Why scoff science?

[Jeff7]

Why don't you read some biographies/accounts of scientists who switched to a Biblical view? Surely science couldn't lead them to the Bible, no? 🙄

This phenomenon is already well-documented. 😛

Religion has traditionally made its mark by knowing the unknowable, or at least inserting an explanation into unexplained areas of knowledge....*snip*

:applause;

They also shot themselves in the foot lately by making more and more powerful deities, up to the point of one which was all-knowing and all-powerful. All. Infinite. Nothing beyond its capabilities or knowledge. Toying with infinity is something that mathematicians can do, and that's as far as it should go. As soon as infinite power and ability is assigned to a supposedly existent being, well, they should expect there to be some rather lofty expectations. And of course, there's the issue of a few logical paradoxes involving such levels of power and knowledge.

Could God make a god so powerful even God would worship it?

 

[totalnoob]

Creation, or the way the universe came about, was once considered so unknowable that it was a safe stomping ground for religion. I imagine they'd have stayed well clear of it if they'd somehow known that even a tentative explanation for the beginnings of the universe was possible through a tried and true, comprehensive, exhaustively rigorous methodology like science. But how could they have known? So what religion has done is tie its trustworthiness and validity to things that it thinks can never be challenged. Fundamental aspect of religion are based on how the world and the life on it came about. It makes clear and unmistakable proclamations about these things. If it is proven wrong on such a basic level, then the rest of its tenets must be shadowed in doubt as well. Would you not doubt something a friend, even a good one, says if he has been known to lie about important things?

So you see, it isn't strictly science that is attacking religion. Religion set itself up to fail when human knowledge inevitably pushed into realms previously thought unknowable. The reason people deny these proofs so vehemently is because Religion is filling the role in their lives that it was designed by people to fill. They don't want to let it go. It has become necessary to them, and the dark things that lie at the corners of their minds rush forward to terrorize them whenever they entertain any serious doubt. Religion does indeed serve a purpose for the first creature on this planet intelligent enough to contemplate its own death and what comes after. However, it can only serve that purpose if we believe it. Too bad that the thing that was once its strength, the holding of knowledge that is thought to be unknowable through normal means, is also the thing that will bring it down. When a greater percentage of the contiguous whole of religious claims is shown to be false than is still unknown, then any rational person can make an educated guess about the remainder.

Excellent post.

 

[nageov3t]

I've always thought of fundamentalist Christians who take the bible as a literal, historic document as the yin to militant atheist's yang.

 

[skace]

Evolution created God.

 

[LordMorpheus]

You are taking a few examples and extrapolating that trait on all. Im Catholic and think God used the spark of life through evolution to create us. The Earth is 4 billion years old, etc.

You just have to accept the fact that there are all kinds of people out there with different beliefs or no belief at all.

I think it's important to note that Lemaitre (proposed the Big Bang) was a Catholic Priest. Most Christians I know accept the Big Bang as creation.

 

[El Guaraguao]

I think it's important to note that Lemaitre (proposed the Big Bang) was a Catholic Priest. Most Christians I know accept the Big Bang as creation.

Christians who accept the Big Bang as creation? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical? If it was possible to travel back in time 2000 years ago, for a Christian to believe in such "nonsense" could land that person in jail or end up dead.

Whats next Christians believing in Evolution? :awe:

 

[DanDaManJC]

Christians who accept the Big Bang as creation? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical? If it was possible to travel back in time 2000 years ago, for a Christian to believe in such "nonsense" could land that person in jail or end up dead.

Whats next Christians believing in Evolution? :awe:

Not really unheard of. The Catholic Church and several protestant denominations have no qualms whatsoever with the big bang and evolution. Another example of a christian scientist is Kennith Miller.

Obviously my post was directed at the other denominations...

I've always thought of fundamentalist Christians who take the bible as a literal, historic document as the yin to militant atheist's yang.

Yeah in all honesty that might just be it. I just happen to be have a circle where I'm exposed to a lot more people on the evangelical side of things.

 

[Jeff7]

Christians who accept the Big Bang as creation? Isn't that being a bit hypocritical? If it was possible to travel back in time 2000 years ago, for a Christian to believe in such "nonsense" could land that person in jail or end up dead.

Whats next Christians believing in Evolution? :awe:

And is it the Creation according to Genesis?
Where's the section about the formation of subatomic particles? And how is time measured in "days" if Earth and the Sun, upon which the period known as "day" is defined?

Hell, it screws up right from the start.
1) First God made heaven & earth
Ok, so the rest of the Universe gets put in the same sentence as our tiny planet, and apparently there was no need to mention the whole "bang" which preceded it - a rather "big" one, at that.

2) ..yadda, yadda...God made light.
So Earth and the Universe existed before light? Um, sure. Big Bang theory would of course disagree with that, but, whatever.

3) And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Sequence thus far is Heavens, Earth, Light, Water. Captain Planet will be along shortly.

