Can science and religion be mutually relevant?

I'm not religious nor do I think that there is some sort god that is responsible for living things

its just that we don't know yet whys, hows or whats yet

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

science can not yet explain how non-living chemistry can produce living things

You mean, can not explain *in detail*, right? Because science can certainly explain it in general principles which don't conflict with empirical possibilities.

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

science can not yet explain how non-living chemistry can produce living things

So what? There are plenty of things which science will never be able to explain.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

No, but it offers a plausible model for how chemicals come to form cells. (I'm extending the model so that the "bio" element can be deleted.)

The endosymbiotic theory concerns the origins of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells. It focuses mainly on the idea of symbiosis between these organisms. I don't think it talks about chemical evolution at all. Perhaps you are thinking of a different term?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

The endosymbiotic theory concerns the origins of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells. It focuses mainly on the idea of symbiosis between these organisms. I don't think it talks about chemical evolution at all. Perhaps you are thinking of a different term?

Right, endosymbiosis moots an original independence of organelles. It's not clear that such independent organelles would be alive, but in any case, they would be non-cellular life. I'm suggesting that this can be plausibly extended, under the same or a similar model, to the question of the formation of the host cells themselves.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

north wrote:
science can not yet explain how non-living chemistry can produce living things

You mean, can not explain *in detail*, right? Because science can certainly explain it in general principles which don't conflict with empirical possibilities.

no , science can not explain how the living comes from the non-living

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

north wrote:
science can not yet explain how non-living chemistry can produce living things
So what? There are plenty of things which science will never be able to explain.

I didn't suggest that science couldn't explain the problem , its just that right now science can't , thats all

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
north wrote:
science can not yet explain how non-living chemistry can produce living things
So what? There are plenty of things which science will never be able to explain.

I didn't suggest that science couldn't explain the problem , its just that right now science can't , thats all

That's no big news, is it? So, I repeat, so what?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

north wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
north wrote:
science can not yet explain how non-living chemistry can produce living things
So what? There are plenty of things which science will never be able to explain.

I didn't suggest that science couldn't explain the problem , its just that right now science can't , thats all
That's no big news, is it? So, I repeat, so what?

science will

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

no , science can not explain how the living comes from the non-living

I disagree. I think the existing theories are quite reasonable.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
The endosymbiotic theory concerns the origins of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells. It focuses mainly on the idea of symbiosis between these organisms. I don't think it talks about chemical evolution at all. Perhaps you are thinking of a different term?
Right, endosymbiosis moots an original independence of organelles. It's not clear that such independent organelles would be alive, but in any case, they would be non-cellular life. I'm suggesting that this can be plausibly extended, under the same or a similar model, to the question of the formation of the host cells themselves.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I was more focused on a much more rudimentary state pertaining to the arise of the first replicative molecules, whatever those were.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

And if that were the case we would not be here to ask the question... right?

So what that the universe gave rise to inteligent life. Doesn't seem at all amazing to me. After all, here we all are. Ho hum.

0 Replies

Science and religion(and philosophy for that matter) are all windows on the same reality. All different perspectives.
I would say that objective scientific facts must be the defining framework for the world. Although I believe there are things science can by definition not give us the final word on. I suspect the problem of free will is one of those areas.

So if we perceive a conflict between science and religion it is a good indication that we have either not properly understood the scientific theory yet or we have not yet found the correct interpretation of the religious texts.
You can also see science and religion and being antithetical in the Hegelian sense.
In order to solve the apparent conflict a synthesis must be found.

1 Reply

@sarek,

Quote:

In order to solve the apparent conflict a synthesis must be found.

That is a good insight - and I think it is taking place as we speak.

0 Replies

@amanda phil,

Quote:

Can science and religion be mutually relevant with reference to evolution, intellegent design, cosmology, etc?

Yes. Once you realize that evolution and today's mathematical cosmology are a bunch of ideological bullshit that is.

0 Replies

@amanda phil,

Quote:

Can science and religion be mutually relevant?

Yes, upon that glorious moment when science proves that there is a god, and god having knowingly proved the truth of science then says goodness you guys are a bit late I've been waiting what seems like an eternity.

1 Reply

@solipsister,

"proving god" is a ridiculous idea. You can only prove what you believe by the way you live. No other proof matters, or counts.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Untrue, because God isn't just something you believe--he exists, and this can be shown through science and logical conclusions.

2 Replies

@Klope3,

Klope3 wrote:

God isn't just something you believe--he exists

What utter fuckinｇ rubbish. Back up this vicious imposition or withdraw it.

1 Reply

@Klope3,

Klope3 wrote:

Untrue, because God isn't just something you believe--he exists, and this can be shown through science and logical conclusions.

Complete cobblers

It cannot be shown through science and logical conclusions at all.

Merely putting particular words together in a particular order does not, in itself confer any validity to them merely as a function of your doing it.

What the buggery do you think "faith" is for?

Faith is, by definition, a belief in something in the absence of evidence. Otherwise you wouldn't need faith.

0 Replies

Can science and religion be mutually relevant?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know