Science is a tool and religion is a crutch, Religious discussion CONT...

[Melodybe]

I think that ulimately Science will eventually answer all of our questions about the universe and reality, but until that time when the truth is known people will need some form of religion to help them through their lives. Ulitimately, I think that there will come a time where science and religion merge.

That is just my own personal opinion, but I refuse to believe that there is no ryhme or reason to the universe.

[sangh0]

1. Religion is a "crutch"?

Nice

[jay-3d]

5. Jesus

is Santa Claus for adults

[ulysses]

10. helpful.

:eyes:

PLEASE don't make me have to stick up for sangh0 in a thread...

[sangh0]

12. OMFG!!

The entire universe must have just spun off it's axis!!!

:-)

[ulysses]

14. heh!

Don't count those chickens just yet. :D

[CatWoman]

106. or possums!!!!

:D

Just watching this lil exchange made my visit to this thread all the more worth it :D

[ulysses]

118. LOL!

Do possums hatch? :D

[chiburb]

30. The Lord works in mysterious ways.....n/t

[Dookus]

11. No, it's not terribly nice

but neither is it terribly offensive.

Given the crap we're putting up with from the religious types lately, that's a pretty gentle way to put it.

[ulysses]

2. I disagree here.

Ulitimately, I think that there will come a time where science and religion merge.

IMHO, what's wanted from religion is an ethical framework, where science is concerned with mechanics. Although the two inform each other, I don't see much overlap.

[Melodybe]

6. What about string theory?

I personally think that string theory is quite religious.

[ulysses]

9. I have to claim a pretty serious ignorance there.

I'd be interested in a quick overview, though. :)

[Melodybe]

15. Here's a link

http://turing.wins.uva.nl/~rhd/string_theory.html

From my own understanding the smallest particles of atoms are all made of tiny strings that have there own frequencies. Different elements are just expressions of different frequencies. The material they are made of is just energy.

If everything in existance is basically made up of the exact same substance I think that is very religious.

[ulysses]

16. but how is that religious? n/t

[Endangered Specie]

24. Although mathmatically its works in theory...

because of the very nature of string theory there is essentially no way to prove or disprove it. It is not falliable (falliable= the ability to be proven false), and anything (and everything that is) scientific must be so.

[ulysses]

27. but not all that requires faith is religion.

Is it?

[Endangered Specie]

34. ...

Well, if you look at traditional religious beliefs, they are somewhat like... "There IS a God"... God can't be proved or disporved (from a science standpoint).

Essentially, believing that string theory has merit/is true requires faith, since there is no way to try to make an experiment/observation that can disprove, or prove it(in science, to 'prove' something means to have failed in trying to disprove it numerous times).


"There are physicists, and there are string theorists"

[ulysses]

40. ok,

but is there anything about having faith about unprovable phenomena that *requires* religion?

[Endangered Specie]

45. Im not sure I understand...

but Ill try.

Since religion is purely based on faith, having faith in a phenoma is similiar to a religion.

I dont think its trying to be said there is going to be a "string theorey religion, (complete with bible etc...), but the act of believing in the string theory (or any theory) without any proof/evidence, essentially imples faith, which is the bases of religion.

[ulysses]

46. this doesn't necessarily follow.

Since religion is purely based on faith, having faith in a phenoma is similiar to a religion.

No. The fact that religion is based on faith does not mean that all things that have anything to do with faith are based on religion.

[Endangered Specie]

49. There are things like cults...

which are really just religions with fewer members.

If you have faith in something whether its supernatural or not, it still can be considered behaving like a religious person.

[ulysses]

91. I'm not talking about cults

and I still don't see how having faith in something is necessarily the same as behaving like a religious person. :shrug:

[porphyrian]

32. Can't prove it yet, that's why it's theory...

...but it holds up to the tests we can do.

[Endangered Specie]

36. Except the "Tests" you refer to...

are probably all mathmatical (im not aware of any other tests), which in science doesnt mean much, just because it fits in math does not whatsoever contribute towards it being the way things work.

[porphyrian]

44. Correct.

But that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate, either.

[Endangered Specie]

47. True, math is a one way test...

If the math does not fit it fails.

