Science VS. Religion


Ad: Buy Girls Und Panzer Merch from Play Asia!

dchaosblade

- Lord of Chaos
Retired
Alright, the argument dealing with Science Vs. Religion has always irritated me ever since my dad sat down with me and gave me a talk about how he saw things. The way he explained it opened my eyes to something that was so blatantly obvious I could never understand why I hadn't seen it earlier; and even more befuddled that the rest of the world was so blind.

For years, decades, perhaps centuries, there has been a large debate between the religious community and the scientific community. The debate was largely filled with bickering between the two groups about how the other was wrong because of something they had discovered or read or believed in or what have you.

A lot of times it would go like this (I will be using the Christian religion and other applicable cases here):
Religious guy: God created the heavens and the earth, and everything you see around you.
Science guy: God couldn't have created everything; we know for a 'fact' that the universe was created because of the [insert preferred scientific theory such as the Big Bang here].
Religious guy: You don't have any absolute proof; you weren't there, you can't show me, so how can your argument stand any better than mine?
Science guy: Your argument is based on the ramblings of insane men dead thousands of years ago; and besides, according to your Bible, the universe and all of mankind was made in seven days!
blah blah blah, so on and so forth

Now, my question is, why does this argument even exist? I can understand why people have different religious views (and I respect this), and I can understand why some people choose not to believe any religion (I respect this as well); but why does the line get drawn at the border of science and religion so often? What is to say that the two do not support eachother?

For example, one of the arguments for science is that the earth and mankind was not created in 7 days; it had to take hundreds/thousands of years for man to evolve from primates. My question is: who's to say how long a day is in God's eyes? God, who is everlasting and all powerful, quite likely doesn't view time the same as we do, because it doesn't affect him. For all we know, the creation of all things did take 7 days in his eyes, but to us, it would be millennia.
That said, who is to say that God didn't use the Big Bang to carry out his will, or evolution the same? Why do religious believers have to say that humans just *were*? Nowhere have I seen where it said in any religious text that *poof* mankind appeared. It always said we were created - why does it have to be without any scientific proof? Even walking on water can be possible if you look at science - it just is not something that your 'average everyday man' can do =P


Now, I know I'm predominantly showing Christian beliefs and other similar religions; but I'm sure that all religions can use science to back up a good majority of what they have as their beliefs. So why do so many people claim that science and religion disprove eachother? What is so contrary between the two?


I hope I expressed myself clearly and concisely. I open the floor~
 
basicly, doctrines are thought to be completely true and infalable, so a day is a day. so when science comes along as says
"...the hell? that's not right!" the established religion throws a hissy fit and says "you were not there!",

and then science guy's all like "neither were you! but I have scientific evidence based on the decay rate of an radioactive isotope turning into lead. you have a book which was half written by followers of a waring tribe that murdered and pillaged their way of life onto the region, making the former diety (the goddess) a bad guy (goddess's symbol was the snake. genesis anyone?), and teh second half of which was written by a a bunch of cannibal cultists who got all excited which their leader did some popular magic tricks of the era, you know, walking on water, making fish and bread appear out of nowhere, etc etc. and as for rising from the grave, well, we already mentioned the cannibalist part of their cult, didnt we? and what's one of the most effective ways of disposing of a corpse, hmmmmm"
 
Whoa, slow down there. Cannibalistic cult? Thats a new one for me o.o I know all about the altering of other religions such as the snake (which I will point out, the intertwined snakes are the symbol for healing...).

I'm also not quite sure what most of that had to do with the concept at hand other than to say that [a] religion was written by a bunch of murderous wackos who ate eachother and knew some parlor tricks (or something of the sort).

Either way; the part that did have relevance; my point is that why are people so stuck and close minded that they have to insist that a day can only be 24 hours and nothing more; while we all accept that at the very least, the concept of the measurement of time and said relative measurement to current measurements are different from current measurements of time (eg. different calender systems)? Knowing that religion is based around a loose set of archaic (read: very old) terms; and many things were lost in translation, why does everything have to be exactly and precisely as you imagine it in relevance to todays world?
You could even take the argument further and say that it's possible the scriptures actually originally read 7000; but during one of the translations, retellings, rewrittings, etc; those zero's got smudged, and someone ignored them.
What drives people to lay everything along a line that is so easily shifted?
 
I am going with religion.

Science consists a lot of guessing and they claim that its 100% true well i highly doubt that, well with that being said the same thing can be said about religion but somethings that religion says is discovered by science. An example being how to cut meat.
 
