Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2034 replies to this topic

#1531 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:03 AM

Sharps delivery definitely is not the most subtle but after missing his clear and logical points time and time again I cannot blame him. I imagine others who share similar views backed by scientific evidence are deeply insulted and infuriated by the fables of religious sheep who have no real proof to back up their claims of supernatural deities and their supposed creation of the universe. We live in an age of gathered information, tests and results. Show us some valid science, axioms if you will on the matter and maybe the response wont be so harsh. It is like telling me to my face while outside staring at the blue sky and you say it is green.

Maybe one man's green is another man's blue.

:s
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1532 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:23 AM

There is no reason religion and science can't co-exist, religion is like Philosophy, problem I see is too many people feel they have to pick one side and reject the other. Religious people often tend to decide on an answer and reject anything that contradicts it, anti-theists sometimes don't like the answer they found and go looking for ways to disprove it. I have my spiritual side, but don't really practice any belief system, I try to learn from many different beliefs as well as scientific research and accept what makes sense and reject or put aside what doesn't.

Knowledge, Intelligence, and Wisdom are three totally different things, many of the posters I have seen on this thread have plenty of knowledge but seem to be short on the other two. Knowledge is useless without the intelligence to apply it, intelligence can be outright dangerous without the wisdom to apply (or not apply) it responsibly.


There are plenty of reasons why science and religion can't and don't coexist. The biggest one being that religion is a device that puts forth absolute truth claims about the natural world without any credible evidence. Science does the work necessary before making a claim and even then rarely deals in absolutisms. That's a pretty big conflict if you think about it, and it's primarily one of the chief reasons why religion is left at the parking lot before entering the place of scientific advancement, or not brought to work at all. There's a reason why 83% of the general public believe in a personal god, while only 33% of all scientists believe in a personal god. And the odd thing isn't why so many scientists don't believe, it's why a staggering 33% do??

I don't think there's any problem in spirituality coexisting with science though. And by spirituality, I mean the ability to feel a deep transcending profoundness or connectivity to nature, or your fellow human, or all humans, or even all life, or of experiencing and appreciating the beauty of nature, art, knowledge, etc, in a deep personally emotional and moving way. I certainly don't mean anything supernatural by the placeholder word 'spiritual', if you catch my intention.

I definitely don't think science and spirituality in that sense aren't able to co-exist, but I'd argue that the false truth claims and dogma of religions are not able to coexist with science.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1533 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:29 AM

Everyone should read these essays on "Does Science Make a Belief in God Obsolete":

http://www.templeton.org/belief/

Some very smart and influential people wrote these like Pinker, Hitchens, Miller just to name a few.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1534 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,794 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:32 AM

^^^ is proof that J.R. is an anti theist.


No, for the third time, it proves I'm anti-unsubstantiated horse manure.

If tomorrow "god" or someone else with ACTUAL evidence of "god" appeared before me I would gladly accept that news. If "god" appeared, I'd gladly sit down with them and politely ask for them to share their wisdom with me. Even offer them a beer or a nice glass of wine.

Edited by J.R., 26 September 2012 - 09:45 AM.

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1535 Bill Sikes

Bill Sikes

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,706 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:37 AM

There are plenty of reasons why science and religion can't and don't coexist. The biggest one being that religion is a device that puts forth absolute truth claims about the natural world without any credible evidence. Science does the work necessary before making a claim and even then rarely deals in absolutisms. That's a pretty big conflict if you think about it, and it's primarily one of the chief reasons why religion is left at the parking lot before entering the place of scientific advancement, or not brought to work at all. There's a reason why 83% of the general public believe in a personal god, while only 33% of all scientists believe in a personal god. And the odd thing isn't why so many scientists don't believe, it's why a staggering 33% do??

I don't think there's any problem in spirituality coexisting with science though. And by spirituality, I mean the ability to feel a deep transcending profoundness or connectivity to nature, or your fellow human, or all humans, or even all life, or of experiencing and appreciating the beauty of nature, art, knowledge, etc, in a deep personally emotional and moving way. I certainly don't mean anything supernatural by the placeholder word 'spiritual', if you catch my intention.

I definitely don't think science and spirituality in that sense aren't able to co-exist, but I'd argue that the false truth claims and dogma of religions are not able to coexist with science.

The Dogma and ritual, claims of absolute truth are more a political agenda, organized religions are for the most part about power and control through fear, most people fear to look beyond the window dressing and seek the actual meaning behind their own beliefs, most fear to even question their own beliefs or look at other religions as anything valid, because the leaders see other religions as competition.

You make many valid points Sharpe, but you really need to work on your presentation, that is what rubs so many people the wrong way. Much like the arguments I have had in the past with Heretic, it isn't what he believes so much as how he presents his case.

#1536 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:41 AM

Actually everyone should read these other essays from the Big Questions section on the Templeton Foundation's website:

Does evolution explain human nature?
http://www.templeton.org/evolution/

Does the Universe Have a Purpose?
http://www.templeton.org/purpose/

Some great authors, scientists, and theologians discuss.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1537 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,794 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 09:44 AM

There is no reason religion and science can't co-exist, religion is like Philosophy, problem I see is too many people feel they have to pick one side and reject the other. Religious people often tend to decide on an answer and reject anything that contradicts it, anti-theists sometimes don't like the answer they found and go looking for ways to disprove it. I have my spiritual side, but don't really practice any belief system, I try to learn from many different beliefs as well as scientific research and accept what makes sense and reject or put aside what doesn't.

Knowledge, Intelligence, and Wisdom are three totally different things, many of the posters I have seen on this thread have plenty of knowledge but seem to be short on the other two. Knowledge is useless without the intelligence to apply it, intelligence can be outright dangerous without the wisdom to apply (or not apply) it responsibly.


I think what you're referring to is "spirituality" not religion. I see plenty of reasons why science and religion can not co-exist but I completely agree that spirituality and science can coexist.

(Edit: I see Sharp already covered those reasons too :lol: )

This is a post I made in an older Atheism thread on the subject:

There's many times I've felt "spiritual", some of the better ones while immersed outdoors and/or with friends and loved ones.

I attribute this to the "we are all stardust" school. I think when we truly allow ourselves to just "be" without all the superficial thoughts, emotions and expectations that we as modern humans place on ourselves, we can then truly get that sense of our minute place in the universe. That feeling of being part of the universal "sinew", a tiny cog in a vast and complicated machine. You feel like a leaf falling in to the vast river of infinity as it washes over you and pushes you along it's path.

As I said this happens to me most often outdoors. Feeling the warmth of sun on my skin, the wind blowing through the trees, the water flowing by me in a river. You can feel the life in everything, how it's all connected, how we are all part of one great, living, breathing organism and connected to each other as humans and everything in our universe.

It's quite lovely actually... but it requires no deity or dogma. It simply is and it doesn't notice or care that you felt it.


Edited by J.R., 26 September 2012 - 09:48 AM.

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1538 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,175 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:18 AM

There are plenty of reasons why science and religion can't and don't coexist. The biggest one being that religion is a device that puts forth absolute truth claims about the natural world without any credible evidence. Science does the work necessary before making a claim and even then rarely deals in absolutisms. That's a pretty big conflict if you think about it, and it's primarily one of the chief reasons why religion is left at the parking lot before entering the place of scientific advancement, or not brought to work at all. There's a reason why 83% of the general public believe in a personal god, while only 33% of all scientists believe in a personal god. And the odd thing isn't why so many scientists don't believe, it's why a staggering 33% do??

I don't think there's any problem in spirituality coexisting with science though. And by spirituality, I mean the ability to feel a deep transcending profoundness or connectivity to nature, or your fellow human, or all humans, or even all life, or of experiencing and appreciating the beauty of nature, art, knowledge, etc, in a deep personally emotional and moving way. I certainly don't mean anything supernatural by the placeholder word 'spiritual', if you catch my intention.

I definitely don't think science and spirituality in that sense aren't able to co-exist, but I'd argue that the false truth claims and dogma of religions are not able to coexist with science.


I think what you're referring to is "spirituality" not religion. I see plenty of reasons why science and religion can not co-exist but I completely agree that spirituality and science can coexist.