This being a conditional statement people often think that the negative is therefore true, but it is not.

"If the math does fit it passes."

Having the math on your side does nothing to contribute/take away your argument.

[Beetwasher]

19. It's A Theory That's Based On Mathematical Calculations

not dogma. The theory will be tested at some point hopefully, although for the time being all we have is the mathematics.

The same can't be said about religious dogma.

[midwayer]

97. Science vs Religion

Science vs Religion

Science is man's attempted study of his physical environment, the world of energy-matter; religion is man's experience with the cosmos of spirit values; philosophy has been developed by man's mind effort to organize and correlate the findings of these widely separated concepts into something like a reasonable and unified attitude toward the cosmos.

http://www.truthbook.com/1542.cfm

&

http://www.truthbook.com/1542.cfm


I, personally do not subscribe to the "religion is a crutch" syndrome..

I would rather think as religion as man's inherent desire for wisdom and knowledge about our universe and all things spiritual

[pmbryant]

20. String theory isn't very scientific, at least right now

I don't understand how string theory is "religious".

But then again, I would argue that string theorists have a religious-like faith in their vision of the Universe. Alas, it is a vision that has no basis in scientific observation or experiment. And little prospect for such a basis anytime soon, if ever.

--Peter

[sangh0]

29. String "theory" isn't really a theory

It hasn't been scientifically proven, so it would be more accurate to call it "The String Hypothesis"

[Endangered Specie]

51. Glad you pointed that out.

[bloom]

102. Seems like most

scientific sorts of things - esp. in physics - start out as some idea that can take decades to "prove".

Seems like there would be a lot of faith involved.


While it would be different from a religion - there is definately that element of wanting to understand what is not readily understandable.

[msmcghee]

74. Which string . .

. . do you pray to?

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

82. String theory fascinates me

and I'm a Christian if that makes any difference.

[Trajan]

3. Isnt this called ....

'Leading with your face' ? ...

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. Science is religion

It's just a form that's based on empirical philosophy, the tenet of that religion being that which we can measure with reasonable certainty using machine conversions into something that can be perceived by our limited senses.

Additionally, Quantum theory is getting awfully close to agreeing with a lot of religions.

Choose Kerry Lose Bush - FUCK BUSH - Drop Bush Not Bombs!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Melodybe]

8. Thank you, I just posted about same thing.

[jay-3d]

21. I think

Evolutionary behaver can explain the development of morality in the human race. It's simply a survival technique and not from the Devin. Davine myths are used to reinforce basic human traits that grantee survival in a more Urban culture.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Yeah, The Difference Is, Quantum Theory Works.

Besides, it's not "getting close to religion" in that it's yelling at you to stop having sex with one hand while molesting little boys with the other... (sorry, but, for me that sums up the western tradition in a nutshell these days) ..Quantum theory does posit some potentially weird things about reality, but none of them have anything to do with "god", unless you as the entity which conceivably collapses the wave function through your act of perception wish to take upon yourself that level of responsibility... If anything, Quantum physics implies solispsism much more than it does religion in any sort of western sense. Quantum theory also could be considered in line with certain aspects of Buddhist or Taoist tradition, or even the Hopi worldview. But that just means that our old, classical, newtonian bricks-and-mortar descriptions of "reality" (which are pretty well tied into the Christian notion of the universe as a "thing" that someone "made") are woefully inadequate, since quantum theory has been experientially verified time and time again. And that's the rub- when you're talking science, you're talking about a system where even the most cherished dogmas have to be verified through experiment, and tossed away when better descriptions of what's going on, like better maps of the territory, are found to work.

[pmbryant]

28. Quantum theory close to agreeing with a lot of religions?

In what way, exactly?

Quantum theory makes superbly accurate predictions of the properties of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules. Offhand, I don't know of any religions that say very much about such matters. They are concerned with very different matters, in my understanding.

:shrug:

--Peter

[Cronus Protagonist]

35. Study some more and get back to me

The search for the unification theory is a search for "God" in the scientific "religion" - it's the Holy Grail of empiricism.

The Higg's Boson is called the "God Particle" for its apparent one-ness and universal ubiquity as postulated by many religions.

I could go on, but you'll find more if you look for yourself.

