For those who think science and christianity can tolerate each other

Estro Felino · Sep 6, 2014

FunctionalAthiest said:
If science and religion address separate realms of knowledge, and can possibly coexist, then we end up with

God created man in his own image (religious knowledge)
Man is an ape (scientific fact)

Therefore god is an ape!

Discuss!

If you think that God is a deity...or a person...then it is obvious the science and religions can't agree with one another.

fantome profane · Sep 6, 2014

FunctionalAthiest said:
If science and religion address separate realms of knowledge, and can possibly coexist, then we end up with

God created man in his own image (religious knowledge)
Man is an ape (scientific fact)

Therefore god is an ape!

Discuss!

I don't see a problem with that.

Revoltingest · Sep 6, 2014

FunctionalAthiest said:
If science and religion address separate realms of knowledge, and can possibly coexist, then we end up with

God created man in his own image (religious knowledge)
Man is an ape (scientific fact)

Therefore god is an ape!

Specifically, he'd be a silverback.

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

The Sum of Awe said:
I love the way you put that!

Unfortunately I personally disagree. Comparing religion and science is comparing apples and oranges. The conclusions may differ, but there are different ways of coming to those conclusions.

Actually, I would even say that religion ISN'T a method for conclusions, philosophy is. Philosophy's method differs from that of science; one uses logic and the other uses experiment. In reality, they both should never contradict or else they are not defining the same reality (and therefore there is something wrong in the method itself), and that is true. But the same conclusion can't (always) be reached by the other method, reason being they use two different premises.

If religion has a method, it is more similar to philosophy's method than science's method. The conclusions reached should never contradict, but at the same time a conclusion from religion can't (always) be reached by the method from science.

In that way, religion is an approach to describing another layer of the description of things. It's hard to pinpoint what specific layer because there would be so much disagreement by the religious community. While that layer will therefore remain undefined, most will agree that layer is termed the spiritual layer. Science is the physical layer.

As for philosophy vs religion, in my opinion, philosophy is conclusions reached on the logic layer of reality, the mind, knowledge, logos. And like I said, most would term the layer religion's conclusions are reached on are the spiritual. The reason why philosophy and religion are nearly, if not completely indistinguishable is the same reason the psyche and the soul are nearly indistinguishable. There are some that would and there are other that wouldn't think of the psyche as different from the soul. Us perceiving the physical world moreover the other two have soft touches on the other two and so it is not clear, they are both abstract and both very distant, so they appear similar and perhaps they are exactly the same.

When religion starts defining physical reality, that's when it stops making sense, because religion's method is incorrect for physical reality and is only correct for spiritual reality. In that way man's species can be ape and his being can be in God's image.

All good. But how can the truth of philosophy be verified? We come back to the notion that if it conflicts with observational truths, we must have erred. In that sense, all philosophical tenants can be seen as hypotheses that either can or cannot be supported or contradicted by observation (whether direct or indirect). Those that cannot be compared to observation are labeled as 'philosophical' or 'religious.'

There is nothing wrong with this. But failing to understanding that observational truth sits on higher ground than philosophical or religious truth leads to numerous mistakes in both daily and global life.

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

Thana said:
I know that you know that 'Made in His Image' doesn't mean literally made to physically look like him or have His physical characteristics so I don't know why you wrote this.

I wrote it because based on the premises it's a perfectly logical argument. I want to understand how people can hold the premises and yet squirm when they see where it leads. Thanks for responding.

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

George-ananda said:
Seriously dude

Yes! Seriously! Based on the premises, this is my conclusion. Do you hold the premises?

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

s2a said:
Grasp a hold of the idea that Belief has nothing at all to do with fact.

Belief is a choice.

When belief coincides with fact, then you have trouble

LOL, that explains it. Now how do you distill that and inject into the those who need it?

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

oldbadger said:
For those who think science and christianity can tolerate each other

The above statement is flawed, because 'science' and 'christianity' can't feel or think.
Try :-
For those who think Scientists and Christians can tolerate each other
..... and immediately it becomes easy for me to identify that the above groups can be the same people, or separate and tolerant.

That was easy...

Yes, jumping over a fence rather than going through a gate is often easy.

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

fantôme profane;3923185 said:
I don't see a problem with that.

An honest answer. Just what I'd expect from you. I don't see a problem with it either.

Seriously, if WE are the image of god, then certainly god has a lot of problems. Not the least of which are a hide covered in fleas.

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

Revoltingest said:
Specifically, he'd be a silverback.

A great ape if ever there was one.

Reptillian · Sep 6, 2014

FunctionalAthiest said:
If science and religion address separate realms of knowledge, and can possibly coexist, then we end up with

God created man in his own image (religious knowledge)
Man is an ape (scientific fact)

Therefore god is an ape!

Discuss!

Even worse, this tells me that God is a humanoid computer programmer in some alternate reality and that we're living in some kind of simulation. It's like The Sims but with more genocide. What if we're created, but God evolved via natural selection?! : hamster : Bum bum buuuummm! : hamster :

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

Reptillian said:
Even worse, this tells me that God is a humanoid computer programmer in some alternate reality and that we're living in some kind of simulation. It's like The Sims but with more genocide. What if we're created, but God evolved via natural selection?! : hamster : Bum bum buuuummm! : hamster :

Oh yea! Now we are not only created, but antiquated, last year's best seller, left in the 'old games' bin that god just can't be bothered with anymore. Maybe this is one of those games that has no 'end-game.'

Reptillian · Sep 6, 2014

FunctionalAthiest said:
Oh yea! Now we are not only created, but antiquated, last year's best seller, left in the 'old games' bin that god just can't be bothered with anymore. Maybe this is one of those games that has no 'end-game.'

Either that or we're all holodeck characters who have achieved sentience on an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Somewhere out there Geordi La Forge is regretting asking the Enterprise computer to create an opponent able to outwit Data.

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

Reptillian said:
Either that or we're all holodeck characters who have achieved sentience on an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Somewhere out there Geordi La Forge is regretting asking the Enterprise computer to create an opponent able to outwit Data.

Or maybe the most efficient way to create a logical paradigm and bog down the machine is to ask if god exists? As opposed to playing chess or globothermalnuclearwar.

Thana · Sep 6, 2014

FunctionalAthiest said:
I wrote it because based on the premises it's a perfectly logical argument. I want to understand how people can hold the premises and yet squirm when they see where it leads. Thanks for responding.

Sure, It'd be a perfectly logical argument if anyone actually believed God to be a physical being. But we don't, So no it's not a logical premise.

Alceste · Sep 6, 2014

FunctionalAthiest said:
Yes. But there are those that claim both are sources of knowledge, or in my terms standards of truth.

How can a person believe we are created in god's image, and believe that we are apes, and not believe that god is an ape?

I'm trying to point out inconsistency in the view that both religion and science are sources of knowledge.

For those that believe religion is about values and not knowledge, this post takes no issue.

The folks I've known who are familiar with evolutionary science and still religious don't believe in a literal genesis interpretation. It's kind of a pointless exercise to try to attack their religious beliefs using scripture they don't interpret to be literally true. It's also the least effective argument against theism I see come up regularly here. Stick with the problem of evil.

psychoslice · Sep 6, 2014

I feel that science are too busy to worry about what religion believes, where as, religion cares what science believes, because what they continue to find is threatening to the religious way of thinking.

FunctionalAtheist · Sep 6, 2014

Thana said:
Sure, It'd be a perfectly logical argument if anyone actually believed God to be a physical being. But we don't, So no it's not a logical premise.

So the image of god, a non-physical being, is a physical ape. Really seems to say the same thing.

s2a · Sep 13, 2014

FunctionalAthiest said:
LOL, that explains it. Now how do you distill that and inject into the those who need it?

Time, well beyond my mortal years.

I do hold out hope for the inexorable forces of evolution tho'

s2a · Sep 13, 2014

FunctionalAthiest said:
Or maybe the most efficient way to create a logical paradigm and bog down the machine is to ask if god exists? As opposed to playing chess or globothermalnuclearwar.

"The only winning move is not to play."

-WOPPER

For those who think science and christianity can tolerate each other

Believer in free will

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Pragmatic Libertarian

Hammer of Reason

Hammer of Reason

Hammer of Reason

Hammer of Reason

Hammer of Reason

Hammer of Reason

Hammer of Reason

Hamburgler Extraordinaire

Hammer of Reason

Hamburgler Extraordinaire

Hammer of Reason

Lady

Vagabond

Veteran Member

Hammer of Reason

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator