Logic

[Seekermeister]

I suppose that it was to be expected, but without going into alot of detail, there is alot of proof of the existence of God, and the faith that He authored. Unfortunately, the most certain is not available to anyone that is not a Christian, so it is not possible for it to be evaluated by any individual or scientific means. Thus, I had no expectation that any of you would be able to understand, but I had hoped that you would be able to comprehend well enough to be able to deal with it in an objective fashion. I suppose that I expected too much.

As far as the methods that science uses to obtain evidence and to use it to creat theories, it is good in theory, but it too often does not conform to it's own standards. Again, I do not wish to go into detail to illustrate what I mean, so I really do not expect any agreement on this either.

The reason that I do not wish to go into greater details, at this time, is because I feel that it is premature, and this discussion has not developed to the point in which it would be of any use to anyone, except to foster greater argument, and that is not my purpose.

 

[fskimospy]

Science and religion are completely irreconcileable. Science is about the endless search for what is true, and how the world works. Religion claims to already have those answers, and the answers it gives are not open for debate. If you want to be religious, that's fine by me... but I think it is important to accept it for what it is.

As far as the logic thing goes, the problem with people posting on here is that in general they aren't actually interested in debating. They have already made their decision. I guess they just want to tell someone about it. hahaha.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's ironic that many denounce religion as being closed-minded and tout science as open-minded. In my experience, there are open-minded and closed-minded individuals in both pursuits. Scientists will always have a bias when interpreting their results, just as religious persons will have bias when interpreting what they observe in day-to-day life. To stick with my theme of quoting Einstein in this thread, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Only by combining the two can we hope to achieve any true understanding of what's really going on around us. To attempt one without the other is the height of arrogance and folly. The most obvious way to observe this is to see that most religious zealots will denounce scientific findings that disagree with them. Most anti-religious zealots will denounce all religion as anti-scientific. All the evidence to support this conclusion can be drawn from this very thread.

 

[Seekermeister]

CycloWizard,

Thank you. It's good to know that I'm not totally alone in this forum.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
CycloWizard,

Thank you. It's good to know that I'm not totally alone in this forum.

But... that's not what you said. The only things you've said so far in this thread would have lead me to lump you into the 'religious zealot' category in my previous post, since all you've done thus far is demean the scientific community of which I am a part.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
My purpose is not to attempt to destroy science, because I consider it a very worthwhile endeavor. But, the only way that both science and religion can serve us best, is if we can find a way to make them intermesh, without undue influence of one on the other.

There is indeed a very nice way for the two to intermesh, but this solution is simply unacceptable to religious poeple, because it means that their power must be dimished further.

When religion first arose (things like burial rituals amongst neanderthals indicate that it is very old indeed) there wasn't any separation between laws, 'scientific' explanations, social cohesion. The last several hundred years have seen the rise of both science as an alternative explanation for the world, and secular government for the running of states, while religion has dimished significantly.

So in an ideal world, science would be used to explain the world, secular government to run the state while religions provide social clubs that attempt to make people happy. Of course, organized religion would never stand to be put on the same level as bowling leagues and yoga classes, so we have our current conflicts over separation of church and state, and the science vs religion debates.

Science is pretty good at explaining things. If you want to know why the physical world is the way it is, physics will give you plenty of good answers. If you want to know why the living is the way it is, biology has a lot to offer, and if you want to know why the world is the way it is, history can teach you a lot.

But what explanation can religion offer? Ask a priest or an imam to explain complexity in the world and the only thing they will tell you is "it was always there". It'll be obfuscated in many elaborate layers, but in the end, it'll always come to that, I don't think that's any kind of explanation.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sorry Cyclo, but I completely disagree. Religion is by definition close minded, as it presents an immutable view of how the world works. Again it doesn't matter to me in the slightest if someone is religious, but to say that religion (at least most religions) is open to alternate explanations of the way the world works is false.

