Why can't religon and science be friends?

[scifes]

These assume there IS a 'who' or a 'why.'
There is no evidence there are either.

alright buddy, you seem to be a bit cuckoo in the head:crazy:
THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD IS ALL ABOUT.. we ARE assuming that god exists and then simulate science and compare it with when god doesn't exist.

when god exists, we're answering who and why if anything, not how..i.e we don't affect our scince facts, first case, god doesn't exist, let's try to discover the world then! second case; god exists, so how did he create this world?

grrrr...

This statement assumes that a Deitys actions are involved in the first place.
There is no evidence whatsoever of divine intervention.

:yawn:

Actually, if flying goats developed, it would be through the evolution that is observed to have been the ONLY factor in the development of life since the earliest fossils.
That one can claim a deity is responsible for something that is observationally ruled by trial and error is irrational.

thank you for proving my point for me, even IF god existed and sent off flying goats, good ol'science will have something tasty to munch on like our dear friend here suggested.

The BELIEF that a deity did it allows one to NOT speculate scientifically.

that's your brain missing a couple screws and spouting nonesense, forget providing evidence or showing statistics, just tell me how that sentence makes sense.

Understand this: Even if there are scientists, there will also be those people that try to claim scientists are;
1.) Liars spreading false claims just to "prove there is no God." - Hyper defensive much?
2.) Evil Atheists
3.) Deceived by Satan to spread his lies
4.) Undermining Gods will and must be stopped.
5.) Incorrect about the nature of the world and that Education in our schools should teach holy writings and not science.

understand this: even if there is a god there will always be those who;
1- want to know how god's stuff works.
2- want to make a living by learning and teaching and creating new stuff.
3- want to listen to their prophets and books which tell them to do good and learn stuff and make this world a better place.
4- worship their god by wondering at his vast abilities portrayed in his creations and the complex rules he put in this universe.
5- want to give their religion the strongest position as a system governing people, which can't be done without knowledge and science.
last but not least;
6- don't believe in him, and will go about their science as if he doesn't exist.
if a belief in god truly hinders science, then i can see why god put atheists on earth...

however, in a world with no god, each and every scientist on the whole damn world is the most irrational illogical deluded misguided poor person wasting his time and effort on absolutely nothing, as that scientist will die, and all his science and conscience and hard work will go unaccounted for, true the world may still benifit from his work, and he may tickle himself with that notion while he's alive, but once he's dead, it's all gone baby gone.
once every scientist realizes that, what would happen to science, HUH?

This hinders progress, understanding and beneficial discovery. It inhibits social growth.

reality is the total opposite of that, as i demonstrated, without god, this world is truly meaningless, yes yes yes yes i know, love and prosperity, have the other generations live in peace and happiness, to run along meadows holding hands and sniffing flowers...WHAT GOOD IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE DEAD, HUH?... it's amazing to what extent people will kid themselves to live a happy lie, then claim to be following logic and rationale, and even preach people against lying to themselves.... the HIPPOCRACY.

Look at all the damage done through history because of ignorance.

no damage in history has been worse than that done with ignorance of god, period.

Something that promotes that we SHOULD be ignorant cannot, by logic, be beneficial.

who the heck promotes being ignorant?!

 

[Neverfly]

alright buddy, you seem to be a bit cuckoo in the head:crazy:

An ad hom attack does not effectively refute my statement.

THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD IS ALL ABOUT.. we ARE assuming that god exists and then simulate science and compare it with when god doesn't exist.

When did it become that? It's 12 pages long and the OP states No Such Assumption.
That I gave a logical and rational rebuttal to you is a poor demonstration of my craziness.

when god exists, we're answering who and why if anything, not how..i.e we don't affect our scince facts, first case, god doesn't exist, let's try to discover the world then! second case; god exists, so how did he create this world?

grrrr...


:yawn:

Man, whatever.

thank you for proving my point for me, even IF god existed and sent off flying goats, good ol'science will have something tasty to munch on like our dear friend here suggested.

No, scientists will try to find the cause. It doesn't mean "Good and tasty." It simply means that if the cause is observational, it will be found.
Is that WRONG? Is it SINFUL or something?

It sounds clearly as though you have a strong bias against something that is different from a BELIEF you hold.
Is it everyone elses job to pander to your belief? Or is it your responsibility to deal with it?

that's your brain missing a couple screws and spouting nonesense, forget providing evidence or showing statistics, just tell me how that sentence makes sense.

In no way does a rational argument demonstrate insanity on my part.
I will not forget to provide evidence or statistics. If they are required, I had best provide them.

The sentence makes sense because a faith in an accepted divine act does not REQUIRE further investigation.

understand this: even if there is a god there will always be those who;
1- want to know how god's stuff works.
2- want to make a living by learning and teaching and creating new stuff.
3- want to listen to their prophets and books which tell them to do good and learn stuff and make this world a better place.
4- worship their god by wondering at his vast abilities portrayed in his creations and the complex rules he put in this universe.
5- want to give their religion the strongest position as a system governing people, which can't be done without knowledge and science.
last but not least;
6- don't believe in him, and will go about their science as if he doesn't exist.
if a belief in god truly hinders science, then i can see why god put atheists on earth...

None of this refutes what I had listed out as excellent examples of my claim.

however, in a world with no god, each and every scientist on the whole damn world is the most irrational illogical deluded misguided poor person wasting his time and effort on absolutely nothing,

More angry ad homs...

as that scientist will die, and all his science and conscience and hard work will go unaccounted for, true the world may still benefit from his work, and he may tickle himself with that notion while he's alive, but once he's dead, it's all gone baby gone.
once every scientist realizes that, what would happen to science,

Clearly, the works of a dead Einstein are nowhere near gone.
What you just claimed makes no sense at all.

All that is missing upon the death of a scientist is FURTHER Contribution from him.

reality is the total opposite of that, as i demonstrated, without god, this world is truly meaningless, yes yes yes yes i know, love and prosperity, have the other generations live in peace and happiness, to run along meadows holding hands and sniffing flowers...WHAT GOOD IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE DEAD, HUH?... it's amazing to what extent people will kid themselves to live a happy lie, then claim to be following logic and rationale, and even preach people against lying to themselves.... the HIPPOCRACY.

So your personal desperate clinging to a childish and wildly irrationaly myth is based upon the fact that you FEAR death?

Interesting.

It's amazing how a person will kid themselves that a God will provide them eternity in heaven as a happy lie, just to feel better about the fact they must die.

I stopped being a Christian when I could no longer lie to myself, you know that?

no damage in history has been worse than that done with ignorance of god, period.
who the heck promotes being ignorant?!

Those who claim that Science will provide good and tasty explanations to munch on with a bitter attitude do.

History is chock full of damages done in the name of your God.

Now, name what damages have been done by the IGNORANCE of God- spell it out.

 

[Dywyddyr]

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

The argument is two-fold.

1) That the existence of god will, eventually, invalidate science as a discipline. Because it will come down to god's motives and intentions which are, by definition, unamenable to scientific investigation.
2) (and this replies to Scife's comments below) that a (firm and fixed) belief in god is detrimental to science. Someone who claims to be doing science while insisting that god exists (if he doesn't, or even if he does but there's no evidence) will be deluding themselves as to the roots of the phenomena, and making claims (godddidit) that have no supporting data.

alright buddy, you seem to be a bit cuckoo in the head:crazy:
THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD IS ALL ABOUT.. we ARE assuming that god exists and then simulate science and compare it with when god doesn't exist.

No we aren't, we're talking about whether or not religion and science are compatible.

when god exists, we're answering who and why if anything, not how..i.e we don't affect our scince facts, first case, god doesn't exist, let's try to discover the world then! second case; god exists, so how did he create this world?

And if it WAS god then then we can never find out since god is susceptible to science.

if a belief in god truly hinders science, then i can see why god put atheists on earth...

There's no "if" about it.

however, in a world with no god, each and every scientist on the whole damn world is the most irrational illogical deluded misguided poor person wasting his time and effort on absolutely nothing

Wrong: it would make them more rational.

as that scientist will die, and all his science and conscience and hard work will go unaccounted for, true the world may still benifit from his work, and he may tickle himself with that notion while he's alive, but once he's dead, it's all gone baby gone.

And your point would be...?
If it truly was the case then that would be an argument for no one to do anything, not just scientists, surely?
In fact it would strengthen science's case since it is an on-going multi-generational endeavour, as opposed to, say, working the stock market.

reality is the total opposite of that, as i demonstrated, without god, this world is truly meaningless

Where, and how, did you "demonstrate" that? You may have claimed it but you haven't demonstrated it.

no damage in history has been worse than that done with ignorance of god, period.

Really? Where? How?

who the heck promotes being ignorant?!

The majority of religions for one.

 

[786]

The argument is two-fold.

1) That the existence of god will, eventually, invalidate science as a discipline. Because it will come down to god's motives and intentions which are, by definition, unamenable to scientific investigation.

No, at least thats not what I think.... It would show that things didn't happen randomly, and that these laws were created for some directed outcome... And that God's creation itself follows patterns (laws working together) to generate things..... thus 'science' is the study of those patterns. It doesn't invalidate science.

2) (and this replies to Scife's comments below) that a (firm and fixed) belief in god is detrimental to science. Someone who claims to be doing science while insisting that god exists (if he doesn't, or even if he does but there's no evidence) will be deluding themselves as to the roots of the phenomena, and making claims (godddidit) that have no supporting data.

Well the 'root' which they claim as 'goddidit' is simply that it was 'allowed' to happen... and since everything is created by Him, then one can give credit to Him... but that does not mean that it is not following some natural process, which is ALSO created by God- science is a study of that natural process established by God- which can be how it is understood and then science is not harmed by the existence of God or the peoples beliefs that 'goddidit'- I certainly don't think like 'goddidit' is used as an actual answer to 'how it happened' but that 'it happened'-

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, at least thats not what I think.... It would show that things didn't happen randomly, and that these laws were created for some directed outcome... And that God's creation itself follows patterns (laws working together) to generate things..... thus 'science' is the study of those patterns. It doesn't invalidate science.

But those patterns would only exist because god had "decided" that he wanted them and they would only work because god made them to do so: in other words the answer (ultimately) would be "the universe is the way it is because that's how god wanted it to be".

Well the 'root' which they claim as 'goddidit' is simply that it was 'allowed' to happen...

Allowed? So god didn't do it.

but that does not mean that it is not following some natural process, which is ALSO created by God-

Correction: if god decided to make things that way then it is NOT, by definition, a natural process.

science is a study of that natural process established by God- which can be how it is understood and then science is not harmed by the existence of God or the peoples beliefs that 'goddidit'- I certainly don't think like 'goddidit' is used as an actual answer to 'how it happened' but that 'it happened'-

If goddidit is the answer then it's not, as stated above, a natural process and we run out of investigable, natural, properties.

 

[786]

But those patterns would only exist because god had "decided" that he wanted them and they would only work because god made them to do so: in other words the answer (ultimately) would be "the universe is the way it is because that's how god wanted it to be".

And how does that conflict science? Science just says this is 'how the universe is working and came to being' but it doesn't conflict with the idea that those 'interactions' through which it came were because 'god willed it'.

Allowed? So god didn't do it.

Depends on the person you ask- religious folk are not 'united' in this regards- some say god 'allows' something to happen- but since he created the whole process the result is also attributed to God in that sense...

Correction: if god decided to make things that way then it is NOT, by definition, a natural process.

'natural process' is the laws that are used to create something- God can utilize the 'nature' he created to create something- and that would mean that the 'resultant' was a result of natural interactions- which science can study and attribute to 'nature' and thus the 'natural process'.

If goddidit is the answer then it's not, as stated above, a natural process and we run out of investigable, natural, properties.

But if god created it and that creation is working through a natural process, then it IS a natural process through which something is created- yes the initiation would be something 'supernatural'- but science is concerned only with the natural part so it still can continue.

Peace be unto you

 

[baptizo1403]

I believe that science and religion go hand in hand. If God is the creator of all things (which I believe he is) then science is simply the pursuit of understanding how God made things and how they interact with one another. So I believe that to separate science from religion would be like separating an artist from his painting.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And how does that conflict science? Science just says this is 'how the universe is working and came to being' but it doesn't conflict with the idea that those 'interactions' through which it came were because 'god willed it'.

How many more times must I say this: if godddit then that answer means science comes to a full stop at that juncture.

Depends on the person you ask- religious folk are not 'united' in this regards- some say god 'allows' something to happen- but since he created the whole process the result is also attributed to God in that sense...

Stop evading: I asked YOU because it was YOUR post I replied to.

'natural process' is the laws that are used to create something- God can utilize the 'nature' he created to create something- and that would mean that the 'resultant' was a result of natural interactions- which science can study and attribute to 'nature' and thus the 'natural process'.

Again you're either wiggling or setting up a false argument: if the entire process was natural then there is no requirement for god - at all. If, however, god caused it then we're back to there being a non-scientific start.

But if god created it and that creation is working through a natural process, then it IS a natural process through which something is created

See above.

yes the initiation would be something 'supernatural'- but science is concerned only with the natural part so it still can continue.

Until science comes to the supernatural bit and has to halt. Again.

 

[786]

Until science comes to the supernatural bit and has to halt. Again.

This is the summation basically.. Yes science would come to an 'early halt' if God existed- BUT the fact God exists has no bearing on the rest of science being conducted.... it would only matter when science gets to the point of 'supernatural'- which would only be when we're talking about the absolute beginning of everything- the rest could be a result of a natural process (which God created as well)

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is the summation basically.. Yes science would come to an 'early halt' if God existed

Finally.

BUT the fact God exists has no bearing on the rest of science being conducted....

Apart from the hypocrisy of whoever is conducting the science while believing in god.
Science requires certain levels of evidence while god does not. It also introduces the question of "at what point does one decide 'Here Science stops and god takes over'?"
Witness the arguments in favour of ID - the so-called "irreducible complexity". In their zeal to "prove" the existence of a creator the people involved stopped looking for scientific explanations and declared "This is as far as science CAN go, so god MUST exist and has done this".

it would only matter when science gets to the point of 'supernatural'- which would only be when we're talking about the absolute beginning of everything- the rest could be a result of a natural process (which God created as well)

Nope, see above.

 

[786]

Apart from the hypocrisy of whoever is conducting the science while believing in god.

Are you saying that everyone should believe only if proven by science? I don't find this hypocritical as you are suggesting.

It also introduces the question of "at what point does one decide 'Here Science stops and god takes over'?"

Good question... at no point should 'god take over'- Because 'goddidit' applies to everything- so there is no way of knowing when science would stop.

"This is as far as science CAN go, so god MUST exist and has done this".

Yes this is a stupid argument.. I agree.

Nope, see above.

I think you're confusing me with ID folk-

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

I think you're confusing me with ID folk-

Peace be unto you

It's very hard not to.

Especially when you say that you feel there's a design in evolution. Repeatedly. One of the statements openly and clearly.

 

[786]

It's very hard not to.

Especially when you say that you feel there's a design in evolution. Repeatedly. One of the statements openly and clearly.

But Intelligent design is something well-defined... Just like you guys keep talking about 'Creationism' as only people believing 10000 year old Earth and you can't seem to think Creationism is anything other than that- I couldn't be an ID in similarly. Or are you the only people who have the right to differentiate?

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

But Intelligent design is something well-defined... Just like you guys keep talking about 'Creationism' as only people believing 10000 year old Earth and you can't seem to think Creationism is anything other than that- I couldn't be an ID in similarly. Or are you the only people who have the right to differentiate?

