• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science vs Religion, I will solve this debate for you once and for all.

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Yes you heard me, they are the same. Religion by definition is a belief held with faith. The same way science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven, but must be believed with faith. To put it more plainly science is merely the new age religion. In the past it was scientific fact that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise you could be executed. Well in a few hundred years from now all the scientific things we believe today will be disproven. Not to say that some clever inventions haven't arisen from science like this laptop I'm typing on, but science can't be used to explain existence similar to how a holographic man could never understand what's outside the hologram.
Addressing this one paragraph, just to show you how wrong your actually are. It is NOT true that a flat earth was "scientific fact" in the past. It was, rather, religious belief. The fact of the matter is that intelligent studiers of nature, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks, were quite comfortable with a ball-shaped earth.

For example, in his book On the Heavens, Aristotle wrote: "Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the Earth is circular, but also that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon."

In other words, you see different sets of stars in the night sky depending on where you are. The sky over the northern hemisphere is not the same as the sky over the southern hemisphere. If the Earth was flat, then at any given time we would all see the same stars, and we don't.

Using the same sort of idea, another Greek thinker and mathematician, Eratosthenes, went further and managed to measure the Earth's circumference. He discovered that at noon in one Egyptian city, the Sun was directly overhead, whereas in a different city further north, the Sun did not rise quite so high. Eratosthenes knew the distance between the two cities, measured how high in the sky the Sun rose to in each at the same time, then did some trigonometry. His method was crude, but his answer was in the right ballpark.

And for the record, he Eratosthenes could not have even begun to think as he did unless he was certain first and foremast that the earth was a ball!

People were not executed by science for believing otherwise, but rather by the Church -- all, no doubt, out of the highest "Christian Love."
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
So, for starters, people like me because I speak ultimate truths that aren't sugar coated... Just a simple reminder from your friend, Focused Intent.
In stead of jumping right in, trying to tackle "science vs. religion" right off the bat, why not start with something smaller... like the use of "is" vs. "are".
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The very same goes for people of science: They have to understand how the numerous cultural myths of creation describes the created cosmos and in order to do this, scientists have to compare these cross cultural myths and NOT judge everything mythical/religious from the biblical interpretation which is heavily distorted by the patriarchal and monotheistic religions.

It is my firm conviction that ancient Myths of Creation describes the formation/creation of our solar System more correctly than modern science sience as the ancient myths includes the formation in our Milky Way. Read for instants the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad and the Egyptian Goddess Hathor, who resembles the Milky Way, which central light is confused by scholars to represent the Sun instead of the central Milky Way Light.

The ancient story of creation doesn´t deal with the creation of the entire Universe, but it deals specifically of the creation of the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way and everything in it. From this telling one can conclude that the Solar System once was formatted/created in the center of the Milky Way (Light) and has moved out from the center to it´s actual position.

This is more correct compared to the modern theories of the formation of the Solar System, but of course it demands the familiarity and knowledge of ancient celestial symbolism in order to understand the telling.

Creation myths are of no value to scientists.

The humanities is another matter. One might be interested in them as literature or as snapshots of the thinking of various cultures at a time in their pasts, and collectively, they tell us a little about human nature and our proclivity for telling stories.

But "people of science" can't use them in their pursuit of knowledge, so I don't see the merit of the claims in your first paragraph. Why should such people concern themselves with how the Babylonians or Vikings, for example, described the origin of reality? They got it almost all wrong.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Absolutely, that's why I see no contradiction between science and religion.

I read that you're Catholic. Do you accept Darwin's theory?

I don't see how that would be possible for any kind of Christian assuming that he also believes that man was created in God's image and possesses a soul. Darwin's theory is naturalistic and describes a process that is blind and undirected, according to which, man was never intended, was not fashioned in the image of anything, and is not fundamentally different from the beasts.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Allow me to show you the absurdity of science with the following statement:

As a human, using your senses, you perceive less than 1% of what exists, yet you scientists then attempt to explain everything with absurd theories that you stack one on top the other so that if one of the foundational theories fails all the theories its supporting will come crashing down like a proverbial house of cards. What then happens is that this can't be allowed to happen so now your stuck defending these theories with your life because you don't want the crash to happen on your watch...

Science is just as holy as religion because it's full of holes.

Science can't even answer the basic questions of a elementary student. Where are we? Why are we here? How did all this start? Scientists you don't know anything so stop lying to the children telling them about a big bang or evolution that's your wacky opinion, I mean theory, so stop trying to pass your theories off as fact.

The greatest lie science ever told was claiming that something physical like the brain could create something unphysical like consciousness and the profound experience you are having right now. If you choose to believe this I'm not chastising you, feel free to do so, but humbly accept that its your religion and your no better then a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, that believes in some made up god.

We like to make things up, that's what we do as human beings to deal with the natural world we are in. But don't start telling me that the b.s. that you made up, is any better than the b.s. that somebody else made up, else I will call you a hypocrite.

And for the record life and consciousness is the greatest unsolved mystery, it is absolutely a paradox.

Science has made life longer, healthier, safer, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting.

What has religion given the world? How has it helped mankind apart from offering false hope, instilling guilt and fear, and the idea that unjustified belief is a virtue?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"quite well established" among scientists who believe in all of the assumptions does not equal absolute truth. Just saying.

Absolute truth is not the standard in science. Nor is ultimate truth or objective truth. Those are ideas with no practical value.

We seek empirical adequacy - that is, we seek that which works, that which accurately predicts some aspect of nature and perhaps allow us to control it, and that which can be put to use to improve our lives and assist our efforts to make desired outcomes the reality. We accumulate the ideas that can do that and throw out the rest.

That is the standard of science and the reasonable life in general.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Except this calculation is bogus. It can only calculate the probability of a specific state arising by pure chance alone, but physical properties are not influence by pure chance alone but are influenced by physical forces and laws acting on their physical properties. When you bounce a ball, it is arbitrarily easy to demonstrate that the probability of the ball will bounce on any specific area of the earth's surface is ridiculously improbable. And yet that event still occurs. That's because a simple probability calculation can only calculate things being determined "randomly", and cannot take account of various, important factors like gravity or the direction the ball was dropped or where the ball was dropped from. Likewise, calculations like this fail to take account of the influence natural chemical processes or laws that can greatly influence the process. It's like arguing about the probability of both of your parents meeting by sheer chance without taking into account the fact of the geographical area your parents lived in, their common interests or relative social status. It's a meaningless exercise that demonstrates nothing other than that probability is something very easy to misuse.

So then determinism is your faith. how does determinism create enzymes?

pure chance alone is ruled out by the video.

that leaves chance plus determinism, or determinism alone that makes life inevitable. I don't buy it.

we should see life arising time and time again if determinism is true.

again it's not one lottery we are trying to hit, but 250 at least in a row. and somehow determinism is the magic filter?

no way!
 
Last edited:

pearl

Well-Known Member
I don't see how that would be possible for any kind of Christian assuming that he also believes that man was created in God's image and possesses a soul. Darwin's theory is naturalistic and describes a process that is blind and undirected, according to which, man was never intended, was not fashioned in the image of anything, and is not fundamentally different from the beasts.

The Church does not interpret Scripture form a literalist point and distinguishes the literary forms (folklore, legend, myth etc.) utilized in the transmission of the truth to be believed. Going back to Pope Pius XII the Church leaves open the question of evolution of the body from pre-existent material, but not the soul, infused by God which is the fundamental difference from the 'beasts'.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
So then determinism is your faith.
I didn't mention determinism.

how does determinism create enzymes?
I don't know. What relevance does that have?

pure chance alone is ruled out by the video.
Of course, because the Universe operates by physical laws, not pure chance.

that leaves chance plus determinism, or determinism alone that makes life inevitable. I don't buy it.
That's your argument? "I don't buy it"? Can you please demonstrate how and why it would be impossible for life-like systems to arise in a natural system governed by physical laws?

we should see life arising time and time again if determinism is true.
That makes no sense. Just because something CAN occur doesn't mean it is common. But life only had to arise ONCE.

again it's not one lottery we are trying to hit, but 250 at least in a row. and somehow determinism is the magic filter?

no way!
So you have no understanding of how physical laws can influence the outcome of natural events?
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Absolute truth is not the standard in science. Nor is ultimate truth or objective truth. Those are ideas with no practical value.

We seek empirical adequacy - that is, we seek that which works, that which accurately predicts some aspect of nature and perhaps allow us to control it, and that which can be put to use to improve our lives and assist our efforts to make desired outcomes the reality. We accumulate the ideas that can do that and throw out the rest.

That is the standard of science and the reasonable life in general.

Noted
 
Top