Why can't religon and science be friends?

[Neverfly]

I agree to this... Thanks for you understanding, I don't care if Dywyddyr can't wrap his head around what I said- He is exactly what his name suggests- a 'divider'..

Peace be unto you

I think this was uncalled for.
You sign your posts with "Peace be with you." Then I suggest you heed your sig line and behave peacefully.
Dywyddyr was clear even if You did not understand him.

'goddidit' is said by BELIEVERS- they profess their BELIEF- I'm getting amazed at your inability to think because you're so closed to your ideas.

Recognizing invalidity in a claim is not "Close mindedness."
Critical thinking requires that a person screen what is presented to him in order to build the most accurate model of the likely reality.
After-all, a guy could claim that Puff the Magic Dragon created the Universe when he swallowed bubble gum and blew out a flaming fart bubble.
If I deny the accuracy in his claim, he can call me closed minded. Seems very illogical to me...

If anything, scientists are VERY open minded compared to Believers.
A scientist is not afraid to question anything. A fundamentalist believer thinks he should question nothing and accept it all as Gods Will.
A scientist investigates and experiments and admits to being wrong and seeking out correction.
A fundamentalist believer is NEVER wrong (at least in their imagination.) They justify every claim they make and do not admit to error.
Scientists eagerly seek out new knowledge.
A fundamentalist believer think s that all knowledge worth knowing is contained in ONE Book and nothing else is needed. Additionally, they despise things that contradict that book and will claim anything in order to undermine it. They relentlessly attack other ideas, other beliefs, other claims- Providing no support for their own attacks whatsoever except their undying belief in that One Book.

Don't EVEN try that "Closed minded" ploy. It's a ridiculous and tiresome tactic.

The fact god exists or not doesn't matter. Science comes to a halt whenever their is nothing more to research... For example you have the Uncertainty principle- you won't be able to find everything.. period.

Huh?
You have no idea what the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle IS do you?
YOu just spout whatever and hope it sticks or what?
Well, this one fell flat.
The Uncertainty Principle refers to not being able to DETERMINE the exact position and the exact velocity at any given moment.

Imagine a car moving. If it's moving, what is its EXACT position?
Obviously, you cannot give an exact one because the car keeps changing position.

Science will ALWAYS have investigation. It can never end because of the fact you cannot PROVE a negative.
The purpose of science is to always work to build MORE ACCURATE models.

And as for the parallel to divider- I think anyone can see it, if you didn't intend it then so be it but it certainly sounds like 'divider'-

I can't see it.
All I see is someone getting upset and defensive because his personal religious beliefs don't hold water.
So he lashes out with Ad Hom attacks instead.
Yes, I am referring to YOU, 786.

Peace be unto you

You already provided a lack of it, sorry.

 

[Dywyddyr]

'goddidit' is said by BELIEVERS- they profess their BELIEF- I'm getting amazed at your inability to think because you're so closed to your ideas.

I see you've failed to read any of my posts: they were, as I said, about the existence of god and how that would affect science - whether he's believed in or not.

The fact god exists or not doesn't matter. Science comes to a halt whenever their is nothing more to research... For example you have the Uncertainty principle- you won't be able to find everything.. period.

Even more misunderstanding - the Uncertainty Principle happens to be scientific and nothing to do with science coming to a halt.

I'm amazed at this BS you're pulling off with now changing it to 'existence' when you are continuously using the phrase 'goddidit'- which certainly is stated by BELIEVERS.

Please re-read my posts from the start:

Creation specifies how the universe started: goddidit.

Post #7.

Whatever man, I don't think you can understand anything because you've pretty much closed your view.. And you simply can't 'lose' so you never cease to continue the bs.

Correction, it's YOU who consistently fails to have an open view. Instead of putting forth any sort of logical argument all you've done is accuse me of being close-minded and "failing to understand".

And as for the parallel to divider- I think anyone can see it, if you didn't intend it then so be it but it certainly sounds like 'divider'-

Nor does it sound like "divider" - it's pronounced Tee-oo-ith-eer.

 

[786]

I think this was uncalled for.
You sign your posts with "Peace be with you." Then I suggest you heed your sig line and behave peacefully.
Dywyddyr was clear even if You did not understand him.

Do you see the parallel between Dywyddyr and Divider? If not, then I guess it really is uncalled for.

Recognizing invalidity in a claim is not "Close mindedness."
Critical thinking requires that a person screen what is presented to him in order to build the most accurate model of the likely reality.

You seemed to have changed your words and correct them to which I agreed... seems that at least you saw 'validity' in what I saw unlike Dywyddyr. Maybe you guys can duke it out?

If anything, scientists are VERY open minded compared to Believers.

Dywyddyr is a scientist? Even I am biology major- makes me a biologist?

Don't EVEN try that "Closed minded" ploy. It's a ridiculous and tiresome tactic.

If you told me Dywyddyr is a scientist I wouldn't believe you. His method of discussion is far from 'open minded'. At least when he talks about religion.

Huh?
You have no idea what the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle IS do you?
YOu just spout whatever and hope it sticks or what?
Well, this one fell flat.
The Uncertainty Principle refers to not being able to DETERMINE the exact position and the exact velocity at any given moment.

Imagine a car moving. If it's moving, what is its EXACT position?
Obviously, you cannot give an exact one because the car keeps changing position.

But it tells you there are certain things you can not find... that was the point. If you find everything in the world you will still not be able to find this.. So there will ALWAYS be things that science can NOT answer- thus the existence of 'god' isn't required for there to be things where 'science can't find the ultimate answer'. That was the point I was trying to make and the Uncertainty principle portrays just that-.

Science will ALWAYS have investigation. It can never end because of the fact you cannot PROVE a negative.
The purpose of science is to always work to build MORE ACCURATE models.

I was working under the assumption that all models have been worked out- that is why I was talking about when 'science gets there'- perhaps you should read the context under which I said that?

I can't see it.
All I see is someone getting upset and defensive because his personal religious beliefs don't hold water.
So he lashes out with Ad Hom attacks instead.

Quite frankly my beliefs aren't even a subject matter here.... but I do get irritated when people like to change things just so they can save their face-

Yes, I am referring to YOU, 786.

Thank You..... I know I have a bad habit of 'lashing out'- but that is usually after I've realized that I'm talking to people who don't really care what is being discussed.

Perhaps you can tell me who say 'goddidit'-? Believers? Aren't we saying it today? Has the 'existence' of God been proven? No... so wasn't the discussion about the effect of 'goddidit' and science... how did that change to 'existence'.... perhaps he needs to first understand who says 'goddidit' first?

You already provided a lack of it, sorry.

Did I ruin the peace? So sorry... but you can continue making fun of people and that is promoting peace?

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

whether he's believed in or not.

exactly- so its about 'belief' before it is about 'existence'-

Nor does it sound like "divider" - it's pronounced Tee-oo-ith-eer.

Oh.. I was going by what I read Dy (Di) Wy (vi) dyyr (der)......I'm sorry if it was a far-fetched idea.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

exactly- so its about 'belief' before it is about 'existence'-

Which bit of "the existence of god... whether he's believed in or not" did you not understand?

Oh.. I was going by what I read Dy (Di) Wy (vi) dyyr (der)......I'm sorry if it was a far-fetched idea.

No comment.
I have given the pronunciation (and partial derivation - it's vaguely Welsh) more than once on this forum.

 

[786]

Which bit of "the existence of god... whether he's believed in or not" did you not understand?

So Iranian theocracy don't believe in God and that is why they are conducting science?

I think in the end its about 'belief' because that is the only thing that can effect science- not the existence of God... I believe in God and that wouldn't stop me from conducting science. I actually believe my God asks me to do 'ponder' on nature- which I understand as science. But that is just me

No comment.
I have given the pronunciation (and partial derivation - it's vaguely Welsh) more than once on this forum.

I've never read it before- but without the knowledge of the 'real' pronunciation, you have to admit that 'divider' can be extruded from that.. Anyways I apologize for that.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

So Iranian theocracy don't believe in God and that is why they are conducting science?

You're inventing your own conversations.
One more time: it's the existence NOT the belief that affects science.

I think in the end its about 'belief' because that is the only thing that can effect science- not the existence of God... I believe in God and that wouldn't stop me from conducting science.

Which simply illustrates that you're (still) on the wrong tack altogether. Believing in god doesn't (materially) affect science (if you do it honestly) because you'll find the answers regardless (especially if he doesn't exist). However if god exists (and did actually start everything) then the answer will eventually (probably) come down to goddidit and we can investigate no further.

but without the knowledge of the 'real' pronunciation, you have to admit that 'divider' can be extruded from that..

I wouldn't know - I've never known any other way of reading/ pronouncing it.

Anyways I apologize for that.

Accepted.

 

[Neverfly]

Do you see the parallel between Dywyddyr and Divider? If not, then I guess it really is uncalled for.

Thank you for admitting that. It's a positive sign

You seemed to have changed your words and correct them to which I agreed... seems that at least you saw 'validity' in what I saw unlike Dywyddyr. Maybe you guys can duke it out?

It seems there is some miscommunication here... I am not sure where it is.

From my reading of Dywyddyr's posts, I'm under the impression that he understands evolution and science well and we seem to be on the same page.
We may fight horribly on a political topic, I'm not sure
But using that as a basis, and from what I've read in the last few posts, it seems that you are the one who misunderstood Dywyddyr. It's easy to do on a forum, since going back to re-read a post or get correction isn't as easy as a chatroom or spoken word might be.

Dywyddyr also agreed that science is not halted by belief.

Dywyddyr is a scientist?

I do not know his profession. However, that is not relevant.
If he demonstrates solid and accurate knowledge on the topic at hand, he can be considered a scientist for an internet forum. A scientist is simply one who follows critical thinking and observation, examination and testing of evidence.
That makes a police detective a scientist, too.

Even I am biology major- makes me a biologist?

I would be hard pressed to believe that you're a biology major with the glaring misconceptions about evolution that you have presented. If you are a biology major, I'd like to have a lil chat with your professor...

If you told me Dywyddyr is a scientist I wouldn't believe you. His method of discussion is far from 'open minded'. At least when he talks about religion.

I disagree.
Some folks are Tired and Frustrated by how believers rationalize and make excuses for their beliefs. The reason being is because it promotes misconceptions and ignorance.
Your comment can easily be applied to myself as well.

At one time, I was a devout believer.
I LOVED GOD. With a passion.
But there came a time when my observatory nature and my studies and learning opened up my eyes to the prospect of building accuracy in models over invented depictions of hopes and dreams.
I had to Let Go of God and I admit- it was very painful for me to do so.

But what I found in return is something far more satisfying than faith could ever have given me.

But it tells you there are certain things you can not find... that was the point. If you find everything in the world you will still not be able to find this.. So there will ALWAYS be things that science can NOT answer- thus the existence of 'god' isn't required for there to be things where 'science can't find the ultimate answer'. That was the point I was trying to make and the Uncertainty principle portrays just that-.

Again, science cannot answer, "How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin."
The absurdity remains in the nonexistence of fairies.
This is not a fault of science. It is not a limit of science. It is a fault of whoever dreams up crap that doesn't exist.

I was working under the assumption that all models have been worked out- that is why I was talking about when 'science gets there'- perhaps you should read the context under which I said that?

All models have not been worked out.
We are still trying to find out what makes gravity work, even if we understand its effect quite well. This is the unifiacation of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics you hear so much about.
That is one example.

Quite frankly my beliefs aren't even a subject matter here.... but I do get irritated when people like to change things just so they can save their face-

So do I.

Thank You..... I know I have a bad habit of 'lashing out'- but that is usually after I've realized that I'm talking to people who don't really care what is being discussed.

I find myself speaking for Dywyddyr, again...
Obviously he cares or he wouldn't post.
The problem it seems, is he is as frustrated by what you just said above and I agreed to, as you are.

Perhaps you can tell me who say 'goddidit'-?

