Science vs. Religion

[sailor_baby]

I guess the thread about the Da Vinci Code and its prequal Angels & Deamons got me thinking about this question more often.

So what are your thoughts? Do you think science and religion compliment each other or are actually the polar opposites of each other? Does one prove the other one wrong or does one support the other in some weird twisted kind of way?

I'd really like to hear your oppinions on this subject.....I'll post my views on later, but it hasn't really changed for the past 4 - 5 years.


Post/Debate away!

ps: when I say "religion" I mean any type of religion that has a God or Gods. If you want to be more specific and say "Christianity" or something like that, be my guest! :D

[DVessey]

yay religion! let's mix politics into the mix while we're at it ;)

Anyhow, personally I'm quite content to let science and religion co-exist. Religion (more so Christianity, since that's what I'm familiar with) may not be so happy about this. but that's alright. I can live with it.

I have yet to read the DaVinci Code though.. sounds interesting...

[sailor_baby]

yay religion! let's mix politics into the mix while we're at it ;)

Anyhow, personally I'm quite content to let science and religion co-exist. Religion (more so Christianity, since that's what I'm familiar with) may not be so happy about this. but that's alright. I can live with it.

I have yet to read the DaVinci Code though.. sounds interesting...



well what abut things that science teaches that goes against religion.....like evolution for example......bible says the world was created in 7 (6 technically) days, but according to evolution it's taken thousands of years..... or things like the Big bang theory vs. creation..... or even child birth (oh boy...I have a feeling abortion is going to pop up somewhere) etc?

[Juice]

well what abut things that science teaches that goes against religion.....like evolution for example......bible says the world was created in 7 (6 technically) days, but according to evolution it's taken thousands of years..... or things like the Big bang theory vs. creation..... or even child birth (oh boy...I have a feeling abortion is going to pop up somewhere) etc?

Well, Ill start with the Big bang theory. On its own, bad theory. Why? because for one, what made the bang happen? Something had to, and the only real logical(if athe idea of Gods or a God is logical in the first place) explanation is that a God, or Supreme Being let's call it, made the Bang happen. it couldnt have just happened on its own. Also, what existed outside the tiny little ball that exploded in the first place? There had to have been something.

Now, the whole thing about the Evolution vs. Christianity. Yes, the Bible says that god created the world in 6 days and reseted on the seventh. However, if you look at the linguistics of it, nowhere does it say that a day was 24 hours in that time. Just because a day is 24 hours now does not mean that is what God considered a day when He created the world. Let's not forget He did not create the Sun and Moon until the fourth day (or maybe the third, I could be wrong). A day could have been 24 hours, or it could have been 65 million years according to the way we judge time. In any event, what I am saying is if you look at it from this light, the idea of evolution, to a degree, can coexist with the idea of creation. Let's not forget that these are both theories and neither has been proven. My thought is that perhaps we should find a way of allowing these two seemingly contesting theories work together in harmonym rather than fight back and forth over who is right, because in the end, neither will be able to be proven beyond all doubt.

This is just a general way of putting my view on it, if you want more specifics, PM me.

[Juice]

Also, religion gives people a hope and belief in something larger than themselves. Science seems to be looking for a way to show that all we are is some random accident and that there really is no meaning in life, except gain what you can while you are alive, even though after you die, it's all pointless because there is nowhere to go.

I belive it was Voltaire who said this, though I could be wrong:

"Even if it turns out there is no God, it would be necessary to invent Him."

The words might not be exactly right, but you get the idea. We need religion, we need the idea of God, because it helps add meaning in our lives, like there is something beyond this bleak world we live in. If we lost our sense of meaning in life, there woudl be no point in carrying on. There's no point in living if you cant feel alive. To me that means that there has to be a purpose, a reason to exist, and I truly belive that I have a purpose here, and that I will go somewhere when I die. I cant even begin to fathom what the world would be like if we didnt belive there is a God out there, looking over us and keeping us safe. I think we'd all be very very depressed.

[handisnak]

Well, Ill start with the Big bang theory. On its own, bad theory. Why?

I think Stephen Hawking took your concerns to heart when he developed the Big Bang theory. :)


Now, the whole thing about the Evolution vs. Christianity. Yes, the Bible says that god created the world in 6 days and reseted on the seventh. However, if you look at the linguistics of it, nowhere does it say that a day was 24 hours in that time. Just because a day is 24 hours now does not mean that is what God considered a day when He created the world.

I have a simpler explanation. The people who wrote Genesis existed many thousands of years ago and had no idea they existed on a planet spinning through a solar system around a sun with 8 other planets in a galaxy called the Milky Way.

Nothing they write should be considered truthful to us. It is simply what they considered to be the truth at that time. To use what they said and try and "mesh" it with science is completely unnecessary.


I belive it was Voltaire who said this, though I could be wrong:

"Even if it turns out there is no God, it would be necessary to invent Him."

The words might not be exactly right, but you get the idea. We need religion, we need the idea of God, because it helps add meaning in our lives, like there is something beyond this bleak world we live in. If we lost our sense of meaning in life, there woudl be no point in carrying on. There's no point in living if you cant feel alive. To me that means that there has to be a purpose, a reason to exist, and I truly belive that I have a purpose here, and that I will go somewhere when I die. I cant even begin to fathom what the world would be like if we didnt belive there is a God out there, looking over us and keeping us safe. I think we'd all be very very depressed.

I respectfully disagree.

We don't need religion any more than we think we need religion. Personally, I think we all need a nice hot fudge sundae. Does that mean society will fall apart without a hot fudge sundae? Nope. In fact, society will work just fine without believing in a god. You don't need to be a theist to find meaning in your life.

In fact, to paraphrase John Lennon, if we didn't have gods, we would probably stop arguing about a lot things. We might also start living for today, living richer and fuller lives, instead of trying to please some unknowable force.

Wow. There's a nice recovering-Catholic atheist rant.

[Juice]

To each his own I guess. To prevent any personal arguments (science vs. religion tends to bring the worst out in people) I say we agree to disagree. Thats the beauty of a free society, we can all live together in harmony (or rather we should) without having to all believe in the same thing :D

[sailor_baby]

To each his own I guess. To prevent any personal arguments (science vs. religion tends to bring the worst out in people) I say we agree to disagree. Thats the beauty of a free society, we can all live together in harmony (or rather we should) without having to all believe in the same thing :D


That's why I brought it up...but I was hoping where would be a debate of some sort:( I'm really interested on people's view on the matter.

As for me, I beileve that science and religion are one in the same. They both point to some type of supreme being.

If you take everything down to the tiniest molecules and the most elementray particles, just the way they interact with each other and the way they produce amazingy complex coumpounds just boggles the mind. Like take proteins for example, it's amazing how 20 different molecules can arrange and fold themselves to produce every single protein in our body; noting that protein makes the enzymes that digest our food, the antibodies in our immune system, helps with metabolic reactions, etc).

No if you do the opposite, as in look on the astronomical side of things, you'd also see that there is more out there than meets the eye. The creation of the universe, the different galaxies.....soo many mystereis that boggles the mind, that pretty much begs for people to say that there must be some type of supreme being. Heck, our telescopes, satellites, and satellite dishes can't even "see" the end of the universe.

My favourite analogy of "God" is the one where they compare him/her to the clockmaker.....The clockmaker makes the clock and then leaves it to run on its own.....just as "God" (or any other supreme being) made the universe and everything in it, and allows it to run on it's own....[or something like that].....

Anyways, any other views/thoughts?

[handisnak]

To each his own I guess. To prevent any personal arguments (science vs. religion tends to bring the worst out in people) I say we agree to disagree. Thats the beauty of a free society, we can all live together in harmony (or rather we should) without having to all believe in the same thing :D

These kinds of debates are also very important for the gradual evolution of society. I consider it an evolution that society no longer believes the earth is only as old as it says in the Bible. Science says the earth is 6 billion years old, and there is strong proof to back it up. Any kind of movement back into the 5000-year-old bible-version of science is a step backward. Anytime I see an elected official espousing ideals like "let's teach creationism in schools," I cringe, and cast my ballot for someone else.

And, the best way for people to become educated is through discussion, as the truth tends to emerge as people escape their isolationist shells. There is a good reason why, with every additional level of education (i.e. literacy, high school, undergrad degree, post-graduate degree), people tend to become less accepting of a single religion to show them the "truth". It's the same reason why most religious fundamentalists are found deep in areas where only one religion is prevalent (i.e. Central India, the deep south of the USA, small towns, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Discussion encourages intellectual evolution. Isolationism breeds complacency and blind faith.

[Juice]

My favourite analogy of "God" is the one where they compare him/her to the clockmaker.....The clockmaker makes the clock and then leaves it to run on its own.....just as "God" (or any other supreme being) made the universe and everything in it, and allows it to run on it's own....[or something like that].....

Anyways, any other views/thoughts?

Thats called Deism, and I tend to like that theory more than anything else centred around God.

[Juice]

These kinds of debates are also very important for the gradual evolution of society. I consider it an evolution that society no longer believes the earth is only as old as it says in the Bible. Science says the earth is 6 billion years old, and there is strong proof to back it up. Any kind of movement back into the 5000-year-old bible-version of science is a step backward. Anytime I see an elected official espousing ideals like "let's teach creationism in schools," I cringe, and cast my ballot for someone else.

And, the best way for people to become educated is through discussion, as the truth tends to emerge as people escape their isolationist shells. There is a good reason why, with every additional level of education (i.e. literacy, high school, undergrad degree, post-graduate degree), people tend to become less accepting of a single religion to show them the "truth". It's the same reason why most religious fundamentalists are found deep in areas where only one religion is prevalent (i.e. Central India, the deep south of the USA, small towns, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Discussion encourages intellectual evolution. Isolationism breeds complacency and blind faith.

As I said before, the Bible isnt specific on how old the Earth is, as no time restrictions were placed on how long the 7 days were for Creation. it has been 2000 years since the birth of Christ, yes, but the world is definitely much older than that.

[Wood]

I think science and religion are related in that both are based in faith. There is the constant threat that what we know to be true might not be. Yet both the scientist and the priest choose to believe, choose to search out meaning.

[Lola]

I think we'd all be very very depressed.

Not I! :D

If I believed in God, I would believe in Diesm, because to ignore all the evidene of evolution would be ridiculous. Of course, an old friend of mine would disagree...

[SeVeN_NL]

the theory about god as a clockmaker is a new one for me... but i shure like em.. my parents are not religious at all so i did not get any christianity with me. so call my self an atheist, i belief in nothing like a supreme being... but the theory you display is something to think about. it covers all the things in our "creation" where i find gaps.
but i think that everyone is free to belief what they want to cause its gives a lot of support to the people who need it. there is only one thing i dont like about religion and that is : the people who are imposing (dont know if the english is correct of this word..) their beliefs onto people who are "infidels" espesialy if they know your not interested in their words. thats whats for me the same as discrimination cause your saiying "your better if you belief in the things we belief in"

ps iam glad my father is not aware of this discussion and his english is not zo very well, else he would start his well known monologe about the evil of religion.... (cause of every war, etc) :D

greetings

[Wolfmann]

I guess the thread about the Da Vinci Code and its prequal Angels & Deamons got me thinking about this question more often.

The Da Vinci Code was a good book, but it was entirely that...fiction. But it does beg the possibilities...



So what are your thoughts? Do you think science and religion compliment each other or are actually the polar opposites of each other? Does one prove the other one wrong or does one support the other in some weird twisted kind of way?

They are both systems of belief. One is based on faith, the other on fact.



ps: when I say "religion" I mean any type of religion that has a God or Gods. If you want to be more specific and say "Christianity" or something like that, be my guest! :D

A religion is an organized system of spiritual belief. A God or deity is not a requirement.

[Stradivarius]

From some of my own studying I've discovered science can actually prove creation.

[Juice]

Not I! :D

If I believed in God, I would believe in Diesm, because to ignore all the evidene of evolution would be ridiculous. Of course, an old friend of mine would disagree...

I wouldnt say religion in itself fails to recognize the evidence of evolution, its just that many religious people refuse to.

[Juice]

the theory about god as a clockmaker is a new one for me... but i shure like em.. my parents are not religious at all so i did not get any christianity with me. so call my self an atheist, i belief in nothing like a supreme being... but the theory you display is something to think about. it covers all the things in our "creation" where i find gaps.
but i think that everyone is free to belief what they want to cause its gives a lot of support to the people who need it. there is only one thing i dont like about religion and that is : the people who are imposing (dont know if the english is correct of this word..) their beliefs onto people who are "infidels" espesialy if they know your not interested in their words. thats whats for me the same as discrimination cause your saiying "your better if you belief in the things we belief in"

ps iam glad my father is not aware of this discussion and his english is not zo very well, else he would start his well known monologe about the evil of religion.... (cause of every war, etc) :D

greetings

Religion in itself is not evil. This is where many people get mixed up. The way many radicals and religious fanatics (to beg the term cause I cant seem to think of a better one off the top of my head) interpret religion is where it becomes 'evil' so to speak. Yes, everyone is free to believe what they want to believe, and imposing something on someone who doesnt want it is just plain wrong in my opinion. Does that mean it is wrong to go around saying you are right in what you belive? No, it doesnt. But when you start criticizing other peoples beliefs, saying they are wrong and are going to go to hell unless they accept your views on religion, thats when it crosses the line. Religion in itself is not evil, its just when people start misinterpreting it to fit their own ends and start imposing those ends on others, thats when it becomes evil.

[Juice]

From some of my own studying I've discovered science can actually prove creation.


I wouldnt say science can prove Creation, but it can give really good evidence for the possibility. I have a book at home that analyzes religion through the eyes of science, and there is a lot of good arguments in there that justify Creation through science. Though I really doubt that anyone will ever be able to prove beyond all doubt whether there is or is not a God.

[SeVeN_NL]

julian Braet,

a reaction to your reaction..lol
your hitting the nail on its head (as we say here in holland) this is exactly what i mean!
i respect every one his beliefs until he is telling iam wrong cause i dont belief in his religion... like here in holland we have the Jehova's (members of the church of the laterday saints??) and they have a reputation to go door by door to "bring Jesus" and they can be very iritatting cause if you tel them to bother some one else ( or if your funny you say to him to put Jesus next to the other jesus's in the garage....) they just keep talking... i am glad the guy who goes around our neightbour knews we dont apreciate his monologes...

greetings Pieter

[Juice]

julian Braet,

a reaction to your reaction..lol
your hitting the nail on its head (as we say here in holland) this is exactly what i mean!
i respect every one his beliefs until he is telling iam wrong cause i dont belief in his religion... like here in holland we have the Jehova's (members of the church of the laterday saints??) and they have a reputation to go door by door to "bring Jesus" and they can be very iritatting cause if you tel them to bother some one else ( or if your funny you say to him to put Jesus next to the other jesus's in the garage....) they just keep talking... i am glad the guy who goes around our neightbour knews we dont apreciate his monologes...

greetings Pieter

Dont worry, you arent the only ones who have people like thatgoing door to door. I respect religion in all its facets, but when people start getting up in my face about it, trying to force it on me, thats where I draw the line. I am a religious person, I believe that there is a GOd out there watchingover us, for reasons I will not get into right now, but I do not subscribe to a church. I feel that, at least in terms of Christianity, there is way too much 'in-fighting' where each different sect is so worried that they are right and another sect is wrong. isn't it all Christianity in the end? Whether you are Catholic or Protestant or United or whatever, did not Jesus still die on the Cross? Are you guys not all still Christians in the end? Did God not still create the world? this is why i do not subscribe to organized religion, there is too much in-fighting over interpretations of what the Bible says. Who cares about the litle details, I think all Christians can agree on the same basic things about Christianity. It's all the same in end, when it all comes down to it, the really important partsof Christianity apply to all the different sects of it.

[Stradivarius]

I wouldnt say science can prove Creation, but it can give really good evidence for the possibility.


Yeah, thats kind of what I meant. BTW what book is that? The one that you said "analyzes religion through the eyes of science".

[Juice]

Yeah, thats kind of what I meant. BTW what book is that? The one that you said "analyzes religion through the eyes of science".

it's called 'A Case for Faith.' I cant remember who it is by, and I do not have it hear, but after Christmas, once I go home, i will be able to tell you. Remind me in about a months time about it, and I will get the reference citations for you so you can check it out.

[Lola]

I wouldnt say religion in itself fails to recognize the evidence of evolution, its just that many religious people refuse to.

Well, I wouldn't know if religion does that exactly, but I definitely agree with you on your last point. That friend of mine I mentioned earlier? She seemed disgusted by the thought we could have evolved from apes.

[Juice]

Well, I wouldn't know if religion does that exactly, but I definitely agree with you on your last point. That friend of mine I mentioned earlier? She seemed disgusted by the thought we could have evolved from apes.

One must recognize the possibility of that being true. It cant be ignored, and it is just naivity to ignore overwhelming evidence like that. Religion, just like many other things, is a matter of interpretation, as much as many religious people try to ignore that fact. The Bible is interpreted differently by different churches, yet many seem to say teh Bible should be taken literally. How then, if we are to take the Bible literally, are we getting all these different ideas, especially if (according to many churches), its not a matter of interpretation? How is one interpretation of what the Bible says more right than another? It just doesnt make sense to me.

[Wolfmann]

I wouldnt say science can prove Creation, but it can give really good evidence for the possibility. I have a book at home that analyzes religion through the eyes of science, and there is a lot of good arguments in there that justify Creation through science. Though I really doubt that anyone will ever be able to prove beyond all doubt whether there is or is not a God.

Science can prove the mechanics of creation. If God created the world, he had to do it within the realm of physics.

Only Religion can prove that God created the world. Science will never be able to point the finger backward and confirm it.

[offguard96]

My favourite analogy of "God" is the one where they compare him/her to the clockmaker.....The clockmaker makes the clock and then leaves it to run on its own

The problem I have with the "God=Clockmaker" analogy, and the idea that "life is complex, and so are clocks, and a clock can't make itself, so neither can life", is that it ignores the fact that there have been faulty clock designs over the course of thousands of years, and each one has taught successive generations of clockmakers what will and will not work in clocks. So clocks and clockmaking are both things which have DEFINITELY evolved, even if we're the ones who've had to give birth to them over time.

Unless you can prove that clocks popped into being as they are today (in all their startling complexity), the analogy serves to completely support evolution, even if it is abiological.

[Bos'n101]

Dont worry, you arent the only ones who have people like thatgoing door to door. I respect religion in all its facets, but when people start getting up in my face about it, trying to force it on me, thats where I draw the line. I am a religious person, I believe that there is a GOd out there watchingover us, for reasons I will not get into right now, but I do not subscribe to a church. I feel that, at least in terms of Christianity, there is way too much 'in-fighting' where each different sect is so worried that they are right and another sect is wrong. isn't it all Christianity in the end? Whether you are Catholic or Protestant or United or whatever, did not Jesus still die on the Cross? Are you guys not all still Christians in the end? Did God not still create the world? this is why i do not subscribe to organized religion, there is too much in-fighting over interpretations of what the Bible says. Who cares about the litle details, I think all Christians can agree on the same basic things about Christianity. It's all the same in end, when it all comes down to it, the really important partsof Christianity apply to all the different sects of it.
I very much agree with this, Juice! This is the same reasoning that has convinced me not to become a member of the church I worship at.
As for the clockmaker, I'd tend to agree with it. Building up the design from a starting point, making tweaks here and there, to a point where it is able to independantly function. Like Juice has said, only if you take a completely literal meaning to the creation story in the Bible, or other texts, would creation rule out evolution. However, I tend to look at it like this, what is a day to a timeless entity? I would simply look at it as a period of time in which something was done. first, S/He created the heavens and the earth... and so on.
Also, you're absolutely right, those who say the Bible can't be taken at face value as being accurate, due to word of mouth transfers, translations, omissions, probably additions. Therefore you really have to search for an underlying meaning. The details may well be superfluous. And really, don't read the "Good News" Bible, its the perfect example of how things can get messed up by interpretation.(its a paraphrase, whereas the King James, or New International is supposed to be a translation)

[Neo]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein

[Wolfmann]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein

Now explain what that means you Band Geek! :)

[J. Symes]

oh ooh I like this thread..hahaha
I actually finished angels and demons this summer, and it got me to thinking the same thing, do science and religion coincide? In the book angels and demons, it says at the start that CERN actually has made antimatter. What this proves, to me, is that a higher being, made matter, and antimatter, and we evolved from that tiny little particle. I mean I don't know if it's true, it's not like he made and references or anything or citations at the beginning of his book to tell anyone where they could actually look up the information, but yeah, it's sort of puts one's mind into perspective about maybe science isn't really against religion, but trying to help people understand it.

I got the da vinci code for my birthday last sunday, and I finished the book lastnight. Very good book..hahaha...I loved it! But it also made me think about religion. The bible, does tell the story of jesus and whatnot from a whole bunch of other people's perspective. I'm sure the people who contributed to the bible must have written more than what is there. The whole bible has been summarized or edited and I mean, I'm not religious at all actually, but still, I don't think I could believe something that I just think that other people wrote. How do we know any of it is actually true?? I still don't get that. I mean, I have nothing against religion, actually, my whole family on my granfather's side is quite religious, but I'm not so much. I just think that this all really can put someone's mind into perspective about truths that might be out there. hahahha, who knows. When I think about this though, anyone's thoughts and beliefs can be true, and you never really know.

[handisnak]

In the book angels and demons, it says at the start that CERN actually has made antimatter. What this proves, to me, is that a higher being, made matter, and antimatter, and we evolved from that tiny little particle.

That's quite the jump in logic!

[Juice]

How do we know any of it is actually true??

Sure, but then you must also ask, how do we know it ISN'T true? ;)

[J. Symes]

That's quite the jump in logic!
I used the wrong words...hahaha...I didn't mean prove...hahaha...I meant it sorta shows me that that's what happened, I mean I'm coming to my own conclusions...hahahaha.....I didn't say they were right..hahaha.


oh..and Julian..hahaha...I don't know they're true...and I don't know they aren't..hahaha...that's why it's fun to wonder sometimes :) teehee :)

[ARMY101]

Religion is something that was written by someone thousands of years ago. Science is something that is proven to be true and cannot be ignored.

Religion could have been written by anyone - Maybe some homeless guy with a pen and some paper; No one knows the TRUE background of a "God". *The Chrysalids by John Wyndham is a good example of this.*

Science always overrules Religion. Science is PROVEN to be true, whereas religion is someone's opinion that others follow.

[Bos'n101]

Science is theory, not fact. Just as in religion, its our best guess at the truth. And no amount of numbers, and new technologies will ever 100% prove modern science as fact. It could, as might be religion. But neither will ever be completely understood in every aspect, therefore there is no way to prove the accuracy of either for certain.

[RBurns]

How about the theory that Religion, or to be specific the belief in a supreme being, was brought about in order to guide people into becoming ood people.

In the begining there was hardly any laws, so stories were created to tell to children, to give a reason for why you should behave in a certain way, the 10 commandaments I believe show this very well. The show basically what you should and should not do, and the one that you could argue over is you should not follow any other god but me, for I am a jealous god, was to make sure people stayed within the religion, because there was a fear of the unknown.

As time passed and people became more complexed amd inteligent laws were created, and extended over the years, I would suggest it is fair to say that Laws came from religion.

Now that we are a very advanced race (compared to those around when the bible was created) religion has less of a place in society, the reason being we have laws and rules that people adhere too, and there is very little 'unknown' to now be afraid of.

This is not saying that Religion is a bad thing, anything that gives people hope or goodness can't be bad, however as everything nowadays religion also has it's odd 'bad apples'.

So, should religion die out in this day and age, life would still be able to continue, albeit a different world.

You could say it would stop wars, as you would not be defending your faith, but the sad truth of it is that as humans we would just find something else to fight over.

However if you lost science, life would be very hard.

Consider your life now with no electricity, no big machines in hosptals to save your life when years ago you would have died. no public transport or private transport to get you around. No cookers or microwaves.

Science has changed our lives for the better, my grandmother reckons the best invention ever is the washing machine, If you imagine she had 7 children, all with clothes that needed to be clean and ironed. I think she is probably right.

So to me, Science wins, but just because I don't choose to believe in religon, it does not mean others should not.

[Bos'n101]

Well, I really don't understand why this debate exists. Science does not rule out religious beliefs. Religion does not rule out scientific beliefs. Heck, Einstein and Hawking, arguably the greaest scientific minds in history were/are religious!
As for your theory, Mr. Burns. Its completely logical, and one of the most common of heard amongst intelligent atheists. The flaw is that the more we learn, and grow as a species, the more mysteries we come upon. There are actually far more unknowns that we can see now, than there were then. the only reason it doesn't seem so, is that they are buried deep in our most advanced science, so people don't recognize them.
So tell me, why is it easier to believe new theories, than old ones? Why is it easier to believe that the universe exists parallel to countless others, and that an entire universe exists around each and every possibility since the beginning of time?

[BHillUSMC]

I think Science shoudl be seperate from religion but Religion shodl not be seperate from Science. Science shoudl stick to things we can prove. Religion should instead of rejectign Science...use it to back up its own claims or learn to use Science to adapt its Theology to what Science says. I dont think Sicence neccessarily proves God doesnt exist. I am Agnostic but lean twords a belief in God. Though what and who god is I can not really say since I do not completely know.

I think Science could compliment religion but I dont think Science should be influenced by religion. I believe it was Einstein that said "Science only reinforces my belief in God". I do think that Science can make it hard for someone to be a Deist (believe in God) because it gives natural laws for the causes of events and leaves little room for miracles and faith. But I think that Science could be used a tool by Religion to support its views. If religion contradicts Science than I feel that in order for it to suceed it needs to change its views to conform with a more realsitic ideal. I think everyone should be more open minded and question their beliefs wether they are based on Science or Religion. Never accept anything because someone else tells you to. Challenge it.

That is how I feel. Though in a sense Science can be considered a religion because people take it in faith. The Bible can quickly become replaced with a Science text or vice-versa and Priests with Scientists. So in a sense i think Science can be considered a religion. Know what I mean?

[Bos'n101]

Science shoudl stick to things we can prove.
But if we do that, it would limit our capacity for growth!We don't try to find things out unless we don'tknow them. And we can't prove them unless we try. I believe that science should be unfettered, within the bounds of ethics. Not religious ethics, but basic human rights, and those of other creatures.

[J. Symes]

Religion is something that was written by someone thousands of years ago. Science is something that is proven to be true and cannot be ignored.

Religion could have been written by anyone - Maybe some homeless guy with a pen and some paper; No one knows the TRUE background of a "God". *The Chrysalids by John Wyndham is a good example of this.*

Science always overrules Religion. Science is PROVEN to be true, whereas religion is someone's opinion that others follow.
umm...actually...if you're taking any biology, chemistry, physics courses wahtsoever you'll notice that most of the things you're learning about are called "theories" this means that they aren't necessarily true, but they are the only thing that we have to explain what's going on, so until another "theory" is made, that one is the one we sort of think about. More advanced studies are helping people frind answers to questions every day, and almost everything can be expanded upon. So science isn't necessarily proven, it's just scientifically there, with good reason. Science isn't necessarily truth, it's just a form of explanation.

Which is why I totally agree with Mr. Burns's take on things. Religion, as well as science, are just ways of explaining things we don't know about. Religion being a more spiritual way I guess, and science being a more brain knowlege sorta way I guess.

[Juice]

I believe that religion and science are both necessary to a well-run society. This does not mena that everyone MUST believe in science and religion, but because of the vast differences between people, some will be more spiritual than others, and some will be more scientific than others, and so on and so forth. They are both key elements of society, and both are needed to maintain a kind of balance. It is naiive to think that one is negligible and another is completely true.

[J. Symes]

exactly.....hahaha, but the strange balance it is, that there is enough religion to have war, but not prevent it, and...think about all the people the catholic church killed because they believed in science, and they thought their church was in jeapordy. It's just a strange balance..hahahaha....but yet...it is a balance..hahaha

[Juice]

exactly.....hahaha, but the strange balance it is, that there is enough religion to have war, but not prevent it, and...think about all the people the catholic church killed because they believed in science, and they thought their church was in jeapordy. It's just a strange balance..hahahaha....but yet...it is a balance..hahaha

Well, like it was said earlier, if we got rid of religion, there would be something else that us humans would find to fight over. Conflict just seems to be a part of our essence, lol ;)

[J. Symes]

teehee...does it ever!!

[sailor_baby]

Well, like it was said earlier, if we got rid of religion, there would be something else that us humans would find to fight over. Conflict just seems to be a part of our essence, lol ;)

Funny enough to is that the essence of human violence and disobedience was also shown in the early books of the bible (i.e The Adam/Eve story and the Cain/Abel story). ;)


Religion is something that was written by someone thousands of years ago. Science is something that is proven to be true and cannot be ignored....Science always overrules Religion. Science is PROVEN to be true, whereas religion is someone's opinion that others follow.

NOTHING is proven in science. Heck even "Scientific" experiemnts are not proven. For example, take the definition of a "scientific" hypothesis (prediction part of an experiment). In order for the experiment itself (and thus the hypothesis, which is part of the experiment) to be considered scientific, there must be a margin of error for the expereiment to be nullified. In other words, in order to prove something in science it must be able to be proven wrong....dunno if that made sense, but I'll look for my old evolutionary biology notes for the exact definition, but it did go soemthing like that.


As for your theory, Mr. Burns. Its completely logical, and one of the most common of heard amongst intelligent atheists. The flaw is that the more we learn, and grow as a species, the more mysteries we come upon. There are actually far more unknowns that we can see now, than there were then. the only reason it doesn't seem so, is that they are buried deep in our most advanced science, so people don't recognize them.

Exactly...a point I've made ever since I started the thread;)..lol....so where does that leave us?


So tell me, why is it easier to believe new theories, than old ones?

Well IMO, the newer theories are not harder to accept; they give an explanation to things, but in a more detailed way so that it is harder to argue against. For example, if a vacume salesman comes to your door and starts giving you reasons ( i.e the basic reasons like this ones carries more dirt, no bags needed, etc)on why you should by their brand of vacume, chances are if you already have a vacume doing the job, you'll pass it up. BUT if the same salesman started giving you more advanced reasons (i.e lift out stains via molecular interactions, disinfects via some sort of scientific method, etc), then chances are if he gave the right facts and supported them, you'd buy the vacume even if you have another working one in the closet.
My point? Advanced scientific theories are "easier" to believe becuse they answered the questions that came from previous theories.


The problem I have with the "God=Clockmaker" analogy, and the idea that "life is complex, and so are clocks, and a clock can't make itself, so neither can life", is that it ignores the fact that there have been faulty clock designs over the course of thousands of years, and each one has taught successive generations of clockmakers what will and will not work in clocks.

With this analogy, we (or I...depends on the others) used it to show that once the "clock" was made, it ran on its own. We didn't use it to symbolize the complexity that is life. :D

And for my final point:

Science can prove the mechanics of creation. If God created the world, he had to do it within the realm of physics.


One of the most basic laws of physics is that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Which begs to ask the question, if God created the universe WITHIN the realm of physics, how on earth was the universe created?
Due to this statement, would it not mean that God created the universe, and a "by-product" of this creation was the realm of physical law? :eek:

[wb256]

I felt like throwing some ideas into here, not specifically concerning science or religion, but our view of the world/universe in general.

We all seem to be so sure of our faith, our science, our point of view. This is a character trait of humanity that has been present forever, despite the fact that we have undergone numerous discoveries that have basically "turned our world upside down".

We used to think the world was flat...wrong. We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, human beings being the center of the universe...wrong.

To think that our current set of theories is free of such fundamental perception flaws is completely ridiculous. We all seem to think that we have the universe completely explained (either by science or religion).

However, (as previously mentioned) science is nothing more than a collection of theories...things that do make sense and work but could be proven wrong due to a large error in human perception (likely something our current minds can't even fathom).

Religion, on the other hand (in the case of christianity specifically because this is really a science vs christianity discussion rather than a science vs religion), has it's theories based upon a collection of books that has had books added and removed, which in turn have been translated and re translated. The beginnings of christianity were fragmented and much of the "good news" was burned.

Therefore, you can only come to the conclusion that both fields of thought are completely useless when it comes to explining the world around us. Science gives us useful technology while religion teaches us morals and lessons.

However, getting into petty discussions about which explains the world properly is a complete waste of time. Neither provide solid explanations for the big questions of "life, the universe and everything).

[DA Wright]

Neither provide solid explanations for the big questions of "life, the universe and everything).

42 Mr. Bernauer, the answer is 42...don't you people read?

(Sorry folks...just kidding, but that was begging someone to jump in. I'm quite enjoying this thread. If you have no idea what I'm on about, lookup Douglas Adams or link to http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A54352)

[Loyal Edmonton]

42 Mr. Bernauer, the answer is 42...don't you people read?

(Sorry folks...just kidding, but that was begging someone to jump in. I'm quite enjoying this thread. If you have no idea what I'm on about, lookup Douglas Adams or link to http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A54352)

and towels!!

[wb256]

42 Mr. Bernauer, the answer is 42...don't you people read?

(Sorry folks...just kidding, but that was begging someone to jump in. I'm quite enjoying this thread. If you have no idea what I'm on about, lookup Douglas Adams or link to http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A54352)

I've obviously read the books...that was an intentional reference.

BTW, they're making a movie.

[DA Wright]

I've obviously read the books...that was an intentional reference.

BTW, they're making a movie.

Oh, I know YOU knew. It was such an obvious invitation, it could never have been accidental, but I'm sure there are others thinking we're all a wee bit mad. But please folks, don't mind us, get back on topic and let's see where all this science vs. religion talk gets us. As for me, I'm just going to step out of the forum for a few ticks while they complete the hyperspeed by-pass.

[handisnak]

This is easily the least probable thing that has ever happened.

[RBurns]

As for your theory, Mr. Burns. Its completely logical, and one of the most common of heard amongst intelligent atheists. The flaw is that the more we learn, and grow as a species, the more mysteries we come upon. There are actually far more unknowns that we can see now, than there were then. the only reason it doesn't seem so, is that they are buried deep in our most advanced science, so people don't recognize them.
I don't think this is quite true either, I believe that the mysteries that we have nowadays are accepted as things we will one day figure out, where as in the olden days of the bible origins, to travel around the world would have been propostrous, talking of flight would have you sent to the funny farm, and as for space travel etc, well, not even thought of.

In the last 100 years the human race has evolved more than it has in all the years previous, discoveries are made everyday, and things that are mysteries have hundreds of people trying to figure it out, which in they end, they do (in theory obviously)

The main differnence I find between the bible and science is that the bible bases most of it's explanations on metaphors, and you will find those who follow religion also do (be it Islam, Christianity, Budism, etc). Where as Science explains things in a logical sense, so that you can understand how and why it has happened.

Take any thory in science and there is a religous story for it also.

But one thing that cannot be explained through science, or theorised, is the existance of a god/supreme being.

There is no evidence, proof or video footage of god. Something we seem to have for every other mystery (ghosts, crop circles, loch ness monster even)

But yet those who believe need no proof to believe? why?

Why must you go to church? surely a god would be above such things?
Why do Islamics go to Mecca? Surely your god will listen to you where ever you are?
Why do Siekhs not cut there hair? Would such a god demand things like this?
Why do some religions make sacrafices? Surely such a god would never want the things they created to be slaughtered?

I am not religous (obviously) but I also don't believe I am athiest or Agnostic.

I don't dismis the idea of a god, as I am quite willing to be proved wrong, I have an open mind, but yet, until such a time comes, I won't believe it.

Heaven Sounds a lovely place, but surely it's just a story so that those who were dying would not be in mental pain, as they believed they were going onto a better life?

Hell sounds Horrid, surely a story to make sure people did good while they were alive.

Why are so many religons opposed to homosexuality? Surely if there is a god, they created these people that way? so it should be ok. no?

Why don't religons accept when things are proven to be false? If a scientist found another scientists facts to be incorrect, and could convincingly prove the issue, then the new theory would be accepted.

And lastly, not everything in science is theory, it is theory until it is proven, then it becomes a law, such as the laws of physics, not the theory of physics, however it is the theory of evolution, as no one was there to witness it, or make experiments, nothing including the religous theories can ever be proven, but they can get a good idea to what probably happened. and in this day an age, cretain crimes are punishable on probable but not proven evidence, so why can't the same apply to scientific theories?

[Bright Eyes]

This is easily the least probable thing that has ever happened.
:D Classic.

They already made a TV series ... and radio plays. However, I was very disturbed by the TV series because the characters were definitely not what I pictured them to look or act like. :( Very disappointing.

[DMCorrigan]

:D Classic.

They already made a TV series ... and radio plays. However, I was very disturbed by the TV series because the characters were definitely not what I pictured them to look or act like. :( Very disappointing.

*throws a plushie bear*

BOO! DIGRESSION!

[sailor_baby]

And lastly, not everything in science is theory, it is theory until it is proven, then it becomes a law, such as the laws of physics, not the theory of physics, however it is the theory of evolution, as no one was there to witness it, or make experiments, nothing including the religous theories can ever be proven, but they can get a good idea to what probably happened. and in this day an age, cretain crimes are punishable on probable but not proven evidence, so why can't the same apply to scientific theories?


If you really think about it, everything in science IS theory... The laws are based on proven facts, sure, but it's not all entirely that accurate. For example, with regular physics, the mass of an object is it's wieght/gravity; but to be more accurate, you'd have to use a larger equation (too lazy to type it out, but it involves the gravitational constant of G = 6.67 x 10^-11)
anyways, for more accuracy, you would use Einstien's relation of Energy and the speed of light to calculate mass (m=E/C^2).....which is assumed to have some faults (and assumptions) in it.

The point I'm trying to make is that every proven physical law is based on a theory that still has yet to be proven.

Another good example: It has been made "scientific law" that the electron/proton/neutron are the most basic units of elemental charge.....which has now been proven wrong due to the discovery of the "quirk" (or quark...one of the two...) anyways.....laws are always being proven wrong, therefore bringing "the scientific law" back to a theory...

[Bos'n101]

Beat me to it! Its the Quark. To further the scientific law thing, I'll restate the one about energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. If its true, a force beyond the limitations of physics had to be at work in order to create the universe.
As for the

I don't think this is quite true either, I believe that the mysteries that we have nowadays are accepted as things we will one day figure out, where as in the olden days of the bible origins, to travel around the world would have been propostrous, talking of flight would have you sent to the funny farm, and as for space travel etc, well, not even thought of.
partially correct, however, what about light speed travel? Beyond the bounds of current science, so it has been labelled impossible. The said the same thing about the sound barrier, and Mach 2.3 I think it was. This is only 1 example. No,the human race has by no means reached a point where they think all barriers will eventually be surpassed.

Why must you go to church? surely a god would be above such things?
Why do Islamics go to Mecca? Surely your god will listen to you where ever you are?
Why do Siekhs not cut there hair? Would such a god demand things like this?
Why do some religions make sacrafices? Surely such a god would never want the things they created to be slaughtered?
Why? Dogma. Many would call what I'm about to say blasphemy, but I belive that many of the traditions built up over the years as an excuse to maintain central control. Or to force their own opinions onto others.
I do believe, however that universal origins cannot be proven, by either side. Barring divine intervention.

[Lola]

I don't dismis the idea of a god, as I am quite willing to be proved wrong, I have an open mind, but yet, until such a time comes, I won't believe it.

Actually, that sounds like you're an Agnostic to me.

[RBurns]

Actually, that sounds like you're an Agnostic to me.
nope, an agnostic would believe in something, i don't, however am willing to be shown that I am wrong (i.e. I won't just side step logical and good reason why, however like you guys, i will play a bit of the devils advocate.

[wb256]

nope, an agnostic would believe in something, i don't, however am willing to be shown that I am wrong (i.e. I won't just side step logical and good reason why, however like you guys, i will play a bit of the devils advocate.

Agnostics don't necessarily believe in anything, the terms used to categorize people with belief systems like yourself all the time.

Mostly, people who are unsure as to whether or not there is a god or an afterlife...and largely people who believe that you won't know for sure 'till you die.

And as for your argument...for EVERYTHING that science has "explained" (still in theories), it has yet to disprove the existence of a god or gods. It may have disproved certain myths that are believed by some (the credibility of these myths, in the case of christianity, is very uncertain anyways), but it has yet to disprove the existence of a greater power.

Also, all of your comments concerning religion centered around mainstream christianity, islam and judaism, and made HUGE generalizations. The logic you're using to discredit religious people is just as poor as the logic used by creation scientists to expalin the existence of dinosaur bones.

This whole argument is (to me) completely ridiculous. You can't say which is correct...they're both half assed theories. This is one of those stupid things that you can't agree on and leads people to hate each other.

Which religion is better? Which language is better? Which economic system is better? Which race is better?

(notice how all of those questions above have been used to justify genocide and mass wars?)

This type of discussion falls into the same category. There is no technically "correct" answer to this question, and without some HUGE scientific advances or god himself coming down from heaven...we'll never settle it.

[Bright Eyes]

Which religion is better? Which language is better? Which economic system is better? Which race is better?
Shampoo is better! I go on first and clean the hair!

Conditioner is better! I make the hair silky and smooth! ;)

[Juice]

Shampoo is better! I go on first and clean the hair!

Conditioner is better! I make the hair silky and smooth! ;)

Oh yeah? Ya fool!

Ah, Adam Sandler and his infinite wisdom.

[ARMY101]

Shampoo is better! I go on first and clean the hair!

Conditioner is better! I make the hair silky and smooth! ;)
What does this have to do with what was asked to post?

[Juice]

What does this have to do with what was asked to post?

Theyre just little anecdotes that add a little comic relief to a serious discussion. No worries ;)

[DA Wright]

My question to the science proponents: what do you think of the recent suggestion of the "deity gene"? I regret I have not had time to research its full origins, but this theory uses anthropological data to suggest that seaking out a higher power/deity is a (practically) universal human cultural phenomena that has developed independently through such diverse periods of time and geography that it is outdone only by the incest taboo.

[wb256]

What does this have to do with what was asked to post?



This whole argument is (to me) completely ridiculous. You can't say which is correct...they're both half assed theories. This is one of those stupid things that you can't agree on and leads people to hate each other.

Which religion is better? Which language is better? Which economic system is better? Which race is better?

(notice how all of those questions above have been used to justify genocide and mass wars?)


Brandy's post was a response to that. She made a joke? Get it? It was like that one time, on that movie, with that guy...

[Bright Eyes]

It was like that one time, on that movie, with that guy...
What movie? Dogma? Now that was a craaaaaazy movie.





And now we're back on topic. :D

[sailor_baby]

Here's food for thought regarding the topic.....really interesting if you ask me:

"Science and religon are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand..."

THoughts?

[Bos'n101]

What is the origin of that quote? And I'd add to the end, "... and religion too old to accept."

[DMCorrigan]

Ponder THIS statement.

"Faith is the opposite of reason."

Hmm?

[Juice]

Ponder THIS statement.

"Faith is the opposite of reason."

Hmm?

Not necessarily the opposite, because much of science is based on faith (making hypotheses and stuff like that), and I dont think anyone would say that science is opposite, or at the very least not akin with reason.

[J. Symes]

I'm getting a bunch of really sweet quotes from this thread!!! I like it!!!

[Bos'n101]

Ponder THIS statement.

"Faith is the opposite of reason."

Hmm?
or, how about this one?
"After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge." Albert Einstein

[sailor_baby]

or, how about this one?
"After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge." Albert Einstein
lol.....that's like the exact opposite from my quote!...lol....and I got it from Angels and Demons:D....

[J. Symes]

I know, both angels and demons and the da vinci code gave me awesome quotes!!! hahaha...gotta love us science/math types...hahaha

[sailor_baby]

I know, both angels and demons and the da vinci code gave me awesome quotes!!! hahaha...gotta love us science/math types...hahaha
The best quote for us...(scientists...and mathmaticians):

"BACK OFF!! I'm A SCIENTIST!....."

[Bos'n101]

lol.....that's like the exact opposite from my quote!...lol....and I got it from Angels and Demons:D....
I would disagree. Yours suggested the science was not ready to consider that they walked hand in hand. I think Einstein meant that religion can take alot from science, without losing it core.

[J. Symes]

I think he's talking about the quote he put up here earlier in the thread ;)

[DA Wright]

I would disagree. Yours suggested the science was not ready to consider that they walked hand in hand. I think Einstein meant that religion can take alot from science, without losing it core.

I think Einstein was likely on to something.

[sailor_baby]

or, how about this one?
"After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge." Albert Einstein
...as for Einstien's quote, I'd say it would work both ways....just like what's being posted....I guess the quote I just put up would also work both ways as well...