parados wrote:
That is logic not science. Logic says anyone that claims something exists must prove it. If unproven then it must be assumed to not be true. You can make a logical argument that God doesn't exist but not a scientific one.
Science is different in that it postulates then attempts to prove or disprove. All science must be repeatable. In science, you don't assume something is false just because it can't be proved. That would defeat the purpose of science.
I am not saying that this WAS science I meant that there are people who use the name of science to support ideas that have no place in the scientific arena.
Could we say then that there are people who use the name of science to protect their personal beliefs with the same zeal as a religious fanatic? I think we need to look no further than Kansas to see that.
The so called scientific community is up in arms at the mere thought that anyone would teach that the evolutionary theory of creation may only be one way to explain creation. Even the notion of questioning evolution is out of bounds to these folks. Sounds a lot like religious zealotry to me. Again I do not mean scientists but people who use the name of science to back up their own personal belief system.
Science is not a belief system.
Until you look at the DNA in the test tube ci !
cicerone imposter wrote:Science is not a belief system.
Some sure seem to treat it that way.
gospelmancan2 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Science is not a belief system.
Some sure seem to treat it that way.
Why can't the two co-exist.
That is, you can have science and evolution and all that. And you can still have the Creation and religion and all that.
It seems like a lot of people don't have a problem integrating both ideas into their belief systems.
It doesn't have to be you are right and they are wrong. Both can be right. Oh the fundamentalist religionists and the harping atheists may both have to make concessions, but: boo-hoo.
Maybe both ends of the spectrum need to learn something.
tri spectoral analysis is my specialty...
Do you have a for-real, honest-to-god tricorder, AK?
Algis, "Tri-anything" usually fails.
gospelmancan2 wrote:I am not saying that this WAS science I meant that there are people who use the name of science to support ideas that have no place in the scientific arena.
Could we say then that there are people who use the name of science to protect their personal beliefs with the same zeal as a religious fanatic? I think we need to look no further than Kansas to see that.
The so called scientific community is up in arms at the mere thought that anyone would teach that the evolutionary theory of creation may only be one way to explain creation. Even the notion of questioning evolution is out of bounds to these folks. Sounds a lot like religious zealotry to me. Again I do not mean scientists but people who use the name of science to back up their own personal belief system.
Protecting science from attacks by non scientific people makes it a religion? What the hell? Science does peer review. Requiring that any science that is taught meet that standard hardly makes it a religion. It makes it SCIENCE. It makes it INTELLIGENT.
EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE.
Evolution is backed by years of science. It is the best theory based on all the known facts. No credible science exists to debunk it or promote another theory. Requiring that science be taught is hardly religious fervor it is sanity. If we TRULY want our children to be taught to learn then teach them the scientific method. You confuse kids by telling them they have to look at all things critically then force them to examine as if real a theory that has no critical thinking behind it. There is NO Science to support the idea of "intelligent design." You can not find me any studies of any magnitude that support it. There is not even 10 years of any peer review there. It is easily debunkable by a college student. Should we teach our kids that the earth is flat just because some fool doesn't like the theory that is accepted by science? I don't think so. It is hardly religion to expect our schools to teach REAL science vs fake crap.
gospelmancan2 wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Science is not a belief system.
Some sure seem to treat it that way.
Yep, quantifiable objective standards capable of being duplicated by others must be a "belief system." It couldn't possibly be an independent system that allows other to verify the tests and redo the experiments to confirm the conclusions.
You are free at any time to present your experiments that refute what others have published gospelman. That is the beauty of science. It allows for that at all times. The key is you have to use an objective standard that can be duplicated to be taken seriously. Without that, those that promote ID deserve to be ridiculed for what they are, ignorant flat earthers.
Science is the best thing we've got for many areas of life.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be able to do or explain every single aspect of existence. It doesn't seem particularly well-equipped to answer human questions about the human condition, for example. Not in a way that satifsies most humans, anyway.
Then again, no one claimed that it could. And perhaps that is another thread.
I still say if a scientist as out there as Einstein had room for God and a person believing in God could become a scientist like Einstein, well...God and Science don't have to be at war. They can be complementary.
Unintentionally, i rather suspect, you have nonetheless hit upon the great divide between religion and science which evokes both contempt and panic in the religiously fanatical.