4) And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.
Posted just because they did such a darn good job with the Book of Armaments scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

5) And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
Just a technicality, the "lesser" light isn't a light, it just reflects light from that other "greater" light, but we can't expect God to know these sorts of things.
Oh, and he also made many many many quadrillions upon quadrillions of stars. I guess that's worth mentioning in at least a small part of a sentence.🙄


I'd say that equating Creation with the Big Bang is a goddamn big stretch.



Oy, the Bible. What a crazy, crazy trip, in more ways than one.

 

[destrekor]

And is it the Creation according to Genesis?
Where's the section about the formation of subatomic particles? And how is time measured in "days" if Earth and the Sun, upon which the period known as "day" is defined?

Hell, it screws up right from the start.
1) First God made heaven & earth
Ok, so the rest of the Universe gets put in the same sentence as our tiny planet, and apparently there was no need to mention the whole "bang" which preceded it - a rather "big" one, at that.

2) ..yadda, yadda...God made light.
So Earth and the Universe existed before light? Um, sure. Big Bang theory would of course disagree with that, but, whatever.

3) And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Sequence thus far is Heavens, Earth, Light, Water. Captain Planet will be along shortly.

4) And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.
Posted just because they did such a darn good job with the Book of Armaments scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

5) And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
Just a technicality, the "lesser" light isn't a light, it just reflects light from that other "greater" light, but we can't expect God to know these sorts of things.
Oh, and he also made many many many quadrillions upon quadrillions of stars. I guess that's worth mentioning in at least a small part of a sentence.🙄


I'd say that equating Creation with the Big Bang is a goddamn big stretch.



Oy, the Bible. What a crazy, crazy trip, in more ways than one.

I've never done this, but I'm feeling rather in the mood.
So I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Scientifically speaking, Earth did form without water. Water came a long time after the Earth came into existence.

😀

 

[DanDaManJC]

You are taking a few examples and extrapolating that trait on all. Im Catholic and think God used the spark of life through evolution to create us. The Earth is 4 billion years old, etc.

Well I may have been unclear in my first post about that topic, but I do agree and know that there are plenty of Christians who don't take the bible literally in every aspect. For the sake of my question and not getting too off track I just didn't mention that.

You just have to accept the fact that there are all kinds of people out there with different beliefs or no belief at all.

You're probably right on this... but after seeing how "science works" it just baffles me how some can ignore the empirical evidence. Of course, they probably think the same thing of those silly atheists rejecting God's love.

It's very hard for me to imagine someone who believes the creationist theory (i.e. I guess what's called "intelligent design") could be well grounded in the science behind the big bang and evolution. I think the gap between the camps might have something to do with the way the brain works, the whole "left brain right brain" thing. If you give in to the right brain you go "oh, screw that stuff, I want to believe this" and I will, goddamn it! People are like that, well a lot of them are. It's way easier to cite scripture than advance in a course of scientific study. People, most people are pretty lazy. How much TV does the average American watch on an average day? 6 hours, I heard?

Personally, I would avoid anyone who scoffs science (in most contexts, anyway).

I'd have to say it's not really that simple. While I would tend to agree that it seems like there is a true ignorance of science and silly-stupid americans who just watch TV all the time, I personally know several people who are otherwise very well-read and decently educated as either pastors (to qualify: they would've had to learn the history, ancient hebrew and greek and so forth), RNs, teachers and so on. To some degree I'd still contend an ignorance of the mechanics of evolution... but they're smart enough people and it's probably not just ignorance or a reaction to Dawkin's viral atheist message.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are missing the point. It isn't that I need proof , it is that people that do not have a background in math and science need proof.

What about a theory that has never been proven ? Both require faith in what they believe to be true. One is just willing to wait longer for the proof.

All theories have not been tested. The one I cited earlier has never been proven.

Unless you provide proof that people can understand on their level they will always be skeptical.

Learn something tonight. Science does not -- repeat, NOT -- deal in "proof." Ever. EVER. If you are talking about "scientific proof," then you are a scientific ignoramus, plain and simple. When you demand "scientific proof" you are demanding the non-sensical, and revealing your own ignorance.

"Proof," as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with evidence and testable hypotheses. Period.

Certainty has no degrees ,that would be faith or belief.

Total bullshit. Exhibit A: the Heinsenberg Uncertainty Principle.

I am not trying to take sides of whether science or religion is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out why as the OP asked, when confronted with evidence do some people not believe it.

What you're doing is spouting off a bunch of nonsense, and you'd be better off STFU'ing and doing some reading instead.

 

[El Guaraguao]

😉

 

[Jeff7]

I've never done this, but I'm feeling rather in the mood.
So I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Scientifically speaking, Earth did form without water. Water came a long time after the Earth came into existence.