(Edit: I see Sharp already covered those reasons too :lol: )

This is a post I made in an older Atheism thread on the subject:


The fact that you deny even the possibility that science and religion can coexist mainly reveals a lack of imagination on your part. For example, can you imagine someone who supports the scientific exploration of knowledge while at the same time having a religious belief in a higher power? I can...in fact I know many people who maintain such a dichotomy in their worldview. Stating that such a dichotomy is non-scientific or even "impossible" reveals a mistaken belief in what science is: that is not science, that is scientism.

Someone who supposedly has a worldview built entirely on science who holds fast to such a non-scientific conclusion (that science and relgion can not co-exist) is a little ironic, no?

I think this is a an apt point by the eminent C.S. Lewis:




“Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is.


And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind--this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?”


C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity



#1539 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:19 AM

Maybe one man's green is another man's blue.

:s


You do have a valid point although that does not change the fact if something is actually blue and someone perceives it as green how can there be a proper conversation on the matter ? btw the links you just posted are really good . These scholars give us alot to digest :)

Edited by vanfan73, 26 September 2012 - 11:35 AM.

giphy.gif


#1540 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:32 AM

The fact that you deny even the possibility that science and religion can coexist mainly reveals a lack of imagination on your part. For example, can you imagine someone who supports the scientific exploration of knowledge while at the same time having a religious belief in a higher power? I can...in fact I know many people who maintain such a dichotomy in their worldview. Stating that such a dichotomy is non-scientific or even "impossible" reveals a mistaken belief in what science is: that is not science, that is scientism.

Someone who supposedly has a worldview built entirely on science who holds fast to such a non-scientific conclusion (that science and relgion can not co-exist) is a little ironic, no?

I think this is a an apt point by the eminent C.S. Lewis:


There's nothing wrong with my imagination. In fact I don't have to imagine the coexistance of science and religion because I have seen its affects on the quality of science when it exists with religion as a way to understand nature, a perversion of actual knowledge as exampled by the Creationism and then the re-tooled Intelligent Design movement.

That's what you get when religion and science co-exist.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1541 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,794 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:41 AM

The fact that you deny even the possibility that science and religion can coexist mainly reveals a lack of imagination on your part. For example, can you imagine someone who supports the scientific exploration of knowledge while at the same time having a religious belief in a higher power? I can...in fact I know many people who maintain such a dichotomy in their worldview. Stating that such a dichotomy is non-scientific or even "impossible" reveals a mistaken belief in what science is: that is not science, that is scientism.

Someone who supposedly has a worldview built entirely on science who holds fast to such a non-scientific conclusion (that science and relgion can not co-exist) is a little ironic, no?

I think this is a an apt point by the eminent C.S. Lewis:


If religion could somehow change in to something actually reality based you may have a point. In it's current fantasy land form, the two can not logically coexist no matter the mental gymnastics one tries to perform to get that square peg in the round hole.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1542 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,794 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:43 AM

You do have a valid point although that does not change the fact if something is actually blue and someone perceives it as green how can there be a proper conversation on the matter ? btw the links you just posted are really good . These scholars give us alot to digest :)


In fact it would make that person colour blind. Not "equally right" ;) So now if Nevlach wants to equate the religious with being "spiritually colour blind"...we may have something :lol:
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1543 Remy

Remy

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,215 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:05 PM

Colour is not subjective, as has been suggested.

Colour is based on the measureable wavelength of light. We know what wavelength gives you green, for example, so if it's processed as "blue" by someone, then that is an error in that person's sensory organs.

#1544 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:07 PM

Colour is not subjective, as has been suggested.

Colour is based on the measureable wavelength of light. We know what wavelength gives you green, for example, so if it's processed as "blue" by someone, then that is an error in that person's sensory organs.


Posted Image

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1545 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:11 PM

In fact it would make that person colour blind. Not "equally right" ;) So now if Nevlach wants to equate the religious with being "spiritually colour blind"...we may have something :lol:

Lol that's actually funny :P
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1546 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,175 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:12 PM

There's nothing wrong with my imagination. In fact I don't have to imagine the coexistance of science and religion because I have seen its affects on the quality of science when it exists with religion as a way to understand nature, a perversion of actual knowledge as exampled by the Creationism and then the re-tooled Intelligent Design movement.

That's what you get when religion and science co-exist.


A fair criticism in its own right. However, using the failings of a case study to argue against a certain philosphy or world view is an argumentative fallacy.

Just as using the failings of certain instances of atheistic, scientism based world view as an argument against the validity of atheism would be a fallacy. Take for example Stalin, Mao, Joseph Mengele...Eugenics, Social Darwinism, etc.

I assure you that if the discussion devolves into a "your side is worse than my side" contest I win handily. I would much prefer to have a more productive argument.

#1547 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:13 PM

You do have a valid point although that does not change the fact if something is actually blue and someone perceives it as green how can there be a proper conversation on the matter ? btw the links you just posted are really good . These scholars give us alot to digest :)

Thanks. Yeah there are some really good essays. I haven't read them all...but each one I have read has been thought provoking.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1548 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,175 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:15 PM

If religion could somehow change in to something actually reality based you may have a point. In it's current fantasy land form, the two can not logically coexist no matter the mental gymnastics one tries to perform to get that square peg in the round hole.


I think you are basically just dissing religion in this post. -_-

However I disagree with it. The fact that science is built around the study of the physical world and religion mainly involves the question of the non-material (or supernatural) is the very reason they can co-exist.

#1549 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:18 PM

A fair criticism in its own right. However, using the failings of a case study to argue against a certain philosphy or world view is an argumentative fallacy.

Just as using the failings of certain instances of atheistic, scientism based world view as an argument against the validity of atheism would be a fallacy. Take for example Stalin, Mao, Joseph Mengele...Eugenics, Social Darwinism, etc.

I assure you that if the discussion devolves into a "your side is worse than my side" contest I win handily. I would much prefer to have a more productive argument.

Yeah I think it was Francis Bacon that said something like "God has given us two book by which to understand - The Bible and nature."

While many people today accuse religion of slowing scientific progress - and make no mistake fundie groups HAVE slowed science - science does owe a bit of it's start to the belief in a divine creator. Galileo and Bacon (among many others that are considered founders of science) believed that a creator gave the universe order and since they believed that there was order they believed it could be studied.

It's unfortunate that today religious groups still try and press things like a 6000 year old earth or global flood etc. because it makes them easy targets and easy to see why many people think a belief in god is stupid and incompatible with science.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1550 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,794 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:23 PM

I think you are basically just dissing religion in this post. -_-

However I disagree with it. The fact that science is built around the study of the physical world and religion mainly involves the question of the non-material (or supernatural) is the very reason they can co-exist.


And if religion would stay in that wheelhouse (supernatural) we wouldn't have any conflicts. It however does not. It very much attempts to impose itself on the physical world where it does not belong. Hence the conflict and inability to co-exist.

Edited by J.R., 26 September 2012 - 12:25 PM.

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1551 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,834 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:30 PM

Yeah I think it was Francis Bacon that said something like "God has given us two book by which to understand - The Bible and nature."

While many people today accuse religion of slowing scientific progress - and make no mistake fundie groups HAVE slowed science - science does owe a bit of it's start to the belief in a divine creator. Galileo and Bacon (among many others that are considered founders of science) believed that a creator gave the universe order and since they believed that there was order they believed it could be studied.

It's unfortunate that today religious groups still try and press things like a 6000 year old earth or global flood etc. because it makes them easy targets and easy to see why many people think a belief in god is stupid and incompatible with science.


I don't really care how right (or left) a particular group is - the real question is - how can they possibly slow science? Especially today?
It's a quest for knowledge - and you can't stop people from questing it.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1552 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,175 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:36 PM

And if religion would stay in that wheelhouse (supernatural) we wouldn't have any conflicts. It however does not. It very much attempts to impose itself on the physical world where it does not belong. Hence the conflict and inability to co-exist.


Quite a broad statement. What conflict are you talking about?

#1553 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,794 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:37 PM

I don't really care how right (or left) a particular group is - the real question is - how can they possibly slow science? Especially today?
It's a quest for knowledge - and you can't stop people from questing it.


You have heard of the United States of America right? The Christian right's attack on science (evolution, climate change, stem cells) sexual education, disease prevention etc? This in the richest, most powerful and influential country on the planet.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1554 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:37 PM

I don't really care how right (or left) a particular group is - the real question is - how can they possibly slow science? Especially today?
It's a quest for knowledge - and you can't stop people from questing it.

They slow science in many ways. Things like stem cell research, or teaching children creation pseudoscience, stuff like that it inhibits the progress of scientific discovery and slows society's advancement. Unfortunately a lot are also content with a God-of-gaps - where they are satisfied with just saying God did it as opposed to gaining the underlying science behind how something works or exists.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1555 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,794 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:39 PM

Quite a broad statement. What conflict are you talking about?


It's a broad subject.

The conflict of the supposed supernatural and people with supernatural beliefs interfering with the physical world you referred to.

See my post here:
http://forum.canucks...0#entry10918442
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1556 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,834 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:42 PM

You have heard of the United States of America right? The Christian right's attack on science (evolution, climate change, stem cells) sexual education, disease prevention etc? This in the richest, most powerful and influential country on the planet.


Again - how are a few slowing it?

I see all those things you mentioned running full steam ahead so to speak.

I think it's just a cop out by some to blame others for why it's taking so long to find a cure for things like for example AIDS.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1557 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,726 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:42 PM

I have already pointed out before that the neanderthal is not extinct

Posted Image

I am not joking when i say this person is living proof neanderthal mated with homosapiens .


Nathan 'caveman' Horton. Chara is a neanderthal. Lucic is an ogre. Marchand is a sewer rat. But I agree, neanderthals still exist today. At least a couple of them do.
Posted Image

#1558 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:44 PM

A fair criticism in its own right. However, using the failings of a case study to argue against a certain philosphy or world view is an argumentative fallacy.

Just as using the failings of certain instances of atheistic, scientism based world view as an argument against the validity of atheism would be a fallacy. Take for example Stalin, Mao, Joseph Mengele...Eugenics, Social Darwinism, etc.

I assure you that if the discussion devolves into a "your side is worse than my side" contest I win handily. I would much prefer to have a more productive argument.


I would accept your examples better, if I didn't know better than to assign the acts of Mao or Stalin as being enacted upon in the name of atheism, any moreso than the acts were perpetrated on the basis or doctrines of 'maledom' or being over 4 feet tall, or having dark hair or on the principles of physics.

And can creationism be called a mere case study? It is the dominant view and belief of the majority of the religious people in the world(Christians + Muslims) and the dominant view of the majority of the religious people in the most powerful and influential, not just politically, economically, culturally, or militarily, but scientifically, country in the history of the world.

I don't think it's a case study, but more of an ignorantly accepted mainstream view that is dominant and continues to be perpetuated among the two largest cults on earth....the death cult of christianity and the submission cult of islam.

Not sure if you were trying to tie Eugenics to Nazism either, but regardless, Eugenics is a complex subject, and not something easily thrown pejoratively at the feet of atheism, if in fact that's what you were attempting to do.

Any time you want to play side versus side though, i'd be happy to oblige. You can argue all the examples of atrocities in the name of Atheism, and I'll do so in kind for all the atrocities in the name of all religion. That's an easy war to wage, should you decide to.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1559 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,794 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:48 PM

Again - how are a few slowing it?

I see all those things you mentioned running full steam ahead so to speak.

I think it's just a cop out by some to blame others for why it's taking so long to find a cure for things like for example AIDS.


:picard: Where do you come up with this stuff? Did I blame Christians for not curing Aids? :rolleyes:

A "few". You have to be kidding?

A group actively engaging in politics, propaganda etc to promote an anti-science agenda is not helping to advance science. Even if I concede that they aren't having any overall negative impact (which I do not), they're still not HELPING to advance science which in itself means it could be advancing faster without their interference. AKA slowing down the advancement of science.

If you can't wrap your head around that....

Edited by J.R., 26 September 2012 - 12:49 PM.

"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1560 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,834 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 26 September 2012 - 01:30 PM

:picard: Where do you come up with this stuff? Did I blame Christians for not curing Aids? :rolleyes:

A "few". You have to be kidding?

A group actively engaging in politics, propaganda etc to promote an anti-science agenda is not helping to advance science. Even if I concede that they aren't having any overall negative impact (which I do not), they're still not HELPING to advance science which in itself means it could be advancing faster without their interference. AKA slowing down the advancement of science.

If you can't wrap your head around that....


Yes...but if they are really that stupid - how on earth can they help science anyways? ;)

Again, I don't see how they are slowing down science - if all it takes is for some stupid people to be able to do that...well...then science isn't as smart as I thought it was.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.