I don't think science and religion are different at all. They both cling to some grander meaning, in order to some how prove life. Both groups want ultimate truths to hold on to and give life meaning. Yes, science is more "open minded" and don't mind, and actaully encourage, new ideas and definitions. So yes religious people compared to them are less forgiving and understanding. However, the two things science and religion "worship" are quite different. Religious people worship god, which is this unchanging ultimate power source. God also ( using the christian religion) on more then one occasion said not to question his power. On the other hand there is science and their "god" is space and the touchable. As you know space is vast, unforgiving and full of new things we yet understand. Science just cant stop and say "ok this is it, we understand it all now" like someone with a bible. If you understand that difference you can understand why they often make fun of each other.
Most religion are also based on a certain morality. So if life was started after some big bang instead of divine intervention, that basically places all their values as worthless. So I guess you could say both sides are fighting for what is "true", but that goes way pass just education and schooling. What is "true" also dictates how we live and what we call morals. If god didn't create the world there is no "sin", but if he did we all need to repent before we go to "hell". Also if there is no god, who is to say there are any morals or ethics either? If god is not around to be the being of all goodness and punish the "bad" people, we have to. Sooner or later we are going to realize in order to punish a "bad" man we need to use "bad" traits thereby blurring the line further. Crime and punishment may never be thought of the same way again....

QUOTE
For example, one of the arguments for science is that the earth and mankind was not created in 7 days; it had to take hundreds/thousands of years for man to evolve from primates. My question is: who's to say how long a day is in God's eyes? God, who is everlasting and all powerful, quite likely doesn't view time the same as we do, because it doesn't affect him. For all we know, the creation of all things did take 7 days in his eyes, but to us, it would be millennia.
That said, who is to say that God didn't use the Big Bang to carry out his will, or evolution the same? Why do religious believers have to say that humans just *were*? Nowhere have I seen where it said in any religious text that *poof* mankind appeared. It always said we were created - why does it have to be without any scientific proof? Even walking on water can be possible if you look at science - it just is not something that your 'average everyday man' can do =P

The science side would say you still haven't proved there is a being called "god". However they could always prove the existence of water and other elements. The religious side would say the big bang or evolution takes away from the grand power that is god. They like to think of him like a all powerful being, if the bible says it only took 7 days, then to them it means just that.
 
the problem with the religion being necessary to instill morality based on the fear of going to hell should be obvious to anyone on fansub.tv. despite what you may have assumed, the Japaneses populace is inherently athiest. yes, if you ask then what religion they are they are likely to say Buddhist, and a smaller population Shintoist (which is actually questionable as a religion, since it has no offical doctrine nor an afterlife), but in truth only a small fraction of japan actually practices any religion. furthermore, Japan (and similar societies) do not operate under a guilt(sin) sense of morality, but a shame one. and yet Japan has one of the lowest violent crime rates IN THE WORLD, at least amongst first world countries.

so that in itself shows that an all powerful god threatening us with eternal hellfire is not necessary for people to have ETHICS. with ethics, morality isn't necessary.

now, most non-americans will say about americans (and what many non-europeans will say about europeans), is that we often lack in ethics because of our selfish upbringing. our goal in life is to make ourselves happy, doign what WE want to do, and not to work towards the stabilization or betterment of our society (see Wa/Amae).
 
QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Jan 01 2008, 01:26 AM)I'm sure that all religions can use science to back up a good majority of what they have as their beliefs.I'm not sure I agree, at least not when we get to the term "majority." A lot of religious doctrine is by its very nature neither proveable nor disproveable (important precepts such as: existence of a god, a heaven/hell, etc.). I'm sure a lot of the Bible (to use the Christian example) can be re-interpreted using scientific explanations, but I don't think that would count as proof of the more fantastic claims many religions make. I would suggest that's just an example of the writers' observation skills and their interpretation of (potentially actual) events through a supernatural framework.

To me, one of the major differences between Science and Religion is that scientific facts can (and indeed are expected) to be tested and replicated; religious "facts" (yes, the quotation marks are intentional on my part) are neither. As such, religious doctrine doesn't even fall in the same category as science.

If you want to be unkind about it, you could say religious doctrine is pure superstitious nonsense; BUT-- if you want to be more understanding, you could say religion, like science, is something people use to try to explain the world and their place in it. The human brain seems hardwired to try to detect patterns in observed phenomena (because if you can predict an outcome to a series of events, you are better equipped to respond to it). So before the rise of science, things were explained as acts of God(s), demons, and later, witches. There is something less "scary" about having a reason (even an erroneous one) as to why things happen; it gives people a sense of control over their world even when they have none. And there is an obvious appeal to the thought that there exists some super-powerful being that cares about and protects me; it would be especially appealing in a world full of injustice and sadness to think that even if the situation here stinks, well, there's a heaven/paradise waiting for me. However, finding the idea appealing is not, for me at least, a valid reason for a belief in such a thing.

Now-- after all that, I do want to say that people can find great satisfaction in the workings of the natural world even as explained through purely scientific means, and so perhaps that common sense of wonder and humility in the face of something larger than oneself is where Religion and Science can meet on common ground.
 
QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Jan 01 2008, 01:26 AM)
A lot of times it would go like this (I will be using the Christian religion and other applicable cases here):
Religious guy: God created the heavens and the earth, and everything you see around you.
Science guy: God couldn't have created everything; we know for a 'fact' that the universe was created because of the [insert preferred scientific theory such as the Big Bang here].
Religious guy: You don't have any absolute proof; you weren't there, you can't show me, so how can your argument stand any better than mine?
Science guy: Your argument is based on the ramblings of insane men dead thousands of years ago; and besides, according to your Bible, the universe and all of mankind was made in seven days!
blah blah blah, so on and so forth

Now, my question is, why does this argument even exist? I can understand why people have different religious views (and I respect this), and I can understand why some people choose not to believe any religion (I respect this as well); but why does the line get drawn at the border of science and religion so often? What is to say that the two do not support eachother?

For example, one of the arguments for science is that the earth and mankind was not created in 7 days; it had to take hundreds/thousands of years for man to evolve from primates. My question is: who's to say how long a day is in God's eyes? God, who is everlasting and all powerful, quite likely doesn't view time the same as we do, because it doesn't affect him. For all we know, the creation of all things did take 7 days in his eyes, but to us, it would be millennia.
That said, who is to say that God didn't use the Big Bang to carry out his will, or evolution the same? Why do religious believers have to say that humans just *were*? Nowhere have I seen where it said in any religious text that *poof* mankind appeared. It always said we were created - why does it have to be without any scientific proof? Even walking on water can be possible if you look at science - it just is not something that your 'average everyday man' can do =P


You need to distinguish between the various groups within a religion. In your example of Christianity you are comparing the Christians who believe in creationism and science. That is an error as not all Christians believe in creationism. In fact to my knowledge most Christians don't believe in creationism (the literal interpretation of the bible), hopefully I am right.

If I am not right then I find it very sad. As I find very little difference between the Christians who believe in creationism and Muslim suicide bombers. Both groups consist of fundamentalists. After watching various documentaries I get angry at Christians who believe in creationism. In fact I would call them noobs if I am kind and use various swear words if I am not kind.

In a documentary I saw, the Christian fundamentalists in it were teaching children to fear hell. The way they were going about it completely pissed me off, it was like they were brainwashing the little kids. I would call it a form of child abuse. I find it ironic how these Christian fundamentalist who are probably against child molesters (as in child molesters who coerce children to do things rather than force them to) are doing exactly the same thing as the child molesters in their brainwashing if you neglect the fact that what a child molester does is more harmful.

In another documentary or news story I watched on tv, this Christian fundamentalist was teaching little kids that they must help the Jews fight the Muslims. The fundamentalist in question was positively drilling it into those little kids.

I swear those idiots piss me off, firstly I wonder if the woman in question (it was a woman who was teaching the fight Muslim crap to the little kids, with their parents permission) even knew where the hell Iraq, Jerusalem, e.t.c were or what was happening in those places. After watching this video:
http://www.vidly.net/video-the-chasers-war...-americans.html
I have serious doubts. The Americans in that video put flags on Australia when asked to put a flag on Iran/North Korea e.t.c. When asked who the coalition of the willing were the Americans in that video had no idea. Yep you guessed it, in both documentaries the creationist fundamentalists were Americans. Obviously I don't know for sure whether the woman teaching the little kids to fight Muslims knew where Jerusalem/Iraq e.t.c were and cannot directly link her to the Americans in the video, but as I said I have serious doubts about her knowledge on where the Muslims she wants to fight are. I also find it stupid how she mentions helping the Jews. Yes Jesus was Jewish, however the Jews don't believe in Jesus. In fact to put it bluntly they were a major contributing factor to his death.

Then there are the schools where the creationist Christians teach creationism instead of evolution. I'm not as pissed off with this as the brainwashing mentioned above. However I do find teaching creationism instead of evolution a problem. The way evolution is taught, how science teaches it in schools allows for questioning. The Big Bang theory is not set in stone, and it is stated that they do no have sufficient evidence/information to know what really happened and that the Big Bang is just the most sensible theory at this time. However when creationism is taught in schools, creationism allows for no questioning and it is set in stone.

Back to my original paragraph about distinguishing between different groups within religions. I would say that in regards to Christianity there are 3 main groups:
1) Those who believe in evolution and are Christian.
2) Those who believe in intelligent design and are Christian.
3) The noobs who believe in creationism.

As I said before, to my knowledge groups 1) and 2) far outnumber group 3). Hopefully I am correct. Or is it different in America and unlike other countries they have a unusually large percentage of Christians who believe in creationism.

I live in Australia, I went to a Christian school in Australia even though I am atheist. At the Christian school I went to, they taught evolution (in the subject/course of science). The teachers who taught the subject/course (religion) at the school said that certain parts of the bible (e.g. genesis) shouldn't be taken literally.
 
QUOTE (PadUnregistere @ Jan 01 2008, 08:06 PM)Back to my original paragraph about distinguishing between different groups within religions. I would say that in regards to Christianity there are 3 main groups:
1) Those who believe in evolution and are Christian.
2) Those who believe in intelligent design and are Christian.
3) The noobs who believe in creationism.I'm don't even differentiate between Creationism and Intelligent Design. As far as I'm concerned, ID is just Creationism nested into some scientific terms, hoping to be taken seriously by a more science-savvy (or so they like to think) public. ID still involves a lot of things outside the realm of science (mainly, a Designer, i.e. God) and therefore should not be taught alongside actual science in public schools. Teach it in a religious philosophies class alongside other creation myths, or better yet, teach it in church. To treat it as a valid theory along the same lines as evolution is, frankly, a joke in my opinion. (hmm, this last paragraph sounds harsher than I would have liked, but I don't know how to soften it up. sorry)

QUOTE Or is it different in America and unlike other countries they have a unusually large percentage of Christians who believe in creationism.Off-topic, but: Isn't it obvious by now, Americans will believe anything! *laughs* (yes, I'm American).


QUOTE I live in Australia, I went to a Christian school in Australia even though I am atheist. At the Christian school I went to, they taught evolution. The teachers who taught the subject (religion) at the school said that certain parts of the bible (e.g. genesis) shouldn't be taken literally.How cool and, well, blatantly honest of them. That wouldn't go over so well with some of the more fundamentalist-types over here, though.
 
QUOTE (PadUnregistere @ Jan 01 2008, 07:06 PM)Back to my original paragraph about distinguishing between different groups within religions. I would say that in regards to Christianity there are 3 main groups:
1) Those who believe in evolution and are Christian.
2) Those who believe in intelligent design and are Christian.
3) The noobs who believe in creationism.
I fail to see the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. Intelligent Design is in my eyes exactly the same as Creationism. Also how can one believe in Evolution (and thus not Creationism) and yet be a Christian? Is it not true that you either believe what the Bible says or you don't? (If there is one part of it that is wrong then isn't it likely that it is all wrong or at least possibly wrong?) Christianity (as far as I know) isn't just a religion where you can pick and choose what teachings you want to follow.

I believe that Creationism is correct or at least somewhat since I believe more in the 1 day = x years theory than that he actually created everything in 7 days. Then again who is to say that he can't do such a thing? It is not like anyone was there to witness creation and even those that were only got a second hand account of it from him. For all we know God was merely the first human created (/made / evolved / whatever) who decided to position themselves higher than everyone created (/made / evolved / whatever) after him.

In reality religion shouldn't be compared to science because they don't really have anything in common. Religion deals with beliefs and science deals with facts. Science (other than the unproven theories) is 100% true but religion is neither true nor false. Religion is merely mankind's desire that there be a reason for their being alive.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that even though I call myself a Christian I detest those 'fundamentalists' as you call them. They give a bad name to Christianity because of their inability to believe that they may be wrong. Humans can make mistakes and as such there is no way to be absolutely sure that what you believe is correct. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if every religion was wrong and there really isn't anything after death.
 
QUOTE (langes01x @ Jan 01 2008, 11:05 PM)In reality religion shouldn't be compared to science because they don't really have anything in common. Religion deals with beliefs and science deals with facts. Science (other than the unproven theories) is 100% true but religion is neither true nor false. Religion is merely mankind's desire that there be a reason for their being alive.

My opinion isn't "They shouldnt be compared." but more along the lines of "Why should they be compared?"

If evolution never happened in the begining, then ok
but its still happening now and its vissible, especially in cases of bacteria and viruses
so we still know that life forms divergently and convergently evolve, and devolope different traits through natrual selection

And with the whole thing about a god existing or not, for now, humans have much bigger troubles.
Why spend so much time praying when you can go to work and stop the genecide in Darfur? Or help the poor on the street?
or indirectly, work and donate the extra money you would've made with time at your job rather than spending the time at your temple/church and then give the money you made to the poor or hospitals or orphanariums (is that the correct word?)



QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Jan 01 2008, 03:26 AM)For example, one of the arguments for science is that the earth and mankind was not created in 7 days; it had to take hundreds/thousands of years for man to evolve from primates. My question is: who's to say how long a day is in God's eyes? God, who is everlasting and all powerful, quite likely doesn't view time the same as we do, because it doesn't affect him. For all we know, the creation of all things did take 7 days in his eyes, but to us, it would be millennia.

*Pessimism*

I know that many comentators say the same thing on Creation and that a day is rather an extended period of time (especially with the first few days becuase the dun and moon had not been created yet)
but also has anyone notice how it just goes from creation to the story of adam and eve?
where is the seventh day of resting? God is still there and doing all this stuff:
He takes out adams rib and makes woman
scolds Kain for killing Abel
take that guy strait to heaven (I forget his name but was something like Nachom? well he was like 7th generation man, not a big time break)
Noah and the flood

basically we see God continually working and not resting
so I conclude from this that
most of Cannon takes place in durring the 6th day

and also to prove this
old testament commentators have said how the flow of the text is not chronological even though it tends to be most of the time
so after the seventh day being completed, we can just go back to somewhere in the 6th day

So saying that most of Cannon takes place in the 6th day its possible to assume at the current moment we, modern humans, live in the seventh day such that we dont see major miracles happening every few generations

So this is a good proof for God could not be *active?* right now
and that science makes sense with the bible

ALSO
Modern Science might not be correct
back in Euclid's day they had all those wierd beliefs like alchemy (alchemy is more than 15th century science btw) and what not
back then everyone thought it was correct untill Galileo and that whole mess
so we might be just thinking are science makes sense just like thiers did even though it doesnt
 
QUOTE (mamori @ Jan 01 2008, 04:02 PM) the problem with the religion being necessary to instill morality based on the fear of going to hell should be obvious to anyone on fansub.tv. despite what you may have assumed, the Japaneses populace is inherently athiest. yes, if you ask then what religion they are they are likely to say Buddhist, and a smaller population Shintoist (which is actually questionable as a religion, since it has no offical doctrine nor an afterlife), but in truth only a small fraction of japan actually practices any religion. furthermore, Japan (and similar societies) do not operate under a guilt(sin) sense of morality, but a shame one. and yet Japan has one of the lowest violent crime rates IN THE WORLD, at least amongst first world countries.

so that in itself shows that an all powerful god threatening us with eternal hellfire is not necessary for people to have ETHICS. with ethics, morality isn't necessary.

now, most non-americans will say about americans (and what many non-europeans will say about europeans), is that we often lack in ethics because of our selfish upbringing. our goal in life is to make ourselves happy, doign what WE want to do, and not to work towards the stabilization or betterment of our society (see Wa/Amae).
Japan also has a muslim population they are okay in size mostly from malaysia. But you go to remember that japan has honour in its society you can disgrace your whole family.
 
QUOTE (deadlylazers @ Jan 01 2008, 10:13 PM)ALSO
Modern Science might not be correct
back in Euclid's day they had all those wierd beliefs like alchemy (alchemy is more than 15th century science btw) and what not
back then everyone thought it was correct untill Galileo and that whole mess
so we might be just thinking are science makes sense just like thiers did even though it doesnt
Yes, new discoveries and explanations are always being found; however, that's the lovely thing about science-- you can (and should) find ways to test your theory. And you can question previously held beliefs; if you can demonstrate that you have a better, more sound/thorough explanation, other scientists should, in theory, accept your findings (although in fact, even scientists are sometimes reluctant to give up pet theories, or what they were taught to be true; they're still human, after all. Sometimes a paradigm shift isn't truly embraced until the next generation). But they shouldn't burn you at the stake for daring to question them (although there have been some spectacularly bitter personal rivalries between scientists). Worst comes to worst, they'll peer-review your theory into oblivion if it's not sound. On the other hand, many established religions do not like to be questioned and either don't allow it or discourage it; granted, they don't hold the power they once held (in the West, at least) and can no longer basically muzzle people who disagree with their teachings.

I guess, overall, I see science evolving as a more collaborative effort, as its practitioners are (ideally) less threatened by the idea of change; whereas (it seems to me) that religions evolve somewhat reluctantly when forced to, when confronted by changes in the modern world.

(P.S. Please note that I'm referring to organized religion in general, and not anyone's individual beliefs. I'm sure you're all very nice and would never burn anyone at the stake for disagreeing with you. *laughs*)
 
I feel kind of silly for expecting much from a topic like this. dchaosblade did a good job of starting off the article, but I don't see any new arguments being made.

I can't say that I was really amused by the recycled over simplified analogies made by the atheists here either. Folks, please give followers of religions some more credit, some of the smartest people in the world believe in God. They weren't all zombies that followed beliefs for worldly gain. In fact, in most cases, those that followed those that started religions usually got oppressed and many were killed. It is evident that they believed in these things.

