will science & religon ever be able to co-exist?

meathead (apt name) said:
, Download 'A Question Of Origins' and consider what both the Evolutionists and the Creationists are validating their arguments with. Once done, reconsider the claim that Religion and Science do not co-exist already. Only in the minds of the ignorant and the uneducated are the two "mutually exclusive". I'm not sure of another way to show you, that video is the best I've come across.
Click to expand...

"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And Who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous?

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy.

I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you."

the uneducated(sarcasm) Richard Dawkins
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to. - George Seaton
 
spiritual_spy said:
My science teacher thinks so. She says the within the next 50 years that a "bridge" will be built between Science and religon. She seems to think trhat eventualy science will prove the existenc of the supernatural. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Not in this way, no. What your teacher is suggesting is more along the line of "co-operation" than "co-existence".
However, I do think the two can co-exist, as long as humans can learn to not get offended so easily, and to simply listen to logic. Hopefully abrahamism will be phased out entirely by 1700s-style Rational Deism, which can co-operate with Science.

geeser said:
dont we have mind altering drugs that can do that now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but omnipotent/omniscient deathbots just sound cooler. :D
 
spiritual_spy said:
She seems to think trhat eventualy science will prove the existenc of the supernatural.
Click to expand...
I'm confused...
Hasn't the role of science ALWAYS been to prove the existence of the "supernatural" thereby redefining it as simply "natural"?
Anything classified as "supernatural" either...
a.) does not exist at all
b.) is a misunderstood natural occurrence

Science proves the existence of the supernatural all the time.
It always has and will continue to.
 
geeser said:
the uneducated(sarcasm) Richard Dawkins
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
Click to expand...

Interesting you take such a bold stance on my comment, yet reinforce it soley with someone elses work. Had it been that you understood that I was not claiming that they are one in the same your comment would be worth futher recognition. Sadly not.

EDIT: By the way, don't you know sarcasm is the lowest form of witt?
 
Last edited:
geeser said:
"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And Who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous?

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy.

I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you."

the uneducated(sarcasm) Richard Dawkins
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to. - George Seaton
Click to expand...
Thats the problem with religon. faith in god doesnt itself cuase violence. the violence comes when people have diffrent ideas on how god should be worshipped and instead of being tolerant the try to force there beleifs down others throats. Spirituality - Common beleif in god (my def)
Religon-seprate beleifs in god and how god should be worshipped. (my def)
Spirituality>Religon
 
Meathead said:
Interesting you take such a bold stance on my comment, yet reinforce it soley with someone elses work.
EDIT: By the way, don't you know sarcasm is the lowest form of witt?
Click to expand...
As someone apparently skilled in the use of literary devices don't you find it ironic that in the same post you both condemn geeser for supporting his argument with the words of another and resort to a common cliche?
 
Last edited:
meathead (apt name) said:
Interesting you take such a bold stance on my comment, yet reinforce it soley with someone elses work. Had it been that you understood that I was not claiming that they are one in the same your comment would be worth futher recognition. Sadly not.
EDIT: By the way, don't you know sarcasm is the lowest form of witt?
Click to expand...
so you now claim that you were'nt saying that any man, who says that religion and science are mutually exclusive is ignorant and uneducated.
yes it the lowest form of wit but it can be funny.

the point was obviously lost on the meathead
meathead(very apt name) said:
consider what both the Evolutionists and the Creationists are validating their arguments with.
Click to expand...
meathead(extremely apt name) said:
Only in the minds of the ignorant and the uneducated are the two "mutually exclusive"
Click to expand...
I chose to use a man renowned for sense, reason, and intellect. who is obviously not ignorant or uneducated. who quite clearly does not believe religion to be valid.

as I am not so well known, it was better I used some one who was.

"Richard Dawkins was educated at Oxford University and has taught zoology at the universities of California and Oxford. He is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His books about evolution and science include The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and most recently, Unweaving the Rainbow"
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml
 
(Q) said:
Do you agree that it should be the fabric of society?
Click to expand...
On some level, it has to be. A society without faith in itself can't last. If people don't trust each other, they won't associate with each other.

While people don't necessarily need to have faith in a god, they should have faith in something.
 
baumgarten said:
On some level, it has to be. A society without faith in itself can't last. If people don't trust each other, they won't associate with each other.

While people don't necessarily need to have faith in a god, they should have faith in something.
Click to expand...

You said it yourself, faith in itself.

And that is under the assumption you agree there are two distinct definitions for 'faith?'
 
(Q) said:
You said it yourself, faith in itself.
Click to expand...
Certainly. That works as well as any.

And that is under the assumption you agree there are two distinct definitions for 'faith?'
Click to expand...
Nope. Faith is trust. Faith in a religion is a very profound trust for reasons you would state yourself, so it does tend to work well.
 
baumgarten said:
Nope. Faith is trust. Faith in a religion is a very profound trust for reasons you would state yourself, so it does tend to work well.
Click to expand...

So, you wouldn't agree that there is a distinct difference with faith, between a strong belief in a supernatural power that controls human destiny and a person or plan?
Click to expand...
 
Baumgarten you are free to define words in any way you wish, however communication is often facilitated by a choice of definitions matching those of conventional usage.
In such usage trust implies a confidence in an individual or object based upon one of three things (a) prior experience (b) role or function (c) convincing circumstancial evidence.
Faith does not encompass any of these. Indeed its strength, arguably, lies in their absence.

I just noted that pryzk said much the same thing in fewer words.
 
(Q) said:
So, you wouldn't agree that there is a distinct difference with faith, between a strong belief in a supernatural power that controls human destiny and a person or plan?
Click to expand...
That's right. Both are characterized by confidence in assumptions, and the differences between the two are the assumptions in which confidence has been placed.
 
baumgarten said:
That's right. Both are characterized by confidence in assumptions, and the differences between the two are the assumptions in which confidence has been placed.
Click to expand...

Well, an assumption is a statement "assumed" to be true, little more than a hypothesis, an opinion based on no evidence. That might work for faith in the supernatural but it doesn't work for faith based on hard evidence, since hard evidence isn't assumed.
 
SkinWalker said:
How do you know? Because the "revelation" tells you so?

Amazing. Faith=blind trust.
Click to expand...

one has to start trusting at some point if no one ever trusted anyone else society would unravel and we would all be hermits living in caves making pot holds with no pots because we didn't like the way the pot maker smiled
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top