove that isnt so game", then we can all think of tons of outrageous stuff that cant be proven, but cant even be properly disproven. I think that it was Dawkins who came up with the idea of the "flying spaghetti monster". Lets say that I claim that god is a flying spaghetti monster - prove that he isnt. I can claim that a giant chicken laid an egg, and that became the Earth. Prove that isnt so. If I really believe it, you wont be able to convince me that it isnt so, neither will I be ever capable of proving that it is so.
So, "prove that isnt so" logic clearly wont get us anywhere. Sorry, didnt mean to insult anyones religious feelings, the giant chicken and the spaghetti monster are there just to sort of illustrate the point.
And, so long as there are people who are not content with just being religious, but insist that we should all share their religious values, and want to make those same values into laws and constitutions, then I think that we really should know wheter they are right or wrong in their faith.
| |
|
ron h wrote: |
| |
Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
(Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
| |
|
I.M.P. wrote: |
| |
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
|
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
|
|
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM |
|
|
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:02:57 PM |
|