😀

<Sir Bedevere>
Ah, but would there not have been water in existence elsewhere in the Universe, before Earth existed?
</> 😛

I think that somewhere on Earth, two hot'n'horny hydrogen atoms double-teamed a hapless oxygen atom. And there you go, you have water. Sure, it's a molecule, but the Bible's infallible, dammit! 😀

Lots of water is what came awhile after Earth's initial formation, though "initial formation" isn't exactly a tiny point in time. 🙂

 

[szechuanpork]

1) what is science? what are the criteria? a good start is this wikipedia entry on the demarcation problem.

2) is the view that science exhausts all that is knowable true? are there other sources of knowledge that are not scientifically driven--e.g. philosophy or theology?

3) is there any room for the supernatural in one's belief system? are the five senses the only source for knowledge?

it might seem to you that people are just not looking at the evidence in a rational way. but as you dig deeper into the philosophical questions behind what is going on you will find that not everyone in this world believes that science exhausts all that we can know in the world.

science as a discipline can lead to many important discoveries that any rational person should believe. but this does not mean that naturalism is the only game in town. and, anyone wanting to support naturalism must do so in a non-scientific manner; they must use philosophy and philosophical principles in order to figure out if naturalism is true.

if evolution is as certain as Einstein's theory of relativity, which is considered by many scientists to be as certain as any theory of science can be, why are so many scientists opposed to teaching children the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. schools do not even have to mention God, creation, or an intelligent designer. i think both Darwin and Einstein would roll over in their graves should they find that people today are not teaching children the best arguments for and against a particular theory of science.

 

[DrPizza]

What weakness in the theory of evolution?

 

[Jeff7]

What weakness in the theory of evolution?

It doesn't explain how a Jesus evolved from a god.

 

[szechuanpork]

What weakness in the theory of evolution?

objections to the theory of evolution

strengths and weaknesses of evolution

scientific weaknesses of evolution

 

[ShawnD1]

What weakness in the theory of evolution?

If Darwin evolved from Jesus, he would have resurrected himself by now. Take that, scientists!


OP, the reason people reject science is because they are retarded. Some people still believe in homeopathy despite it being possibly the stupidest idea ever.
Homeopathy in a nutshell: take a poison, dilute it until it's not there anymore, give this to someone and expect it to do something. When I say "until it's not there anymore", I literally mean it's not there anymore. I'll explain this one in detail if someone wants but I don't want to hijack this thread unless provoked 🙂

 

[nerp]

objections to the theory of evolution

strengths and weaknesses of evolution

scientific weaknesses of evolution

Hmm. All I get from these is "weaknesses in the arguments against evolution"

 

[FelixDeCat]

I think it's important to note that Lemaitre (proposed the Big Bang) was a Catholic Priest. Most Christians I know accept the Big Bang as creation.

Thanks for this information, LordMorpheus. I had no idea a Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, proposed the Big Bang theory.

The priests and monks of the Catholic Church have made many positive contributions over the past 2,000 years.

God bless them.

 

[Jeff7]

Hmm. All I get from these is "weaknesses in the arguments against evolution"

Indeed.
The first features rebuttals to the alleged weaknesses.
The second is basically the Wikipedia entry for the third link, which is courtesy of a group which is decidedly against the teaching of evolution, and lists such sites as Jesusland's "American Family Association" and "Focus on the Family" hard-right Christian-crazies organizations. I'll take science advice from them right after I start taking medical advice from Mr Mercola.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

1science as a discipline can lead to many important discoveries that any rational person should believe. but this does not mean that naturalism is the only game in town. and, anyone wanting to support naturalism must do so in a non-scientific manner; they must use philosophy and philosophical principles in order to figure out if naturalism is true.

Science is not philosophically naturalistic. It is metholodlogically naturalistic.

if evolution is as certain as Einstein's theory of relativity, which is considered by many scientists to be as certain as any theory of science can be, why are so many scientists opposed to teaching children the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.

Because the alleged "weaknesses" are based on sheer ignorance. Go figure that many scientists would be opposed to teaching children ignorance. 🙄

schools do not even have to mention God, creation, or an intelligent designer. i think both Darwin and Einstein would roll over in their graves should they find that people today are not teaching children the best arguments for and against a particular theory of science.

There are no good arguments against evolutionary theory. There are arguments to be made about particular facets of the theory, but the theory itself is no longer disputed by rational people.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Religion claims to have absolute truth and science says there is none. But science usually does not kill you if you disagree. Now just what was the arguement all about?

 

[WHAMPOM]

objections to the theory of evolution

strengths and weaknesses of evolution

scientific weaknesses of evolution

Creditable?? Not! Credulous, yes. 😛

 

[DrPizza]

objections to the theory of evolution

strengths and weaknesses of evolution

scientific weaknesses of evolution

Gee, thanks. You completely supported my point that there are no weaknesses to the theory of evolution. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of religious people making up "facts" without any evidence to try to cast doubt on evolution, simply because evolution doesn't fit with their world-view.