Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 255

Thread: The unification of science and religion?

  1. #1

    The unification of science and religion?

    I've seen this topic mentioned a few times here on BABB, but haven't come across any "serious" discussion and I'm wondering why. Is there anyone out there working on a possible means by which the underlying principles of all religions may be reconciled with contemporary scientific thinking (from any discipline)? If so, from what perspective is the problem being approached? Purely mathematical? Philosophical? Or are science and religion so fundamentally opposed that no current methodology or conceptual model exists that might bridge the gap?

    I'm a non-scientist but an enthusiastic amateur mathematician with an inexplicable interest in theology and philosophy (although I don't consider myself to be a religious person) and I ask this question simply because I'm interested and google-fu doesn't turn up much.

    If my searching skills have once again failed me and this HAS been discussed on this board in the past, please point me in the right direction!

    Edit: Apart from the alleged "Torah codes" and the like, of course.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,872
    I remember touching on it briefly. BABB topic number 477

  3. #3
    Thanks, Mr. Pardons. Some interesting links in that thread.

  4. #4
    Mr. Pardons

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    617
    Some theistic evolution model would describe the Universe in terms of a pantheist God. The basic problem is that "most" religions require faith in the dualism of mind/body or an eternal soul, can science prove this? For arguments sake, lets say that science did prove this, now science would have to prove that God or the Universe cares. The fact is that science and religion are compatible for perhaps a theological argument, however, science requires facts separate from faith. For this reason, science will never be able to prove God and a "judgement" of the eternal soul. The best science could ever do is strenghthen or weaken Pascal's Wager.

    But certainly one could base their religious beliefs on the facts generated by science, but it would not be acceptable to allow the scientific method to be usurped by faith. There are some common threads between science and ancient religious thought that are interesting....particularly the paradigms such as good/evil, ying/yang compared to the understood opposites of charge in quantum mechanics, these charges balance in the production of atoms and the dynamics and evolution of matter and life. Enlightenment requires that we are very careful in prescribing scientific laws that are generated by faith based rational. Philosophical freedom is OK and even desirable....but proceed with caution has to be the standing order because dogma is a dangerous thing.

  6. #6

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by neonsurge
    I've seen this topic mentioned a few times here on BABB, but haven't come across any "serious" discussion and I'm wondering why. Is there anyone out there working on a possible means by which the underlying principles of all religions may be reconciled with contemporary scientific thinking (from any discipline)?
    Those interested might check out the July/August 2001 edition of Sekptical Inquirer.

    Of all the "borderland" areas involving science, the interface between science and religion remains one of the most intriguing and troubling. Scientists, scholars, and laymen continue to ponder the personal and public issues revolving around science and religion. Nearly everyone somehow strives to come to terms both intellectually and emotionally with the array of rich issues involving personal belief on the one hand and commitment to science and reason on the other. Everyone resolves these issues and conflicts in a different way. The spectrum is broad. The issues complex.
    It was a continuation of an earlier issue, Science and Religion: Conflict or Conciliation, July/August 1999.

    This special, expanded issue of the Skeptical Inquirer presents ten invited original articles, three book excerpts and one journal article excerpt, three book reviews (plus three "mini-reviews"), two columns, and several miscellaneous short features on a single broad topic: "Science and Religion: Conflict or Conciliation?" It is the first single-subject issue we have ever published.
    Also, one comment from a later issue is on the Web: Are Science and Religion Compatible?

    In conclusion, let me say that we are living through a period of exacerbated religiosity in the United States. There seems to be a new spiritual paradigm emerging, contesting both scientific and methodological naturalism. The United States is an anomaly in this regard, especially in contrast with the decline of religious belief in Europe. Recent scientific polls of belief in European countries-France, Germany, England, and others, even Japan-indicate that the level of belief in a theistic being and the institutionalized practice of organized religion have declined considerably; yet these highly secular societies exemplify good moral behavior, and are far less violent than the United States. The view that without religion you cannot have a meaningful life or high motivation is thus thrown into question. We should not take the current religious bias regnant in America today as necessarily universal for all cultures.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,606