Because the term "Creationism" (as stated above) and especially when it's used with with a capital "C" has a specific meaning.
And it isn't "us guys" that defined it.
The problem is that the term has already been co-opted by a particular group to define the beliefs and assumption that [i[]they hold.
Complaining about this is as useful as complaining that the word Catholic can't be used (unless you define the usage at the time) for anything other than the beliefs, practices and tenets of those in that faith.

 

[786]

Because the term "Creationism" (as stated above) and especially when it's used with with a capital "C" has a specific meaning.
And it isn't "us guys" that defined it.
The problem is that the term has already been co-opted by a particular group to define the beliefs and assumption that [i[]they hold.
Complaining about this is as useful as complaining that the word Catholic can't be used (unless you define the usage at the time) for anything other than the beliefs, practices and tenets of those in that faith.

I agree...

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Are you saying that everyone should believe only if proven by science? I don't find this hypocritical as you are suggesting.

Science doesn't require belief. What I am saying is that someone who purports to conduct science (and requires the proofs/ evidentiary levels that science will accept in his work) but doesn't apply them to his claims of a deity - especially when those claims/ beliefs colour the rest of his life and behaviour - is displaying more than a little hypocrisy.

Good question... at no point should 'god take over'- Because 'goddidit' applies to everything- so there is no way of knowing when science would stop.

Wrong again - as illustrated by my point on ID.

I think you're confusing me with ID folk

Then you are, once more, failing to actually read what I wrote and responding to something I didn't say while ignoring what I did.

 

[786]

Science doesn't require belief. What I am saying is that someone who purports to conduct science (and requires the proofs/ evidentiary levels that science will accept in his work) but doesn't apply them to his claims of a deity - especially when those claims/ beliefs colour the rest of his life and behaviour - is displaying more than a little hypocrisy.

Science can't be applied to something supernatural- if they believe what they believe in is supernatural- science by definition can not be applied.

Wrong again - as illustrated by my point on ID.

I was sharing my opinion.

Then you are, once more, failing to actually read what I wrote and responding to something I didn't say while ignoring what I did.

I think you're discussing opinions of people like the ID argument of Irreducible Complexity- I was sharing my opinion. There are other ways to think too.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Science can't be applied to something supernatural- if they believe what they believe in is supernatural- science by definition can not be applied.

Which is my point exactly: in their job they apply science and require evidence but then decide "Oh, god is supernatural so the rules don't apply to the rest of my life".

I think you're discussing opinions of people like the ID argument of Irreducible Complexity- I was sharing my opinion. There are other ways to think too.

No, I was illustrating that a predilection to believe in god gives an excuse to not pursue science because at any point you can decide "this is the point where science fails and godddidit takes over".
Note: especially if one is utterly convinced that god exists.

 

[786]

Which is my point exactly: in their job they apply science and require evidence but then decide "Oh, god is supernatural so the rules don't apply to the rest of my life".

Well if the rules don't apply then why should they be applied?

No, I was illustrating that a predilection to believe in god gives an excuse to not pursue science because at any point you can decide "this is the point where science fails and godddidit takes over".
Note: especially if one is utterly convinced that god exists.

It may give excuse but the point is that people still continue- that is why I was giving Iran's theocracy as an example.

Sure some people will stop- but I think it depends on the person really.

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

Well if the rules don't apply then why should they be applied?

Because, logically, the rules should apply to anything that exists.

Those that claim supernatural presence are the ones who place that presence outside the rules in order to keep it from being tested.

It may give excuse but the point is that people still continue- that is why I was giving Iran's theocracy as an example.

Sure some people will stop- but I think it depends on the person really.

Yes, there are those that will.
There will always be people that do irrational things. Racist people or genocidal people or power hungry and greedy people.
Strong education is an effective combat for these things. The better educated people are, the less power the greedy can mass, the less control dangerous people can attain, the less ignorance of science can be tolerated.