However, I found this to be very interesting:

QUOTE basically we see God continually working and not resting
so I conclude from this that
most of Cannon takes place in durring the 6th day

and also to prove this
old testament commentators have said how the flow of the text is not chronological even though it tends to be most of the time
so after the seventh day being completed, we can just go back to somewhere in the 6th day

So saying that most of Cannon takes place in the 6th day its possible to assume at the current moment we, modern humans, live in the seventh day such that we dont see major miracles happening every few generations

So this is a good proof for God could not be *active?* right now
and that science makes sense with the bible

I wonder why I never thought of that.

Well, even if the "days" are to be interpretted as years, the thought of God "resting" is very questionable in my opinion.

I believe that it is the Samaritan Bible that doesn't speak of the seventh day and doesn't mention anything about God "resting". The Qur'an denies God "resting" as well.


QUOTE furthermore, Japan (and similar societies) do not operate under a guilt(sin) sense of morality, but a shame one. and yet Japan has one of the lowest violent crime rates IN THE WORLD, at least amongst first world countries.

Try googling "suicide" and "japan". Yeah, suicide isn't technically a crime, but it does say something about their "perfect" society.

EDITED IN: I also would like it if someone could bring up specific evidences where religion has agreed with modern science, especially since this topic is based upon that idea.
 
QUOTE (haseeb @ Jan 01 2008, 10:40 PM) Japan also has a muslim population they are okay in size mostly from malaysia. But you go to remember that japan has honour in its society you can disgrace your whole family.
1) last i heard the muslim population was even smaller than the christian population, which is still less than 1%

2) honour is part of the shame system.


QUOTE (hadji_129)
"Try googling "suicide" and "japan". Yeah, suicide isn't technically a crime, but it does say something about their "perfect" society.

EDITED IN: I also would like it if someone could bring up specific evidences where religion has agreed with modern science, especially since this topic is based upon that idea.

though im not sure about japan, i know that suicide IS a crime in the US (yes, if you off yourself your family might get a fine from the government). however, i specified violent crimes, which last i checked did not include suicide. furthermore, nowhere did i say that japan had a perfect society. far from it. as my japanese business and culture told us "the most racist people on the face of the earth are old japanese women." however, as japan makes some progressive social moves it is likely that their suicide rates will begin to fall, though this also depends on which way their economy swings, since at the moment it seems to be taking a downturn.
 
QUOTE (hadji_129 @ Jan 01 2008, 11:13 PM)Folks, please give followers of religions some more credit, some of the smartest people in the world believe in God. They weren't all zombies that followed beliefs for worldly gain.If you're referring to me, I didn't mean to imply that religious people are categorically dumb by any means; and I don't think most people ascribe to religions for worldly gains (and if they do, then I would say it's less true religious belief than blatant social manipulation, as it would probably be the leaders that profit, not the laypeople). I see it as a need for comfort in an uncertain world; people can find that comfort in science too, don't get me wrong. It just comes down to the difference between the Scientific Method and Divine Revelation; one is testable, and one you just gotta accept on blind faith (which I, for one, find hard to swallow). Some people have truly contemplated and questioned their faith (as opposed to some who just follow along because that's how they were raised, etc.) and still make that Kierkegaardian "Leap of Faith" in the face of logic and believe. I truly respect that. But it's definitely something that I can't do at the moment.


QUOTE In fact, in most cases, those that followed those that started religions usually got oppressed and many were killed. It is evident that they believed in these things.In most cases, aren't they persecuted by members of other organized religions (i.e. the dominant religion at the time)? But I do understand that a religion can get "hijacked" by its followers and used as an excuse for unsavory purposes; I chalk it up to human nature.


QUOTE EDITED IN: I also would like it if someone could bring up specific evidences where religion has agreed with modern science, especially since this topic is based upon that idea.Agreed!
 
QUOTE (langes01x @ Jan 01 2008, 09:05 PM) Also how can one believe in Evolution (and thus not Creationism) and yet be a Christian? Is it not true that you either believe what the Bible says or you don't? (If there is one part of it that is wrong then isn't it likely that it is all wrong or at least possibly wrong?) Christianity (as far as I know) isn't just a religion where you can pick and choose what teachings you want to follow.

Different parts of the bible were written/created by different people. In fact if my memory serves me well from watching various documentaries, in the past there were times when there were alternate versions of the bible with different texts in it. Some of those texts did not make it to the modern version of the bible, either because those who had a hand in creating the modern version didn't like what was in those texts or they just disappeared to obscurity.

So going by the idea that different parts were created by different people you can question what is written in different parts of the Bible. In fact to my knowledge, Jesus as a young boy often questioned and had discussions with rabbi e.t.c at religious meets.

The many parts of the bible were often written many years after the actual events themselves occurred. Not to mention the fact that there was probably a time when there was no written word. Ever played chinese whispers? If for some unknown reason you haven't, wikipedia does the job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)
When things are passed on by word of mouth lots of things can go wrong.

If you watch documentaries where they try and explain things in the bible through archeology/science you will find that they often account for things due to human error. For example, the story of David and Goliath. They have evidence that a race of unusually tall people actually existed at that period in history. They mention things like how the ppl in the past were shorter than ppl are now. How someone unusually tall for that period in history may seem like a giant to the ppl of that time. How a 5 written in the bible may have supposed to have been a 2.

The difference between Christians and Jews is that Christians believe in the New Testament, Jews don't. The new Testament is where the teachings of Jesus starts, everything before that is not the teachings of Jesus. One way of thinking of it is that Jesus had a lot to teach ppl and he concentrated on teaching ppl his teachings. So he did not have time to correct the Old testament. Another way of thinking of it is, Jesus knew that if he corrected the Old testament he will find that less ppl are willing to listen to his teachings (the ppl he was preaching to were Jews) and he wanted ppl to listen to his teachings. So rather than correcting the Old testament which would prove counterproductive towards his goals, he concentrated on teaching his values.






Well anyway after reading this article you will probably have an entirely different view of me, oh well it doesn't matter. Search helms, that is my username. Read my post, read the few posts after that at least until the end of HeelyJoe's post.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?news...03&red=y#225297

I kinda just assumed that Intelligent Design was different from creationism from this post by retrospooty:
"I am also afraid to say, me and "my kind" are the majority in the United States. (Over 70% of the country believe a creator created the universe.)"

70% of americans may believe that a creator created the universe, but it takes a special brand of dimwit to think he created it 7000 years ago as described in the bible.

There is a HUGE difference between Intelligent design, and creationism.
 
I'm sorry to go all existentialist on your aces, but I think there's a good point to be made here in comparing science with religion. That is the human aspect of it all.

Take the following two cases, for example. In both, a young child asks his mother (in this case a hot blond, [gotta keep things interesting
tongue.gif
]) a series of questions. In the first case, the mother is religious (going along with a generalized form of Christianity here), and in the next, the hot young mother is atheist/agnostic.

SITUATION #1

child: Mom, could I have some more uber-deluxe chocolate?
mother: No
child: why?
mother: you've had too much
child: why?
mother: if you eat too much, you'll get fat
child: why?
mother: because chocolate makes you fat, and that's bad
child: why?
mother: because [insert reason why a hot Christian blonde would consider being overwight a bad thing here]
child: why?
mother: that's the way god made things
child: why?
mother: "Shut yo' mouth boy!"
child: WHY?!?!?! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!! *won't shut up*
mother: That's just the way it is!

SITUATION #2

child: Mom, could I have some more uber-deluxe chocolate?
mother: No
child: why?
mother: you've had too much
child: why?
mother: if you eat too much, you'll get fat
child: why?
mother: because chocolate makes you fat, and that's bad
child: why?
mother: because [insert health risks of obesity and cultural perception of obesity here]
child: why?
mother: that's just how humans evolved
child: why?
mother: "Shut yo' mouth boy!"
child: WHY?!?!?! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!! *won't shut up*
mother: That's just the way it is!

Sure, sure, the examples may be flawed, but the point I'm trying to make is that if you keep asking why, even with a devout religion, the answer eventually just ends up being "that's just the way things are" aka "I have no idea". It's the ability to ask "why?" that even has us talking about science and religion like this. It's truly a powerful question, and it sure keeps things interesting.

I'm sure you've all heard things like, "science answers the how, religion answers the why". ...that's highly questionable. I've found that in most religious doctrine, logical fallacies can be found in numerous places, and in every case, every logical gap is filled in by some form of saying that God made things that way for his own reasons, and we, being finite being, cannot comprehend his infinitely celestial wisdom (and I'm not saying that that in and of itself is a bad thing). And also, science observes natural phenomenon and tries to come up with as few and simple rules as necessary to explain these phenomena while not having any contradictions. Religion, on the other hand, takes things the other way around, it takes a leap of faith, assumes that leap of faith to be absolutely true, and tries to make everything fit into that picture. Sometimes, things fit in pretty well. Others, as I'm sure many people find to be the case with many religions, things don't fit well at all, and that's where the twisting of the truth and denial of fact comes into play.

I argue that science and religion do not complement each other, and are quite different beasts (as far as noble human endeavors go). I've found a lot of the examples being shown here saying that science and religion (namely Christianity) do not conflict with each other (ie, the 7 days it took to create the earth could have been longer than 7 of out days, and could be interpreted to coincide with our modern science) don't show that science and religion go hand-in-hand at all, only that certain scientific theories popularly held to disprove religion don't actually have to disprove anything.

Augh! I've just got to quote Einstein here! He's got so many good quotes!QUOTE (Albert Einstein)Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.Now of course you've got to realize that Einstein didn't believe in the traditional sense of what we think of as God, but rather refers to his "Great Spirit" and "religion" as the vast mysterious bounds of the universe, the true beauty of nature, the the ability of science to begin to understand just how it works (he said so himself). So take that for what it's worth.


QUOTE (poonk @ Jan 01 2008, 11:05 PM)Some people have truly contemplated and questioned their faith (as opposed to some who just follow along because that's how they were raised, etc.) and still make that Kierkegaardian "Leap of Faith" in the face of logic and believe. I truly respect that. But it's definitely something that I can't do at the moment.
That's beautiful!!! *a tear* I agree with that notion. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing to make a leap o' the gool ol' faith, but it's surely not a terrible thing (you know, if they question it, be honest to themselves, all that sweetness).

But to conclude this crazy-long post, it's important to realize that both science and religion are no more than man-made endeavors, regardless of how useful or true either of them may be. And being human endeavors, they both take certain things for granted (in the case of religion, much, much more is taken for granted [aka faith]), and both are used to try and answer the dang-nabbed question "why?" (although I'd argue that both ultimately fail (yes, even religion)).

And just as a side note, I believe that a much more noble human pursuit than religion and even science is art. (although both religion and science play huge roles in art, when you think about it).

...but there are oh so many ways to look at the issue. Even in my own head, I'm having trouble deciding which perspective to use. (Ahh! that's where the art comes in!
ohmy.gif
)
 
QUOTE (EggBeast @ Jan 02 2008, 01:09 AM)I'm sorry to go all existentialist on your aces, but I think there's a good point to be made here in comparing science with religion. That is the human aspect of it all.Since I brought up Kierkegaard, I think it's only fitting that you do go "all existentialist on [our] arses." *laughs* I was wondering when you would show up in this thread!


QUOTE I argue that science and religion do not complement each other, and are quite different beasts (as far as noble human endeavors go). I've found a lot of the examples being shown here saying that science and religion (namely Christianity) do not conflict with each other (ie, the 7 days it took to create the earth could have been longer than 7 of out days, and could be interpreted to coincide with our modern science) don't show that science and religion go hand-in-hand at all, only that certain scientific theories popularly held to disprove religion don't actually have to disprove anything.They are sorta the proverbial "apples and oranges." I agree with what (I think) you've said: If a religion can find scientific explanations for all its doctrine, then... hasn't it basically removed the need for the supernatural explanation, i.e. God? Then it's not really a religion, is it? It would simply become observations of naturally-occuring phenomena, which is... well, science. Trying to find concrete "proof" for religious phenomena completely removes the aspect of faith; after all, if I have proof of something, no faith is required of me to believe it. Yet faith seems very important to most religions I can think of. Taking it out of the equation, I would think, degrades the religious experience for those that value it.


QUOTE That's beautiful!!! *a tear* I agree with that notion. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing to make a leap o' the gool ol' faith, but it's surely not a terrible thing (you know, if they question it, be honest to themselves, all that sweetness).I knew that existentialism course would come in handy some day. *laughs*
 
QUOTE (poonk @ Jan 02 2008, 01:53 AM) If a religion can find scientific explanations for all its doctrine, then... hasn't it basically removed the need for the supernatural explanation, i.e. God? Then it's not really a religion, is it? It would simply become observations of naturally-occuring phenomena, which is... well, science. Trying to find concrete "proof" for religious phenomena completely removes the aspect of faith; after all, if I have proof of something, no faith is required of me to believe it. Yet faith seems very important to most religions I can think of. Taking it out of the equation, I would think, degrades the religious experience for those that value it.

You can never prove that a God exists. Other things that come to mind are the belief of life after death and if you are good you will be happy in heaven, so all your sufferings in this world are not for nothing.

My idea of atheism is that once you die you simply cease to be.

One of my teachers asked how can someone be atheist, what do you do when a catastrophe/major negative event occurs (e.g. September 11). Christians can go and pray to God when something like that occurs, what do atheists do?
I didn't want to offend so I didn't reply and anyway the teacher was directing it more at a classmate. My reply, if I replied would be atheists deal with the event and don't have to pray to some almighty God just because something bad happens that is out of your control. Atheists just accept that sometimes bad things happen and deal with the now as best they can rather than hoping for a better future through the hand of God (e.g. when you die).

From my teachers question: I would say that religious people like to believe that even as an Adult someone is always holding your hand and that person is God.
 
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Back
Top