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

[KennyJC]

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

If it is futile it is only due to the 72% of Americans who believe in angles whilst only 24% accept evolution.

The futility of any debate is due to such monumental ignorance. Believers in evolution are interested in facts whilst believers that the creator of the universe was intelligent tend not to require pesky facts...

 

[Ophiolite]

There can be no real integration of science with orthodox abrahamic religions. .

You see. I was right. The thread says religion. It says ****-all about orthodox abrahamic religions. Bloody typical of thoughless assholes to focus in on them, but a major surprise to see it appearing under your nom de keyboard, spidergoat.

[On a separate point, there is no problem integrating the two. Just ask Mendel or Le Maitre. (One knock means yes, two knocks means no.]

 

[spidergoat]

I carefully worded it that way, since I think some religions could be compatable with science, just not those. Some, like Islam, started science, but ran into trouble as soon as they revealed some inconvenient truths.

 

[superluminal]

Wow. I would love to have Ophiolite present some facets of religious thinking - any religion - and some facets of scientific thinking - any field - and contrast them in a way that shows their ease of integration and compatibility. It would be interesting to say the least.

 

[LightEagle]

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

Thank you for the correction.

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.

I agree with you, religion has persecuted those who have quested for knowledge throughout the ages and in that they do coincide, but they coincide only on that level. That is why I agree with Jaster Mereel, when he says:

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.

Scientists quest for the truth about the Universe and study the laws that govern its existence. Although I agree that religion does point to an ultimate origin, or rather, it claims to do so, I would like to see athiests and religious people looking at the universe from all angles through objective eyes and trying to discern the truth devoid of personal bias. This is impossible, but I believe that we can arrive at the truth by simply listening to other people's points of view and considering them while shifting our own personal prejudices aside. Our own religious and non-religious predispositions and prejudicial judgements should not influence our reflections and probings of the Universe for only then will we be anble to arrive at an objective truth.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

My point was, religion is a mental system, just like the scientific method, or mathematics.

Myths are there to be used for relating oneself to everything else, to provide an internal, subjective context for such relation, and to allow the conclusions one reaches to increase the depth of that context for future use.

Rituals are there to place oneself within the mythology by enacting it symbolically in some way, usually by pulling out a specific event within the mythological story and presenting it in a watered down fashion, i.e. Holy Communion in Catholicism, where you drink the wine and eat the bread, thus becoming one with the body and blood of Christ, etc... this allows one to see oneself within the context of the story of Christ's ministry. It makes one a part of the story, thus making it easier for one to use Christianity as a reference point for relation.

Common among all religions are these two elements; myths and rituals. They are the foundations of religion. Everything else that is usually associated with religion I would ascribe to social institutions using the myths and rituals to reinforce their various purposes. However, I believe that we should address the most fundamental aspects of religion and discuss their meanings and purpose.

 

[Gordon]

The issue here goes much deeper than the process by which we got here.

Evolution is a hypothesis or theory which cannot be proven as 'scientific fact'.

Although some believers in God may believe in some version of it, it originally emanates from an atheistic view of the universe. This states that only the natural exists and that evrything came into being as the result of undirected random processes with no direction or plan whatever.

Christianity for instance however is a belief that God planned and made the universe for mankind, that he knows everyone individually and has a personal plan for them into eternity.

These are two very different world views. They are irreconcilable but this is ultimately a philosophical or faith debate. The observable facts can be 'scientifically' analysed in different ways depending on which of these two views you choose intially (the 'a priori' assumption). A believer in God has several possible methodologies to choose from. The atheist can only have undirected 'chance' because that is the only option that fits that view. Note that this 'a priori' or first assumption cannot by definition by proven, scientifically or otherwise.

The comment about observable evolution and unobservable God is totally inaccurate. The type of macro-evolution posited for the development of animals and people is that from one type to another type, from inverebrates to fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammals etc. This cannot be observed as it is not happening. The evidence that it ever did happen is to put it mildly inconclusive!

On the other hand I see the action of God daily but as they say. 'there are none so blind as those that won't see!'.

kind regards,


Gordon.