Religion vs. Science

SFOSOK

State your opinion about it. I am hoping this will be a great discussion where we all can learn from anythign anyone might have to say about the subject. But remember the best arguemenative person is one who can argue both points while (even if they personaly disagree with one). So try to keep an open mind and no Flaming please just state what you believe and feel free to discuss and disect any of your feloow members posts.




Thanks guys, I'm hoping this will be a long one.

Sturmbahn

Neither, but not because I don't care. To me, science is more of a structured pursuit of answers than a collection of answers. Science is theorems based on theorems and the scientific method stipulates that theorems cannot be proven, only disproven. Religion doesn't have any answers either. It is based on faith, or in other words, belief in something without any evidence to truly prove such belief.

That said, I don't run around knocking anyone's beliefs or trying to convert them to my way of thinking. My views are my own and I will respect those of others in the hope that my own are respected in turn.

CDsDontBurn

yup....real long one here .

anyways, i like to find answers. i like to have my questions answered. to answer questions, the question needs to be tested. tests can be proven true or false. however, there are some questions that cannot be proven neither true nor false because nobody was around to witness the event(s). And those are the momments when people say it's all about "faith" and "beliefs".

Randy P

Awesome poll man! We have the objective, the subjective, and quite likely the creative at work here...and maybe there's a sprinkle of truth as well...

Pompey

I am anti-religious but I dont care what someone believes, they can sacrifice blueberries to the transsexual god Georgina for all I care.
Its only when these people try to drag down the rest of humanity with them that I get annoyed.
A 'scientific theory' is different from a normal 'theory'. A hypothesis is closer to the definition of a normal 'theory'. Yes, new theory’s (scientific theory’s) can contradict old ones but thats just part of science. Science is a process not an all-knowing encyclopedia that can instantly tell you all the answers.
For example, Copernican’s theory was later modified, does that make science (or the scientific process) wrong?

I hope this doesnt turn into a debate like the one we finished recently.

IvanV

I voted science, though with a bit of hesitation. Take physics for examle: it does not teach you the truth, it teaches you some guy's idea which he was lucky enough to have approved by a certain number of people and somehow supported by an experiment. I say supported, not confirmed, because testing methods tend to get a bit subjective. And objective or not, results hardly ever fully match the theory. But that's what they'll teach you untill the next guy comes and manages to impose his oppinion.

Sandok

I need proof in my life and saying simply the bible is proof of everything is utter bulll for me... Science is da man!

Vikingod

I really hope we figure out the RIGHT answer in this thread. We could all be famous!

Sandok

I sometimes go on a religous forum just to stir up some trouble but even if we prove god doesn't exist, they'd never listen lol. Some people just need hope.

Vikingod

Nothing wrong with hope

raid517

This is a bit of a drive by posting I'm afraid, but I I'm trying to limit my posting activity so that I can spend time on more constructive things. But this is one of my all time favorite pet topics - so it is kind of hard for me to ignore.

I had a big debate about this subject here just recently - and basically I came to the concusion that it is possible to disprove the existance of God using the first law of themodynamics.

Basically the postulation is that since the first law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, then evidently there could never have been a creator - especially one that was capable of creating matter and energy out of nothing. Or in other words, the proposed existance of God stands in direct contradiction to the first law of thermodynamics - and as such science and religion are fundametally and unreconcilably opposed. It takes a bit of following I guess - but if you know a little about science and physics that would at least be a good start.

If anyone wants to take this argument up here I would be happy to respond - because at least then we can have something genuine and real to debate about.

GJ

Gabriel_Etranil

Interesting, but the argument can also be made that it also can prove that a God may exist. Religious people claim that God is eternal and has always existed. Many scientists claim that the universe indeed had a beginning. If energy cannot be created nor destroyed then it can be argued that the current universe was not 'created' but rather 'formed'.

It's a good arguement raid, but if energy is constant even prior to the universe's 'beginning' it doesn't neccesarily prove that a god, supreme being, big ball of conscience gas, or whatever hadn't formed from that energy prior to current form of the universe.

I'm not familiar with Noether's theory, and I'll read up on some of the stuff you've posted. But this is just my reaction to what you initially posted(I haven't studied physics in couple of years).

raid517

I think you misunderstand what is being said - and possibly you misunderstand themodynamics too.

'Formed' is a vagurey'- whereas themodynamics is an absolute unequivocal law. Indeed it is the three laws of themodynamics which are responsible for much of the formation of the industrial age that we see around us today. Without them you wouldn't have things like cars, airplanes, trains - or even rocket ships. (If you wish to understand more you can read up a little on the history of themodymanics on Wikipedia).

But the bottom line is that the real laws of themodynamics do not leave very much room for a 'fudge'. (In fact they don't leave any). Either energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, or it can be - and if it cannot be (which if you take a look around you you will quickly see the various ways in which it can't) then this must also by definition mean that there cannot have been a creator. Something that does not require creation does not require a creator. Period.

As I have said in my argument, at least I have something real to go on, whereas religious types can only grasp their God out of thin air, without any explanation at all for how he could have came to be. But more real than that I think - and something I have always set out to do - is to show how religion and science are really and genuinely fundamentally opposed. They are set hard against each other and fundametally contradict almost completely what each these different perspectives has to say.

So either science is right or religion is right. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot as I said, have a fudge.

But I admit that it is a complicated argument - although I think those people here who do claim to be religious (and others too) might benifit from attempting to understand it a little.

But bare in mind just because you cannot understand something - it does not in any way mean that it is OK just to go for a simpler explanation - like fairies, or pixies - or indeed God did it all. That I'm afraid is just a cop out. From what I can see people always seem to turn to religion when they fail to correctly understand science - but that does not mean that religion is right and science is wrong. It just means that you are unable to grasp what science is really saying. Communism used to say that religion was the opiate of the masses - but I would go further and say that it is really the opiate of the ignorant. Which is why I despise it so much - because all it does is allow the ignorant to stay ignorant - and to become settled and comfortable in their own ignorance too.

GJ

Gabriel_Etranil

Hmm, you didn't seem to understand what I was saying, I wasn't saying that a God created everything, and I wasn't saying that God can exist outside of the rules of thermodynamics. I was stating that your arguement does not dissprove whether or not life can exist 'outside' the current universe.

Is the universe infinite or finite?

Falstaff

I believe that we are spiritual creatures with souls and a desire for an afterlife.
I believe further that answers can be found in science such as it is, and of course in the text of our God.
I do not believe that anyone should try to inflict their philosophy on science or religion on anyone.
I a person truly believes that their soul is worthy of an afterlife based on a lifestyle that set them on a journey from a point on their life map, from an azimuth point derived from their own moral compass.

raid517

It depends what you call finite. Indeed it depends whether you believe time and space are flat or curved, if it is flat then you can effectively regard it as infinite (you could go off in one direction and just keep going forever) but if it is curved you could head off in one direction only to arrive back at the same point you left from zillions of years later. The consensus of opinion is that the Universe is curved and therefore finite. But ultimately we don't quite know yet.

Besides which if you understood what I said you will know that I personally only tend to deal in what can be known and what can be proved. There are other much harder to grasp arguments I could use - but it is much easier I think when you can actually prove what you are saying to be true - and if you can do it in simple enough terms that pretty much almost anyone should be able to grasp it.

As for life 'outside' of the universe, I have no clue what you mean, there was and is no 'outside' to the universe. Everything there was and is in the universe and that we see around us today was created in the big bang - there was nothing 'outside of the big bang' not even time and space. So how something could have existed in a medium of nothingness is very hard to grasp. Again it is a direct contradiction.

As I have said, science currently says that there was a state of nothingness prior to the big bag (though no claim is made as religious types often mistakenly state that scientists require the big bang itself to have come from nothing). So the real question for religious types is how could God have possibly existed in a state of nothingness? Clearly whatever God is supposed to be he would have had to have been something. So either there was something, or there was nothing - and science has strong evidence that there really was nothing.

GJ

raid517

Well yes Jeff, that is the difference. That is what you 'believe'. But what you believe and what you can prove are entirely different things.

I'm sure a few people here will say 'here here!' to your fine sentiments - but what I would like to know is how they can do this without making any real effort at all to understand the counter perspective? As I said, just because you do not try to understand something, does not make what you 'believe' in light of the lack of your understanding any more real or valid at all. And if this is true, which it surely is, then why I wonder does this not disturb you? Is the opiate so effective that it simply requires you to no longer question? Has your scepticism and innate human curiousness been numbed so much?

The problem for me is that religion far too often tells you exactly what to think - whereas science requires you to think for yourself. And it is the first of these which I think (as with all forms of indoctrination, political religious or otherwise) is a genuine crime against humanity.

If I could have had it the other way, if I could have made the efforts that I have made to understand science and could have come away from that with a firm belief in a God - then I would I think have been very happy with that. But that is not how things worked out - because the more I understood, the less likely the need for any God became. And that I think is a journey that everyone should take. Why should you fear it, or prefer to avoid it? Is you faith so weak that it could not withstand an indepth study of several commonly accepted scientific truths?

Science though is not a scratch and sniff pursuit, you can't read about it off of the back of cornflake packets or in tabloid newspapers and feel you understand it - it often takes years of study and thousands of hours of research before you can even really begin to grasp the many amazing things that the various fields of science have to teach us. But it is nonetheless I think a very worthwhile pursuit.

