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

[charles cure]

Either can be used by anyone to any sort of end.

thats not true, it takes intelligence, hard work, and experience to uncover, demonstrate, and make use of a scientific concept. religion is effortless belief.

 

[charles cure]

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.

actually, according to what i've read about is, the sun will burn out before it consumes the earth. that would kill us all first. however, using science, people might survive on a different planet, or even on a harsh wintry earth. what, on the other hand, will praying do to solve those problems?

 

[(Q)]

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.

But, by doing "whatever you want" instead of what you are capable of doing would only serve to shorten that four billion year time frame in regards to our survival, and would limit your ability to find ways of moving to other planets that may give us a few billion years more existence, as science would help us do.

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.

Nature doesn't tend to appeal to ones personal perspective, neither should science.

 

[baumgarten]

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

The hypocrisy in that sentence is overwhelming.

I'm willing to debate if we're willing to leave any self-righteousness at the door. If not, I can find ways to enjoy a pissing contest as well.

 

[baumgarten]

But, by doing "whatever you want" instead of what you are capable of doing would only serve to shorten that four billion year time frame in regards to our survival, and would limit your ability to find ways of moving to other planets that may give us a few billion years more existence, as science would help us do.

Like I said, science can be used to justify any behavior. The same is true for religion. They both most resemble mere mental tools, like mathematics. Scientifically speaking, of course.

Nature doesn't tend to appeal to ones personal perspective, neither should science.

I agree completely.

 

[superluminal]

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.


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.

Ok. As charles an Q have pointed out, science can provide a way for our species to survive the death of our planet (actually, since the sun has been getting more luminous over time, it is estimated that within 500my the earth will be uninhabitable - long before it goes into it's red giant stage and the earth is vaporized).

As for doing whatever you want, you are implying that without religion we are moral vacuums. Morals are part and parcel of the evolution of a communal species. Without them how would individuals coexist?

Religion is a specific set of doctrines based on early human mental development, not a "viewpoint" in my opinion. Why can't science offer a personal perspective on your place in the cosmos? It has for me. I feel priveledged and awed to be alive at a time when I can actually get a glimpse of what it means to be a conscious entity. The matter and energy of the universe awakening to examine itself. How can religion top that?

 

[baumgarten]

Religion is a specific set of doctrines based on early human mental development, not a "viewpoint" in my opinion. Why can't science offer a personal perspective on your place in the cosmos? It has for me. I feel priveledged and awed to be alive at a time when I can actually get a glimpse of what it means to be a conscious entity. The matter and energy of the universe awakening to examine itself. How can religion top that?

That sounds very religious to me.

Religion, for one thing, is not a set of specific doctrines blindly followed by teh l4mer spawn-camping sheople. Some religions are founded on dogma, but not all.

Religion is not effortless belief, either. I was a very devout Catholic once upon a time, but I eventually found it too difficult to believe anything I was being told. I decided that the church was not for me. Does believing what I found easier to believe make me more religious or less?

 

[superluminal]

That sounds very religious to me.

Religion, for one thing, is not a set of specific doctrines blindly followed by teh l4mer spawn-camping sheople. Some religions are founded on dogma, but not all.

Religion is not effortless belief, either. I was a very devout Catholic once upon a time, but I eventually found it too difficult to believe anything I was being told. I decided that the church was not for me. Does believing what I found easier to believe make me more religious or less?

Big b,

1) Please give me an example of a religion that is not based on dogma. Which implies that it would be based on observation , evidence and experimental verification.

2) Why does my statement sound religious to you? It is based on the factual discoveries of science and requires no faith or dogma.

3) You seem to believe that theists are all sensitive caring people interested in the true nature of humans in the cosmos, while scientists are cold hearted analysts without a shred of "humanity". I just told you the way many scientists feel, sans religion.

 

[(Q)]

Like I said, science can be used to justify any behavior. The same is true for religion. They both most resemble mere mental tools, like mathematics. Scientifically speaking, of course.

No, science isn't used to justify anything, it's used to explain how things work, like behaviour. Religion doesn't explain behaviour but instead attempts to equate behaviour to accepting or rejecting gods and religious dogma, and then justifies that behaviour with heaven or hell.

 

[baumgarten]

1) Please give me an example of a religion that is not based on dogma. Which implies that it would be based on observation , evidence and experimental verification.

It doesn't necessarily go either one way or the other. In some religions, you are encouraged to meditate on the nature of things to come to conclusions about them yourself. (Taoism, Zen Buddhism) Some religions enforce dogmatic laws about day-to-day conduct, but leave theology open to interpretation. (early Judaism, maybe current Judaism, Hinduism) In Islam, outside of the Quran, any Muslim has religious authority. There is more than one way to conduct a religion.