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    01101001, I think this quote is very pertinent, especially after the recent election relsults:
    In conclusion, let me say that we are living through a period of exacerbated religiosity in the United States. There seems to be a new spiritual paradigm emerging, contesting both scientific and methodological naturalism. The United States is an anomaly in this regard, especially in contrast with the decline of religious belief in Europe. Recent scientific polls of belief in European countries-France, Germany, England, and others, even Japan-indicate that the level of belief in a theistic being and the institutionalized practice of organized religion have declined considerably; yet these highly secular societies exemplify good moral behavior, and are far less violent than the United States. The view that without religion you cannot have a meaningful life or high motivation is thus thrown into question. We should not take the current religious bias regnant in America today as necessarily universal for all cultures.
    I also think it's clear that an even stronger statement can be made, i.e., The view that without religion you cannot have a meaningful life or high motivation is thus shown to be false.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    617

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar
    01101001, I think this quote is very pertinent, especially after the recent election relsults:
    In conclusion, let me say that we are living through a period of exacerbated religiosity in the United States. There seems to be a new spiritual paradigm emerging, contesting both scientific and methodological naturalism. The United States is an anomaly in this regard, especially in contrast with the decline of religious belief in Europe. Recent scientific polls of belief in European countries-France, Germany, England, and others, even Japan-indicate that the level of belief in a theistic being and the institutionalized practice of organized religion have declined considerably; yet these highly secular societies exemplify good moral behavior, and are far less violent than the United States. The view that without religion you cannot have a meaningful life or high motivation is thus thrown into question. We should not take the current religious bias regnant in America today as necessarily universal for all cultures.
    I also think it's clear that an even stronger statement can be made, i.e., The view that without religion you cannot have a meaningful life or high motivation is thus shown to be false.
    The very nature of this thread is the primary example of how science/religion are dangerous bed fellows and yet, they become inseparable in daily life. We have gone from a generic question about the unification of science and religion, to conflict between the theist/atheist, to humanism, to post-modern European Culture, to American evangelical morals to politics to a Presidential election. Would a Southern Evangelical opposed to abortion say that Europeans live in a moral, violence free society? No, they would say they live in a self-centered, flesh/lust driven society that carries out genocide on the lives of innocent concieved children. It is important to remember "meaningful, violent-free" life is a subjective premise based on the "moral law" one has adopted. The question is can any form of Natural Law be discovered through science that would prescribe a moral law in which mankind "should" follow. I am afraid no matter your answer of "should it" mankind will always have the need to answer this question. Any answer you have that shows certitude wheather Atheistic or Theistic is based on some form of faith. Ultimately, we are all agnostic because no one has yet to prove if God does or does not exist.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueAnodizeAl
    Mr. Pardons
    Pardon me

  10. #10
    I also think it is naive to assume that if religion disappeared so would hate.

    As for science, I've heard some religious people embrace quantum physics.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,062
    Unification of science and religion is essentially impossible, barring a lot of doublethink (which humans are definitely capable of!). Science is an attempt to actively find out about our universe, whereas religion consists of inventing stories and myths to explain our universe.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,152

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    Would a Southern Evangelical opposed to abortion say that Europeans live in a moral, violence free society? No, they would say they live in a self-centered, flesh/lust driven society that carries out genocide on the lives of innocent concieved children.
    That sounds like a European definition of a NASCAR race :wink:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gullible
    Unification of science and religion is essentially impossible, barring a lot of doublethink (which humans are definitely capable of!). Science is an attempt to actively find out about our universe, whereas religion consists of inventing stories and myths to explain our universe.
    A little to broad here, there are a number of religions that concentrate a lot more mental power trying to adjust the path in, flight, of a football :-? And many that focus on yen and yan, a peaceful existances, that kind of thing.

    The problems arise when zealots try to convince the rather stubborn and slow scientific process that there is a short cut to the truth.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,606

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    Would a Southern Evangelical opposed to abortion say that Europeans live in a moral, violence free society?
    I believe the quote claimed that "these highly secular societies exemplify good moral behavior, and are far less violent than the United States." While the "moral behavior" may be somewhat subjective, certainly the level of violence is not a matter of postmodernistic interpretation. This is measurable, and the figures don't lie.
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    It is important to remember "meaningful, violent-free" life is a subjective premise based on the "moral law" one has adopted.
    "Meaningful", perhaps. But "violent-free"? I don't think so.
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    The question is can any form of Natural Law be discovered through science that would prescribe a moral law in which mankind "should" follow.
    Didn't you see War Games (1983)?
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    Any answer you have that shows certitude wheather Atheistic or Theistic is based on some form of faith.
    Uh, no.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Gullible Jones
    Unification of science and religion is essentially impossible, barring a lot of doublethink (which humans are definitely capable of!). Science is an attempt to actively find out about our universe, whereas religion consists of inventing stories and myths to explain our universe.
    I agree. I like the idea of "overlap" rather than unification. Science is not tolerant with the unmeasurable. The term "ruler" has different meaning to each.

    For instance, suppose they dig up a religious document, dated to 10,000 B.C., describing the elliptical orbits of 9 planets (with comments regarding a larger 10th much further away with an Earth like companion ). Also, the formation of the system came from a nebulae of certain stated proportions and included an exploding star after the Sun’s accretion disk development. The document also claims that a being of immense size and power, named Fred, was the cause of the nebulae to condense. The rest of the document deals with how Fred want’s to serve man (hopefully not with a lot of pepper and gravy type of serving [“Twilight Zone” angle])

    Science was doing fine right up to the point we got to the 10th planet and Fred. However, the science just gave a giant boost to the “Friends of Fred”. A second look at Fred by skeptics may be warranted based on the amazing credibility of the scientific evidence within the document. This credibility generates plausibility, generating interest, generating funds, generating scientific search for no. 10. They would both be in the “Overlap Zone”. However, until #10 is found and “measured”, it all stays in the “Overlap Zone” and not allowed in the pure “Science Zone”.

    If Fred shows up and we can measure him, now you have unification. At this point, faith disappears as you now know Fred is real. {Hopefully, Fred is friendly (not hungry) )

    Most religions make few measurable claims, however. You can guess why.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by George
    If Fred shows up and we can measure him, now you have unification. At this point, faith disappears as you now know Fred is real. {Hopefully, Fred is friendly (not hungry) )
    This reminds me of the famous HHGTTG entry:

    `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
    `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
    `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
    `Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
    Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."

    Seriously, lots of good stuff in this thread!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,134

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    Ultimately, we are all agnostic because no one has yet to prove if God does or does not exist.
    Yes, technically I am agnostic - with respect to God, voodoo, Thor, and the chocolate teapots orbiting pluto (try proving they don't exist). But I prefer the term atheist because I really do beliieve in the non-existence of God. You may say thats just faith but you must remember that what an atheist means by "believe" is that from the evidence one has seen to date one concludes... Not "I know this to be true whatever the evidence"

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    Ultimately, we are all agnostic because no one has yet to prove if God does or does not exist.
    Yes, technically I am agnostic - with respect to God, voodoo, Thor, and the chocolate teapots orbiting pluto (try proving they don't exist). But I prefer the term atheist because I really do beliieve in the non-existence of God. You may say thats just faith but you must remember that what an atheist means by "believe" is that from the evidence one has seen to date one concludes... Not "I know this to be true whatever the evidence"
    Perfect.

  18. #18

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Argos
    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    Ultimately, we are all agnostic because no one has yet to prove if God does or does not exist.
    Yes, technically I am agnostic - with respect to God, voodoo, Thor, and the chocolate teapots orbiting pluto (try proving they don't exist). But I prefer the term atheist because I really do beliieve in the non-existence of God. You may say thats just faith but you must remember that what an atheist means by "believe" is that from the evidence one has seen to date one concludes... Not "I know this to be true whatever the evidence"
    Perfect.
    I have highlighted in red because it is important to acknowledge that Atheism is a Belief. An agnostic/skeptic, on the other hand, suspends belief. This is a very important distinction to make.

    When you say 'evidence to date' this infers that you are aware of the limitations of our current understanding. And yet you have already arrived at a 'belief'.

    Thus there is a clear contradiction in your wording, chocolate teapots aside. A good scientist can follow the evidence, and put belief aside ... not arrive at it prematurely.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,134

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by soupdragon2
    Quote Originally Posted by Argos
    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    Ultimately, we are all agnostic because no one has yet to prove if God does or does not exist.
    Yes, technically I am agnostic - with respect to God, voodoo, Thor, and the chocolate teapots orbiting pluto (try proving they don't exist). But I prefer the term atheist because I really do beliieve in the non-existence of God. You may say thats just faith but you must remember that what an atheist means by "believe" is that from the evidence one has seen to date one concludes... Not "I know this to be true whatever the evidence"
    Perfect.
    I have highlighted in red because it is important to acknowledge that Atheism is a Belief. An agnostic/skeptic, on the other hand, suspends belief. This is a very important distinction to make.

    When you say 'evidence to date' this infers that you are aware of the limitations of our current understanding. And yet you have already arrived at a 'belief'.

    Thus there is a clear contradiction in your wording, chocolate teapots aside. A good scientist can follow the evidence, and put belief aside ... not arrive at it prematurely.
    Nonsense. I said what I mean by "believe". If you want to get all semantical about it and insist that "belief" means something else then fine, I'll reword it for you, but the word "belief" has more than just the faith meaning, if I say "I believe it will rain today" that is hardly an article of faith on a parr with religious faith.

  20. #20

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Quote Originally Posted by soupdragon2
    Quote Originally Posted by Argos
    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    Ultimately, we are all agnostic because no one has yet to prove if God does or does not exist.
    Yes, technically I am agnostic - with respect to God, voodoo, Thor, and the chocolate teapots orbiting pluto (try proving they don't exist). But I prefer the term atheist because I really do beliieve in the non-existence of God. You may say thats just faith but you must remember that what an atheist means by "believe" is that from the evidence one has seen to date one concludes... Not "I know this to be true whatever the evidence"
    Perfect.
    I have highlighted in red because it is important to acknowledge that Atheism is a Belief. An agnostic/skeptic, on the other hand, suspends belief. This is a very important distinction to make.

    When you say 'evidence to date' this infers that you are aware of the limitations of our current understanding. And yet you have already arrived at a 'belief'.

    Thus there is a clear contradiction in your wording, chocolate teapots aside. A good scientist can follow the evidence, and put belief aside ... not arrive at it prematurely.
    Nonsense. I said what I mean by "believe". If you want to get all semantical about it and insist that "belief" means something else then fine, I'll reword it for you, but the word "belief" has more than just the faith meaning, if I say "I believe it will rain today" that is hardly an article of faith on a parr with religious faith.
    Utter nonsense. You are now effectively inferring that weather predictions are are on a par with the big philosophical questions. This won't wash.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831
    It seems to me that the agnostics are permanently clinging to a last hope that gods exist, while reality insists in negate them.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,134

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by soupdragon2
    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Nonsense. I said what I mean by "believe". If you want to get all semantical about it and insist that "belief" means something else then fine, I'll reword it for you, but the word "belief" has more than just the faith meaning, if I say "I believe it will rain today" that is hardly an article of faith on a parr with religious faith.
    Utter nonsense. You are now effectively inferring that weather predictions are are on a par with the big philosophical questions. This won't wash.
    Balderdash :-P I was simply showing that the word "belief" has more meanings than the one you tried to ascribe to me despite me pre-empting that misunderstanding by stating what meaning I meant.

    Never mind putting the chocolate teapots aside, by your reasoning I should suspend belief in pluto-orbiting teapots pending further evidence rather than say I don't believe in them. And ditto for absolutely anything anyone cares to postulate.

    This argument that atheism is just as much a faith as any religion, is a similar distortion to the creationist claim that evolution is just another theory on a parr with creationism.

  23. #23

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Quote Originally Posted by soupdragon2
    Utter nonsense. You are now effectively inferring that weather predictions are are on a par with the big philosophical questions.
    I was simply showing that the word "belief" has more meanings than the one you tried to ascribe to me despite me pre-empting that misunderstanding by stating what meaning I meant.
    Don't worry worzel, soupdragon2 exquisitely skewered his own argument by implicitly acknowledging there is one meaning of believe involving faith in the supernatural, and one meaning of believe involving confidence in the natural.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

  24. #24
    I, personally, believe that God basically started the whole process, knowing what would happen. I think that he followed the laws of physics so it would make sence to us when we were able to understand. This might be a way to eventually bring us closer to him in the long run.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    617

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Quote Originally Posted by soupdragon2
    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Nonsense. I said what I mean by "believe". If you want to get all semantical about it and insist that "belief" means something else then fine, I'll reword it for you, but the word "belief" has more than just the faith meaning, if I say "I believe it will rain today" that is hardly an article of faith on a parr with religious faith.
    Utter nonsense. You are now effectively inferring that weather predictions are are on a par with the big philosophical questions. This won't wash.
    Balderdash :-P I was simply showing that the word "belief" has more meanings than the one you tried to ascribe to me despite me pre-empting that misunderstanding by stating what meaning I meant.

    Never mind putting the chocolate teapots aside, by your reasoning I should suspend belief in pluto-orbiting teapots pending further evidence rather than say I don't believe in them. And ditto for absolutely anything anyone cares to postulate.

    This argument that atheism is just as much a faith as any religion, is a similar distortion to the creationist claim that evolution is just another theory on a parr with creationism.
    The thread has continued to go south and into the subject of creationism. It is obvious some do not see the error of their dogmatic ravings, the atheist in some ways are on parr with the Young Earth Creationist with respect to the arrogance in their convictions. The FACT is you cannot prove if God does or does not exist, any argument on either side therefore is ultimately faith based. You can shout it, scream it and fight with your neighbor about it, but you cannot prove it one way or the other.

    But, certainly you have the right to believe what you choose, and it is a choice. Apparently, you have made a choice based on the fact that you believe that science has uncovered enough evidence to convince you that God does in fact not exist. This reveals that you believe science has the ability to prove if God does or does not exist. This is faith based because most scientist will agree that science has no such capability.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,134

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    The atheist in some ways are on parr with the Young Earth Creationist with respect to the arrogance in their convictions.
    What is dogmatic about saying that I have never seen or heard a single thing that would suggest to me that there is a god?
    The FACT is you cannot prove if God does or does not exist, any argument on either side therefore is ultimately faith based. You can shout it, scream it and fight with your neighbor about it,
    Would you say the same about all the Greek gods? What about witchcraft and voodoo? Astrology? Ghosts? Alien imposters infiltrating the governments?
    but you cannot prove it one way or the other.
    This sort of implies that it is therefore 50/50. Are you saying that anything anyone believes in has a 50% chance of being true if it can't be proved wrong?
    But, certainly you have the right to believe what you choose, and it is a choice.
    I don't think you can chose your convictions if they are true convictions.
    Apparently, you have made a choice based on the fact that you believe that science has uncovered enough evidence to convince you that God does in fact not exist.
    Not at all, I just haven't been given one good reason to believe, and when someone postulates some supernatural phenomenum outside the scope of scientific enquiry without good reason I don't think that gives it a reasonable chance of being true and I will hence believe it exceedingly unlikely to be true.
    This reveals that you believe science has the ability to prove if God does or does not exist. This is faith based because most scientist will agree that science has no such capability.
    This reveals that you've fallen for the "if you can't prove it then it's 50/50" fallacy.

  27. #27

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001
    Don't worry worzel, soupdragon2 exquisitely skewered his own argument by implicitly acknowledging there is one meaning of believe involving faith in the supernatural, and one meaning of believe involving confidence in the natural.
    I have made no such claim, by inference or otherwise. You are misrepresenting my position. Belief may have many meanings, but in respect of 'God' the word is faith based.

    Worzel has attempted to put a big philopsophical question on a par with more trivial issues such as weather predictions.

    He clearly has a zealous belief on a par with religious fundamentalists, based on a simplistic interpretation of science, which is only taking its first baby steps.

    While science may help us predict the weather, it is illogical to make the mightly leap to saying that science has proved that God does not exist.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,134

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by soupdragon2
    Worzel has attempted to put a big philopsophical question on a par with more trivial issues such as weather predictions.
    You're having a laugh right? I simply demonstrated that one could use the word "believe" in more than one sense.

    He clearly has a zealous belief on a par with religious fundamentalists, based on a simplistic interpretation of science, which is only taking its first baby steps.
    LOL Yeah, 2 + 2 = no God, that's how I figured it anyhow.

    While science may help us predict the weather, it is illogical to make the mightly leap to saying that science has proved that God does not exist.
    I never made any such claim. I simply claimed that I have never been given one good reason to believe in God and that the absence of disproof does not give any weight at all to a supernatural claim that is beyond scientific enquiry anyway.

    Why don't you take seriously the point that your entire argument equally applies to any supernatural being that has ever been believed in by anybody?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,149
    God's existence or otherwise isn't something Science can say anything about, however. It can, and regularly does, directly contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible, but we've established time and time again that this will not be considered a K.O. for Christianity by the majority of worshippers. Its certainly impossible for Science to prove God's existence, as well.

    What Soup seems to be concerned about is the fact that the Agnostic says "God cannot be proved or disproved, therefore I won't make a decision either way". The Atheist says "The introduction of a God to the theories of the Universe's existence is unnecessary".

    Soup sees the fact that the Atheist starts from the premise that God doesn't need to exist until proven as a tenet of faith. Its somewhat like the other side of Quantum uncertainty - if you can never measure something, can it really be said to exist?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    617

    Re: The unification of science and religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by worzel
    Quote Originally Posted by bigsplit
    The atheist in some ways are on parr with the Young Earth Creationist with respect to the arrogance in their convictions.
    What is dogmatic about saying that I have never seen or heard a single thing that would suggest to me that there is a god?
    The FACT is you cannot prove if God does or does not exist, any argument on either side therefore is ultimately faith based. You can shout it, scream it and fight with your neighbor about it,
    Would you say the same about all the Greek gods? What about witchcraft and voodoo? Astrology? Ghosts? Alien imposters infiltrating the governments?
    but you cannot prove it one way or the other.
    This sort of implies that it is therefore 50/50. Are you saying that anything anyone believes in has a 50% chance of being true if it can't be proved wrong?
    But, certainly you have the right to believe what you choose, and it is a choice.
    I don't think you can chose your convictions if they are true convictions.
    Apparently, you have made a choice based on the fact that you believe that science has uncovered enough evidence to convince you that God does in fact not exist.
    Not at all, I just haven't been given one good reason to believe, and when someone postulates some supernatural phenomenum outside the scope of scientific enquiry without good reason I don't think that gives it a reasonable chance of being true and I will hence believe it exceedingly unlikely to be true.
    This reveals that you believe science has the ability to prove if God does or does not exist. This is faith based because most scientist will agree that science has no such capability.
    This reveals that you've fallen for the "if you can't prove it then it's 50/50" fallacy.
    I have never put odds on the question one way or the other, I just know that it can never be 100% that God does not exist. Just because you do not believe in Vodoo, Zeus or any particular organized religion does not require you be atheist and believe in no God. You look at the evidence in consideration of your world view and you make a decision of who, if any God exists at all, and you are doing so based on your faith in your world-view and its applications to this question we all have asked. It is also apparent that you have faith that your view is not based on faith....Interesting, the young earth creationist contend a similar argument.

Similar Threads

  1. Science as religion
    By baric in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 2011-May-05, 10:07 AM
  2. Religion V Science
    By madge in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-05, 12:57 PM
  3. Science has become a “religion”!?
    By craterchains in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 182
    Last Post: 2004-Jul-13, 06:56 AM
  4. Science and religion
    By Haglund in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 2003-Nov-03, 10:39 PM
  5. Science's the new hip religion...
    By Moon in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 240
    Last Post: 2003-Jun-11, 07:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: