Author Topic: Some thoughts on Science and God [#1738]  (Read 347 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DL

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2738
  • Darwins +0/-0
Some thoughts on Science and God [#1738]
« on: August 22, 2009, 09:58:57 AM »
Interesting videos. I completely disagree with your view point but I respect your right to express it. Now, what troubles me is that you talk about the delusional bubble which religious people supposedly live within yet you dont realize that youre doing the exact same thing with your faith in science. Science is not the end all and be all of knowledge just because someone can offer up their version of proof and their understanding of it doesnt always mean that they are 100% correct.

People used to believe that you could determine a persons predisposition by the size of their skull or the bumps on it There is also the glaring arrogance that human beings are capable of full understanding of the universe if they simply apply scientific thought to any of their situations. We know that there are many other species with superior sense ability to humans so we know that what we can sense is limited. So would it not be logical to conclude that there may exist things that are beyond our understanding due to our limited scope of senses? I have never touched, smelled, or tasted an atom, yet science has given sufficient evidence that they do exist. So simply to dismiss the existence of something simply because I can not sense within my limited scope seems irresponsible.

Im not saying that everything that we can not explain should be attributed to an act of a higher power but I do believe that there is room for the possibility, What I find amusing is that most people who believe that science is the end all and be all of what exists also believe in Aliens. When by their own admission there is no scientific evidence ever given to support such a belief. They simply look up at the infinite possibility of the Universe and say Why not?.

Thus, the same logic should be applied to people who chose and it is a choice, to believe in a higher power. Why not? I dont think people have to choose either science or religion. Science gives us a basic understanding yet fails to answer the question of origin in any convincing manor, (Ex: Big bang, big crunch, etcOk but what started that?) In closing not arguing that a person should believe 100% of the religious texts, believing 100% of anything you read without questioning is not a good practice, what I am arguing though is that even if a persons rejects all of stories and only accepts the basic 10 commandments from the bible they will be able to function as a relatively decent member of society.

It's just something to think about and if you don't believe in God then that is your choice I won't attack you for it, I'll just disagree and continue wish you well.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 10:00:38 AM by DL »

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5380
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Some thoughts on Science and God [#1738]
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2009, 10:25:35 AM »
Quote
what I am arguing though is that even if a persons rejects all of stories and only accepts the basic 10 commandments from the bible they will be able to function as a relatively decent member of society.



I killed my mom to celebrate me turning atheist.
I ate my brothers head, .........it was tough, but I could do it because I is atheist.

I has never been freer than exhibiting inability to regulate behaviour as I is atheist and by definition have no comprehension of moral compass.

..............  your 10 commandment presumption is typical arrogance.

Your demented god-invention never was, never is, and never will be.

                                   ..................................................................where is that little puppy?              ............................. I is hungry atheist.






"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Online Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5679
  • Darwins +51/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Some thoughts on Science and God [#1738]
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2009, 10:35:00 AM »
Quote
Science is not the end all and be all of knowledge just because someone can offer up their version of proof and their understanding of it doesnt always mean that they are 100% correct.

But when that person has an idea and he tests his idea he publishes his results. Then his results go through a rigorous test by the scientific community. If his tests and results can stand up to the scrutiny that they face from the scientific community it usually gets accepted.



Quote
Why not? I dont think people have to choose either science or religion. Science gives us a basic understanding yet fails to answer the question of origin in any convincing manor, (Ex: Big bang, big crunch, etcOk but what started that?)

Science is always in a state of continual learning. It may not have the answers YET but that doesn't mean it will never get the answers. All throughout history scientists have been trying to determine the speed of light, and earlier scientists didn't know that light was a constant. Up until the last 70 years or so no one knew anything about DNA and our bodies chemical make-up. But that all changed. What was before the big bang? Science has an idea but still answers aren't definite because it's still being studied. Even the very earliest seconds after the big bang when the universe was only 10-43 seconds old is still not fully understood.

Quote
what I am arguing though is that even if a persons rejects all of stories and only accepts the basic 10 commandments from the bible they will be able to function as a relatively decent member of society.

Well, I openly reject the first four commandments because they deal with god. The last 6 are the ones that are of more concern to humanity because they deal more with society as a whole. (thou shall not murder, steal, etc) But what we know what not to do (our morals) evolved as civilization evolved and there is no reason to add god to the mix.

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Ashe

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1639
  • Darwins +10/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Some thoughts on Science and God [#1738]
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2009, 12:20:25 PM »
Interesting videos. I completely disagree with your view point but I respect your right to express it. Now, what troubles me is that you talk about the delusional bubble which religious people supposedly live within yet you dont realize that youre doing the exact same thing with your faith in science. Science is not the end all and be all of knowledge just because someone can offer up their version of proof and their understanding of it doesnt always mean that they are 100% correct.

I don't think anyone here would ever tell you that science is always 100% correct. The point is that science is the most reliable method we have for determining truth, and it updates itself as more things are discovered.

Quote
Thus, the same logic should be applied to people who chose and it is a choice, to believe in a higher power. Why not? I dont think people have to choose either science or religion. Science gives us a basic understanding yet fails to answer the question of origin in any convincing manor, (Ex: Big bang, big crunch, etcOk but what started that?)

As already stated by Emily, science doesn't have the answer yet. It's a big leap to say, "We don't know, therefore, God."
Furthermore, what started God (presuming one exists)? People ask for the origin of the universe (because it must have one, they say), and then claim that origin is God. Then what started God? Oh, they say, God is the special case. Nothing needed to start God. What a presumption! They only push the question back one, and use special pleading in the process. If God can be eternal, why can't some aspect of our universe be eternal? There are too many questions that must be answered before we can say, "Ah, must be God."

Quote
In closing not arguing that a person should believe 100% of the religious texts, believing 100% of anything you read without questioning is not a good practice, what I am arguing though is that even if a persons rejects all of stories and only accepts the basic 10 commandments from the bible they will be able to function as a relatively decent member of society.

...Why the Bible?
You do understand that, in terms of morality, the Bible has nothing new to offer humanity? The basic moral principles that you cite from the Bible predate Christianity, and probably even religion.
2 miles!
"All men(humans )were demon possed and were planning to attack God. Just like if you talk back to your parents." - Failbag quote

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3625
  • Darwins +124/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Some thoughts on Science and God [#1738]
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2009, 01:13:32 PM »
Interesting videos. I completely disagree with your view point but I respect your right to express it. Now, what troubles me is that you talk about the delusional bubble which religious people supposedly live within yet you dont realize that youre doing the exact same thing with your faith in science. Science is not the end all and be all of knowledge just because someone can offer up their version of proof and their understanding of it doesnt always mean that they are 100% correct.
This is true.  This is also why the scientific method is self correcting.  Peer review, repeatability and evidence that can be indepentently verified go a long way.  leading to..


Quote
People used to believe that you could determine a persons predisposition by the size of their skull or the bumps on it There is also the glaring arrogance that human beings are capable of full understanding of the universe if they simply apply scientific thought to any of their situations. We know that there are many other species with superior sense ability to humans so we know that what we can sense is limited. So would it not be logical to conclude that there may exist things that are beyond our understanding due to our limited scope of senses? I have never touched, smelled, or tasted an atom, yet science has given sufficient evidence that they do exist. So simply to dismiss the existence of something simply because I can not sense within my limited scope seems irresponsible.
People used to believe in 'ether' too.  We learned otherwise.

Ether, in fact is a pretty good analogy here for what you're talking about.  We needed an explanation for an invisible force that made things happen, things that were repeatable and testable.  Clearly something was there.  Ether was coined as a solution.  Later as our ability to detect grew we learned that there were definable forces, and the gap of an invisible magical force was closed.  Right now, you are trying to fill "what we don't know" with your god.  Every time we make a new discovery that gap grows slightly smaller. 

To try to fill in the blanks of our knowlege with a god of gaps and stop looking for the real answers, is irresposible.
and futile


Quote
Im not saying that everything that we can not explain should be attributed to an act of a higher power but I do believe that there is room for the possibility, What I find amusing is that most people who believe that science is the end all and be all of what exists also believe in Aliens. When by their own admission there is no scientific evidence ever given to support such a belief. They simply look up at the infinite possibility of the Universe and say Why not?.
Welcome to 'agnostic'.  They look up at the universe and say 'why not'.  It applies to your god too.
No evidence for that either.


Quote
Thus, the same logic should be applied to people who chose and it is a choice, to believe in a higher power. Why not? I dont think people have to choose either science or religion. Science gives us a basic understanding yet fails to answer the question of origin in any convincing manor, (Ex: Big bang, big crunch, etcOk but what started that?) In closing not arguing that a person should believe 100% of the religious texts, believing 100% of anything you read without questioning is not a good practice, what I am arguing though is that even if a persons rejects all of stories and only accepts the basic 10 commandments from the bible they will be able to function as a relatively decent member of society.

It's just something to think about and if you don't believe in God then that is your choice I won't attack you for it, I'll just disagree and continue wish you well.

fair enough.
If you encourage equal open mindedness among your peers then I'd say that's a good thing.

Personally I wish there were more well thought out letters to the site, and I would encourage you to join up and continue the discussion.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Pastafarian

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 668
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some thoughts on Science and God [#1738]
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2009, 02:14:06 PM »
to add to what's already been said, we do NOT know that there is no god, BUT, we can know that the god of the bible, YHWH, is an impossibility. Because all we know about that particular god is found in the bible, well, also in people's heads but I assume you would agree that that source is unreliable and just like the bible, presents a contradictory, self denying view of ze god. No?
Don't pin that on jesus! He has enough nail holes as it is - House

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Some thoughts on Science and God [#1738]
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2009, 09:18:55 PM »


It's just something to think about and if you don't believe in God then that is your choice I won't attack you for it, I'll just disagree and continue wish you well.

I like the swearers more than these people. At least they're not so cloyingly unctuous and creepy.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: Some thoughts on Science and God [#1738]
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2009, 10:27:01 PM »
Interesting videos. I completely disagree with your view point but I respect your right to express it. Now, what troubles me is that you talk about the delusional bubble which religious people supposedly live within yet you dont realize that youre doing the exact same thing with your faith in science.

Two comments;

1. The videos don't require any 'faith in science'.  Science is barely mentioned and is not the focus.

2. If you want to discuss what the videos actually emphasize, I'd be glad to talk with you.  As you may agree, there's no reason why I should address a strawman argument that is really not necessary.

Personally, I am for a better understanding of reality, no matter what the source of that understanding is.  I can't get more open than that without being credulous.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer