I trust those with whom and that with which I've had experience. Real people and real phenomena.... this "revelation" simply hasn't demonstrated itself to be worthy of trust.
will science & religon ever be able to co-exist?
- Thread starter spiritual_spy
- Start date
Read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene to find the answer to that question. It certainly isn't blind trust.
This book has withstood peer review.
Just because you think it fits doesn't mean it's correct. I commend you for accepting the possibility that the Big Bang happened, and for accepting that the process of evolution is fact. However, I do hope you realize that, scientifically speaking, claiming that a supernatural being exists and is responsible is merely a conjecture.Little_Birdie said:
I don't see how this has any bearing on what I said. I was not talking about the scientific method (which itself requires proofless assumptions about the invariance of physical laws) but trust. A person could easily choose to betray you or lie to you. A god could turn out to be a fabrication, as well, but one assumes confidence both in that god and in those who taught you about him.(Q) said:
baumgarten said:
I wasn't talking about the scientific method either, and we're not talking about trust, we're talking about faith. Trust can only be used in the context of faith in a person or plan, since by definition, trust is based on past experiences. Trust has no bearing on faith in the supernatural, especially the concept of faith in the afterlife.
If a person never betrayed you before, and did not have the reputation of betraying people from anyone that has known them, we can have faith based on that hard evidence that person won't betray us.
Little_Birdie
Registered Senior Member
Athelwulf said:
all i was trying to say was that truth can't canradict truth sometimes it doesn't seem like it because they are from different feilds of knowledge i'm not saying the big bang is true it just fits within the context of christain theology
to a christain theology is truth
Lack of evidence for action is not hard evidence that such action will not take place in the future. You are still taking a leap of faith by assuming that a person's past actions are precedents for future actions.
leopold99 said:
You missunderstand my point. I gave the example of a single book, but the reality is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of books, papers and articles that have withstood peer-review in which there is a common conclusion: evolution happened. Moroever, many of these provide plausible mechanisms and show evidence of how life may have resulted from basic chemicals. Many such laboratory experiments have demonstrated time and again that there are many basic chemically reactive paths that could have occurred which result in "life" as most define it. This wouldn't seem to be the thread to discuss such literature (it has been discussed and cited elswhere in this forum), so I'll leave you with the point I began:
There is no blind trust with regard to science and what science has to say about the emergence of life. There is evidence. The evidence exists in literature that is available. Refusal to educate yourself (not "you" specifically but, rather, generally) does not equate to saying it's "blind trust."
Can it be demonstrated without question which chemical processes took place that allowed life to emerge? No. Obviously not -at least not at this time. But the very fact that it has been demonstrated that several chemically reactive paths exist that allow life to emerge eliminates the necessity for the blind trust of faith in some un-seen and unknown god. Moreover, the evidence that exists that is highly suggestive of one or more of these paths is enough to say that trust in the scientific hypotheses is warranted and far from "blind."
The blindness that exists with regard to what we know about the emergence of life on the planet is among the undereducated who pretend to be skeptical of concepts they haven't bothered to learn.
Little_Birdie
Registered Senior Member
SkinWalker said:
how far a leap is it to say that someone ordered the chemical process so as to create life, is it hard to say that out of the trillions of possibilities that could have accored one did that not only lead to life but inellegent human life, and exact process happened, whatever it was, with very sensitive steps. perhaps something was responsible something beyond the universe so it could keep an eye on it to make sure all the peices fit just right
I have no idea what you're asking. These chemical processes occurred on the order of billions of years ago... there was no "someone" available to start them, and, if there was, obviously they'd be un-needed as the process must have already occurred since this "someone" was present.
If you are referring to a god, then it is possible. There just isn't any evidence to suggest it nor has any need for a god been demonstrated. If you are referring to space aliens, then -again- it's possible. But -again- no evidence has been demonstrated nor are space aliens necessary.
So it brings us back to the most viable and likely mechanisms which nearly every single scientist who is involved in natural sciences concur with.
And this brings us to one of the reasons why science and religion are incompatible. Recent surveys in the U.S. reveal that only about 25% of the population understands that evolution is about as well-established as the fact that water is comprised of 2 atoms of hyrdogen and 1 of oxygen. The question arises: can so many people be wrong? The answer is, undeniably, yes. Mass misconceptions of the shape of the planet, its orbit about the sun, and the appropriate nature of medical treatments like bloodletting afflicted entire populations in humanity's past. Even devout christians would have to acknowledge that the Maya practice and mass acceptance of human sacrifice was a belief that was wrong -lest they acknowledge that there were Maya gods that could be appeased.
The people that don't accept the fact of evolution are told by those they put their trust in -ministers, priests, and religious activists- that evolution is false (or at least unproven). These people accept the authority of those that are providing misinformation that they claim to have received from scientists. But there is not one reputable scientist that claims evolution is either false or unproven. Not a one.
Every single nonsense claim by "inteligent" design nutjobs has been debunked and rebutted in detail. So those that the 75% who doubt evolution get their information from are deliberately deceptive and misleading.
My questions, as an agnostic-atheist (I don't deny that a "god" is possible, but I specifically find the anthropomorphic description of God to be unbelievable), to the 75% who doubt the explanations science provides with regard to life is this: is your god so limited that it could not have set into motion a process some 13 billion years or more ago that does not include every single thing that human science has observed? Is this "god" so incompetent that the only way it could have "created" is to create life "as is?" Would your god find you blasphemous for limiting its abilities so?
If you are referring to a god, then it is possible. There just isn't any evidence to suggest it nor has any need for a god been demonstrated. If you are referring to space aliens, then -again- it's possible. But -again- no evidence has been demonstrated nor are space aliens necessary.
So it brings us back to the most viable and likely mechanisms which nearly every single scientist who is involved in natural sciences concur with.
And this brings us to one of the reasons why science and religion are incompatible. Recent surveys in the U.S. reveal that only about 25% of the population understands that evolution is about as well-established as the fact that water is comprised of 2 atoms of hyrdogen and 1 of oxygen. The question arises: can so many people be wrong? The answer is, undeniably, yes. Mass misconceptions of the shape of the planet, its orbit about the sun, and the appropriate nature of medical treatments like bloodletting afflicted entire populations in humanity's past. Even devout christians would have to acknowledge that the Maya practice and mass acceptance of human sacrifice was a belief that was wrong -lest they acknowledge that there were Maya gods that could be appeased.
The people that don't accept the fact of evolution are told by those they put their trust in -ministers, priests, and religious activists- that evolution is false (or at least unproven). These people accept the authority of those that are providing misinformation that they claim to have received from scientists. But there is not one reputable scientist that claims evolution is either false or unproven. Not a one.
Every single nonsense claim by "inteligent" design nutjobs has been debunked and rebutted in detail. So those that the 75% who doubt evolution get their information from are deliberately deceptive and misleading.
My questions, as an agnostic-atheist (I don't deny that a "god" is possible, but I specifically find the anthropomorphic description of God to be unbelievable), to the 75% who doubt the explanations science provides with regard to life is this: is your god so limited that it could not have set into motion a process some 13 billion years or more ago that does not include every single thing that human science has observed? Is this "god" so incompetent that the only way it could have "created" is to create life "as is?" Would your god find you blasphemous for limiting its abilities so?
Little_Birdie
Registered Senior Member
theologicly speaking as we are in the religion section, god chose the bast way, purchance were it to be otherwise worse atrosities could have been possible, but i wouldn't say life "as is" is that bad, why say that his abilities are limited? this is not his kingdom, this world is not suposed to be perfect, that awaits us in our immortal life after death
I reject the notion that because this is the religion section we must speak "theologically." Indeed, I say that religion needs to be exposed in scientific fashion -looked at with the same scrutiny that other human institutions and phenomena are examined.
Moreover, there is no evidence that we are part of any god's "kingdom" or, if there are gods, they have kingdoms. Nor is there any evidence that any immortality awaits us. Once the brain dies, the consciousness is gone unless revived. Life after death is an illogical presupposition.
Moreover, there is no evidence that we are part of any god's "kingdom" or, if there are gods, they have kingdoms. Nor is there any evidence that any immortality awaits us. Once the brain dies, the consciousness is gone unless revived. Life after death is an illogical presupposition.
i am not talking about evolution.SkinWalker said:
i am talking about abiogenesis, how life arose.
okay lets take your books and papers and manuals as an example.
lets say i am a scientist instead of a wannabe.
i have created life in the lab, it's available for all to see.
i have documented my process in a number of manuals and journals.
but no matter what other scientists do they cannot duplicate my work.
what does that scenario tell you skinwalker?