Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 23

Thread: The Science Religion Conflict

  1. #10

    Default Re: The Science Religion Conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by arm-spin View Post
    Well said, Spider.

    I find it odd, coachsparky, that you are a religious man yourself, but seem quite negatively disposed towards religion in a lot of your posts.
    I am a very religious person arm_spin, but there are also definitely certain people who apply religion in a way that I find disgustingly distasteful and that is what I am negative about. People like the crazy texas coach over on themat forums, make religion something no one would want to be involved in. If God is like his God, I would join any army to fight against him.

  2. #11

    Default Re: The Science Religion Conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    That is a pretty cool video, pm. I noticed at just after the 11min mark, the dude said something that I have tried to say before. The fact that what scientists from earlier generations used to believe, is now known to be not true. I am equally sure that generations from now, many things that we "believe" to be true will be scientificly (how do you spell that?) proven false. To me, many scientists seem to behave in the exact same way as the religious people that they claim are behaving illogically. There are many scientific discoveries that can't be refuted (gravity, for instance), but there are many more that can be (man-made global warming). When scientists say that something is settled science, that is a key for me to start doubting. It is usually because they are paid to come to a conclusion, which goes directly against why they became scientists in the first place.

    With that said, there are just as many humble, honest scientists in this world as their are arrogant, money-grabbing scientists. So I don't mean to try and paint them all as bad. I just think that a lot of times they could learn something, themselves, if they listened instead of talk.

    Actually quinn, there are many many many more humble honest scientist then there are money grabbing scientist in the world. Those kinds do not even approach 5 % of the total scientific community. When scientist say something is settled science, it is because an overwhelming amount of the data backs up the hypothesis and therefore it has become a well established theory, like evolution. Much like Newton's Laws of Physics, which we know do describe the observable phenomena, it was overcome by a better theory, even though it was never shown to be totally wrong.
    Last edited by coachsparky; 01-10-2011 at 11:15 AM.

  3. #12
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: The Science Religion Conflict

    You should watch the movie, no intelligence. It deals with scientists who do not believe that evolution is the answer to the origin of life and how they were black balled for merely suggesting intelligent design, not a religious god but intelligent design. The movie has well known scientist giving the other side for evolution.

  4. #13

    Default Re: The Science Religion Conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    You should watch the movie, no intelligence. It deals with scientists who do not believe that evolution is the answer to the origin of life and how they were black balled for merely suggesting intelligent design, not a religious god but intelligent design. The movie has well known scientist giving the other side for evolution.
    go to: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

    And read about all the lies, misleading information and complete fabrication and misrepresentations that occured in the move Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed. There certainly was no intelligence used in the making of the movie and no intelligence involved in anyone who buys any of their lies.

  5. #14

    Default Re: The Science Religion Conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    Coach Sparky,

    I don't entirely agree with your quotation. Here's my take: In prehistoric times, man sought to understand his world. Science and religion were pretty much the same thing, since there was little technology, and much of what was observed was only explicable by attributing it to higher powers. As technology evolved, science became more able to understand the true nature of the universe and the laws that govern it. When scientific proof, or at least the best theories based upon observation and technology, contradicted religious teachings, conflict arose. The problem is that religion has continued to try to answer scientific questions such as creation, evolution, etc.

    Religion and science are two entirely different disciplines. Religion relies on faith as its foundation, not proof. If proof of God were found, there would be no need for faith and religion would simply become one of the sciences like botany. Science relies on observable facts. It would be absurd for the scientific community to accept a theory on faith.

    Religion and science now serve to answer different questions, and when they remain in their own realm, no conflict need arise. Science answers the question of how the physical word/universe works. Religion answers the metaphysical questions of man's purpose on earth, the existence of an immortal soul, and what happens after death. Science will never prove or disprove the existence of God and religion will never explain the true nature of the atom.

    To me, science and religion can easily coexist as long as neither one tries to get involved in the other's business.
    Spider, you do not indicate what in my quote you do not agree with. You are talking about something completely different then what I am trying to get at. Yes, if you are willing to accept that there is a supernatural world that science can never identify, you are right. I reject that claim, there is no supernatural world, there is only this world and what people refer to as spirit, and believe is supernatural, is no more than some form of energy within the natural world that we just have not identified at this point. <o></o>
    <o></o>

    Religion, is currently given a pass on proving that because we say that we believe in those things based on “faith” and I accept that right now. That is why my beliefs in a energy source that is distinct from observable energies and matter right now is part of a faith belief for me. Likewise, the discussion with KR and his practice of his religion scientology and dianectics was the same, he practices it based upon his faith. <o></o>
    <o></o>

    When people cross the line and claim they can prove their religious beliefs they cross the line into being able to claim a pass from scrutiny, at that point they must be held up to scientific standards of proof. That is where I see the conflict, when people like Creation Scientist or Dianetics/Scientology try to claim they are using science they have to meet the standards of the scientific community and if they fail, then pointing out their mistakes is not an attack, it is simply good science.<o></o>
    <o></o>

    I do not believe there is a metaphysical world so all of that talk to mean really has little meaning.<o></o>
    Last edited by coachsparky; 01-11-2011 at 08:15 AM.

  6. #15

    Default Re: The Science Religion Conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by pm01 View Post
    Coachsparky,

    I have never spoke of my personal spiritual beliefs online and have no plans to do so.

    I'm wondering if you'd seen the following video and what you thought. It might not fit your topic perfectly and I will delete my post if you feel it's a bit of a hijack.

    I have no intention to insult anyone's beliefs. As I said I have never mentioned mine. It is just one person's opinion, not mine. What are your thoughts?

    It was a good video pm and I do not feel it hijacked the post.

  7. #16
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: The Science Religion Conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by coachsparky View Post
    When people cross the line and claim they can prove their religious beliefs they cross the line into being able to claim a pass from scrutiny, at that point they must be held up to scientific standards of proof. That is where I see the conflict, when people like Creation Scientist or Dianetics/Scientology try to claim they are using science they have to meet the standards of the scientific community and if they fail, then pointing out their mistakes is not an attack, it is simply good science.
    On this we agree completely, and that was the main point of my post. What I disagree with is that the reason that science and religion can't coexist is because they use different methods. My point is that when they try to answer the questions that are appropriate for each of them, their methods are appropriate. As we both have said, when religion tries to answer scientific questions, it's methods and conclusions are inappropriate.

    I don't believe in a metaphysical world, God, or even the spiritual force that you believe in. I do believe that religion has its place as long as it minds its own business. If people choose to believe in a spiritual being that can never be demonstrated to exist or not exist, and it gives comfort and purpose to their lives, that's up to them. I feel that they are deluding themselves; they feel that I'm missing out on a great opportunity. Each to his own.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  8. #17

    Default Re: The Science Religion Conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by coachsparky View Post
    Actually quinn, there are many many many more humble honest scientist then there are money grabbing scientist in the world. Those kinds do not even approach 5 % of the total scientific community. When scientist say something is settled science, it is because an overwhelming amount of the data backs up the hypothesis and therefore it has become a well established theory, like evolution. Much like Newton's Laws of Physics, which we know do describe the observable phenomena, it was overcome by a better theory, even though it was never shown to be totally wrong.
    I have no idea where you came up with a 5% number, but it doesn't really matter. I am wondering if you are including doctors and pharmacists when you speak of scientists. Their degrees are in applied science, I believe. If you are including them, then I can not believe the 5% are bad number. If you are only talking about other types of scientists, then I wouldn't have a clue.

    I was and do include doctors and pharmacists in when I say that a lot of "scientists" are just in it for the money and are taking payoffs and things. A lot of people would be out of a job if there were cures or preventions for many diseases and illnesses. But, if you are leaving them out, then I appologize for misunderstanding this thread.

  9. #18

    Default Re: The Science Religion Conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    I have no idea where you came up with a 5% number, but it doesn't really matter. I am wondering if you are including doctors and pharmacists when you speak of scientists. Their degrees are in applied science, I believe. If you are including them, then I can not believe the 5% are bad number. If you are only talking about other types of scientists, then I wouldn't have a clue.

    I was and do include doctors and pharmacists in when I say that a lot of "scientists" are just in it for the money and are taking payoffs and things. A lot of people would be out of a job if there were cures or preventions for many diseases and illnesses. But, if you are leaving them out, then I appologize for misunderstanding this thread.
    No I do not include physicians or pharmacists in the list a scientists. I am talking about people who conduct research to answer the big question of how the universe operates, where it and we came from and such theoretical research projects.

    But I would expect the number to be pretty close for those professions too. I am not that big of a conspiracy theorist to think that there are many scientist willing to falsify information that could save lives. I have too much faith in the goodness of human kind to be that kind of nut case.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •