Futility of the evolution vs. creation and science vs. religion debate

[LightEagle]

I have been thinking and reading a lot in the last while and have come to the conclusion that the science vs. religion and creation vs. evolution debate is futile and irrelevant, simply because they are mutually inclusive. Science does not disprove religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive from creation. Creation is the ACT and evolution the PROCESS by which the creation was performed. Science does not disprove religion and visa versa. Science is derived from the Greek sciencia, meaning knowledge. It is not a deity and it is not a substance, it is the quest for knowledge to better our understanding of the Universe and the fundamental principles by which it and everything within (and without) is governed. It is not something to be feared, nor to be revered.

Many christians attack science and the theory of evolution due to fear and many atheists attack christians due to anger. Humanity cannot hope to objectively search for the truth if we are at constant war with each other and constantly get emotional about theories/beliefs/etc. Everyone is a believer. We make assumptions to explian the world arround us and those assumptions leads to subjective distortions of the truth. Therefore I believe we should adopt a live-and-let-live attitude in stead of crucifying each other due to misunderstanding and misguided assumptions.

It would be interesting to see other people's views.

 

[Cris]

Unfortunately Christianity teaches that every living thing was created according to its form, i.e. it was designed that way and did not evolve. While the vatican has embraced evolution, with many complex caveats, many fundamentalist protestant groups have not. In either case the current state of man is assumed to be what God intended as opposed to a result of "unguided" evolution, and with that we have the conflict.

Perhaps a more relavent question should be directed at abiogenesis (the origin of life) rather than evolution.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I agree with you completely LightEagle. The sciences and religion have nothing to do with one another.

Personally, I have always looked at religion as a way of relating onself to the universe and to the things within it than as a way of explaining what the universe was. Religion has more to do with ourselves than with existence, and although it may seem as if religious beliefs are an attempt to explain the world around us, they really are there to tell us how we relate to them on a personal level, and the sciences are not capable of doing that because scientific thought encourages you to look at things impersonally.

Conversely, religious thought cannot explain to someone what the universe is and how it works precisely because it encourages one to look at things from a personal perspective. This does not afford one the ability to disassociate oneself (to any degree) from the universe, which is what someone studying what the universe is and how it works must do in order to understand.

 

[charles cure]

I have been thinking and reading a lot in the last while and have come to the conclusion that the science vs. religion and creation vs. evolution debate is futile and irrelevant, simply because they are mutually inclusive. Science does not disprove religion and evolution is not mutually exclusive from creation. Creation is the ACT and evolution the PROCESS by which the creation was performed. Science does not disprove religion and visa versa. Science is derived from the Greek sciencia, meaning knowledge. It is not a deity and it is not a substance, it is the quest for knowledge to better our understanding of the Universe and the fundamental principles by which it and everything within (and without) is governed. It is not something to be feared, nor to be revered.

Many christians attack science and the theory of evolution due to fear and many atheists attack christians due to anger. Humanity cannot hope to objectively search for the truth if we are at constant war with each other and constantly get emotional about theories/beliefs/etc. Everyone is a believer. We make assumptions to explian the world arround us and those assumptions leads to subjective distortions of the truth. Therefore I believe we should adopt a live-and-let-live attitude in stead of crucifying each other due to misunderstanding and misguided assumptions.

It would be interesting to see other people's views.

as far as i knew, sciencia is latin for knowledge, while the greek word for knowledge is gnosis.

i also think that although evolution and creation do not cancel each other out necessarily, one is definitely happening, and the other is little more than wishful thinking until some evidence for it materializes. thats why creation shouldn't be taught as science in schools. other than that, have at it. people should be allowed to believe any crazy shit that they want to as long as thye don't try to make everyone else live by it too.

 

[superluminal]

I agree with you completely LightEagle. The sciences and religion have nothing to do with one another.

Personally, I have always looked at religion as a way of relating onself to the universe and to the things within it than as a way of explaining what the universe was. Religion has more to do with ourselves than with existence, and although it may seem as if religious beliefs are an attempt to explain the world around us, they really are there to tell us how we relate to them on a personal level.

If religion were a purely personal endeavor practiced in the closet as it were, that would be fine. But religion has publicly crushed or attempted to crush scientific investigation throughout history, so they do have some connection. Science rules out the traditional religious doctrines of a personal god who responds to prayer (what a dumb idea to begin with) and the supernatural claims of the most popular religious books. They are mutually exclusive no matter how you choose to look at it. Religion claims that supernatural mechanisms (i.e. unknowable by science or any human understanding) ultimately or directly underlie the behavior of the universe and everything in it. Science clearly states that natural, measurable properties of matter and energy underlie the functioning of the universe and everything in it. Mutually exclusive.

In fact, a scientific understanding of human nature, not some foggy reliance on doctrine handed down by ancients, is the only real hope of improving the lot of people in general. If you can understand the real motivations and needs of people, based on an understanding of evolutionary biology and psychology, then you can form much better public policy and government practices that benefit the maximum number of folks.

 

[baumgarten]

Well, I'm glad to see you're letting it give you a rash, superluminal. Bitching contradictory dogma back and forth is the best way to make progress.

(Yes, it's a futile debate.)

 

[superluminal]

Ok. Futile or not, why don't you respond to what I said in the post? What do you think of my proposal that science, not religion, offers the best chance of improving the overall wellbeing of humans?

 

[(Q)]

Theists fear their gods but they fear science far more as they know science will eventually answer many questions that will preclude the need to believe in the invisible, hence will place religion alongside all other archaic myths of mankind.

Theists fear this more than anything and will fight tooth and nail to preserve their ignorance and defy anything and everything that might educate people, leading them out of ignorance and away from religion.

 

[superluminal]

Amen Brother (Q).

 

[spiritual_spy]

Theists fear their gods but they fear science far more as they know science will eventually answer many questions that will preclude the need to believe in the invisible, hence will place religion alongside all other archaic myths of mankind.

Theists fear this more than anything and will fight tooth and nail to preserve their ignorance and defy anything and everything that might educate people, leading them out of ignorance and away from religion.

I agree.

 

[baumgarten]

Ok. Futile or not, why don't you respond to what I said in the post? What do you think of my proposal that science, not religion, offers the best chance of improving the overall wellbeing of humans?

I don't see science as something whose purpose is to improve the overall well-being of humans, and neither do I view religion in this way. Ultimately, it seems to me, science is about understanding the universe, and religion is about understanding ourselves. Either can be used by anyone to any sort of end.

 

[Provita]

Theists fear their gods but they fear science far more as they know science will eventually answer many questions that will preclude the need to believe in the invisible, hence will place religion alongside all other archaic myths of mankind.

Theists fear this more than anything and will fight tooth and nail to preserve their ignorance and defy anything and everything that might educate people, leading them out of ignorance and away from religion.

Come back to me when you stop generalizing Q, for again you have misrepresented me, a theist,... ah well...

I follow science fully, thus i cannot believe in a god? right....

i've never "fought science tooth and nail" so i guess its IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe in a god

 

[Ophiolite]

Light Eagle,
to use a well worn analogy, science and religion, the material and the spiritual, are two sides of the very same coin. A one sided coin would be a singular entity indeed and of limited use, and of no practical value.

Many scientists are religious, many more are deeply spiritual. Numerous Christians, including most that I know, have no problem whatsoever with evolution. Several see the slow majestic development of life as far more attractive than a party trick, snap of the fingers, instant creation.

There are plenty of athiests who wouldn't know the first thing about science, but are simply thorough going materialists. A limited perspective, in my opinion. Just as limited as the Creationists who reject evolution and demand ID be taught in schools.

So, yes, the two can be compatible. Indeed, they are compatible. It is simply the extremists in both camps, the ones wihout the imagination, or the courage, who cripple their own beings by adopting an either or posture. Sad really.

 

[superluminal]

I don't see science as something whose purpose is to improve the overall well-being of humans, and neither do I view religion in this way. Ultimately, it seems to me, science is about understanding the universe, and religion is about understanding ourselves. Either can be used by anyone to any sort of end.

Ok. Good.

Why is religion about understanding ourselves? Are you familiar with the broad range of sciences called "human sciences" (there's a subforum here for this)?

- Evolutionary biology
- Evolutionary psychology
- Neurophysiology
- Cognitive science
- Human behavioral science
- Behavioral anthropology
etc...

It appears that science has devoted quite a bit of its attention to "understanding ourselves".

So, what do you think religion offers toward understanding ourselves that science dosen't?

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you read much poetry superluminal, or stand on a mountain peak at sunrise?

 

[superluminal]

Do you read much poetry superluminal, or stand on a mountain peak at sunrise?

I don't much care for poetry, but I love mountain peaks at sunrise. I love music and am moved to tears by some of it. I love my family and my dog. Trees are beautiful.

I know what point you're trying to make, but invoking religion as a way to help me understand why I should feel "qualitatively" as I do about these things is useless. The proximal reason I like these things is simply because they make me feel good. The ultimate reason that a scene evokes a certain feeling is that it may have had an evloutionary advantage or disadvantage to seek or avoid terrain with those properties. That's ajust a simplified example.

Let me ask you. If religion tells us that homosexuality is evil and a hell-burning-for-eternity sin, and science shows us that it is a neurophysical anatomical difference, what will help more with our decision making regarding public policy on this issue?

 

[baumgarten]

Let me ask you. If religion tells us that homosexuality is evil and a hell-burning-for-eternity sin, and science shows us that it is a neurophysical anatomical difference, what will help more with our decision making regarding public policy on this issue?

Science will, depending on how you intepret it. Science also says that the earth will be consumed by the sun in four billion years and we're all going to die, so you might as well do whatever you want.

Ok. Good.

Why is religion about understanding ourselves? Are you familiar with the broad range of sciences called "human sciences" (there's a subforum here for this)?

- Evolutionary biology
- Evolutionary psychology
- Neurophysiology
- Cognitive science
- Human behavioral science
- Behavioral anthropology
etc...

It appears that science has devoted quite a bit of its attention to "understanding ourselves".

So, what do you think religion offers toward understanding ourselves that science dosen't?

Religion offers a personal viewpoint, a subjective one. Science is objective and impersonal. It can't offer the same kind of perspective that religion does.

 

[(Q)]

Light Eagle,
to use a well worn analogy, science and religion, the material and the spiritual, are two sides of the very same coin.

Sorry, reality and fantasy are two sides of the same coin?

Many scientists are religious, many more are deeply spiritual.

Many??? I seriously doubt that.

Numerous Christians, including most that I know, have no problem whatsoever with evolution. Several see the slow majestic development of life as far more attractive than a party trick, snap of the fingers, instant creation.

Numerous??? Hardly.

There are plenty of athiests who wouldn't know the first thing about science, but are simply thorough going materialists. A limited perspective, in my opinion.

Yet, a perspective void of fantasy, if fantasy is what might limit someone, but I would wonder how?

So, yes, the two can be compatible. Indeed, they are compatible. It is simply the extremists in both camps, the ones wihout the imagination, or the courage, who cripple their own beings by adopting an either or posture. Sad really.

Assertions are one thing, but how do you quantify this compatibility?

 

[(Q)]

Come back to me when you stop generalizing Q, for again you have misrepresented me, a theist,... ah well...

I follow science fully, thus i cannot believe in a god? right....

i've never "fought science tooth and nail" so i guess its IMPOSSIBLE for me to believe in a god

Possibilities are endless, probabilities are few.

You follow science "fully" what does that mean?

 

[charles cure]

Ok. Futile or not, why don't you respond to what I said in the post? What do you think of my proposal that science, not religion, offers the best chance of improving the overall wellbeing of humans?

the baumgarten person doesn't like to debate, just bitch and snipe.