You have for one. You have stated that Evolution is an intelligent design, a code that was divinely created and integrated.

Believers? Aren't we saying it today? Has the 'existence' of God been proven? No...

It does not NEED to be proven for a believer. They faithfully believe without evidence.

so wasn't the discussion about the effect of 'goddidit' and science... how did that change to 'existence'.... perhaps he needs to first understand who says 'goddidit' first?

The two are one in the same.

Did I ruin the peace? So sorry... but you can continue making fun of people and that is promoting peace?

I never claimed I was promoting peace
I have an attitude and that's well known. I have my own style and nature, not much of a popular one. It can get me into trouble and I have plenty of faults and can lose my temper horribly.
But again, I never claimed I was otherwise. I DO try to keep my anger in check if I get angry and to calmly and logically confront things-- I try...

Meanwhile- Credit to you for having given apologies and admitted some errors.
Let's see if you can continue to do so in regards to your misconceptions about evolution...

 

[786]

I would be hard pressed to believe that you're a biology major with the glaring misconceptions about evolution that you have presented. If you are a biology major, I'd like to have a lil chat with your professor...

Ha... I wouldn't write that on an exam... But the point of the forum is to discuss ideas- or maybe I should just read books and forget about this forum?

I know what Evolution is in the scientific world, I also know what I think- I don't confuse the too- they are separate- but I was discussing a 'possibility'- if you can't think of 'evolution' differently then that is not my problem....

Again, science cannot answer, "How many fairies can dance on the head of a pin."
The absurdity remains in the nonexistence of fairies.
This is not a fault of science. It is not a limit of science. It is a fault of whoever dreams up crap that doesn't exist.

Huh? I wasn't talking about fairies- I was making a general point that science can't know everything- that is what the Uncertainty Principle highlights- Dywydyyr was making the claim that the 'ultimate answer' would be unknown to science if God existed- my assertion is that irrespective of the existence of God- there will be things unknown to science and so is the potential of the 'ultimate answer' to be unknown.

I wasn't using it as in defence for the existence of 'god'- maybe you misunderstood.

All models have not been worked out.
We are still trying to find out what makes gravity work, even if we understand its effect quite well. This is the unifiacation of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics you hear so much about.
That is one example.

I know- but we are talking hypothetically speaking- that is why I said when 'science GETS there'- I know science is still researching- but my comments were about 'future'- not now.

I find myself speaking for Dywyddyr, again...
Obviously he cares or he wouldn't post.
The problem it seems, is he is as frustrated by what you just said above and I agreed to, as you are.

One big misunderstanding- I guess.

You have for one. You have stated that Evolution is an intelligent design, a code that was divinely created and integrated.

It was a topic for discussion- I know what evolution is, but you're saying that I can not offer an idea for discussion? As if evolution has become too holy?

It does not NEED to be proven for a believer. They faithfully believe without evidence.

The two are one in the same.

That's what I've been saying. Then Dywydyyr says about 'existence' which is somehow a separate discussion.

let's see if you can continue to do so in regards to your misconceptions about evolution...

I don't have problems admitting mistakes because I'm not here discussing for the reason of 'winning' like some- but at the same time having an idea doesn't mean that I have 'misconceptions'- you were working under assumptions that I did NOT hold- using your understanding of evolution against mine doesn't show 'misconceptions'- I offered an idea for discussion.. That is all.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

You're inventing your own conversations.
One more time: it's the existence NOT the belief that affects science.

I don't see how you can differentiate the two discussions, even Neverfly thinks they're one in the same...

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

Ha... I wouldn't write that on an exam... But the point of the forum is to discuss ideas- or maybe I should just read books and forget about this forum?

WHAT?!


You admit you are taught better and pretend to understand it while denying it?!
WOW!

I know what Evolution is in the scientific world, I also know what I think- I don't confuse the too- they are separate- but I was discussing a 'possibility'- if you can't think of 'evolution' differently then that is not my problem....

I honestly fail to see how you could understand it and still totally miss the absolute lack of any intelligence in it.