2) Why does my statement sound religious to you? It is based on the factual discoveries of science and requires no faith or dogma.

The feeling of awe and privilege and the personal perspective you derive from scientific discovery are what sound religious.

3) You seem to believe that theists are all sensitive caring people interested in the true nature of humans in the cosmos, while scientists are cold hearted analysts without a shred of "humanity". I just told you the way many scientists feel, sans religion.

Not at all! I'm a physics major, and I believe that scientific exploration is one of the most human things you can do. And I understand, not only from history but from current events, that some theists are capable of greater dehumanization than any scientist. I only mean to show what sort of perspective each field comes from - I'm an INTJ; my favorite way to think is from that cold, scientific, impersonal perspective, and I feel a great sense of awe when that thought process leads me to learn something new. Religiously speaking, you could say I consider science sacred.

 

[baumgarten]

No, science isn't used to justify anything, it's used to explain how things work, like behaviour. Religion doesn't explain behaviour but instead attempts to equate behaviour to accepting or rejecting gods and religious dogma, and then justifies that behaviour with heaven or hell.

Engineering is the art of making decisions justified by scientific findings. Isn't atheism usually a choice in belief justified by science? Most atheists are taught a religion from a young age only to later turn away, rather than just being atheists their entire lives.

 

[superluminal]

Well, I don't find your first response very enlightening, but that's ok.

As for the way I feel, you can say it sounds like an ostritch fart, I don't reall mind either way.

I guess it's your background that compels you to use religious terminology to describe your inner emotional states. That's fine. I have no such background, yet I feel the same things. I would call them a sense of the deep ultimate mystery of existence itself. Why is there something instead of nothing? I like the words "Mysterium Tremendum" (which is latin for awe inspiring mystery) without the religious connotations.

 

[superluminal]

Engineering is the art of making decisions justified by scientific findings. Isn't atheism usually a choice in belief justified by science? Most atheists are taught a religion from a young age only to later turn away, rather than just being atheists their entire lives.

As an engineer, I like that statement. One of the better ones.

 

[Clockwood]

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.

Heh. I always read this as saying 'The sun is going to die in a few billion years so we had better pack and get off this rock whenever we get the chance'.

 

[TheHeretic]

lighteagle you are a confused individual. Religion and scientific reason are complete opposites they cannot coexist peacfully. You cant just make comprimises like that its completely ridiculous.

 

[Ophiolite]

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?

I have no time for the dogma of religion. It is the very antithesis of spirituality. I sense in this, and many other threads, that when the word religion appears, there is a knee jerk reaction to think of Christian fundamentalists.
To me religion is a somewhat organised way to explore the spiritual aspects of our humanity. It does not require that we even believe in a God. If we do, it does not require that we believe in life after death, or any of the other baggage that infests the conventional religions. Religion is a road map than can give us a feel for the countryside we might travel through, but it does not dictate what destination we should choose, nor how, or with whom we should travel.
From this my answer to your question should be self evident. My distaste for the self righteous, bigoted fundamentalist dogmatists is palpable. Religion, however, is much more than that.

 

[(Q)]

Engineering is the art of making decisions justified by scientific findings. Isn't atheism usually a choice in belief justified by science? Most atheists are taught a religion from a young age only to later turn away, rather than just being atheists their entire lives.

The findings themselves might justify engineering decisions, that's ok. Atheism could be justified by the findings also. But science itself is a process, a methodology, and as a process, it doesn't really justify anything.

I agree that many atheists were once theists, or at least were told or were indoctrinated into being theists, but most will tell you they never really believed in that BS in the first place.

 

[baumgarten]

The findings themselves might justify engineering decisions, that's ok. Atheism could be justified by the findings also. But science itself is a process, a methodology, and as a process, it doesn't really justify anything.

Yeah, I understand that. Neither does religion. Both of them can be used for justification anyway.

 

[spidergoat]

I agree with Heretic, the only way they can coexist is to separate them in your mind so they don't touch. There can be no real integration of science with orthodox abrahamic religions. Evolution implies that there is no role for a creator at all, the process is a passive cascade of cause and effect.

 

[charles cure]

The hypocrisy in that sentence is overwhelming.

I'm willing to debate if we're willing to leave any self-righteousness at the door. If not, I can find ways to enjoy a pissing contest as well.

ah, i see you've read all of my posts and now know that i'm a hypocrite. i made an observation about what i've seen you do here. and that's pretty much it. i haven't seen you refute a single argument that's been presented to you outside of just claiming that it wasn't valid. i don't know if the rules changed when i wasn't looking, but to me that's not debate. prove me wrong if you think its important. if not, fuck it, its only the opinion of a hypocrite anyway right?