Also, I see no evidence that religion is required in any way to explain the world. That is simply an assumption based on cultural conditioning. Why is pursuing atheistic science arrogant? I would say that recognizing our own relative unimportance is far more humble then assuming that we are the chosen people of an all powerful deity.

 

[Seekermeister]

CycloWizard,

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I have said, because I do not see that what we have said is in contradiction to each other. I have no idea of what field of science that you are in, but that is not too important, because there is alot of scientific study that I do find valid and useful. But, this is not an blanket endorsement for any and all of the output from all fields. You apparently believe that the bias is limited to individual scientists, but that is exactly who determines what is officially endorsed. You make it sound as though that there was some kind of automatic mechanism that evaluates all data, so that the results are given a badge of superiority. But, in some fields of science there is a common bias which taints these results.

As you have pointed out, bias is a human trait which is found everywhere, whether in or out of science or religion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm sorry Cyclo, but I completely disagree. Religion is by definition close minded, as it presents an immutable view of how the world works. Again it doesn't matter to me in the slightest if someone is religious, but to say that religion (at least most religions) is open to alternate explanations of the way the world works is false.

No, it is only your perception of religion that is closed-minded. Not all religions fit your cookie-cutter definition of refusing to see the light, sticking to the literal interpretation of an ancient text, or assuming that they have it all figured out beyond reproach. You simply choose to focus on this small subset of religions. I suspect you focus on them becuase it is simple to overcome their positions with simple arguments, whereas other religions are not bound by such a simple worldview.

Also, I see no evidence that religion is required in any way to explain the world. That is simply an assumption based on cultural conditioning. Why is pursuing atheistic science arrogant? I would say that recognizing our own relative unimportance is far more humble then assuming that we are the chosen people of an all powerful deity.

Again with the sweeping generalizations about religions. I'll reiterate, this time by telling you that they specifically do not apply to my personal religion. Pursuing 'atheistic science' is just as blind as pursuing 'deistic science' in that you've already assumed a very powerful axiom by which all of your research will be biased.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Perhaps you misinterpreted what I have said, because I do not see that what we have said is in contradiction to each other. I have no idea of what field of science that you are in, but that is not too important, because there is alot of scientific study that I do find valid and useful. But, this is not an blanket endorsement for any and all of the output from all fields. You apparently believe that the bias is limited to individual scientists, but that is exactly who determines what is officially endorsed. You make it sound as though that there was some kind of automatic mechanism that evaluates all data, so that the results are given a badge of superiority. But, in some fields of science there is a common bias which taints these results.

Perhaps by reading this paragraph again, you can see why I lumped you into the religious zealot/anti-science category. You repeat the same demeaning statements about science in general, yet you refuse to say just what bias you're talking about. Therefore, I can only assume that you oppose the 'atheistic science' that eskimospy mentioned. Specifically, I can infer that you are probably talking about evolutionary biology and anthropology (perhaps among others) when you say 'But, in some fields of science, there is a common bias which taints these results.' I can turn this around and say that you are interpreting the same data with a bias just, or perhaps more, severe. Your bias stems from the idea that the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally*, which is just as laughable to your opponents as their stance is to you. The problem is that you are both extremists and think the other is an idiot. Little do you both realize that the right answer is probably somewhere in between, where neither of you dares to tread.

*Yes, I made some pretty large assumptions about you based solely on what you said in this thread so far. Please let me know if I'm not, but quit with the attempt at remaining neutral as it achieves nothing.

 

[Seekermeister]

CycloWizard,

As I stated previously, I believe it is premature to cause this discussion to detour into any specific areas of discussion of science. I can understand why you might feel as you do about what you assume that my intentions and beliefs are, but that is something that you will just have to deal with for the moment. Let's just let both of us remain open minded and not make too many personal assumptions at this time.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm sorry Cyclo, but I completely disagree. Religion is by definition close minded, as it presents an immutable view of how the world works. Again it doesn't matter to me in the slightest if someone is religious, but to say that religion (at least most religions) is open to alternate explanations of the way the world works is false.

No, it is only your perception of religion that is closed-minded. Not all religions fit your cookie-cutter definition of refusing to see the light, sticking to the literal interpretation of an ancient text, or assuming that they have it all figured out beyond reproach. You simply choose to focus on this small subset of religions. I suspect you focus on them becuase it is simple to overcome their positions with simple arguments, whereas other religions are not bound by such a simple worldview.

This argument is somewhat irrelevant without actual "statistics". I would say that the majority of religious people are probably less concerned with a precise literal interpretation of ancient texts, which allows them to accept both science and religion as valid. It is unfortunate that those who are less flexible have such a momentum in the US though (see Fundamentalist Christians).

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Also, I see no evidence that religion is required in any way to explain the world. That is simply an assumption based on cultural conditioning. Why is pursuing atheistic science arrogant? I would say that recognizing our own relative unimportance is far more humble then assuming that we are the chosen people of an all powerful deity.

Again with the sweeping generalizations about religions. I'll reiterate, this time by telling you that they specifically do not apply to my personal religion. Pursuing 'atheistic science' is just as blind as pursuing 'deistic science' in that you've already assumed a very powerful axiom by which all of your research will be biased.

I really do not understand what 'atheistic' and 'deistic' science actually is. However, bias is generally negated by the scientific method and peer review, I would think.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. Science is based on Truths that remain Truths unless someone can prove them False. IOW, everything Science uses as a Truth has been tested repeatedly and often continuously. It is not Circular Reasoning at all. It is sound Reasoning, using what you Know to be True as a basis to find new Truth.

Religious Truth is a whole other matter. It is as you describe Scientific Truth. That being Circular Reasoning. The Religious accept on Faith certain Truths, then interpret the World using that Truth. Many times those Truths are based on peoples experiences and as such are of value and could be considered worthy of the title, but certain Religious Truths certainly are not(God, Creation, etc).

Science and Religion perceive the world in very different ways. Science can Prove it's Truth, Religion can not and because Proof is a vital part of Science, the 2 can not be intermingled without damaging both. Your idea that they are weaker alone is silly.

This isn't true at all. As Einstein once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Science can only disprove things, never prove them, because there are infinitely many models that will fit any phenomenon. Science simply picks the model with the fewest parameters that fits the model, though this does not make the model 'true' - it's simply the best fit to the data available. As Einstein also said, "There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

The Proof in being Right is the lack of Proof of being Wrong. You are correct in that sense, but where Science and Religion diverge is in fact right there. Science will change based on the Evidence, Religion has no such mechanism for change. Not that Religion remains the same, for it has not, but the changes in Religion over time are from outside itself. Science has been a major catalyst for Religious change. I'd go as far as saying that the OP's post is testament to the influence Science has had on Religion. Meaning, Science is so influential that the OP is trying to accomadate that thought into his/her Religion.

However, it must be stated again, the two can not be intermingled without both being weakened in the process.

 

[Seekermeister]

Anyone who believes that a scientist is automatically elevated to a level of rising above their own personal biases is either being naive or is too biased to admit the truth. The only question is whether the scientific community, as a whole, can filter out such biases, and leave only the facts and plausible theories remaining. This question would have to examine the composition of the scientific community overall. I have seen statistics that indicated that a high percentage of scientists call themselves Christians, but just like in the population in general, many people call themselves Christians who are not. This does not mean that being a Christian should be a requirement of being a scientist, but if Christianity is omitted, it causes science to have a bias which is blind to a complete picture of the truth. Since the goal of science is supposed to be finding the truth, it cannot fulfill this mission without the knowledge that Christianity provides. Obviously, I am biased by my own beliefs and I do not believe that all faiths would be equal in their contribution to this endeavor, but I shall not change that because of any popular opinion.

If science has a composition that is primarily atheistic, then it will never be able to find, examine, or evaluate any evidence in a light that is not contrary to supporting any religion, much less Christianity. Science will never be able to prove the existence of God, but if it were truly more open minded, it would not interpret their findings in a fashion that would omit God from the picture. As I said, there is alot of scientific evidence which lends itself to supporting the existence of God, but it is not viewed in a light that permits this.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I suppose that it was to be expected, but without going into alot of detail, there is alot of proof of the existence of God, and the faith that He authored. Unfortunately, the most certain is not available to anyone that is not a Christian, so it is not possible for it to be evaluated by any individual or scientific means. Thus, I had no expectation that any of you would be able to understand, but I had hoped that you would be able to comprehend well enough to be able to deal with it in an objective fashion. I suppose that I expected too much.

As far as the methods that science uses to obtain evidence and to use it to creat theories, it is good in theory, but it too often does not conform to it's own standards. Again, I do not wish to go into detail to illustrate what I mean, so I really do not expect any agreement on this either.

The reason that I do not wish to go into greater details, at this time, is because I feel that it is premature, and this discussion has not developed to the point in which it would be of any use to anyone, except to foster greater argument, and that is not my purpose.

The Jew, the Muslim, the Sikh, and any other Religious person would and does say the same thing. Believing your Proof is not Proof at all. Your "Evidence" is merely Gut Feeling perceived to be Evidence in order to justify to yourself the "Truth" of your Beliefs. Every religion has these same Proofs, Christianity is not unique in this way.

 

[blackllotus]

Clashes between religion and science occur as legacy aspects of religion, such as the original creation theories and theories about our place in the universe, become highly improbable as our knowledge of the natural world grows. This happened in the past as we discovered the earth was round and that the earth orbits around the sun. Now, as it becomes evident that the seven day creation model is dying, we see religion (Christianity in this case) attempting to modify its own theories again. This time with the theory of Intelligent Design. Current problems with ID are caused by the fact that some people attempt to portray it as science, and that some "versions" of it are basically relabeled creationism (ie: some versions don't acknowledge evolution). Now we have scientists who think that science is under attack by theists and theists who think their religion is under attack by scientists (which it often is, I am guilty of attacking religion myself).

In the future I have a large suspicion that religion will have outgrown its current books. Religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are starting to show their age as we continue our centuries-long tradition of fighting over whose god actually exists. To me, an atheist, I find it absurd that one can fervently believe in their own god while simultaneously denoucing the existence of the gods in all other religions. The religion that makes most sense to me is deism.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Anyone who believes that a scientist is automatically elevated to a level of rising above their own personal biases is either being naive or is too biased to admit the truth. The only question is whether the scientific community, as a whole, can filter out such biases, and leave only the facts and plausible theories remaining. This question would have to examine the composition of the scientific community overall. I have seen statistics that indicated that a high percentage of scientists call themselves Christians, but just like in the population in general, many people call themselves Christians who are not. This does not mean that being a Christian should be a requirement of being a scientist, but if Christianity is omitted, it causes science to have a bias which is blind to a complete picture of the truth. Since the goal of science is supposed to be finding the truth, it cannot fulfill this mission without the knowledge that Christianity provides. Obviously, I am biased by my own beliefs and I do not believe that all faiths would be equal in their contribution to this endeavor, but I shall not change that because of any popular opinion.

If science has a composition that is primarily atheistic, then it will never be able to find, examine, or evaluate any evidence in a light that is not contrary to supporting any religion, much less Christianity. Science will never be able to prove the existence of God, but if it were truly more open minded, it would not interpret their findings in a fashion that would omit God from the picture. As I said, there is alot of scientific evidence which lends itself to supporting the existence of God, but it is not viewed in a light that permits this.

Science has no need of any Religion, even Christianity. It is true that Scientists have Bias, they are human, all humans have Bias. However, not all Scientists have the same Bias and because of this when a Scientist puts his/her bias into something and that bias leads to an incorrect finding, it will be discovered and the finding will be dispelled.

