the problem is not Science or Religion per se it is Fundamentalism

 

Spits coffee you what hodgy Fundamentalism my ****

 

sorry - have another one on me

 

I know what you mean, but our ideas about the physical world are continuously refined to the point where it doesn't matter how you look at it - you're still using extremely hard evidence i.e electricity, electronics, nuclear power etc. throughout your daily existence. Science may be a self referencing framework as you say, but it also happens to very closely reference the universe!

Frosticles appears to be 'God' dropping in on this thread

 

Perhaps it never will, but it's a starting point to explaining what we observe around us. It was once believed that when the ground shook and mountains erupted fire a brimstone that the God was angry. We now "know" that this is caused by the movement of Earth's tectonic plates floating on magma swirling around a hot iron core powered by Earth's rotation. Do you believe that the recent earthquake in New Zealand was because God was angry with the Kiwi's?

 

Why is subscribing to plate tectonic theory in conflict with being a Christian. Stop strawmanning.

 

Maybe, but its entirely accurate. Splutter all you want, but belief in religious views have no foundation in fact or reality and therefore are ignorant.

Trying to deflect the discussion to philosophical matters doesnt escape this fact, and all else is mote really. Religious beliefs are based on a 2000 year old fairy STORY. Believing that it is anything other than that is indeed ignorant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant

HTH!

 

That is true and it is ironic that scientistic ideologues such as Dawkins etc make the SAME mistake as the fundies. It's confusing mythos and logos - any Jungians out there?

 

It's not a theory, it is a scientific fact, until it is disproven of course. Are you saying science and religion are intertwined and somehow interchangeable?

 

What utter hogwash! Science starts with a theory that is then tested to destruction ie one false reading blows it wide open. It then gets refined over time making it more accurate or indeed thrown out if dis-proved. Religeon is nothing like that, it's never tested & in reality believers do the opposite - completely ignore anything that does not rest easy with their "theory" ... so much so that some have been known to go in to battle over dis-agreements

TX.

 

Actually strictly speaking it's a paradigm, but anyway science does not do facts really, all is provisional, that is to say is open to be refuted.

 

You've used 'strawmanning' a few times to try and repel what is actually a decent argument. You didn't reply when I asked you if you'd be happy being convicted on belief that wasn't based on having actually witnessed anything rather than physical evidence, because it still comes back to that key difference no matter what your interpretation of 'belief' is. There's quite a sense of irony when you mention strawmanning right after comparing tectonic plate theory to religion, when they are clearly two totally different things.

Again, the kind of belief which is essentially just thought inside the mind is a totally different thing to observing and understanding something that is actually reality.

 

That's just plain dumb. Art doesn't claim to be any truth, it's art

Geezer

 

Should religion or science be responsible for proving/disproving the existence of god?

 

I wish i could have a day as a believer, just to know what it feels like to ignore all sense of reason just because i've decided to have faith in a God.

People believe all number of stupid things, but religion has to be up there as number one irrational. Just a reflection of the insecurity and inquisitiveness of mankind.

 

Well it's a good bit different to saying going faster than light makes time go backwards. A rudimentery grasp of the physics would have seen you give a far better answer than the 'paper over the cracks and hoep no-one sees' post you did give.

 

^^ Another pointless post - answer the question

TX.

 

No, you are deliberately misrepresenting here. Dawkins follows a scientific method and has clearly stated that if new testable and compelling evidence emerges to alter our currently held understanding of the universe and life he would happily say the old idea was wrong and the new one is correct. That is far from being a fundamentalist who rejects any new evidence. It is in fact being open minded.

 

It's fair to say I'm a non believer and it's also fair to say that nobody knows for sure who is right or wrong.

One thing's for sure - If I'm wrong I'm going to be much happier than a believer who turns out wrong .

 

And i am losing my coffee not religion

Thats me in the corner >

 

Unlike religion, where, for example, the what was written in the Bible/Koran, etc is concidered by many religious followers as irrifutable and infallible. Therefore God must have been angry with the Kiwi's, right? So what do you believe, science's explaination through tectonic theory, if so surely that's conflict?

 

Plainly down to the sheer size of the Universe makes it impossible for us humans to discover "Everything" in it. Simple as.
We will be hard pushed to discover everything in the Milky Way within the human's lifespan never mind the other 200 billion odd galaxies......

FPMSL at me being "God"

If things are looked at logically then they become plainly obvious.

 

So you'll be burnt in the fiery pits of hell, while he doesn't get to see the pearly gates? He might be disappointed, but I'm not sure you'll be happy :-)

 

 

 

No, nor is an experience born out of TLE, however, I feel it's important that we understand that these emenations are wonderful and important but that they are numinous and not supernatural. I have no issue with a poetic, notional or pantheistic God, I do however feel compelled to challenge the madness of literalism and blind faith and the unwillingness of so many to accept the overwhelming evidence in support of a rational worldview.

I actually get much of which you've written around sybolism and allegory; I am a very religious non-believer.

 

I don't think that is completely right.

Of course we have proved a great deal scientifically, largely by empirical methods which is pretty accurate. All that can of course be used to back up a theory, but without the full evidence you cannot prove those theories.
It might be right, but it could also be just as wrong! You certainly cannot accept it as "gospel" (could not resist that one!)

I have already said that I have always had a scientific background as far as my education went, so I do have a strong affinity with that subject as far as that is concerned. I do feel I have to have an honest appraisal of what we are told about the start of it all, and we cannot accept what has been said as the true answer yet.

If you say that there is no proof of what we might see as an all powerful being, that is true of course, so when it comes to all the scientific theories, it is "tit for tat" when you come to think about it. You would of course need a very strong dose of "faith" to believe that the science is bound to be right!

We might know the real answer one day, They will say if they see evidence of Higg's Boson that it is all proved and it was the big bang after all etc. etc. May well be correct!

Will they ever be able to say how a singularity can appear in empty space? That goes against the laws of science that have been formulated. Those are the real things to consider and I am very interested if they ever find an answer to that one. Was it actually empty space, and if not, what was there in the first place? Where did all the matter which forms the Universe come from? Isn't it amazing how well ordered the Universe actually is to allow a planetary system which enables life to exist, and how many others are there like it? There must be more I think.

Hell of a lot to think about before you start getting het up about religion anyway. You either believe that or not and why bother to jump up and down over whether people do believe it? Just have to get on with our own lives, and even find the plus side of practising a bit of tolerance.

Les

 

There is no equivalence between science and religion. It is not tit for tat. There is no faith for science to be right, it a constant process of testing, predicting, measuring, observing and refining. The end product may vary over time. You mention having a scientific background and yet you make this schoolboy error. I dont know quite how that has happened.

 

How am I comparing plate tectonic to religion? I did nothing of the kind. More strawmen arguments from you.

 

No but he is taking a stance where religion is a competitor to his scientific method and 'worldview'. Religion only is if you take a literalist positon (fundamentalism).