Religious dogma purports to have all the answers to all questions. Science is a methodology by which one seeks to answer some of the questions arising from a consideration of the physical universe. The religiously fanatical are contemptuous of science and people who favor the answers it can help provide, because no one who favors scientific methodology claims to have or be able to find the answers to all questions. Religious fanatics equate scientific methodology, falsely, with their dogma. Therefore, they consider "science" (as though it were dogma rather than methodology) to be a failed or a flawed system of belief. However, scientific methodology is so successful at answering pragmatic questions about the physical universe, that they begin to fear that it will supplant the dogmatic belief system. They panic because it appears to them that their "know-it-all" dogma will be replaced by the uncertainty of science.
The great dissociation between those who appreciate the benefits of scientific methodology and those who seek the false comfort of an all-knowing dogma arises from this basic misunderstanding of the difference between a dogmatic belief set and a practical methodology. Not all people of religious conviction suffer from this panic fear; those who are religiously fanatical, however, do suffer from it, because they fail to see the distinction between a methodology and a belief set, and they believe that the modern world is going to deprive them of the their beliefs and substitute what they wrongly identify as a failed belief set.
extra medium, That's the reason why we have "philosophy" to inquire into those questions of existence.
extra medium wrote:Science is the best thing we've got for many areas of life.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be able to do or explain every single aspect of existence. It doesn't seem particularly well-equipped to answer human questions about the human condition, for example. Not in a way that satifsies most humans, anyway.
Then again, no one claimed that it could. And perhaps that is another thread.
I still say if a scientist as out there as Einstein had room for God and a person believing in God could become a scientist like Einstein, well...God and Science don't have to be at war. They can be complementary.
Einstein made comments concerning the claims by the religious that he believed in God. He wasn't happy with the way they used him. I will have to try to track them down.
You are correct however. Science can live with religion when science sticks to the physical and religion sticks to the spiritual.
Yes.
Part of the deal almost seems to be a bit of a maturity issue.
I have always been drawn to science, from a very early age. I went through a period in my adolescence when I thought everything about science must be superior to everything about religion. Something like that. Black & white.
I eventually outgrew that.
When I was in college I took a lot of science courses. There happened to be some semi-renowned professors in some of the science departments there, especially in the Physics and Astronomy departments, which I spent considerable time in.
I was shocked to find out that several of these professors called themselves Christians! "How could this be?" I wondered? I mean, can't they see its all an obvious fabrication. How could someone who has spent at least 8 years methodically analyzing the building blocks of our universe and its origins possibly believe in some of these myths.
Long story short is I was finally able to grasp that they were somehow able to integrate all of their scientific learning and discipline with a sort of intellectual Christianity which rested primarily on some select passages...
I won't go too deep into it, but it worked for them. Advanced science and advanced Christianity (and other religions) can co-exist. It took me awhile to truly realize that.
Its when the scared religious fanatics or their myopic science geek counterparts are afraid of anything outside of their little sandboxes, this is when problems arise.
I must say, I did admire how some of these physicists sort of created a bit of their own individualized brand of scientific Christianity so that they wouldn't have to choose, they wouldn't have to throw away Christianity to be a scientist.
Not that I agreed with them. But I do admire how they integrated it all in a way that seemed to work for them. They didn't feel the need to attack Christianity as they debated how many billion years old the universe is...
***
It is sad how the scared religious fanatics attack science.
I wonder if they realize how ridiculous it makes them look?
I mean, if I ever would consider joining their denomination, after listening to and seeing those adolescent outbursts, I run from them--it appears to be insanity.
extra medium, It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there are many ways to interpret religious belief, and what fits can fit very well. Others have the problem of trying to define everything in black and white without any grays. The best way I've found it explained is to compare religious belief to love. You can't see it, but it's there. It's how one lives their lives that matters; and not trying to live every word in a imperfect book written almost two thousand years ago.
"Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?"
Have atheists and believers defined God to get rid of the mystery?
Quote by CI. "extra medium, That's the reason why we have "philosophy" to inquire into those questions of existence."
Sorry, CI, that doesn't quite cut it either.
Check out the Einstein quote in my signature. The connotation is that Einstein's "god" was totally subjective; therefore, belief is irrelevant.
coluber, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I was responding to "Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be able to do or explain every single aspect of existence."
