What is the problem that religious people have with science?

The religious believers with whom I am familiar seem to be anti-science. The most vocal ones seem to have very little knowledge or understanding of science. It seems strange to me to be against concepts you do not understand.

Scientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.

You should move house.

Because mostly, the way I see it, they see modern science as irrelevent to their religion and probably immediate life. Their religions, those of the Abrahamic God, have doctrines that speak nothing of modern science, of course, but the science of the times. Which there really wasn't much then. And to me also, to live a fulfilled life, I do not have to know modern science. I thought it was almost everything in life before I turned a Christian. But I gaurantee you if God showed Himself now, He would not deny proven science as observed by us. It is based on the truth, on what we observe, and what God observes, in part or whole, and there is no denying it. When you study what I've created, wrote, tread, and said, the path will eventually lead to me if you want to find me. Same with God, you take science far enough, and you'll see, it only leads to Him. You are studying what He has created, where He has been, where He has treaded when you study science. It is the study of what has been created (objects) and what it does, it's actions (properties). Every object created has a property, kind of like computer programming. All the way down to the atom. Take an atom, it is substance. That is one element of two. And it's properties, another element. Which states what happens when acted upon by a given stimulus. When you take it down far enough, you go all the way down to where you can imagine, quarks maybe. But all the way down, no matter how far, there is always going to be an object which has properties. And if we can get all the way down to the smallest particle/unit, then we can find the source code to the universe. And why haven't we found it yet? I think it's not meant to be or else we would be Gods. To go down to the smallest element to where it only has one property (one specific action when acted upon by one specific particle), if you know what I mean. Just like the table of elements is arranged according to the objects' physical properties and it's values, or that which states what will happen when acted upon by certain other elements. We can guess how certain atoms react to each other, and certain protons. But it is the tempatation of details and to try to know all. You keep dwelling far enough and if you're smart, you'll soon discover there's no way through, it's infinite. Just like solving pi. By realizing early on that you're just wasting your precious time trying to solve an infinite problem and supposedly the other student is farther along and encased in the details of getting the number down smaller and smaller, you're farther ahead by being farther behind. Those that are behind aren't necessarily the slowest, they're possibly the smartest by thinking before they jump in or thinking ahead. Life is not about the details of how the universe works. It's just a timewaster or an aversion to the really important matters, helping your fellow brothers and sisters on this earth. It's an illusion to test you. It is real as an evil teacher might make to divert you on a test but it is not what's important. Let's suppose the test is to separate the good from the evil. The good pass. And by being evil, the teacher is doing good by separating those which can't pass the test. It's all good, as they say. Those that test us are helping us. That's why Christians should love those that give us pain or toil, they test us. And without test, we have no way to advance. Science is real but it is an aversion from what really is important, I say again. Those that study the minute, irrelevant and detailed are only farther ahead in being farther behind. They dwell in the details hoping to fulfill that little spot in the that looks for understanding or longing and when that spot is filled, they look for more and more and wonder and wonder and it's a never ending cycle. Stand back and look at yourselves. You are looking for something that is nothing. You will never believe a God unless He presents Himself right in your face, on your day of judgement, if you keep on searching for nothing. You will have to realize, you're not going to find God by finding Him, only by reason of deduction will you. Not God=yes, but facts+conscience=God, well, that's kinda messed up but maybe you get my point. Look into yourself and discover. That conscience inside that tells us right from wrong, look in to it and read a Holy book and judge for yourself, does this seem right according to what I feel? Don't nitpick the details of it all because it was written by and for humans and there will always be mistakes, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations. Anyhow, I'm just babbling on and getting off topic. It took a lot of convincing anyway for me to go Christian but alas, I am and will always be now for what I know.

Pardon, but when I really get into a subject, I hear no sentence structure, nor see it. I guess a couple paragraphs or three would make it more legible.

If you can't be bothered to write in structured manner, why the **** should I be bothered to read it. Edit the bloody thing.

Why are believers anti-science?

Ignorance! And this little thread jack will surely as hell drive them mad;

humans still evolving (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1141863028-AMWmuopHhf4ThrtSQYXujA)

;) :D

Godless

What is the problem that religious people have with science?

The religious believers with whom I am familiar seem to be anti-science. The most vocal ones seem to have very little knowledge or understanding of science. It seems strange to me to be against concepts you do not understand.

Scientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.

Because science proves organized religion for what it is... A bag of shite.

Because science suggests real challenges to the traditionally understood role of God.

Simple answer: Because everything new that science discovers, there's always questions about how it pertains to God and this and that. What's your average believer in a 2000 year old religion going to say? Obviously they're probably threatened by all the questions, and you can't blame them. Most religions are hard enough to understand in their entirety as they are, let alone with them having to be backed by modern science and modern scientific minds asking how the newest discoveries pertain to certain passages in their Holy book. Can't you see, take a step back and look at what all science has discovered and what it will possibly uncover. Can't you see it's like a never ending box of details when opened? And you put the burden of explaining all this and how it pertains to their older religion on them. And obviously they're overwhelmed and of course, any so called holy books I know don't explain modern science. It's pretty much entrapment, if you had to give it a legal term.

Not all believers are anti-science.

Not all believers are anti-science.

No but they dont have a clue what science is all about. It's logicaly & mathematicaly impossible to believe in god. They simply dont use ther logics that's all.

[A] Hello im Xian and i hate science because science is the axis of evil
[B] Hello in Xian and i love science but i dont understand them but it's cool anyway.

No but they dont have a clue what science is all about. It's logicaly & mathematicaly impossible to believe in god. They simply dont use ther logics that's all.


Bullshit.

Selected papers of Kenneth R. Miller, Biology professor at Brown University and Christian. Also author of Finding Darwin's God, one of the best defenses of evolution ever written for the layperson:

Meyer, T. H., Ménétret, J. F. , Breitling, R. , Miller, K. R., Akey, C. W., and T. A. Rapaport (1999) The bacterial Sec Y/E translocation complex forms channel-like structures similar to those of the eukaryotic Sec61p complex. Journal of Molecular Biology 285: 1789-1800.

Hanein, D., Matlack, K. E. S., Jungnickel, B., Plath, K., Kalies, K., Miller, K. R., Rapoport, T. A., and C. W. Akey (1996) Oligomeric Rings of the Sec61p Complex Induced by Ligands Required for Protein Translocation. Cell 87, 721-732.

Wiest, P. M., S. S. Kunz, W. D. Bowen, and K. R. Miller (1994) Activation of proteinkinase C by phorbol esters disrupts the tegument of Schistosoma mansoni. Parasitology 109: 461-468.

Bassi, R., A. Magaldli, G. Tognon, G. M. Giacometti, and K. R. Miller (1989) Two-dimensional crystals of the Photosystem II reaction center complex from higher plants. Eur. J. Cell Biology 50: 84-93.

Hinshaw, J. E., and K. R. Miller (1989) Localization of Light-Harvesting Complex II to the Occluded Surfaces of Photosynthetic Membranes. J. Cell Biology 109: 1725-1732

Lyon, M. K. & K. R. Miller (1985) Crystallization of a membrane protein in situ. J. Cell Biology. 100: 1139-1147.

Jacob, J. S., & K. R. Miller (1983) Two-dimensional crystals formed from photosynthetic reaction centers. J. Cell Biol. 97: 1266-1270.

Miller, K. R. (1979a) The Photosynthetic Membrane. Scientific American (October) pp. 102-113.

Miller, K. R. (1979c) The structure of a bacterial photosynthetic membrane. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76: 6415-6419.

A link to Miller's evolution page. It is a good resouce. Includes his criticisms of ID and Behe.

LINK (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/)

Oh wait, he is a believer so I guess that fucking invalidates it all.

The Christian God also is the God of Darwin's law. Think about it. How many successful people use morals to excel in their work or area of expertise? To be impatient and not want to read all of my paragraph before when I'm trying to help you understand us, is to reject a whole other side of humanity, the religious side. When you're impatient, hateful, spiteful, etc, you can expect Darwin's law to take care of you because obviously you can't expect to survive and thrive in a world where no one likes to be hated or untrusted. My God is the God of everything. It's only to the unbelievers that the discoverers of the laws such as Darwin's are held in such high esteem when believers know who the real one behind the scenes is.

It's logicaly & mathematicaly impossible to believe in god.

Suppose we speak of numbers as in a metaphorical sense. If you have the numbers 3,2,8, etc, where do they come from? Did they just pop into existence through an unknown function which expelled them as a calculation or sum? Or were they born from a smaller number. You can take any number and it will be birthed from 1. In a linear sequence as a timeline is in creation, everything goes back to 1. And what is the creator/birther of 1? 0. You may argue 0 is not a number, same as God, because 0 is nothing. Of course, why do we have 0? It is a non-number, so to speak, to tell us the other numbers exist and we can't have the other numbers without 0. All are birthed out of nothing, in a sense, or as we see as nothing. In actuality, it is something and the creator of all after it. That is just a simple way to prove God exists through math. The universe is ran by calculations. Math is the law of the universe. In every action in it, they can be equated to numerical calculation. Every object can be given a value, a number or numbers, I should say, that when acted upon, judges how and how much to react to the actor it is confronted with. Like how in programming, every object is given properties of what it can or can't do which can be ultimately boiled down to beautiful numbers. To see the universe through God's eyes would be great. Numbers here and there. All in perspective. Mumbo jumbo to human eyes but to His, just one big jig saw puzzle that conveniently fits together.

While there are many believers in religion who know a lot about science, they seem to be in the minority. At least most of the believers I have known seemed to have hardly any understanding of science and put technology down as having a net bad effect on our lives.

I wish some of them lived for a year or two in third world environments without cars, computers, indoor plumbing, and all the others benefits of science & technology. It might give them more respect for what science has done in the last 300 or so years.

To be impatient and not want to read all of my paragraph before when I'm trying to help you understand us, is to reject a whole other side of humanity, the religious side. .Don't talk crap. If you are going to be a rude, inconsiderate asshole, who can't take a moment or to to properly formulate their thoughts, I rather doubt those thoughts are of much particular value.

In fact, I just spent ten minutes wading through your prose, correcting the spelling, amending the grammar, and giving it some structure. I just came back to post it from Word and found the above waiting me. So, go fly a kite, sonny, and hang your philosophy off the end of it.

How many successful people use morals to excel in their work or area of expertise?

how many successful organizations use exploitation and opportunism to excel in their industry or to corner a market? the economy of the western world arguably thrives on taking advantage of the disenfranchised and impoverished to further the enrichment of the few. as a matter of fact, human nature in and of itself is so prone to fierce competition and opportunistic stratification that Communism, a socio-economic structure that attempts to establish egalitarianism; is a complete and utter failure in practice. whats your point?

Don't take my words too seriously Ophiolite. I don't intend for it to be rude, but that's the internet for you. Sometimes words come off as too concrete and taken too harsh since there's no visual confirmation of emotions. I'm just trying to lightly state my point.

Charles Cure: You imply that communism does not work in practice because people mess up a good concept.

The horror that was the USSR was a logical consequence of applying communist principles.

From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs. It sounds noble if you read it quick and do not think.

The fundamental principle of communism is a promise to steal from the best and the brightest. Expect them to produce to the limits of their abilities, but do not pay them based on their accomplishments. That sounds a lot like slavery to me.

The other half of the principle is an invitation for those skilled at whining and begging to work the system for as much as they can get without contributing.

To make such a system work, you need a vast bureaucracy and the coercive force of a police state. Furthermore, you have to close your borders lest the best and the brightest go elsewhere.

Capitalism & the those malaigned as robber barons did more to raise the stndard of living of the average man than any labor union, church. or govenment program.

**Capitalism & the those malaigned as robber barons did more to raise the stndard of living of the average man than any labor union, church. or govenment program.**

Coming from the school of Objectivism, I do heartly agree with Dino on this one ;)

Godless

Charles Cure: You imply that communism does not work in practice because people mess up a good concept.

The horror that was the USSR was a logical consequence of applying communist principles.

From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs. It sounds noble if you read it quick and do not think.

The fundamental principle of communism is a promise to steal from the best and the brightest. Expect them to produce to the limits of their abilities, but do not pay them based on their accomplishments. That sounds a lot like slavery to me.

The other half of the principle is an invitation for those skilled at whining and begging to work the system for as much as they can get without contributing.

To make such a system work, you need a vast bureaucracy and the coercive force of a police state. Furthermore, you have to close your borders lest the best and the brightest go elsewhere.

Capitalism & the those malaigned as robber barons did more to raise the stndard of living of the average man than any labor union, church. or govenment program.


trust me, i know all about it, i read atlas shrugged too ok. the point i was making has less to do with communism in practice as it does with communism as an ideal. read the communist manifesto. nowhere on earth has communism ever been implemented correctly, because it is a myopic and utopian theory that expects the BEST out of humanity. the progenitors of communism however, misjudged humanity. they did indeed expect that people would do their part, regardless of how disproportionately, in order to provide for the basic needs of society as a whole. this theory depends on everyone working and no one freeloading. the concept of communism does not automatically steal from those with ability and give to those with inability, it expects a level of effort and ability from everyone that some are unwilling to provide when it is put into practice. thats where human nature comes in as a subversive element.
all of what you are saying in your post is true. i am arguing that the reason it is true is because humanity does not desire the implementation of morality, but seeks to further the interest, whether moral or immoral - of the individual. self-interest inevitably leads to suffering, inequality, injustice, violence...etc. thats all well and good, im no supporter of communism, but as a theory it is more morally positive than capitalism despite its inability to be practically applied.

A link to Miller's evolution page. It is a good resouce. Includes his criticisms of ID and Behe.

LINK (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/)

Oh wait, he is a believer so I guess that fucking invalidates it all.

So, on one hand he criticises Intelligent Design, yet is a Christian who should support Intelligent Design, if indeed he is a Christian.

That would be called a hypocrite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

A link to Miller's evolution page. It is a good resouce. Includes his criticisms of ID and Behe.

LINK (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/)

Oh wait, he is a believer so I guess that fucking invalidates it all.


whats BeHe?

*If you can't be bothered to write in structured manner, why the **** should I be bothered to read it. Edit the bloody thing.

*If you are going to be a rude, inconsiderate asshole,

rantingasusualehoafymustyousuffersoopenlyemotionsa reforchildrentrytounderstandthat

Bullshit.

Selected papers of Kenneth R. Miller, Biology professor at Brown University and Christian. Also author of Finding Darwin's God, one of the best defenses of evolution ever written for the layperson:

Meyer, T. H., Ménétret, J. F. , Breitling, R. , Miller, K. R., Akey, C. W., and T. A. Rapaport (1999) The bacterial Sec Y/E translocation complex forms channel-like structures similar to those of the eukaryotic Sec61p complex. Journal of Molecular Biology 285: 1789-1800.

Hanein, D., Matlack, K. E. S., Jungnickel, B., Plath, K., Kalies, K., Miller, K. R., Rapoport, T. A., and C. W. Akey (1996) Oligomeric Rings of the Sec61p Complex Induced by Ligands Required for Protein Translocation. Cell 87, 721-732.

Wiest, P. M., S. S. Kunz, W. D. Bowen, and K. R. Miller (1994) Activation of proteinkinase C by phorbol esters disrupts the tegument of Schistosoma mansoni. Parasitology 109: 461-468.

Bassi, R., A. Magaldli, G. Tognon, G. M. Giacometti, and K. R. Miller (1989) Two-dimensional crystals of the Photosystem II reaction center complex from higher plants. Eur. J. Cell Biology 50: 84-93.

Hinshaw, J. E., and K. R. Miller (1989) Localization of Light-Harvesting Complex II to the Occluded Surfaces of Photosynthetic Membranes. J. Cell Biology 109: 1725-1732

Lyon, M. K. & K. R. Miller (1985) Crystallization of a membrane protein in situ. J. Cell Biology. 100: 1139-1147.

Jacob, J. S., & K. R. Miller (1983) Two-dimensional crystals formed from photosynthetic reaction centers. J. Cell Biol. 97: 1266-1270.

Miller, K. R. (1979a) The Photosynthetic Membrane. Scientific American (October) pp. 102-113.

Miller, K. R. (1979c) The structure of a bacterial photosynthetic membrane. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 76: 6415-6419.

I would call them ''Infected Scientists''. An atheist can easily fuck them up with a simple question. :D

Pardon, but when I really get into a subject, I hear no sentence structure, nor see it. I guess a couple paragraphs or three would make it more legible.

bless you my brother
the spirit works in mysterious ways

Praise Him

What is the problem that religious people have with science?

The religious believers with whom I am familiar seem to be anti-science. The most vocal ones seem to have very little knowledge or understanding of science. It seems strange to me to be against concepts you do not understand.

Scientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.


i would have to conflict with that,

not bieng rude or negative here. but i think alot of the scientists are rude to religious people,


but not all ofcourse,

and this subject would hold different points, there might be many reasons, not just a single one, it would depend,

and the religious people who are offended by science, maybe they are insecure and think it conflicts witht here faith,


when science dosent actually conflict with religion, it conflicts with the holy books, and they are not "god", they are written books of man,


peace.

peace.

I would call them ''Infected Scientists''. An atheist can easily fuck them up with a simple question. :D

ask me, heathen

ask me, heathen

Science is marvellous, because it helps us understand the world and how to prevent ourselves from dying so quickly and how to wash white clothing and colours without them turning bright pink. But Science admits it's designed to help us to udnerstand the world and universe, but it doesnt claim anything to the spiritual nor the paranormal... AGH GHOSTS!

So if your science tells you, that glucose does this this and this, and demonstrates adding an alkaline metal to water causes an explosion due to the reaction caused with the hydrogen and oxygen in the water so dont put it in your wine glass. You'd better do as he says! Because that is science! Yes science.

Do your faith/pray and BOOM ! Your dead. :D
WEEEEEEEEEE LOOK AT ME.... IM FRYING LIKE AN ANGEL :rolleyes:

Charles Cure: Ignore Atlas Shrugged & Ayn Rand's other writings. Study history.

There was a good approximation to Laissex Faire capitalism for perhaps 200 or more years ending sometime in the first half of the 20th century. I personally claim that it ended in about 1913, while others claim that it ended earlier or later, while others still call the US a capitalist system.

Compare the ordinary worker of 1900-1910 to an ordinary citizen under the feudal system which capitalism replaced.

A 1909 Sears Roebuck mail order catalogue lists inexpenisive 100 piece sets of dishes for under $5, better 100 piece sets for under $10, and imported 100 piece Haviland China sets for $19.98 to $27.50. It lists pianos for under $100 and violins for $1.95 to $22.45. It lists all sorts of jewelry, watches, clocks, sporting goods, furniture, clothes, shoes, tools, phonographs, fire arms, binoculars, and many other items.

All of those items would be considered well made by modern standards. Most people would judge an 1876 colt revolver to have been be manufactured in the 20th century if it had been carefully maintained and seldom used. I have seen such items at auctions and antique shows.

That catalogue was used by average Americans. It indicates that a typical worker could afford the items advertised. In 1909, labor unions were not strong; There was little social legislation, little or no welfare, and hardly any government control of business.

Yet a typical worker could afford items undreamed of prior to the industrial revolution and capitalism. From 1890 to about 1910, it was common for ordinary people from Philadelphia to spend weekends in Atlantic City, a seaside resort 60 miles away. Many families rode bicycles, while most used trains.

Imagine the life of those ordianry people in about 1900-1910 compared to the ordinary people 300 to 500 years earlier. For their amusement, they could buy musical instruments, phonographes, sporting goods, and take weekend vacations. They could afford to buy china, furniture, clothes, tools, binoculars, and other manufactured items.

Capitalism did not do such a bad job for the worker in spite of the alleged oppression by the robber barons. Child labor under bad conditions was mostly history by that time because the adults made a good enough living to support their families. Increased productivity did more to eliminate child labor and bad working conditions than either unions or government legislation.

Yet it is claimed that capitalism is bad and communism/socialism is good. History says otherwise. Today, advocates of communism claim that it was theoretically a great idea that failed due to flaws in human behavior. Some claim that the USSR was not really an example of a communist system. Yet the academic community and the believers in communism extoled the virtues of the USSR and its communist system until several years after WW2.

Again, I state that the USSR was the logical consequence of an attempt to apply communist principles.

because science is run by secular atheists... who like it that way.

there is no conflict between science and religion... but they want one.

-MT

because science is run by secular atheists... who like it that way.

there is no conflict between science and religion... but they want one.

-MT

Science is our religion, when things are correct, that means we are on the right way :D

Don't talk crap. If you are going to be a rude, inconsiderate asshole, who can't take a moment or to to properly formulate their thoughts, I rather doubt those thoughts are of much particular value.

In fact, I just spent ten minutes wading through your prose, correcting the spelling, amending the grammar, and giving it some structure. I just came back to post it from Word and found the above waiting me. So, go fly a kite, sonny, and hang your philosophy off the end of it.

actually, he was only refuting a blanket statement laid on him by someone that doesnt even know him.

if we are going to be the grammar police, ill be watching closely from now on to deride anyone that doesnt write the way i prefer.

btw: i am a religious person, i fully believe in the truth that science can offer, and i recognize the role it can play in furthering our knowledge about the universe.

to me, studying science has very little to do with traditional religion. i see more and more the alienation of spiritual people on this forum, but i dont see any of these spiritual people standing up to defend themselves at all. regardless of particular belief, we shouldnt have to deal with people making statements like "believers all hate science, or they dont understand it if they accept it".

just because you call a duck a dog, doesnt necessarily make it a fact.

in fact, i see more preaching and cramming of beliefs down throats coming from NON religious folks here, than the opposite. if you are so concerned with religious people not living up to your standards of interests....why dont you take on the job of educating them in a fashion other than "you are stupid. i am smart." i mean...if its that important to someone to take time from their life to make negative statements about people that dont share their interest, it must really bother that person.......why not educate, instead of ridicule?

im sure we can learn alot from your "all knowing" position.

And what is the creator/birther of 1? 0. You may argue 0 is not a number, same as God...God is not a number! God is a free man!!
:D
because 0 is nothing. Of course, why do we have 0? It is a non-number, so to speak, to tell us the other numbers exist and we can't have the other numbers without 0. All are birthed out of nothing, in a sense, or as we see as nothing.You do realise that the Romans did not have a zero in their number system? They seemed to be fine without it - apart from the crumbling of their Empire.

In actuality, it is something and the creator of all after it.Please explain again how 0 creates the other numbers?

That is just a simple way to prove God exists through math.You have proven nothing. :rolleyes:
But if you feel that you have, I'm happy for you, but you'll probably believe anything.... like in a God.

The universe is ran by calculations. No - it's run by laws. Math is the law of the universe. In every action in it, they can be equated to numerical calculation. Every object can be given a value, a number or numbers, I should say, that when acted upon, judges how and how much to react to the actor it is confronted with. Like how in programming, every object is given properties of what it can or can't do which can be ultimately boiled down to beautiful numbers.You say that the Universe is nothing but action/reaction - yet claim to believe in a God????
Or are you merely saying that your GOD is nothing other than the "Initial Cause"?

So how do you know what this GOD of yours is like?
You seem to have boiled it down to "the initial cause" and since then, by your own words above, everything else is just cause and effect, governed by mathematics.

So what exactly are you worshipping?
What exactly is your belief in this area?

You seem to be falling down on your knees in front of.... the initial cause.
But that's ALL you can know about your God - that it was the initial cause.
End of story. It can add nothing to our burgeoning quest for knowledge. It can cause NOTHING since the initial cause - since everything, according to your own words, is governed by mathematics.

I am now intrigued as to exactly what it is you claim of your God?
Does it perform miracles and interfere with its own mathematics?:eek:

whats BeHe?

Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and proponent of ID. Specifically the idea of 'irreducible complexity' found in cells that somehow implies they could not have evolved. Behe is a major hero in the ID movement.

Behe is a major hero in the ID movement.In the same way as the Captain was a major hero on the Titanic? :D

So, on one hand he criticises Intelligent Design, yet is a Christian who should support Intelligent Design, if indeed he is a Christian.

That would be called a hypocrite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

Christians do not have to support ID or creationism. The fact is, among the liberal sects, many don't.

There are people that view the bible as an ancient, error-prone book of parables and stories and creation myths that could be understood thousands of years ago, with the occasional sublime and wise nugget thrown in, and yet these people also resonate with the moral ideas of one of the main characters, and try to emulate him and have a belief in a creator.

There is nothing inherent in such a worldview that implies that one has to reject particular branches of science. You do not have to be a biblical literalist to be a Christian.

If that makes them hypocrites in your eyes, it is simply because you haven't thought enough about it. More black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. There is a whole world of gray out there you (and others around here) are not seeing, for some reason.

If Miller claimed to be a Biblical Literalist and then defended evolution, then, and only then, would he be a hypocrite.

Kenneth Miller's scientific contributions are judged in the process of peer-review and on the merit of his works, not on whether or not someone on a messageboard thinks he is a 'hypocrite' - he and other believers will go right on contributing to science, no matter how much certain people make idiotic claims that the Venn diagrams of scientists and believers don't intersect.

In the same way as the Captain was a major hero on the Titanic? :D

If only the SS IntelligentDesign would sink a little faster, though. It's amazing how long this crap lasts.

I would call them ''Infected Scientists''. An atheist can easily fuck them up with a simple question. :D

Maybe you should read Miller's book.

If you look at the major battles right now in religion vs. a secular american society, you will soon realize that individuals like Miller are on our side. In fact he has already likely done far more tangible good for our side than most folks on theis board combined, I'd venture to say.

because science is run by secular atheists... who like it that way.
there is no conflict between science and religion... but they want one.


Secular atheists ? Dou you mean Copernicus, Galilei or Giordano Bruno. Or Salman Rushdie ? Of course, they didn't have any conflict with any religion.

[b]

There was a good approximation to Laissex Faire capitalism for perhaps 200 or more years ending sometime in the first half of the 20th century. I personally claim that it ended in about 1913, while others claim that it ended earlier or later, while others still call the US a capitalist system.

i believe that the US/Global economy now resembles a mercantilist system, while attempts at real capitalism ended probably about 50 years before you say you think it did. as a matter of fact i would argue that capitalism itself is just as flawed as communism and cannot work the way that it was intended.
you should find and read the book: The Lost Science of Money: the mythology of money - the story of power by Stephen Zarlenga. he was president of the american monetary institute at one point and describes in detail the flaws of capitalism and the setbacks the world has suffered especially in regard to the reliance on the gold standard as a basis for value.

Compare the ordinary worker of 1900-1910 to an ordinary citizen under the feudal system which capitalism replaced.

capitalism didnt replace feudalism, laissez-faire capitalism replaced protectionist mercantilism, and has arguably now evolved back into mercantilism. study history.
and it depends on where you look for the ordinary citizen in terms of whether you see benefit or not. yes, standards of working and living have improved in the US in the last 100 years. but look at the effects of US capitalist hegemony in a place like Latin America for example, where our capitalist democracy supports autocratic, basically feudal regimes in order to exploit cheap labor and open markets. capitalism the way it is practiced by western countries does not beget a rise in standard of living or working conditions anywhere else, but turns the world into its gold mine and nearly enslaves the workers of other countries to get a leg up on competition. thats the inevitable progression of capitalist policy as it seeks to maximize profit for the individual at the price of the many.


That catalogue was used by average Americans. It indicates that a typical worker could afford the items advertised. In 1909, labor unions were not strong; There was little social legislation, little or no welfare, and hardly any government control of business.

this is an indication of nothing. can you afford a new 3,500$ laptop that you see in a catalog? just because it is in a catalog doesnt mean the average person can afford to buy it. yes, i understand what you are saying, that if there wasnt some realistic possibility of someone buying an item it wouldnt be in a catalogue, but you have to remember that the average worker back then probably bought like one item per year from that catalogue.
just because there were no labor unions or welfare in 1909 also does not indicate anything. there may not have been a welfare program but that does not mean there was no need for one. i mean, some people were still living in shacks with dirt floors in some parts of our country until the late 1960's and Johnson's "war on poverty", so i think that there is a wide range of interpretations that can be made about capitalism and its ability to lift people out of states of feudal poverty and give them something better. i mean shit, in the 1850's we had a great laissez-faire system of capitalism and half of our nation's GDP was feuled by SLAVE LABOR. why dont you try asking the slaves if their quality of life was better than a feudal serf's? the point here is that if unregulated, business owners WILL exploit workers until they are literally worked to death in the most disgusting and abhorrent conditions possible as long as it creates an increase in the bottom line. that is how capitalism works, reduce overhead, increase profit. if unregulated, how is that not a formula that spells exploitation for workers? history proves this point, if it were not for labor unions and government reformists, there would still be dead diseased rats being thrown into sausage vats at meat packing factories and seven year olds working in coal mines. come on.


Yet a typical worker could afford items undreamed of prior to the industrial revolution and capitalism. From 1890 to about 1910, it was common for ordinary people from Philadelphia to spend weekends in Atlantic City, a seaside resort 60 miles away. Many families rode bicycles, while most used trains.

the industrial revolution allowed for the standardization of parts, and thus for mass manufacturing, which greatly reduced the price of nearly everything. it raised the standard of living by giving people jobs outside of subsistence agriculture, but lowered the standard of living at the same time by requiring the labor force to concentrate itself in cities with poorly equipped infrastructure to handle such an influx of population. so people go from living on farms to living in slums, they may make more money or have more leisure time, but income is not the only factor in standard of living.
similarly, the agricultural revolution in prehistoric times raised the standard of living of nomadic hunter-gatherers radically. they went from a life of wandering the plains in search of food, to building towns and cities, domesticating animals, and their population exploded. however, they then had to deal with increased incidence of disease brought on by poor hygeine and improper disposal of waste materials, and massive loss of land and property through conflict with neighboring peoples who needed to expand their land holdings in order to provide food for a massively growing population that was made possible by the advent of agricultural technique. nonetheless, these people experienced the same type of standard of living increase in a short period of time that you are attributing to capitalism, only they did not have capitalism. this is because the economic system has little to do with the rise in standard of living in either case, but instead it is the advent of new technology, regardless of economic structure, that allows for a standard of living improvement in the lives of the people.


Yet it is claimed that capitalism is bad and communism/socialism is good. History says otherwise. Today, advocates of communism claim that it was theoretically a great idea that failed due to flaws in human behavior. Some claim that the USSR was not really an example of a communist system. Yet the academic community and the believers in communism extoled the virtues of the USSR and its communist system until several years after WW2.

well, im not claiming that. i said that theoretically i believe communism to be more morally positive than capitalism. i also said that i believed that communism didnt work in practice, i think that much is obvious anyway. i still dont think communism has been attmepted in the way it was meant to be, mostly becuase i dont think it is possible for it to be implemented as described.
if you are to label an economic system by its adherence to a particular theory, then we no longer live in a capitalist economy anyway, and capitalism has been dead for at least 100 years in the US. we instead live in a hybridized capitalist-socialist-mercantilist system, im not sure what you would call it.


Again, I state that the USSR was the logical consequence of an attempt to apply communist principles.

again, i agree with you. but i am saying that its failure is due to its overestimation of human nature as it relates to a desire for fairness and morality. the "success" of capitalism all but proves my point in full.

No but they dont have a clue what science is all about. It's logicaly & mathematicaly impossible to believe in god. They simply dont use ther logics that's all.

[A] Hello im Xian and i hate science because science is the axis of evil
[B] Hello in Xian and i love science but i dont understand them but it's cool anyway.

erm? Steven Hawking has a good understanding of science and he believes in God. Of course there are believers who also relate to science. Nothing is ever black and white.

Myself, I have some very dodgy beliefs (from your perspective) but at same time came to be fascinated by science in later life so trying to catch up!

erm? Steven Hawking has a good understanding of science and he believes in God. Of course there are believers who also relate to science. Nothing is ever black and white.

Myself, I have some very dodgy beliefs (from your perspective) but at same time came to be fascinated by science in later life so trying to catch up! Did you know that some guy has invented a laser that can make solid objects see through? wow

Steven Hawking believes in god ? Are you serious ? :confused: WOW this is new !

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/hawking.html :D

Steven Hawking believes in god ? Are you serious ? :confused: WOW this is new !

It's NOT new?
check out this link

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

There are scientists out there embarrassed by fact SH believes in God so are trying to intellectualise his beleifs, meanwhile I have seen him in an interview state quite plainly but without elaboration that he beleives in God.

Now bearing in mind the content of our two links....

In line with Einstein and SHawking, I similarly believe in God. I believe in God as the creator of nature for example, the creator of evolution...the gases for the big bang...whatever. Everything that science discusses basically. God is the point of origin for me.

Your wittering now TofR. Your link in no way demonstrates Hawking believes in God.

I see nothing in those citations to indicate that Hawking believed in a god which could be associated with the god of the Jewish, Christian, Islamic, or any other religion.

Similarly, Einstein is often said to b a believer in god due to his famous rmark about god playing dice with the universe. To Einstein (and I think to Hawking) god was a term used to suggest something like nature or the laws of the universe.

Your wittering now TofR. Your link in no way demonstrates Hawking believes in God.

The link reads as follows:

"And God
A Brief History of Time says a lot about God. God is mentioned in this book from beginning to end. So let us try to put Hawking's opinions about God in some sort of a context. The context is that Stephen Hawking made up his mind about God long before he became a cosmologist.............


and ends with ............The reason the book has sold 10 million copies, i.e., the reason for Hawking's success as a popularizer of science, is that he addresses the problems of meaning and purpose that concern all thinking people. The book overlaps with Christian belief and it does so deliberately, but graciously and without rancor. It is an important book that needs to be treated with respect and attention."
.......................


Here is what S Hawking said during one of his conferences when asked about this subject:

"..........The last question was reserved for Chapman, who asked the following paraphrased. "Scientists from Galileo to Newton believed in some sort of divine intelligence that acted at least as a mathematician. What do you feel that the results from science from the later half of the 20th century have to say about the mind of god?" Hawking said that when he talks of knowing god, that he means what Einstein had meant, knowing the ultimate laws of nature. And he predicted that we would know the mind of god by the end of this century"

I see nothing in those citations to indicate that Hawking believed in a god which could be associated with the god of the Jewish, Christian, Islamic, or any other religion.

Similarly, Einstein is often said to b a believer in god due to his famous rmark about god playing dice with the universe. To Einstein (and I think to Hawking) god was a term used to suggest something like nature or the laws of the universe.

So then we agree, I said Hawking believed in God, I did NOT say he was connected to religion.

My point re Hawking/Einstein/Ledereman came in response to mythbusters comment that "It's logicaly & mathematicaly impossible to believe in god" which mathmatically and logically may be correct, but the fact remains some very mathmatically and logically minded types do!

Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner wrote -

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

Honors
Leon Lederman is the recipient of fellowships from the Ford, Guggenheim, Ernest Kepton Adams and National Science Foundations. He is a founding member of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (to AEC, DOE) and the International Committee on Future Accelerators. He has received the National Medal of Science (1965) and the Wolf Prize for Physics (1982) among many other awards.

Honorary D.Sc's have been awarded to Leon M. Lederman by City College of New York, University of Chicago, Illinois Institute of Technology, Northern Illinois University, Lake Forest College and Carnegie Mellon University.

Maybe this assists my 'point' better, my point being that scientists can believe in God and do.

Not in the sense in which Mythbuster, and virtually every other poster on this thread, meant God. If you intend to introduce a variant definition into the mix it is right and proper to offer that definition to your audience. Otherwise you turn this into a discussion of semantics.

Hawking is an atheist. Period. He beleives in the Laws of Nature, nothing more.

Not in the sense in which Mythbuster, and virtually every other poster on this thread, meant God. If you intend to introduce a variant definition into the mix it is right and proper to offer that definition to your audience. Otherwise you turn this into a discussion of semantics.

Hawking is an atheist. Period. He beleives in the Laws of Nature, nothing more.

In an interview when asked if Hawking believed in God, he replied yes. He is intelligent enough to know how that answer will be rec'd? At least by the audience at that time which was popular Tv not science community.

And what of Lederman?

Meanwhile re the semantics and varient definition I am confused............

The Pope had said in an Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1981.

"Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God....."

Popes view = world created by God, Einstein said he believed with regard to creation of laws of nature, which basically brought about creation of world, so whats the difference? Time?

I myself have hard time with religious people, when I tell them I have no religion and don't believe in them, but I beleive in God, they can't accept that? Just as science community can't accept that either...so I'm in no mans land....

hi,i'm Brian,my first time posting-- This is an intricate subject, and someone probably already stated this,but one reason that many religious people
(i'm talking christians here) don't want to take scientific research and
findings into account is that it would contradict their belief system. When
confronted with evidence to the contrary of what their belief system is based
upon, they can either face a devistating loss of what they have spent so much time and energy on(and it goes way beyond that when someone "loses
god") or the person can use what is basically a defense mechanism to not
believe even the most obvious scientific research to avoid the latter. I
believe it was Karl Marx who said "religion is the opiate of the masses", and
I think he was correct in more than one way when he said that.

Please explain again how 0 creates the other numbers?

Just as the number sequence is linear, so can we say time is. If 0 is the starting point of time, or any time, then 1 is 1 unit of time after 0. Or as .456 is .456 units of time after 0. So in any dynamic linear sequence, 0 is the birther of all. And our universe may be a dynamic, ever-expanding force in a dynamic 3D/4D whatever space, it is the linear sequence of time which makes it what it is, what it was, and what it will be. Time, obviously can be translated into mathematics as we do it everyday in saying 12:00, 12:01, etc. And there is a beginning of it, and an end, and a time when time started. As we have time, a number, if you want to call it, it can be deduced all the way down to 0, a starting point. I'm not at my best thinking right now but I hope I'm getting my point across.

You have proven nothing

Well, maybe I haven't to you. You probably have to know the other things I've learned in addition to be convinced. Or maybe you won't still. I'm just trying to defend mine and others' position and also helping others to understand why we or I believe how we do.

So what exactly are you worshipping?

Yes, I guess I am worshipping the initial cause.

Does it perform miracles and interfere with its own mathematics?

Not miracles as others see them. I see miracles as done by people and their will which they may not know they have. There is possibly untapped power of the human mind which most people don't or haven't used and that could probably be the basis of "miracles" as most believe. But as a break is performed in pool, I think He is sort of like the cue ball, or actually, the one striking. That the universe is one superflous motion like pool balls in a break. God has started it and He trancesses time and space by knowing all. Or as you would write a computer program, you know basically what's going to happen in advance when it is executed because you know and have wrote the source code to it. The one that is on the forefront of infinite time and space and also going the other direction, as I termed before, 0, -1, -2, etc. Just as the universe is ever-expanding and getting infinitely larger, I believe it is infinitely smaller too, as far as anyone can see. There is no smallest particle that man can discover nor end of the universe. But back on topic, man was created with the properties to perform miracles in himself, by drawing the energy from God, or that time and space, I believe God is. For God to do He would have to counteract the properties He assigned in humans. And I believe His whole purpose is to let the physics take place in the universe as it is, as one low-friction pool table, so to speak, and not have to interfere or else it means the program He executed is unable to run without orders other than what He already assigned. I don't know, I'm having one of those days where my mind doesn't want to work. It's all a big puzzle and the details are impossible to comprehend by the human mind.

Without naming names, I think there are posters quoting out of context. Perhaps it is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Perhaps it is due to sloppily picking anything that supports an agenda. The following clearly indicates that Hawking did not believe in the god of Judeo-Christianity or Islam.A Brief History of Time says a lot about God. God is mentioned in this book from beginning to end. So let us try to put Hawking's opinions about God in some sort of a context. The context is that Stephen Hawking made up his mind about God long before he became a cosmologist.

The principle influence in his early life was his mother, Isabel. Isabel Hawking was a member of the Communist Party in England in the 1930's, and her son has carried a good bit of that intellectual baggage right through his life.

By the time he was 13, Hawking's hero was the atheist philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. At the same age, two of Hawking's friends became Christians as a result of the 1955 Billy Graham London campaign. According to his 1992 biographers, Hawking stood apart from these encounters with "a certain amused detachment." There is nothing in A Brief History of Time that deviates in a significant way from the religious views of the 13-year old Stephen Hawking.I have bolded what I think are significant phrases in the above & the following,Many of the greatest scientists of earlier centuries -- Michael Faraday, for instance -- believed that all natural laws, and not only the yet to be discovered most fundamental, provide insights into the mind of God. For these natural laws were and are, in their view, the principles upon which God designs and controls His universe.

For them, and presumably for most of Hawking's readers, the word 'God' refers to an hypothesized omnipotent, omniscient, incorporeal yet personal Creator; the traditional Mosaic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This conception of God needs to be, but here is not, sharply distinguished from that of Einstein; which, I suspect, is for at least part of the time that of Hawking. Einstein was once asked -- to settle an argument -- whether he believed in God. He replied that he believed in Spinoza's God.[5] Since for Spinoza the words 'God' and 'Nature' were synonymous Einstein was, in the eyes of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, unequivocally an atheist.[6] It was in this Spinozistic understanding of the word 'God' that Einstein protested against quantum theory "The Lord God does not play dice." The above are from citations in previous posts to this thread. I have used list instead of quote to make the passages easier to read.

The above clearly indicate that neither Einstein nor Hawking believed in the god of Judeo-Christianity or the god of Islam.

Lets put an end to this shall we?

(Stephen Hawking Theoretical Physicist


At a physicist's conference Hawking was attending after his book A Brief History of Time was published, a reporter approached him to ask if he did in fact believe in God, given the "mind of God" reference near the end of the book. Hawking responded quickly (suggesting his answer was pre-prepared) "I do not believe in a personal God.") click (http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=12)

Nuf said!

Godless

What is the problem that religious people have with science?Probably the fact that individuals with agendas will tend to try and use it to undermine their beliefs.

Interesting thing is that there are many atheists out there who are clueless about (or have some spurious knowledge of) science and yet they attempt to use it in their anti-religious propaganda.

One fool makes many. :DScientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.Certainly, generally, they aren't.

The only anti-religious people out there are atheists. An anti-religious scientist is an atheist.

It is interesting when people will state that person X believes or doesn't believe in God.

So what?

Are they such revered icons or idols or role models or something? Is their belief or non-belief in something indicative of its veracity? :p

I'd think it's more the reasons for their belief or lack thereof.

I guess how you see it all depends on where on the range your vantage point is.

There are many people out there who would probably surpass the achievements of some individual, X, if life had led them along a similar path.

Christians do not have to support ID or creationism. The fact is, among the liberal sects, many don't.

Of course, like all theists, they pick and choose whatever suits their fancy to prop up their versions of god fantasies.

There are people that view the bible as an ancient, error-prone book of parables and stories and creation myths that could be understood thousands of years ago, with the occasional sublime and wise nugget thrown in, and yet these people also resonate with the moral ideas of one of the main characters, and try to emulate him and have a belief in a creator.

If that were the case, why don't we have Grimmians or Aesopians?

There is nothing inherent in such a worldview that implies that one has to reject particular branches of science. You do not have to be a biblical literalist to be a Christian.

Apparently, you can be whatever you want, considering the thousands of sects of Christianity. Again, they pick the best part of the fantasy that suits their needs du jour.

If that makes them hypocrites in your eyes, it is simply because you haven't thought enough about it. More black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. There is a whole world of gray out there you (and others around here) are not seeing, for some reason.

Really? So, explain to me please the "gray" areas between a god and no god, souls and no souls, afterlife and no afterlife, reality and fantasy?

As well, could you please explain the apparent "degrees or levels" of belief? I was under the impression that you either believe in a god or you don't.

If Miller claimed to be a Biblical Literalist and then defended evolution, then, and only then, would he be a hypocrite.

Again, you'd have to define the apparent degrees of belief as opposed to belief and non-belief? At what level exactly does one draw the line between hypocrite and defender?

Kenneth Miller's scientific contributions are judged in the process of peer-review and on the merit of his works, not on whether or not someone on a messageboard thinks he is a 'hypocrite' - he and other believers will go right on contributing to science, no matter how much certain people make idiotic claims that the Venn diagrams of scientists and believers don't intersect.

Thanks for tossing out the first ad hominem. Should we now stoop to kindergarten tactics?

[QUOTE=Dinosaur]Without naming names, I think there are posters quoting out of context. Perhaps it is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. Perhaps it is due to sloppily picking anything that supports an agenda. The following clearly indicates that Hawking did not believe in the god of Judeo-Christianity or Islam.[list]A Brief History of Time says a lot about God.QUOTE]

You can name names? You were talking about me...obvious,

1) I have already explained in reply your previous comment that my 'hawking' reference was in reply to mythbusters comment that no one logical and mathmatical can beleive in a god, and did agree it wasn't a religious God. Ophiolite then picked me up on that stating there was a difference between Einsteins view of God and Hawkings view ..ie not a personal god...myself I'm still not sure I get the difference? A discussion for another thread perhaps...

Anyway re me trying to attempt obfuscation or have secret 'agenda' no? Why would you think that? I think you thinking that though answers your question in your original post which I will get to in a minute.

Ok so Hawking wasn't a great example, I mentioned him as I watched a tv programme where when asked if he believed in god, his simple reply was 'yes'. so anything I read to the contrary is kind of well.......you know how it is.
The other thing you must surely recognise is that if something is not controversial it does not get a mention, if you google Hawking and 'god' you get pages of stuff..pages. The reason being becuase he and his god beliefs are controversial in the eyes of science hence so much interest. There is nothing controversial about scientists being athiests as it is the expected state of being. So if Hawking doesn't beleive in god why all the speculation/controversy and interest...and I'll leave it at that. It is off topic afterall. Well lay Hawking to rest!

Replace my example with the less controversial Leon Lederman.

Meanhwile I have I believe something now to contribute to your original post, why do religious believers (and I am NOT one...so no agenda!) reject science.

The extreme opposition to my view (converniently side stepping the Lederman example) re Hawking, shows clearly that scientists are not ready to accept religious people into the scientific community and if any scientist dares to claim any religious belief they will either be discredited or have there view twisted to suit the 'general' view. Which is oddly enough what the religious do is it not re the science community?

So I put it to you that science is a religion of sorts with maths as your God and you reject anything outside of that, so when you ask why do religious people do this, you know the answer, it is inside yourself.

I have no agenda, just making an observation, the fact that you assume an agenda is very revealing................you should ponder that.

It's NOT new?
check out this link

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html
richard dawkins says it best here, you've obviously got wrong.

Is God a Superstring?

I shall now return to the "no-contests". The argument they mount is certainly worth serious examination, but I think that we shall find it has little more merit than those of the other groups.

God is not an old man with a white beard in the sky. Right then, what is God? And now come the weasel words. these are very variable. "God is not out there, he is in all of us." God is the ground of all being." "God is the essence of life." "God is the universe." "Don't you believe in the universe?" "Of course I believe in the universe." "Then you believe in God." "God is love, don't you believe in love?" "Right, then you believe in God?"

Modern physicists sometimes wax a bit mystical when they contemplate questions such as why the big bang happened when it did, why the laws of physics are these laws and not those laws, why the universe exists at all, and so on. Sometimes physicists may resort to saying that there is an inner core of mystery that we don't understand, and perhaps never can; and they may then say that perhaps this inner core of mystery is another name for God. Or in Stephen Hawkings's words, if we understand these things, we shall perhaps "know the mind of God."

The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery. It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml
if you believe steven hawkings is a believer you seem to be the only one.
the thrust of Hawking's philosophizing in A Brief History of Time is to demean God's role in the affairs of the universe and to elevate the role of the human race.
and now a little fun
http://www.mchawking.com/
or go here and click play the movie
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/233937

Can't let go of the Hawkings thing can you and what of Lederman?

I'll reiterate here what I said in another thread, what I believe is not based on logic it is personal and unique to me. I have no label for what I believe I also have no desire to share what I believe, neither to convince or convert. If everyones view differed from mine, this is of no interest to me. I have no interest in seeking approval or confirmation.

The only logical view in my mind if we are talking of logic is the agnostic one.
My view is not logical, I know that.

The topic relates to why religious aren't open to science, same reason scientists aren't open to religion I guess? I 'll let you all squabble it out, its not my argument.

Ask yourself why its so improtant to you that the masses share your view?

Scientists, mathematicians, et cetera do not seem to be anti-religion.

I think by reading the scientists view in this thread it is clear they are anti religion, same reason as religious appear to be anti science, I disagreed that all believers in god were anti science and look what I got? It is was a welcome response as it demonstrates that clearly science is no more ready for religion than religion is for science. Not that I was promoting religion! Or even God for that matter.

Science is constantly evolving and disproving that which was previously proved. But still you worship it. I embrace it. It is not the be all and end all.

Religion is a means of control, of course they don't want to relinquish that control? What part of this is a mystery?

actually the dogmatic assertion the 'God' is the Earth, and universe, isa up-start ptriarchal ripp off from the original insight that world and universe are body of the GODDESS....actully in patriarcha dogma it doesn't mean Earth is 'God's body, it rather means 'he' is an architect-creator of Earth,and is more transcendent. the evidence for this attitude is shown in how peoples who wanted to commune ecstatically with Nature and universe--a need which was sacred toprepatriarchal and many Indigenous poples--were persecuted by the ptriarchy,and STILL ARE. do not forget the ev ery relentless presence of the war on (SOME) drugs....whcih very much include psychedelics. psychedelic sacrements as an age old primal way of inspiring ecstatic uniion wit Nature andcosmos

now the old dude wt the beard is the patrarchl sky-god concept. but te inisghgt of IMMANENCEis more te panpsychic understanding of our very anceint ancestors. tis means that matter-energy itself is active intelligence and creative

I hope those scientists are talking about space not a men with a large beard.

Any scientist will understand this:

G = God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

If G Then [B + P] = "true"
If [B + P] Then N = "true"
N != true

Therefore ![B + P]
Therefore ![G]

God dont exist.

Science is all about logic and i see NO REASON for them to believe is faith.

Therefore ![B + P]
Therefore ![G]

God dont exist.

Science is all about logic and i see NO REASON for them to believe is faith.Surely this just discounts the "Benevolent AND Omnipotent" God-variant?

Of course, like all theists, they pick and choose whatever suits their fancy to prop up their versions of god fantasies.

That might be the case. So what? It doesn't change the fact that there are scientists that believe in God.

If that were the case, why don't we have Grimmians or Aesopians?

Those books may have morals and interesting stories, but they don't really deal with religious ideas or death or an afterlife, IIRC. I'd have a hard time seeing children's fables taking root for a religious doctrine when there is something already so firmly entrenched in society as Chrisitianty was in europe back then.

Apparently, you can be whatever you want, considering the thousds of sects of Christianity. Again, they pick the best part of the fantasy that suits their needs du jour.

You can be whatever you want. When I look for information, I often scour books from a variety of authors and many sources. Why should religious ideas be any different? Kudos to those who embrace a diverse and well-read kind of spirituality - they are much, much, much, much, much less likely to be fanatical.

Really? So, explain to me please the "gray" areas between a god and no god, souls and no souls, afterlife and no afterlife, reality and fantasy?

The gray area I'm referring to is set of beliefs that can exist in the mind of one individual. There are a number of folks here that seem to think that the world is divided into strictly irrational anti-science theists and purely atheistic logical scientists. Black and white. Either-or. It is a false dichotomy, it's bullshit, and it is easily disporven by the FACT that there are tenured professors in science departments that beleive in God.

Now, if you want me to explain exactly how these particular scientists reconcile these things in their own minds, I can speculate, but given that I am not a theist it is just that, speculation. Many religious scientists are of the pantheistic or deistic persuasion, and a few are liberal Christians.

As well, could you please explain the apparent "degrees or levels" of belief? I was under the impression that you either believe in a god or you don't.

Yes, you either belive in God or not, the difference is that there are differing concepts for what that God is and there are widely differing views on how that belief should impact every other facet of your life, including how you do science.

There is a difference between the conceptions of God held by Al-Zarqawi and Freeman Dyson. There is a very large difference in how they consider God interacts with the universe. There is a very large difference in how their belief impacts what they do day-in and day-out.

But if you are going to divide the world into the black and white of strictly irrational anti-science theists and purely atheistic logical scientists, then where are you going to put Dyson, eh? That is the gray area.


Again, you'd have to define the apparent degrees of belief as opposed to belief and non-belief? At what level exactly does one draw the line between hypocrite and defender?

Personally I could give a rat's ass about who is a "hypocrite" relative to some outdated religious ideals. It is meaningless in this context. I'm concerned with Miller's ideas, not what box you can shove them into and what label you can convieniently affix. If you ask Oral Roberts or Billy Graham, I'm sure they would tell you Kenneth Miller is a hypocrite, and apostate, and a heretic. Who cares?

You have to start partioning up your concepts and differentiate a little more. These concepts are just too complex and blanket staements won't work. Here let me give you an example:

Miller is not a defender of orthodox Christianity.
Miller chooses to believe in a personal God.
Miller does not defend the idea that science somehow shows evidence for God.
Miller is not a defender of biblical literalism.

etc...

This is far more useful and informative than "he is a defender of religion" or "he is a hypocrite".

Who declared that all religious belief has to fall into the narrow guidleines of orthodoxy? They have been changing the details ever since day one. They have been calling each other hypocrites since day one for interpreting every little thing differently. So what?

Thanks for tossing out the first ad hominem. Should we now stoop to kindergarten tactics?

I was calling the idea (that a scientist cannot be a believer) idiotic, not you or anyone else. If that was a personal attack, or construed as one, I apologize. It was not my intention.

I hope those scientists are talking about space not a men with a large beard.

Any scientist will understand this:

G = God exists
B = God is benevolent
P = God is omnipotent
N = There is no evil

P1. If G, then B and P
P2. If B and P, then N
P3. Not-N
C1. Therefore, not-B or not-P
C2. Therefore, not-G

If G Then [B + P] = "true"
If [B + P] Then N = "true"
N != true

Therefore ![B + P]
Therefore ![G]

God dont exist.

Science is all about logic and i see NO REASON for them to believe is faith.

Any scientist will follow the logical flow of your argument, but they won't necessarily come to the final conclusion, because they may disagree with some of the premises. Or they might feel that God is "above" such simple logical exercises.

Seriously... let me direct this to a number of you that claim 'scientists cannot be religious'... let's step away from logical exercises and just examine the facts:

There are scientists that hold religious beliefs. Yes, they are a minority, but they exist. Do you really dispute that? Among members of the NAS, in 1998 a poll showed that 7% called themselves religious. LINK (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html)

I spent about 10 years all told at two physics departments of mid-size, run-of-the-mill state universities, and I knew my classmates pretty well, and order of magnitude, I'd say 30% of them held religious beliefs of some kind. I know this because we use to talk and argue about it. Now not everyone goes on to become professional scientists, and even fewer will end up in the NAS, but most of them got the training and certification to do science professionally in some context. I knew other grad students that were religious and quite, quite bright, and some that were dull, and some bright atheistic ones, and some dull atheistic ones.

Where did you all go to school? Was I at the only two schools in the USA where the religious students went? I highly doubt it.

One of my advisor's other students who is still working on his degree is very religious. But he is every bit as capable as anyone else in the group at understanding the bedground science of the field, building instrumentation, designing experiments, colecting data, interpreting the results, publishing them, and defending them at conferences. And no one at the conferences scoffs and says, 'this guy believes in God - kick him out" - NOBODY knows what his personal convictions are except his friends. It does not impact his work. PERIOD.

In fact, if you are up for it, we'll do a little experiment - you can read the text of one of his papers and the text of a paper from a nontheist from the same research group. Both accepted by referees for mainstream journals. Then you can take the Pepsi Challenge and tell me which one was the believer in God and which one wasn't. Who is up for that? Obviously one of them should be riddled with errors and the other should be the paragon of clear thought, right?

And if you cannot tell the difference, then I guess that just shows that it doesn't fucking matter if one of the authors has a God belief, now does it?

So I sit here amazed when I hear all this talk. Either you are using a different defintion for the 'religious' - and you mean BillyBob the ignorant hayseed that dropped out of fourth grade and loves his Jeebus, or you have never spent any time in any science department talking with you fellow grad students.

The extreme opposition to my view (converniently side stepping the Lederman example) re Hawking, shows clearly that scientists are not ready to accept religious people into the scientific community and if any scientist dares to claim any religious belief they will either be discredited or have there view twisted to suit the 'general' view. .My extreme opposition was based upon the fact that you were wrong. I reserve all of my extreme opposition for things that are wrong.
I know, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that many scientists are religious, some devoutly so, and many believe in a personal, 'conventional' god. Hawkins isn't one of them. That is the motivation for my opposition.

I remain, despite both the eloquent and the unworthy arguments on both sides, a committed agnostic, routinely failing to attend any cermonies of any religion at any place of worship, unless required by social convention.

That might be the case. So what? It doesn't change the fact that there are scientists that believe in God.

Or the fact that they are hypocrites because they are scientists that believe in gods.

Those books may have morals and interesting stories, but they don't really deal with religious ideas or death or an afterlife, IIRC. I'd have a hard time seeing children's fables taking root for a religious doctrine when there is something already so firmly entrenched in society as Chrisitianty was in europe back then.

Aesops fables are almost as old as the Olympics. And its quite impossible to tell which is the more credible fable, one from Aesop or that of Christianity. I would probably side with Aesop on that one.

You can be whatever you want. When I look for information, I often scour books from a variety of authors and many sources. Why should religious ideas be any different? Kudos to those who embrace a diverse and well-read kind of spirituality - they are much, much, much, much, much less likely to be fanatical.

If spirituality actually existed in regards to religion, that might be relevant. But since it doesn't, those religious ideas are mere fantasies and is worthless as information, except perhaps to a fanatic.

The gray area I'm referring to is set of beliefs that can exist in the mind of one individual. There are a number of folks here that seem to think that the world is divided into strictly irrational anti-science theists and purely atheistic logical scientists. Black and white. Either-or. It is a false dichotomy, it's bullshit, and it is easily disporven by the FACT that there are tenured professors in science departments that beleive in God.

No, that doesn't prove or disprove anything. It does show however that those scientists are hypocrites since they do not apply their own rigor to their beliefs. I would at least respect the "strictly irrational anti-scientist theist" who stands up for what he believes.

Now, if you want me to explain exactly how these particular scientists reconcile these things in their own minds, I can speculate, but given that I am not a theist it is just that, speculation. Many religious scientists are of the pantheistic or deistic persuasion, and a few are liberal Christians.

Then it would appear your claim is based on pure speculation.

Yes, you either belive in God or not, the difference is that there are differing concepts for what that God is and there are widely differing views on how that belief should impact every other facet of your life, including how you do science.

There is a difference between the conceptions of God held by Al-Zarqawi and Freeman Dyson. There is a very large difference in how they consider God interacts with the universe. There is a very large difference in how their belief impacts what they do day-in and day-out.

In other words, whatever they can conjure from their imagination is what they'll believe. Again, hypocrites.

But if you are going to divide the world into the black and white of strictly irrational anti-science theists and purely atheistic logical scientists, then where are you going to put Dyson, eh? That is the gray area.

Insanity is the gray area?

Personally I could give a rat's ass about who is a "hypocrite" relative to some outdated religious ideals. It is meaningless in this context. I'm concerned with Miller's ideas, not what box you can shove them into and what label you can convieniently affix. If you ask Oral Roberts or Billy Graham, I'm sure they would tell you Kenneth Miller is a hypocrite, and apostate, and a heretic. Who cares?

Many care. They see the propagation of myth held as reality as a dangerous concept. Perhaps scientists who share those beliefs are quite able to recognize that what they work on day to day is a reality and that their beliefs are pure fantasy.

You have to start partioning up your concepts and differentiate a little more. These concepts are just too complex and blanket staements won't work. Here let me give you an example:

Miller is not a defender of orthodox Christianity.
Miller chooses to believe in a personal God.
Miller does not defend the idea that science somehow shows evidence for God.
Miller is not a defender of biblical literalism.

etc...

This is far more useful and informative than "he is a defender of religion" or "he is a hypocrite".

Who declared that all religious belief has to fall into the narrow guidleines of orthodoxy? They have been changing the details ever since day one. They have been calling each other hypocrites since day one for interpreting every little thing differently. So what?

I'm quite surprised you don't see the absolute hypocrisy of that statement. If their interpretations have been continually changing, yet none of it has any basis in reality, then it is mere imaginative fantasy. Yet, the scientist who holds those beliefs MUST be able to recognize it as such. If he can, then he is a hypocrite for making those beliefs part of his reality. If he can't, then he is a hypocrite for not applying his own rigor to his beliefs.

I was calling the idea (that a scientist cannot be a believer) idiotic, not you or anyone else. If that was a personal attack, or construed as one, I apologize. It was not my intention.

Thanks. I didn't think it was your intention.

(Q),

Or the fact that they are hypocrites because they are scientists that believe in gods.

He said "God" not "gods".

I would probably side with Aesop on that one.

Of course you would...you are anti-christian.

If spirituality actually existed in regards to religion, that might be relevant.
But since it doesn't, those religious ideas are mere fantasies and is worthless as information, except perhaps to a fanatic.

Can you explain what "spirituality is?

No, that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

So you don't think it proves that science and religion can co-exist?

It does show however that those scientists are hypocrites since they do not apply their own rigor to their beliefs.

Their rigor deals with physical phenomena which can be observed through the senses. What does this have to do with a belief in God?

I would at least respect the "strictly irrational anti-scientist theist" who stands up for what he believes.

Its a good thing your respect has no value outside your personal life.

Jan.

My extreme opposition was based upon the fact that you were wrong. I reserve all of my extreme opposition for things that are wrong.
I know, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that many scientists are religious, some devoutly so, and many believe in a personal, 'conventional' god. Hawkins isn't one of them. That is the motivation for my opposition.

I remain, despite both the eloquent and the unworthy arguments on both sides, a committed agnostic, routinely failing to attend any cermonies of any religion at any place of worship, unless required by social convention.

I wasn't actually refferring to you Ophiolite, I was referring to those that said I was a theist, had an agenda, thought god had a beard? Maybe me calling it extreme opposition was 'extreme' use of word extreme!

Or the fact that they are hypocrites because they are scientists that believe in gods.

If one's belief in God is an expression of faith in things that are inherently beyond the ken of science to deal with, I don't see the hypocrisy. It is only hypocrisy when one realm interferes with the other. They can be non-ovrelapping majesteria, as Gould would say.

Aesops fables are almost as old as the Olympics. And its quite impossible to tell which is the more credible fable, one from Aesop or that of Christianity. I would probably side with Aesop on that one.

Oops, you are right - I was focusing on the Brothers Grimm.


If spirituality actually existed in regards to religion, that might be relevant. But since it doesn't, those religious ideas are mere fantasies and is worthless as information, except perhaps to a fanatic.

Huh? Spirituality doesn't exist in regards to religion? What does that mean? I hope were not just arguing over semantics here.

No, that doesn't prove or disprove anything. It does show however that those scientists are hypocrites since they do not apply their own rigor to their beliefs. I would at least respect the "strictly irrational anti-scientist theist" who stands up for what he believes.

Or they simply acknowledge that science and religion are orthogonal pursuits, that one does not inform the other, and leave it at that. One can (and should) acknowledge that there is not evidence for God, but choose to have faith in that particular concept, for personal reasons. This needn't interfere with their professional lives. Again, there are scientists that do just that, whether you like it or not, and whether you approve or not - they do it, they write papers, they get tenure, they get grants, they do science.

Then it would appear your claim is based on pure speculation.

My claims are based on writings of scientists, and conversations with faculty and grad students. I would propose that it is a much wilder speculation, a kind of fantasy, if you will, to have this romanticised notion that all 'true' scientists are a kind of cross between Hawking and Mr. Spock. They are not. I have spent enough time around enough of them to have seen all the warts.

In other words, whatever they can conjure from their imagination is what they'll believe. Again, hypocrites.

Your personal beliefs, if kept personal, have nothing to do with your professional activites. Shit, one can do solid scientific work and yet even be an idiot in other ways. I offer Nobel laurate William Shockley as a prime example.

Insanity is the gray area?

I don't think Martin Gardner is insane.

Many care. They see the propagation of myth held as reality as a dangerous concept. Perhaps scientists who share those beliefs are quite able to recognize that what they work on day to day is a reality and that their beliefs are pure fantasy.

It all comes down to your philosophical POV. And which one you hold is outside the purview of science.

I'm quite surprised you don't see the absolute hypocrisy of that statement. If their interpretations have been continually changing, yet none of it has any basis in reality, then it is mere imaginative fantasy. Yet, the scientist who holds those beliefs MUST be able to recognize it as such. If he can, then he is a hypocrite for making those beliefs part of his reality. If he can't, then he is a hypocrite for not applying his own rigor to his beliefs.

Interpretations change about everything. Personally I regard just about everything about orthodox Christianity as fantasy, so I cannot dispute that. If you mean that religious ideas have no evidence to back them up, I agree wholeheartedly. I think many 'religious scientists' would agree. Gardner would agree. But it doesn't entail hypocrisy to entertain the beliefs, it simply means holding a philosophical POV that allows for truths outside of the realm of science.

I think our fundamental disagreement has to do with the application of scientific tools and reasoning to philosophical notions. Personally I don't see that those tools need apply. Science is a method for understanding the physical world. There are philosophical POVs that posit a realm that is beyond the ken of science. Holding that view doesn't invalidate your ability to do science at all. Whether or not it is the 'best' view is up for debate, and it is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

I think by reading the scientists view in this thread it is clear they are anti religion, same reason as religious appear to be anti science, I disagreed that all believers in god were anti science and look what I got? It is was a welcome response as it demonstrates that clearly science is no more ready for religion than religion is for science. Not that I was promoting religion! Or even God for that matter.


science isnt anti religion, it is pro-fact. when the facts contradict established religious doctrine and practice, the religious lash out at science and scientists. there is like a 1,000 year legacy of this. if a scientist comes out against a particular religious viewpoint because it clearly and flagrantly violates reality and fact-based knowledge, they are not anti-religion, they are just against the promotion of fallacy as reality. lets not pretend that there are two credible sides facing off here against each other, science holds all the cards, and religion seeks to hold dominion over an ever-shrinking fear of the unknown in the hearts and minds of followers. science, as a field that can bestow knowledge on people is naturally antithetical to religion, which depends on a lack of understanding to control its flock.

science isnt anti religion, it is pro-fact. when the facts contradict established religious doctrine and practice, the religious lash out at science and scientists. there is like a 1,000 year legacy of this. if a scientist comes out against a particular religious viewpoint because it clearly and flagrantly violates reality and fact-based knowledge, they are not anti-religion, they are just against the promotion of fallacy as reality. lets not pretend that there are two credible sides facing off here against each other, science holds all the cards, and religion seeks to hold dominion over an ever-shrinking fear of the unknown in the hearts and minds of followers. science, as a field that can bestow knowledge on people is naturally antithetical to religion, which depends on a lack of understanding to control its flock.

How can you say science holds all the cards when science is constantly disproving that which it once proved! Although compared to adam and eve stories, yes science holds a more enlightened view but not the whole view.
The mere fact you say science is pro facts and the 'facts' contradict established doctrine...what facts? There are no facts that can demonstrate that the laws of nature were not designed by something? Let me have them if you have them?


I have no religious beleifs myself so am not arguing pro religion just seems to me the way people like your self who see science as the whole truth and nothing but the truth (inspite of all the changes to these truths) are as 'blind' as the religious to reality.

Your science whether you agree or not is your religion. You are religious.

Quoted from web
"Defining the word "religion" is fraught with difficulty. All of the definitions that we have encountered contain at least one deficiency:

Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might include belief in a personal deity or some supernatural entities. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and religious Satanism which have no such belief.
Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious.
Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For example, David Edward's definition would seem to include cosmology and ecology within his definition of religion -- fields of investigation that most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in nature.
Some define "religion" in terms of "the sacred" and/or "the spiritual," and thus necessitate the creation of two more definitions.
Sometimes, definitions of "religion" contain more than one deficiency"

I am not religious, I embrace science but see it as it is...an infant

Healthy view...

(Q),

He said "God" not "gods".

That would be one of the only times you actually DID correct someone.

Of course you would...you are anti-christian.

Anti-religion. But I'm refering to the fact that I find more credibility with talking animals than I do with angels, devils, afterlifes, souls, gods, resurrections, etc.

Can you explain what "spirituality is?

Yes, another fantasy created by theists like you.

So you don't think it proves that science and religion can co-exist?

They can co-exist in hypocrisy.

Their rigor deals with physical phenomena which can be observed through the senses. What does this have to do with a belief in God?

Nothing, of course. That was my point.

If one's belief in God is an expression of faith in things that are inherently beyond the ken of science to deal with, I don't see the hypocrisy. It is only hypocrisy when one realm interferes with the other. They can be non-ovrelapping majesteria, as Gould would say.

Peoples fantasies are well understood as just that, therefore the overlap is whatever one makes it.

Huh? Spirituality doesn't exist in regards to religion? What does that mean? I hope were not just arguing over semantics here.

Spirituality simply doesn't exist.

Or they simply acknowledge that science and religion are orthogonal pursuits, that one does not inform the other, and leave it at that. One can (and should) acknowledge that there is not evidence for God, but choose to have faith in that particular concept, for personal reasons. This needn't interfere with their professional lives. Again, there are scientists that do just that, whether you like it or not, and whether you approve or not - they do it, they write papers, they get tenure, they get grants, they do science.

Yes, I know, you keep repeating that. The point is that they are hypocrites if they refuse to apply rigor to their own beliefs, personal or otherwise. Why would they be interested in centuries old myths as a faith? Clearly, they can't be so deluded?

My claims are based on writings of scientists, and conversations with faculty and grad students. I would propose that it is a much wilder speculation, a kind of fantasy, if you will, to have this romanticised notion that all 'true' scientists are a kind of cross between Hawking and Mr. Spock. They are not. I have spent enough time around enough of them to have seen all the warts.

Your personal beliefs, if kept personal, have nothing to do with your professional activites. Shit, one can do solid scientific work and yet even be an idiot in other ways. I offer Nobel laurate William Shockley as a prime example.

Yes, but the rigor, THE RIGOR!

I don't think Martin Gardner is insane.

Dyson was though.

It all comes down to your philosophical POV. And which one you hold is outside the purview of science.

I believe there is a invisible pink dragon in my attic. Should I at least apply some rigor and logic to that or just take it on faith?

Interpretations change about everything. Personally I regard just about everything about orthodox Christianity as fantasy, so I cannot dispute that. If you mean that religious ideas have no evidence to back them up, I agree wholeheartedly. I think many 'religious scientists' would agree. Gardner would agree. But it doesn't entail hypocrisy to entertain the beliefs, it simply means holding a philosophical POV that allows for truths outside of the realm of science.

That's different. One should be able to entertain many such concepts, but certainly not to the point of accepting them.

I think our fundamental disagreement has to do with the application of scientific tools and reasoning to philosophical notions. Personally I don't see that those tools need apply. Science is a method for understanding the physical world. There are philosophical POVs that posit a realm that is beyond the ken of science. Holding that view doesn't invalidate your ability to do science at all. Whether or not it is the 'best' view is up for debate, and it is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.


I don't think so, it's more along the lines of myth as opposed to philosophy. Theists claim their god fantasies are in fact reality, that they are part of the physical world or have some connection to the physical world. All of these concepts stemming from an age when mankind was afraid of lightning and thunder. Ridiculous in the extreme.

Yet, those scientists you refer take on those ridiculous myths as being part of their reality, yet refuse to apply simple basic rigor to those beliefs.

Ridiculous and hypocritical.

How can you say science holds all the cards when science is constantly disproving that which it once proved! Although compared to adam and eve stories, yes science holds a more enlightened view but not the whole view.

look i said science holds all the cards because like it or not it is the only way to acheive conclusive proof of the veracity or falsity of a particular hypothesis. there is no such thing as spiritual truth, only subjective opinion. science never claims to provide an answer to a particular question in every situation, what it does is provide factual support for a hypothesis. science doesnt disprove the things it already proved, it simply rounds out its original findings by making them more detailed, or specifies that things are different under previously unconsidered circumstances, or perhaps, a scientist critiques the particulars of another scientist's findings. the view that science is constantly in flux and disproving what "it" (whoever that may be) has already proved only implies that you dont understand what is actually going on in the scientific world.

The mere fact you say science is pro facts and the 'facts' contradict established doctrine...what facts? There are no facts that can demonstrate that the laws of nature were not designed by something? Let me have them if you have them?

the facts have often contradicted established doctrine. remeber the deeply held catholic belief that the world was flat, or that we lived in a geocentric universe? those beliefs were as deeply held as the belief that the universe must have been "designed", and they turned out to be totally false and myopic. yet even in the face of facts, religion continued to deny that these were indeed fundamental truths. i wasnt specifically referring to the ID doctrine as something that has been disproved, but i dont even think that scientists take it seriously enough to be actively crusading to disprove it. i think that scientists are out there and have been for a long time trying to discover how the earth and the universe and life came into being, and eventually they will figure it out and religious people will continue to say "well, just because you know how the earth and universe originated doesnt mean that god didnt do it in that exact way" its bullshit, has always been, and will always remain so. the religious have no proof, nor even strive to find any, because their argument is so convenient that they will never need any, and all the while they continue to squawk about science's "lack of evidence" disproving their theory. its a fallacy. if youre a christian and intelligent design is your hypothesis - prove it with observation and experimentation in a fashion that is repeatable and then you will have the credibility that you desire in the scientific realm. until then ID is no better than a theory you dream up in the morning while youre taking a shower before work.


I have no religious beleifs myself so am not arguing pro religion just seems to me the way people like your self who see science as the whole truth and nothing but the truth (inspite of all the changes to these truths) are as 'blind' as the religious to reality.

look, your major mistake is that you think science is a provider of truth. it isnt. its a provider of fact as it relates to the proof of a specific premise under specified conditions and a describer of the processes of the natural world. for a scientific theory to be credible it has to be tested, tried, and repeated successfully many times by many different people, so if it is eventually revised, the reason for the revision is almost always that we are somehow capable of understanding something or perceiving something that we did not before. that does not negate the validity of the original hypothesis, it only adds to it. so dont go thinking that science proves itself wrong everyday because thats really a pretty ill-informed view, and please dont presume to tell me what i think, you obviously have no idea.

Your science whether you agree or not is your religion. You are religious.

no im not. and whether you agree or not youre a fucking idiot. i dont believe in science, i accept successful results. 1+1=2, based on that you can build a house that doesnt collapse on itself or sink into the ground, but that doesnt mean that you believe 1+1=2, it means that it gets the proper results, so whether you believe it or not it is a fact, and when you dont abide by it, you fail. science works that way,its rather simple.

Science is always a truth in progress. How many times and how many scientific hypothesis' have been revised in the last 2000 or so years compared to religions. A lot of religions still hold true, or atleast what a lot of people believe best, to this day in pertaining to human socialization. I am all for science but it can be argued it's a religion also. It's not what is true, it is what is percieved by the human eye. It doesn't mean it is universally true. Time/space always differs from the perspective of the observer. Who is to say what we see is true time/space? Anyhow, I don't like debating the philosophical way since, assumedly, anything's possible since there's so many perspectives to it. But it is pretty ignorant to say there's no more to this world than that which is observed, has been observed, or can be observed.
A truth is still a truth whether it is known or not. Just because we or our man-made equipment can only detect certain wavelengths of light, audio, and all other waves, doesn't mean there's other wavelenghts out there which can't be observed by us. All that we see and sense, we sense through motion, or waves. Our eyes, ears, etc. How do we sense motion? Because there is a null motion which tells us there is a motion. There is also that aspect also that we don't observe. Just because we can't sense it doesn't mean it's not there. If you only trust yourself to believe in only what we can observe, how awful it must be to gate yourself in like that. To be unable to come up with a theory for that which isn't or possibly can't be observed. Are atheists bound by their limited IQ to not be able to contemplate null existance? This is not an attack but it's to stir up discussion. I really want to hear scientific reasoning on how God can be disproven and how science is everything. A true scientist leaves all doors open because he studies. And that's it, he studies. He does not know. To study is to observe that which is unsure or unknown and you must leave all doors open when a subject has so many variables. To close a door on a subject is to lose valuable information which can be possibly deductive evidence or persuasive. Ok, I'll stop babbling. :)

Ok, I'll stop babbling.

Good. Your inaneness is fucking annoying.

Science is always a truth in progress. How many times and how many scientific hypothesis' have been revised in the last 2000 or so years compared to religions. A lot of religions still hold true, or atleast what a lot of people believe best, to this day in pertaining to human socialization.

really, a lot of religions have always believed in what is still held to be the best in terms of socialization? no fucking shit. society and culture are reflective of the beliefs of the dominant religion that makes them up. hence, while no women are required to wear veils in america and we see that as the best cultural practice, it is positively antithetical to many muslim cultures. Amish people fuck through a sheet so they dont have to see each other naked because thats what their society dictates based on the dominant religious forces in it. its no mystery that religious ideas of socialization are held up as ideals in society, because religion is a dominant force in society. get rid of religion and come at the subject objectively, and then you will see what the best in terms of socialization is and you can compare it to the religious version.

I am all for science but it can be argued it's a religion also. It's not what is true, it is what is percieved by the human eye. It doesn't mean it is universally true. Time/space always differs from the perspective of the observer. Who is to say what we see is true time/space? Anyhow, I don't like debating the philosophical way since, assumedly, anything's possible since there's so many perspectives to it. But it is pretty ignorant to say there's no more to this world than that which is observed, has been observed, or can be observed.

im going to go out on a limb here and say that this whole paragraph is incoherent to the point of almost absolute absurdity. what the hell are you talking about? this is what i got from it:

1. science is a religion

2. science isn't the truth, its just what is seen with the human eye. (wow)

3. time and space is significantly different for everyone, so we cant know that anything is true or not because we cant depend on science and we cant depend on just our own perspective because chances are we are the only ones who see it that way.

4. you dont like arguing philosophy, yet that does not prevent you from making bad attempts at it.

5. you either need to lay off the weed, or start smoking it, whichever one you arent doing now. :m:


A truth is still a truth whether it is known or not. Just because we or our man-made equipment can only detect certain wavelengths of light, audio, and all other waves, doesn't mean there's other wavelenghts out there which can't be observed by us. All that we see and sense, we sense through motion, or waves. Our eyes, ears, etc. How do we sense motion? Because there is a null motion