However clearly if you personally are happy to simply believe and never question, then so be it. There is an awful lot of people around like you - and if I were to live a thousand life times, there still wouldn't be enough time for me to try to convince them all.

I'm sure given half a chance though, I would probably be more than happy to try.

GJ

AttroPheed

Somehow science can explain away god without a need for indoctrinating pabulum, blind faith, and scare tactics. Things that an omnipresent "god" apparently can't exist without.

br00ksintexas

I don't think that from my own personal standpoint that I've ever seen proof of GOD: that he/she exists or doesn't. Is there a GOD? I don't know. What I do know, is that faith is absolutely free. With that said, I'd rather have faith and be wrong, than not have it and find out in the end that there is a God.
Also, is it possible to disprove something that is impossible to prove in the first place?

raid517

I would say that it very probably is. It is all pretty much down to the balance of evidence. From a scientific perspective, the evidence exists that the concept of a God is pretty much nonsensical - the problem however is that you have to invest a lot of effort into understanding this evidence.

Unfortunately a lot of people simply opt not to make this effort - either because they are too lazy, or because they don't have the mental faculties that would enable them to grasp it. Personally I am at a loss to explain why people don't try to understand all of the arguments. But from what I can see religion just tends to provide the easy answer. People don't like the idea that they live in a complex world. Maybe they don't have time, with family, jobs and other commitments or whatever to look at the bigger picture. So they tend to like nice simple easy explanations, that they can easily understand without having to invest very much time or effort in them. Unfortunately it is too often religion that seems to best fit this role for them.

I don't know who's fault that is - but I do know that religion tends to flusrish best in countries that have a sub-standard education system. (Take a look at the third world for many examples of this). So really probably the buck stops with govenment - and their unwillingness to spend the money that is required to properly educate and inform their people. Of course it doesn't help much if your government actually encourages the take up of this kind of religious fervour. But it is still at least convienient for them, because not only does it stop people asking difficult questions about the nature of the world around them, but it also stops them asking difficult questions about their govenment too - and why their govenments often appear so keen to withold the truth from them.

But like all things a lot of the answers to the questions you might have are undoubtedly out there. The only thing you need to do is show a williness to find out what those answers are and to look for them. (And no I don't mean that you should go looking for UFO's, of for the men in black, or for the X files - none of which has anything at all to do with science).

But if you choose not to ask the questions - if you choose not to try to find out if there might be an alternative explanation for the things you 'believe', then you should know that whatever 'faith' you profess to have, must by definition be built on very shakey ground. After all, how certain can your faith be - if you are willing to base your faith on a foundation of ignorance? As I have said surely the real ''test' of anyone's faith, is if they can be exposed to an alternate explanation for many of the things they see - and still have that faith intact after making a genuine and indepth effort to understand what that alternate answer might be trying to tell them?

And in any case, what use is your faith if it cannot be tested? Surely for faith to have any value or meaning at all, you should make good efforts to ensure that it is frequently tested? And what better test is there if a genuine study of science can show you just how little need there is for a God in the universe in which we live? Are you I wonder prepared to see this evidence - and yet still remain faithful? What more of a supreme test of your faith could there be?

It may indeed be the tougher option - but that still does not mean that there is any reason to found your faith on the foundations of what you do not know and have made virtually no effort at all to understand.

That is just lazyness - and for that there is no excuse at all.

GJ

Falstaff

a view or excerpt from a popular website... http://www.islamfortoday.com/cleland03.htm



In contemporary western society there is a religious dichotomy. On one side there is the religion of modernisn, materialism, on the other the world of 'pure' religion concerned with matters of the dimension beyond.

Materialism is strongly confident that this world is all there is and that what cannot be touched, tasted, heard or smelled does not exist. What is real is what is concrete and measurable. This is the religion of the dominant groups in western bureaucracies and institutions. It is the way of thinking of those who make decisions on government, on the economy and who decide what issues will become the main ones in the media and the research topics which will get funding. In this sense, western society is post-Christian and post-Judaic. Those in public life who espouse religion, apart from the clergy, seem motivated more by concerns about career and position than the other world, for religious ideology does not enter into their decision making to any noticeable degree.

The dominance of this materialist-scientist religion is in part related to the western view of spirituality, which is embedded in the religious attitudes of the culture. Alija Ali Izetbegovic in an article "Moses-Jesus-Muhammad" writes of this Christian approach to religion: According to Christianity, human energy must not be broken down into two opposed directions: toward heaven and toward earth. 'No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.' (Matt 6:24). Tolstoy picks up on this thought and carries it further: 'One cannot care for one's soul and for worldly goods at the same time. If one hopes for good, he gives up worldly goods. Otherwise, one could be torn and would have neither one nor the other..'

This road of 'pure' religion in Christianity is 'a shelter one must climb into in order to leave behind the emptiness of an unrepairable world governed solely by Lucifer'. It is only for the truly devoted.

All religions which take this extreme position, the very antithesis of materialism, have one path for the elite and another one for the masses The ordinary people are not expected to be able to measure up. In Buddhism there is the 'Mahayana' the 'great road' severe and difficult, reserved only for the elite and the 'Hinayana" 'the small road' for the common people. In Christianity there is the path for the clergy, particularly for the monastic orders, and the way for the laity. Some sections of Christianity hold to celibacy for the clergy, or a section of clergy, the true solution, while permitting marriage as a compromise for other believers. According to Izetbegovic, 'When the Quran says: "God places on no soul a burden greater than it can bear" (2:286) it is clearly aiming at Christianity.'

The Announcement (the Gospel) of Jesus brought a turning point in human history, for Jesus was indeed 'a sign to the world' (Quran 21:91). This Announcement brought with it awareness of the divine and growing consciousness of the value of humanity, yet it did not affect the world as profoundly as we might expect. For example, the position of the Roman Emperor was, if anything, enhanced by Pauline Christian teachings and the gratitude of the church hierarchy for his protection. Even such unimaginable anti-human entertainments as gladiatorial contests continued for 100 years after the Empire accepted Christianity as the State religion.

While clear in its rejection of materialism, such 'pure religion' leaves the pathway to dominance open to the materialists, those for whom religion is either meaningless superstition or window-dressing for personal ambition. The weakness of 'pure religion' is that it assumes worldly power will belong to Lucifer or his slaves. The Gospel according to John carries this ideology, reporting that Jesus said: 'My kingdom is not of this world' (18:36). Passivity in the face of worldly power was one of the basic tenets of Pauline Christianity from the beginning. Paul wrote in his Letter to the Romans, while the authorities were deeply and aggressively pagan:

"You must all obey the governing authorities. Since all government comes from God, the civil authorities were appointed by God, and so anyone who resists authority is rebelling against God's decision, and such an act is bound to be punished. Good behaviour is not afraid of magistrates; only criminals have anything to fear.....The State is there to serve God for your benefit." (Romans 13:1-4)

The separation of the spiritual from the secular is clearly enunciated in Christian teachings according to Paul, making it clear that religion and worldly life are poles apart. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God'" has been used millions of times to argue for the separation of the teachings of Jesus from the behaviour of the States which govern Christian majorities. Church leaders have in the past decade forced priests to draw back from campaigns for land reform in feudal countries, as such worldly matters are not considered spiritual and thus not the concern of the followers of Christ.

From within this world view, matters spiritual deal directly with the inner world of mental discipline, with religious ritual and with dogmatic belief. The truly spiritual person is one who devotes himself or herself to ritualistic 'spiritual' exercise, aimed at increasing inner awareness of the divine. Denial of the world, denial of the demands of the flesh, submergence in the 'Great Soul' or unity with God through total inner submission, the freeing of the rational mind into the sphere of 'intuitive knowing', the life of holy contemplation, are all acceptable aims for the 'spiritual' being.

The Last of the Prophets, Muhammad (s) fasted, he went to the cave of Hira and contemplated and prayed for guidance. He was a mystic, a 'hanif'. He began to receive revelations when still in Makkah and we trace many surahs of the Quran to this period of his life. However the Islamic calendar is dated from the Hijra to Medina, where Islam was put into effect. This is the profound development brought by this last stage of Islam, when our way of life was completed by the revelation of Quran and illuminated by the practice and behaviour of Muhammad (s). It marks the conjunction of the inner world, the world of God-awareness, with the material world. Alija Izetbegovic expresses it in these words: "Muhammad had to return from the cave. If he had not returned, he would have remained a hanif. Since he came back, he became a preacher of Islam. That was the meeting of the inner and 'real' world, mysticism and reason, meditation and activity. Islam started as mysticism and ended as a state. Religion accepted the world of facts and became Islam."

A Guide for the Voyager to both the Material World and the Spiritual World

Islam is indeed a 'middle way'. It is a bridge between that 'spiritual religion' which demands what is beyond the capability of most human beings and the world of the material, what the 'spiritual' see as the world controlled by the forces of evil. Islam teaches that, while we must spend our lives in a disciplined way and that we must observe the requirements of prayer and fasting, zakah and both inner faith and outward expressions of that faith, we can be confident that what is expected of us is not beyond our capabilities. We can also be confident that the world is a beautiful creation which is to be cared for and enjoyed, not something evil from which we must retreat.

Islam is not a way of life for a tiny devoted spiritual elite. It is a way of life that anybody can follow. It provides for both our inner spiritual needs and our needs for a decent and civilised life, free from fear of oppression, from fear of miserable poverty and from exploita