Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
I never get tired of the irony people posting on the internet that they hate science.and someone brought up 'the god of the gaps', so my religious catch phrase bingo card is full.
Yes it's a particularly joyful little piece of unthought-out stupidity
you're all devil worshippers you make me sick !!!!!
Ironically, science can behave very much as a religion, particularly in the social sciences (which, I would argue, aren't science at all).
Shannon wrote: "Do my knowings come from God? I don't know. I've been clear on that. My mother believes they do. Sometimes I think, as I mentioned, as Drew does. Maybe it has something to do with brain function. Sometimes I think they're from God. I do not know. I just do not know. Period.Given all of this, I am open to believing in things, including God, even though I can't prove them scientifically. "
Well here and elsewhere Shannon, you have said some really sensible things. I do see your point but only disagree with the final point of your thesis.
"Belief" and "Faith" are full stops. They are answers to a question, and not likely to be the right answer.
So when you say "Maybe it has something to do with brain function. Sometimes I think they're from God. I do not know. I just do not know. Period." that is the basis of intelligence. However, once you actually "believe" you are saying you do know.
Just to be clear, on occasion scientists follow dogma, but at that point they are no longer doing science. Soon as you stop asking questions and believe you have the answers you are no longer seeking wisdom.
I do not believe in evolution, however evolutionary theory explains what is observed best and is logically provable if hereditary traits, variation and suitability are accepted.
I do not believe in gravity, however I accept Newton's laws as good approximations and Einstein's general relativity as a step toward the explanation.
However a good scientist does not 'believe' and is sceptical about any new claims until they have been tested by many others. If you believe, you may miss the next revolution in scientific thinking.
Faith is a closed mind. Belief is the end of intelligence.
Atheism does not deny or reject god, gods or supernatural, it simply denies the idea of blind faith being a good way to seek truth, just as closed eyes are a bad way of seeing.
So I hope that you think strongly about preserving the humility and curiosity of your brave statement of "I don't know", and do not replace it with the selection of one untested hypothesis (god) that just happens to be popular amongst those who also have chosen faith over truth.
Bob wrote: "Ironically, science can behave very much as a religion, particularly in the social sciences (which, I would argue, aren't science at all)."Actually there are good social science studies that have revealed interesting things about the ways animals and humans behave.
However, you are right, but that is because scientists are people like any other, and sometimes they can forget to be sceptical of their own ideas and start to believe in what ideas they support.
As soon as you start to believe, you are no longer seeking the truth, you are assuming you know it. Therefore you are not doing science (science being the pursuit of knowledge).
Stu wrote: "alll DEVIL WORSHIPPERS!!!!"Well Stu, if you are an atheist or humanist trying to help our points by pointing out the knuckle dragging stupidity of some religious adherents. Thanks but I don't think they need the help.
Otherwise, I am not a devil worshipper thank you, you have to be a Christian (and then a certain type of Christian) or a Muslim to believe in the devil (Shaitan). So by your own statement you are stating your own belief in the 'infernal one'.
Good luck!
James wrote: "you're all devil worshippers you make me sick !!!!!"Then forgive them.
Maria wrote: "Science is the explanation of gods creation.Science and religion are interrelated. Religion is one kind of science.But it is unfortunate that we sometimes create conflict between them. We should create harmony between religion and science. "Good idea. Let us apply scepticism, experimentation, and a healthy peer review system to religion. Then we can discard all of the ideas in the many many different religions that do not hold up to testing.
(Amazing how christians always think that 'religion' means belief in 'god'.)
Oh hang on. We already have done that. The 'rabbit out of the hat' magic of genesis does not explain the reason why diseases evolve to attack hosts, nor the genetic evidence of hybridisation that we all carry in our own cells. Therefore we reject the magic idea for the concept of evolution (unless you are a creationist and would rather reject knowledge because you are afraid of its consequences)
Similarly, looking around us is there an explanation why a god (male or female, and why would they need to be male or female?) or group of gods, would create one hundred billion galaxies, with one hundred billion stars in order to make room for beings that are on the same scale smaller than viruses to their scope? Why would such beings care what those tiny tiny things did to each other, and how could they ever relate to them?
I agree that religion is a form of science. It is a hypothesis, but a hypothesis that has little evidence and much better alternatives. Therefore religions need to be discarded, just as the flawed hypothesis of the four elements, the geocentric universe, the ether, etc. have been.
cs wrote: "So you are also not able to give any numbers to that ridicules statement either."The reason that precise numbers are difficult is that the amount of people who would have been saved is really hard to track since we don't know how many Africans were good catholics and obeyed the instruction and how many used condoms. There are estimations, but that is not important.
* Condoms have a proven 80%+ chance of preventing the transmission of HIV.
* HIV causes AIDs.
* The Catholic church forbids the use of condoms.
* There are millions of people in Africa and around the world who have HIV and are still having sex.
So from the above anyone who is persuaded to not use condoms as the Church demands is five times more likely to be infected.
According to the best studies, a large number of people in Africa are devout Catholics, which means a large (but exact numbers unknown) proportion of those millions are five times more likely to die because of that advice.
Since there is no actual benefit to the advice not to wear condoms (except the catholic idea that sex is sinful and should only be done if there is a chance of conceiving a child).
So feel free to dispute any of the above, but your constant refrain of "exact numbers or it didn't happen" is intellectually dishonest.
cs wrote: "When you say arbitrary, do you mean 'impulse'? Johndoe said it on impulse and is not able to give numbers."
No. Arbitrary as in you picked one piece of a statement, chose an arbitrary level of precision and then tried to imply that failure to meet this level of precision meant that the whole statement was false. Nitpicking I think the term is.
By the way, you also said several times on impulse that religion (or a religious society) was the source of morality, so far you have not presented a single number relevant to that claim. So by your own standards you have failed.
cs wrote: "Provide proof that religion is the source of morality".
Provide proof that it isn't."
Ah the old religious refrain 'you can't prove it doesn't' therefore it does. Now I could patiently explain the concept of 'burden of proof' but I tell you what.
cs wrote: "Provide proof that religion is the source of morality".
Provide proof that it isn't."
The Bible.
I do not believe that a book that condones slavery, the pillaging of other nations and the rape of their women, beating of children, murder of people who do not accept your ideas, obedience through fear, murder of people for what they choose to eat, to wear, to love is a good source of morality.
Second proof.
The Qu'ran
Third proof
The sacrifice of humans in certain ancient pre-Abrahamic religions.
Subsequent proofs are easy to find.
By your argument any religious book should not contain any immorality. Further if Religion is the source of morality, then you must prove that all religions are free from immorality, otherwise you demonstrate that the concept of religion is actually amoral in character and therefore only a specific religion is the source of morality.
If you believe the latter then the only religion I can think of that comes anywhere near to lacking immorality is Buddhism, and I have my doubts there.
cs wrote: "I said 'I think it is', it is my option, in other words. Unless we can all relive the last 2000 plus years again without religion we have nothing to compare."
Correct, so you again are admitting to have no proof of your claim or opinion. You assume that religion has given morals, but have yet to provide any evidence for this claim, and indeed have now admitted to be unable to compare. So with the proofs provided above, the fact that your very claim is erroneous because you are (by your 2000 year limit) assuming that by Religion you mean a particular 2000 year old one, and with no evidence offered, will you now withdraw your claim that Religion has benefits that cannot be gained elsewhere?
Maria wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "I think I would prefere to live in a world without science. Science can only give you some answers and explanations about life and how it all started, but religion-if you believe- g..."Then you should both stop using your computers to post on here, because I can tell you right now, it wasn't religion that gave us computers. Same for modern medicine.
Tell you what, since religion gives you hope, sell your computer, then 'hope' that god will give you a new one, then you can use that to continue the discussion.
Maria wrote: "Science is the explanation of gods creation."
That makes the assumption there is a god, which science does not need to do. This statement may be something you believe, but it forms no actual part of the scientific viewpoint itself.
Maria wrote: "Science and religion are interrelated."
No they are not. One relies on faith and ignoring evidence which contradicts that faith, the other relies on repeatable testable evidence and is advanced by being unable to ignore evidence.
Maria wrote: "Religion is one kind of science."
Not even in the smallest way is this correct.
Maria wrote: "But it is unfortunate that we sometimes create conflict between them. We should create harmony between religion and science. "
There is a conflict between them by default, for the same reasons I have given when refuting your other points that they are in some way connected. They conflict because when religion says god created the universe, science says it was the big bang; when religion says god created man in his image, science says we evolved from more primitive forms of life. You cannot have harmony between the two because they are fundamentally opposed, and scientists who are also religious have to exempt their religious beliefs from the scientific method they presumably apply to their working life.
-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "science is boring i cant pass school because of science"I suspect your lack of punctuation isn't exactly helping either.
-Y_A_I_R- wrote: "look all you have to say has a point but i think god is more important dont u think?"No. Next?
Hazel wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "I think I would prefere to live in a world without science. Science can only give you some answers and explanations about life and how it all started, but religion-if you believe- g..."It's not that I'm against science or something... I even want to become a biologist! The thing is that when it comes to decide between science and religion I prefer religion
Maria wrote: "To HazelIf god does not exist...then who creates the whole universe.......and how does the life began on earth? And How does human being created?"
The inability to answer a question (whatever the question, there are answers to all of your questions) does not mean the answer then becomes "god!". If you don't know something, you try and find out....unless it's religion in which case you don't try and find out, you assume an answer and stop looking.
cs wrote: "Lots of words but no numbers. Why don't you with draw your statement if you can't back it up, and stop trying to avoid the question. "
From someone who has proved adept at avoiding questions, this is quite amusing.
Gary wrote: "However, you are right, but that is because scientists are people like any other, and sometimes they can forget to be sceptical of their own ideas and start to believe in what ideas they support."But this is the beauty of science, if there are enough other people out there who can prove your favourite idea is bunk then you can hang onto the idea all you like, the rest of science will leave you behind.
Alkmini wrote: "It's not that I'm against science or something... I even want to become a biologist! The thing is that when it comes to decide between science and religion I prefer religion "So as a biologist when you are taught about evolution, you will choose to ignore it in favour of the religious explanation? If so, you will not be a scientist.
Alkmini wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "I think I would prefere to live in a world without science. Science can only give you some answers and explanations about life and how it all started, but religion-if ..."I think you're going to find that, for you, one or the other is going to have to give way, though I suppose that might depend on whether you're a creationist or not.
Cerebus wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "It's not that I'm against science or something... I even want to become a biologist! The thing is that when it comes to decide between science and religion I prefer religion "So as..."
I don't agree with everything about religion, and I do believe in evolution.
Alkmini wrote: "I don't agree with everything about religion, and I do believe in evolution."Ok, in any instance where the scientific explanation contradicts your religious beliefs, which will you go with? If the answer isn't 'science' each time, then my original point remains.
Alkmini wrote: "I don't agree with everything about religion, and I do believe in evolution. "So in this case what was it that made you choose the scientific explanation over the religious?
Cerebus wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "I don't agree with everything about religion, and I do believe in evolution. "So in this case what was it that made you choose the scientific explanation over the religious?"
There are many scientists who believe in God. That doesn't make them less of a scientist. So I think that I can become a scientist. I don't know what made me choose the scientific explanation over the religious in this case.
Alkmini wrote: "There are many scientists who believe in God. That doesn't make them less of a scientist."Yes it does. It means that there are instances when they have to ignore the science and choose the religious explanation. That makes them less of a scientist.
Alkmini wrote: " I don't know what made me choose the scientific explanation over the religious in this case. "
I would suggest it is worth you thinking about this and trying to come up with an answer (for yourself, not for us). If you don't understand why you accept an explanation, how do you know you have made a rational choice?
Cerebus wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "There are many scientists who believe in God. That doesn't make them less of a scientist."Yes it does. It means that there are instances when they have to ignore the science and ch..."
Let's just agree to disagree...
religion is very good until you start adding people to the mix - then man made rules get mixed up with feelings of awe and question - rules like ' don't eat meat on fridays or mix meat and milk'. i say do away with religion.i'd keep science - where i believe we can still have a sense of awe with new discoveries - in the labs and the natural world.
and i do believe people will be good at heart without the threat of hellfire.
Alkmini wrote: "Let's just agree to disagree... "Nope, sorry. It is hypocritical of a scientist to expect scientific evidence for some things, but then to potentially ignore scientific evidence if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. It is dishonest.
Let me make it clear, I am not claiming such scientists are not intelligent, I am saying their position is hypocritical.
Cerebus wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "Let's just agree to disagree... "Nope, sorry. It is hypocritical of a scientist to expect scientific evidence for some things, but then to potentially ignore scientific evidence if..."
I am not saying that I would potentially ignore scientific evidence if it conflicted with my religious beliefs! And I really understand what you 're saying... But I believe in God and I also accept scientific evidences! Science may say that God doesn't exist but there is no proof for that, so I think that yes, I can both believe in God and be a scientist.
Alkmini wrote: "Science may say that God doesn't exist but there is no proof for that.... "Science doesn't say that, there has just never been an instance where the scientific explanation has been "god".
Alkmini wrote: "...so I think that yes, I can both believe in God and be a scientist."
Yes, certainly you can, but as soon as there is an instance where you accept the religious belief over the scientific explanation, then you are being hypocritical.
Do you believe in the power of prayer?
Alkmini, God is a hypothesis, Science doesn't say god doesn't exist, it says there is no evidence of the existence of such a being. Therefore it is reasonable to discard the hypothesis as a explanation for anything. It's scientific method and as a future scientist you should understand this. There is a claim that god exists, the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove it. One does not say I believe there is a species of flourescent pink underwater unicorn living in the pacific, now you prove it doesn't exist, scientist's look for the proof of the hypothesis and discard it if there is lack of proof.
Cerebus wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "Science may say that God doesn't exist but there is no proof for that.... "Science doesn't say that, there has just never been an instance where the scientific explanation has been..."
I believe in the power of prayer
Shanna wrote: "Alkmini, God is a hypothesis, Science doesn't say god doesn't exist, it says there is no evidence of the existence of such a being. Therefore it is reasonable to discard the hypothesis as a explana..."I understand what you are saying but I still believe in God. I don't need proof for His existence. It's my opinion and that doesn't mean that I cannot become a scientist. If science proves that He doesn't exist I will have to accept it, but 'till then...
So your belief is provisional(rather a poor faith), dependant on whether or not science can disprove god? then why believe at all seems a bit flimsy to me?
No my belief doesn't depend on whether science can disprove God or not, because I really believe that science will never prove such thing.
Alkmini wrote: " If science proves that He doesn't exist I will have to accept it, but 'till then... "But that just exactly what you said...
No it's impossible to prove a negative but that doesn't mean that everything proposed has to be accepted merely because it can't be disproved, you can't disprove santa, fairies, god, flourescent pink underwater unicorns, the elephant in you fridge that disappears when you open the door, it doesn't mean they are valid merely by their proposal and the fact they are un-disprovable...
Alkmini wrote: "It's my opinion and that doesn't mean that I cannot become a scientist. If science proves that He doesn't exist I will have to accept it, but 'till then... "In instances where the science and your beliefs differ, how will you choose?
Alkmini wrote: "No my belief doesn't depend on whether science can disprove God or not, because I really believe that science will never prove such thing."Without evidence how do you choose which god to believe in?
yeah, we're all gonna find our who are the angels and the demons from this question...... ;)
Alkmini wrote: "No my belief doesn't depend on whether science can disprove God or not, because I really believe that science will never prove such thing."And the burden of proof for the existence of god still remains on those who claim his existence. It's not for science to disprove it, it's for the theist to prove it.
Alkmini wrote: "I believe in the power of prayer "So as a scientist you would accept "I prayed" as an acceptable answer to something happening? Or would you want to investigate and find an explanation with evidence?
Cerebus wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "It's my opinion and that doesn't mean that I cannot become a scientist. If science proves that He doesn't exist I will have to accept it, but 'till then... "In instances where the ..."
I don't know because I haven't found such instances 'till now...
Shanna wrote: "Alkmini wrote: " If science proves that He doesn't exist I will have to accept it, but 'till then... "But that just exactly what you said...
No it's impossible to prove a negative but that doesn..."
Ok... I get it, but in my opinion God exists... You cannot just make me believe otherwise...
Cerebus wrote: "Alkmini wrote: "I believe in the power of prayer "So as a scientist you would accept "I prayed" as an acceptable answer to something happening? Or would you want to investigate and find an explana..."
That depends on the case...
Alkmini wrote: "That depends on the case... "Not for a scientist....
I 've never accepted "I prayed" as an answer to anything but I don't know what will happen in the future...
Alkmini wrote: "Ok... I get it, but in my opinion God exists... You cannot just make me believe otherwise... "I don't want to, you are making the claim of wanting to be a scientist and utilize rational thought, I just query the apparent discrepancy.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
The problem is not science....