 

[Seekermeister]

sandorski,

Christianity can not be compared to any other religion, because no other religion has anything comparable with the substance to be found within it. Naturally, you would write that off as just being my own blind faith, but all that I can tell you is that this is wrong. My faith is based on much more than gut feelings, superstitions, etc. You are in no position to evaluate Christianity, unless you are a Christian, because you do not pocess the knowledge or understanding to do so.

 

[her209]

The Sun revolves around the Earth... oh, wait!

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
but just like in the population in general, many people call themselves Christians who are not.

And what makes you think that you know how to define what a "true" Christian is? How do you know whether God meant us to interpret the Bible literally or to read it for its moral values?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Christianity can not be compared to any other religion, because no other religion has anything comparable with the substance to be found within it.

This type of ignorance is what really pisses me off when trying to reason with people who have no intention of ever examining real facts.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Anyone who believes that a scientist is automatically elevated to a level of rising above their own personal biases is either being naive or is too biased to admit the truth. The only question is whether the scientific community, as a whole, can filter out such biases, and leave only the facts and plausible theories remaining. This question would have to examine the composition of the scientific community overall. I have seen statistics that indicated that a high percentage of scientists call themselves Christians, but just like in the population in general, many people call themselves Christians who are not. This does not mean that being a Christian should be a requirement of being a scientist, but if Christianity is omitted, it causes science to have a bias which is blind to a complete picture of the truth. Since the goal of science is supposed to be finding the truth, it cannot fulfill this mission without the knowledge that Christianity provides. Obviously, I am biased by my own beliefs and I do not believe that all faiths would be equal in their contribution to this endeavor, but I shall not change that because of any popular opinion.

If science has a composition that is primarily atheistic, then it will never be able to find, examine, or evaluate any evidence in a light that is not contrary to supporting any religion, much less Christianity. Science will never be able to prove the existence of God, but if it were truly more open minded, it would not interpret their findings in a fashion that would omit God from the picture. As I said, there is alot of scientific evidence which lends itself to supporting the existence of God, but it is not viewed in a light that permits this.

I'm afraid I don't see how a scientist's bias can really affect the results of a well-executed experiment carried out by multiple research groups. Nothing is taken seriously in the scientific community unless it can be verified independently, preferably many, many times. I also fail to see why a scientist needs to be a specific religion, or religious at all, to obtain valid scientific results. Scientific study is concerned with the natural world, so no holy insight is going to really make any difference at all.

No scientist would ever say that their research proves there is no God. Any scientist knows that science is incapable of doing so. They also know that it is incapable of supporting the existence of God. It is perhaps possible to interprest some scientific findings as proof of God, but such an observation would not be scientific. I think most religious people would even agree with that, if they know anything about science.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
sandorski,

Christianity can not be compared to any other religion, because no other religion has anything comparable with the substance to be found within it. Naturally, you would write that off as just being my own blind faith, but all that I can tell you is that this is wrong. My faith is based on much more than gut feelings, superstitions, etc. You are in no position to evaluate Christianity, unless you are a Christian, because you do not pocess the knowledge or understanding to do so.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have read today, and probably all week. "I am right, and there is no way that I am wrong. Unless you agree with me, there is no way you could disagree with me."

I mean really.. what?

 

[Seekermeister]

While the Earth is not in a fixed position in space, no one can say that it is or is not at the center of the universe, because no one has ever been able to plot the limits of the universe, which would be required to define the center. If I were to purpose that the Sun was the actual center of the univese, the slight variation of the Earth's orbit would be too miniscule to measure in the overall dimensions. However, the exact position is not even relevant. To point to any past misconceptions of Christianity as to find fault in the entire faith is as blind and biased as any religious zealot outside of science.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
To point to any past misconceptions of Christianity as to find fault in the entire faith is as blind and biased as any religious zealot outside of science.

That was not my goal at all. By pointing out these "past misconceptions" I hoped to show that as long as religion attempts to explain natural phenomena, there will always be clashes between science and religion.