Huh? I wasn't talking about fairies- I was making a general point that science can't know everything- that is what the Uncertainty Principle highlights- Dywydyyr was making the claim that the 'ultimate answer' would be unknown to science if God existed- my assertion is that irrespective of the existence of God- there will be things unknown to science and so is the potential of the 'ultimate answer' to be unknown.

I said fairies. It was an example, of course.
A clear one at that.

It was a topic for discussion- I know what evolution is, but you're saying that I can not offer an idea for discussion? As if evolution has become too holy?

Another tactic. Claiming evolution is faith or religion.

The problem is that you are presenting False information.

It's like you said 1+1=5.
Either support it or retract your claim but no one is OBLIGATED to tolerate your misrepresentations. They WILL correct you.

I don't have problems admitting mistakes because I'm not here discussing for the reason of 'winning' like some- but at the same time having an idea doesn't mean that I have 'misconceptions'-

YES it Can.

you were working under assumptions that I did NOT hold- using your understanding of evolution against mine doesn't show 'misconceptions'- I offered an idea for discussion.. That is all.

Peace be unto you

You offered an idea that is NOT rational nor is it accurate to observational evidence. Because of this, your idea gets refuted. You cannot cry foul when your arguments fail. You cannot claim others are meanie poopy heads for not letting you express yourself.
You Were allowed to express yourself just fine. The problem is in your failure to support your claims rationally.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't see how you can differentiate the two discussions, even Neverfly thinks they're one in the same...

Ah, that makes me feel slightly better. I realise now that it's not just MY posts you don't read...

Belief in the supernatural does not Halt scientific progress.
It does, however, burden it or hinder it.
"Belief puts limits on science."

Post #196.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Huh? I wasn't talking about fairies- I was making a general point that science can't know everything- that is what the Uncertainty Principle highlights- Dywydyyr was making the claim that the 'ultimate answer' would be unknown to science if God existed- my assertion is that irrespective of the existence of God- there will be things unknown to science and so is the potential of the 'ultimate answer' to be unknown.

Then you misunderstand Heisenberg: even with the UP we can define the limits of what we know and how well we know it. It doesn't affect the practice of science, because it is, in itself, a scientific principle.

That's what I've been saying. Then Dywydyyr says about 'existence' which is somehow a separate discussion.

You're STILL misunderstanding: if someone conducts science honestly it doesn't matter how much they believe because if god doesn't exist they will eventually run out of things for him "to do". I.e. he will increasingly become a god of the gaps and the choice then will be to give up the belief or ignore the science. If, however, god does exist then he will (possibly) show up when science reaches a limit.

I don't have problems admitting mistakes because I'm not here discussing for the reason of 'winning' like some

Er...

but at the same time having an idea doesn't mean that I have 'misconceptions'

Yes you do, and that's one of them: the misconception that some are here to win and not discuss.

 

[786]

Then you misunderstand Heisenberg: even with the UP we can define the limits of what we know and how well we know it. It doesn't affect the practice of science, because it is, in itself, a scientific principle.

Sure, but it allows us to know that we can't know everything.

Yes you do, and that's one of them: the misconception that some are here to win and not discuss.

I wasn't referring to you, but I have met a few-

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

WHAT?!


You admit you are taught better and pretend to understand it while denying it?!
WOW!

Lol... It doesn't require one to believe in something to understand it. Neither am I denying it...

I honestly fail to see how you could understand it and still totally miss the absolute lack of any intelligence in it.

'lack of intelligence' is an interpretation of the data- you are entitled to that interpretation.

I said fairies. It was an example, of course.
A clear one at that.

An irrelevant example? Okay.

Another tactic. Claiming evolution is faith or religion.

It was an expression-

Either support it or retract your claim but no one is OBLIGATED to tolerate your misrepresentations. They WILL correct you.

You didn't correct me. I wasn't saying Evolution is something- I was addressing how it could be understood differently- if you think you have the correct understanding then so what... Or does 'correcting' mean that if it doesn't match your understanding then it is wrong. You didn't refute anything quite frankly, you just showed your assumptions.

The problem is in your failure to support your claims rationally.

Rationale according to you? I don't find any rationale in your assumptions which is what you responded with.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Ah, that makes me feel slightly better. I realise now that it's not just MY posts you don't read...

And if you read the reply to that I 'agreed'...

He also said:

The two are one in the same.

You are the one differentiating the discussion.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

He also said:

The two are one in the same.

To the terms "goddidit" and "existence": god couldn't do it if he didn't exist.

You are the one differentiating the discussion.

Wrong: you're the one trying to make out that my argument has changed.

 

[786]

Okay, lets start over- instead of this back and forth which is getting tiring.

What is your argument?

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

if someone conducts science honestly it doesn't matter how much they believe because if god doesn't exist they will eventually run out of things for him "to do". I.e. he will increasingly become a god of the gaps and the choice then will be to give up the belief or ignore the science. If, however, god does exist then he will (possibly) show up when science reaches a limit.

BINGO
In fact, I would change the "Possibly" to a "Probably."

Sure, but it allows us to know that we can't know everything.

That things are or can be unknown does not validate fantastic imaginings.

Just because I cannot prove there is no invisible butterfly flying around my head controlling my thoughts doesn't validate the claim that there is one.

Unless evidence is produced to demonstrate the existence of said butterfly, it would be highly irrational to entertain the fantasy of its existence.

Lol... It doesn't require one to believe in something to understand it. Neither am I denying it...

Evolution is not something one "Believes in."
Rather, it is acceptance of the evidence that supports it.
To "Believe in it" suggests that one is putting faith in something unsupported by the evidence.
With Evolution, that is not the case. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it. I have yet to be shown any legitimate evidence that questions it.

To think evolution is not an accurate model at that point is to close ones mind. Perhaps if one is in favor of some other tightly held belief that would be demonstrated as much less accurate.

'lack of intelligence' is an interpretation of the data- you are entitled to that interpretation.

Hogwash.
I'm not entitled to my opinions any more than you are for one.
For two: That is ANOTHER tactic- Claiming that it's "Interpretation."
The fallacy in your wording here intends to "Cast Doubt" on the accuracy of the model without having to show ANY kind of evidence to actually Refute it.

If you have ANY EVIDENCE to demonstrate Intelligent Design- then Please Present it.
Do not hide behind logical fallacies and hope that I'm too dense to catch them.
I'm not that dense, sorry.

An irrelevant example? Okay.

It is relevant because the example demonstrates the absurdity in one rationalizing fantasy, myths, nonexistent creatures.

It was an expression-

It was a common tactic.
One can become so conditioned to using logical fallacies that they are often unaware when they use them.

You didn't correct me. I wasn't saying Evolution is something- I was addressing how it could be understood differently- if you think you have the correct understanding then so what... Or does 'correcting' mean that if it doesn't match your understanding then it is wrong. You didn't refute anything quite frankly, you just showed your assumptions.

Look- If I correct your misbegotten Math- Does that mean I'm just giving my little opinion and you are not necessarily wrong?
Nonsense.
You WOULD be wrong.
And you ARE wrong, now. I have been correcting you and all you do is turn a blind eye to it, deny it and offer ZERO evidence for Intelligent Design.
It is time to PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Provide Evidence to Support your claims or your claims have NO validity.

The Theory Of Evolution is well observed and well documented. It is very well supported with fossil and geological, biological, observational and genetic evidence. You Are Not Entitled to your Own Private Opinion about it.
It is Independent of YOU.It is Independent of ME.

I have shown No Assumptions. You labeling it as such just to make your argument bear the illusion of being more favorable to your claims does not detract one bit from a theory that is Independent of Us Both. Nor does it make you do any actual Work and Support your claims. You ARE claiming Intelligent Design and you must support that claim with evidence, not obfuscation.


If you are not saying evolution is something- It's High Time You Did come out and say it clearly.

Get your balls to drop and start making a stand instead of consistently Shifting the Goalposts and tilting at windmills.

Present Evidence to Support your claims that Intelligent Design is at Work or Retract your claims as Unsupportable.

 

[Neverfly]

What is your argument?

Dude! What is YOUR argument? Just say it, already!