God Vs Science

when you put it that way, i pretty much agree with you.

i do wonder what would happen though, if you found the sum of all religious belief (including atheism.) it might be just the functional worldview you're looking for... at least for other people. it might not. finding that sum would be a more immense task than almost anyone could imagine.

Science seems to fill the functional world view job description; true, it isn't perfect, but it's a self-correcting system. This is a lot more than we can say about any religion I've discovered. Now, this still leaves debate about ethics, but in my opinion, religion shouldn't have a seat at that table either.

oh, i don't know. a table of ethics that excludes people is exactly the kind of thing i'd expect from one of the religions you think we'd be better off without.

why shouldn't judeo-christian thinking have a seat at such a table? there's good stuff in there. a lot of it isn't original (the 10 commandments, most of which are overrated) and a lot of it would be voted against, but science doesn't correct itself- it requires people with integrity, just like religion does.

Now we're separating into two separate discussions; that of religion's place in ethical decisions, and the self-correcting nature of science.

So, to tackle one of these at a time...

Religion merely packages inherent ethical values. In general, ethics are behaviors that are looked well upon because they are beneficial to society and the species as a whole. Just because religion packages it well doesn't mean it should be included. The legal system also packages ethics well, but I shouldn't bring up the legality of abortion as an argument for or against its morality.

As far as science being self-correcting, in this regard, I have to disagree with you. If people do not accept that their beliefs are wrong when contradictory evidence presents itself, then what they are doing is not science, no matter what they claim.

i agree that ignoring evidence is unscientific, but then paying attention to evidence is something that only people can do. it's possible for scientists to ignore evidence. they shouldn't, it's unscientific, but then no one has an obligation to study anything they don't want to.

what they do have an obligation to do is not study something like evolution, then ignore all the evidence that they find inconvenient, and publish the remainder as "science." it's dishonest. honesty is a religiously-professed ethic, just not always religiously practiced.

it's equally vital to science and religion, and both are lacking in it at times. that's why i say that science isn't "self-correcting." it has the same weakness, but better compensation- but only in principle.

correction is a practice. without people doing that, science would be just as helpless as fundamentalist religion is. however, science may provide more tools to assist a person interested in correcting, where religion may provide fewer.

as for what religion does, perhaps i misunderstood where you were going with the idea that religion "merely" packages ethical values. i feel fairly certain that it does more than "merely" that, and i kind of suspect that in your effort to prove that religion is worthless, you're describing it with increasingly specialized tasks until it really is- but only within the confines of your description. that's the problem with most arguments against religion- they're too easy to find exceptions to.

I'll clarify. I know of no ethical values that stem from religion other than ones whose only purpose is to further that religion (going to Church, evangelism). The rest come from the people. People don't not kill people because religion tells them not to, they do it because it feels wrong. That sick feeling in your stomach when you see someone hitting a child isn't a result of religious beliefs.

So, what purpose does religion play? It has done a good job of describing these values, but so has other philosophies, the legal system, etc. It hasn't brought anything new to the table, and thus shouldn't be allowed at the table.

As far as the evolution thing goes, I would love to debate that with you (I'm a very firm believer in evolution), but this isn't the place. Find me the appropriate thread, or start one, and we'll throw down.

You know how I know the story is a piece of **** lie?

1) Because, a PHD professor would know tha the belief in evolution is not that we came from monkeys, but that we share a common ansestor.

2) When the freshman askes the PHD professor to prove he has a brain, the professo is trumped? His brian is very observable, just not withut a high degree of intrusion. Stupid freshman.

3) The example of tempurature and light as being a measurement with reference to a specific value is valid, however their is no support given by the freshman to accept this particular model over a diffent model.

This stupid story reds like a church camp wet dream.
K
O

with regards to ethics, i'd have to think about it to start giving a real answer. generally speaking, there's a thread about it called "does religion have any practical value?" and right now we're borrowing it to talk about pyramids. please feel free to change the subject (to the original one) at any time.



forgive the expression, but you'd be "preaching to the choir" on that one. of course i believe in evolution. anyone that understands it does.

the question i'm concerned with is, can religion evolve? i think it has, and can. particularly if it is part of who we (humans) are. isn't it interesting though, that you don't see other primates practicing something? maybe that's the beef that creationists have with them.

And all this time I thought it was the poo-flinging...

I don't think that religion evolves towards truth, I think it evolves to fit what people believe in; in terms of evolution, followers is the only resource that they really compete for. This is part of what makes the religion vs. science debate so tricky; the more religion evolves, the better it fits to whatever psychological hang ups or voids it fills. Meanwhile, science is taking us closer and closer to actual truth, but its a truth that a lot of people don't want to hear. So, ultimately, its a question of what you value; a realistic view of the universe, or a comfortable one.

I once listened to the audio books "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman Geisler and these are some of the arguments offered, any rebuttal?

1. The big bang theory is the one theory that is accepted by scientist on the account of world creation right now (he quoted a source from nature magazine or something i forget). And big bang theory is theistic because the theory states that the universe starts from a mathematical point and explode outward forming the universe, which mean it started from something whereas the atheist view is for the universe to be always existed, always in steady state condition of existing.
There are some evidences that he mentioned in details proving that big bang theory is the accepted theory, those evidences all in science term, I can't remember, something to do with electromagnet wave or sumthing.

2. The fact that living organism is complex creation imply that there is an inteligent designer that created it. He ilustrated the point by saying if you found a word "Johny loves Amy" in the beach, you wouldn't argue that the crabs form those words, or the waves form those. It has to be an inteligent being, and in this case Johny or Amy. And human beings that is so complex (i.e. respiratory system, etc) cannot just happen, it has to be something inteligent creating it.

3. Second law of thermodynamic, which basically says "energy systems has a tendency to increase their entropy", entropy can be viewed as chaos. The atheist view is for the universe to always exist and will always be, however the second law said the system (universe) tends to increase their entropy (chaosness), approaching a maximum value at equilibrium (end of the world). this view is also supported astronomically since the big bang theory said the universe keep expanding.

4. Regarding evolution, he said that evolution always refer to micro-evolution, which means that the evolution happened at micro scale, like finger of frog adapting, the tail of lizzard, etc. It never meant to be macro-evolution, which means frog wont change to bird and ape wont change to human (macro evolution). Macro evolution never happened, no frog can ever be a bird and no lizzard can be a frog.

Norman stated that both atheist and non-atheist have the burden of evidence to support their view. For the atheist to prove that the world has always been there, is there and will be there forever, thus no creationism involved, while non-atheist have to prove that the world indeed is created and in no way will be there forever.

Comments?

...

hi Lex. If this is what Mr. Geisler conciders an arguement against atheism, then he should have cehcked his facts first.

1) I don't know how many atheists subscribe to the idea that the world has always been. Most atheists I know believe in the BB. Mr. Geisler's idea that the universe has been in steady state is a misunderstanding of either or both atheism and the BB theory.

2) The fact that we are complex does not imply creation. Ecological systems (such as the parciptation cycle) are complex, but by no stretch of the imagination supernatural. The function of altitude versus ambient temperature is complex, but no wizards are involved here either. As for writings in the sand, I absolutely would believe that someone wrote it, but only because of a recognizable pattern. Quite frankly, I might come across many wild marks in the sand and think nothing of them as well.

A beeter question is this. If you walked to a stream and reached in, then found a perfectly round rock, would you assume it was designed or a product of nature?

3) Entopy can NOT be viewed as chaos. Entropy is a means to measure irreversability. The amount of energy in the universe is constant, but as entropy increases, the amount of useful energy (extropy) decreases.

4) Micro evolution matched with the right envoroment will create speciation. Man is not a decendant of an ape, both amn and ape have a common ansestor.

T
K
O

To believe in creation is to believe in unintellegent design.

Why do whales have hip bones?
Why do we have pinky toes?
Why do blind salamanders have eyes?

Name a species on earth and you will find something vestigeel about it's biological configuration.

T
K
O

Q1: To test your faith!
Q2: To test your faith!
Q3: To test your faith!

Had enough yet?

LOL!

But seriously Lex, why all the poor design if we are designed?

T
K
O

Hi TKO =)

Point 1 & 3 above are based on the concept that atheism holds the view of steady state universe, if it is not the case then these two points is meaningless. So is it true that it's not the case?

I have a hard time understanding your ilustration on altitude versus temperature, could u elaborate more? I thought The creation concept includes all the universe, not just living organism, so the fact that altitude has complex relation with temperature prove the point.

The fact that there are imperfect design doesn't prove that they are not designed by inteligent beings.

Please provide a source that both unifies what athiest thoughts and beliefs are and then show where they all believe that the universe in steady state.

As for altitude versus tempurature, I'm just illustrating complexity in nature. The example I used is non-linear, and seemingly chaotic, but a system none the less. Nothing supernatural or designed about it.

As for imperfect design, if we are designed, it more likely illustrates a poor designer. however, no evidence exists to prove we are designed, and plenty contrary. To believe we are designed, is to believe in a poor designer.

T
K
O

I see, so it isn't the case. I was wondering about that my self when I listened to the audio since Mr. Geisler went into great length to disprove this point.

Isn't the complex relation of altitude and ambient temperature making it more likely for such relation to be inteligently created by inteligent being?

You said plenty evidence that we are not created? May I know examples of such evidence?

Vestigeel organs, the fossil record, Gene mapping for starters.

You want evidence that the tempurature of the atmosphere is not designed?

easy.

The tempurature is what it is because of the laws of nature. The tempurature at 10,000 m ASL is not choosen or designed, it is a product of pressure, and altitude, as well as the chemical composition of the fluid.

T
K
O

So basically u're saying:
The complexity of living organism (i.e. respiratory system, etc) doesn't necessarily imply an inteligent design because temperature and altitude is complex and yet it is a function of pressure, chemical composition, etc and hence doesn't imply inteligent design at all. So complexity of something doesn't imply that it is inteligently designed
Is that ur point?

And how can fossil record, gene mapping and verstigeel organs prove that we are not created. Care to elaborate further?

You're misquoting me.

I am simply pointing out the illogic of the idea that all complex things must be created.

The fossil record shows a distribution of genetic traits by region and sedimentary location. Better to ask Farmerman for the finer details.

Gene mapping provides more evidence that different species share genetic makeup, and thus supports that they have a common ansestor.

Vestigeel organs are evidence that in fact a species slowly adapts to a enviroment as opposed to being design for it. A creature who lives in the dark it's entie life doens't need eyes (working or non-working).

T
K
O