Choose Kerry Lose Bush - FUCK BUSH - Drop Bush Not Bombs!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I think YOU need to study some more

and not just pick and choose among "Discover" headlines. Just because some scientists call the search for a GUT the "holy grail" doesn't mean it has some kind of religious implication.

And, some scientists calling the higgs boson the "god particle" just means they have a sense of humor. Show me what religion postulates subatomic reality, particularly in the quantum sense. Again, for example, there are aspects to Taoism that could be interpreted as in line with quantum theory, but that has diddly-squat to do with "God".

[DrWeird]

57. I actually have studied quantum mechanics.

Hell, I apply it daily to my work.

And I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Beetwasher]

60. Pssst! Quit While You're behind...

Ummm, Pmbryant is a scientist I believe...Stop digging...

[Guaranteed]

107. Who gives a shit?

Scientists are the scholarly monks of our time.

All this theory and story-telling that "science" has come to be is just a whole lot of garbage.

Why, just a couple of days ago Stephen Hawking "changed his mind" regarding black holes. Apparently, they AREN'T gateways to other dimensions anymore. Now they "mangle" matter and energy. Hmm, wonder what THAT looks like. Guess we'll never know, though, will we?

[pmbryant]

69. Very funny

First of all, what you are talking about ("Unification theory", Higgs bosons, etc) is not what is traditionally referred to as "quantum theory".

Second, scientists and mathematicians have a way of inventing cute names for things they are working on. Helps get them attention, after all, for things otherwise few people would care about or understand.

Someone nicknamed the (still merely hypothesized) Higgs boson the "God particle" because in the theory that postulated it, it is extremely important. Not because it has anything literally or figuratively to do with the concept of "God" as understood by various earthly religions. It was just a cute name.

--Peter

[rman]

56. yet QED and not faith makes computers possible. n/t

-

[Guaranteed]

104. When was the last time you saw an electron? nt

[Worst Username Ever]

7. Not so much a crutch, so much as the proverbial "opiate..."

I think organized religion has always and will always be used as a tool as well, though. When people can't expalin something logically, it generally is left to religion to fill in the holes. Which would explain why all religions have some sort of thousands-of-years-old creation story. No one knew how things happened, so they made stories about it. The fact that some STILL believe the LITERAL telling of these things is what is astounding.

[bloom]

109. maybe the answer is to teach more physics earlier

maybe then there wouldn't be so many potentially intelligent people creating websites about how dinosaurs must have lived within the last 6000 years because that is the age of the world according to the Bible.

Seems like educators have assumed that Biology and evolution explain everything - physics isn't a required subject. But I think, in this day and age - it may explain more what people want to know about the basis of life and being.

IOW - while biology SHOULD be enough to explain the dinosaur question - the questions that relate to atoms and quarks and potential string theories, quantum mechanics, etc. may answer more elemental questions... or at least be the basis for creating questions and not assuming that the Bible answers them.

It may also be the absence of understanding of modern science of all kinds and keeping up with stuff that make some run and hide their head in their Bibles.

We here - don't know - but there is more of a sense of interest as opposed to retreat. A basic knowledge would make it easier for people to keep up with emerging discoveries and changes in hypotheses and so on and so forth.

[Terran]

13. Religion should be a tool...

...for understanding the "rhyme and reason" of the universe, and that includes understanding the human psyche/soul/whatever. Don't equate "religion" with certain forms of contemportary western Christianity.

[DaveClearwater99]

17. They have merged.

We have "Creation Science" now.

[TowelBoy]

18. Well I like my crutch!

But it disgusts me when people lie about using religion as their motivation, like al-Qaeda and Bush, when really all they're motivated by is hate.

[jedicord]

22. Darwinism vs. Creationism

The way I look at it, my God is so great that he came up with evolution, allowing living things to change positively with the environment. The "created the world in 7 days" was God's time frame, not ours. 7 days on Pluto take much longer than on Earth, for instance.

That's why I always wonder why fanatics are so scared of Darwinism. They're basically saying God couldn't come up with such a great idea.

[K-W]

31. because you are mixing religion and science and not satisfying either

Alot of people base thier understanding of the world on the bible being literally true. If genesis doenst mean what it says, then how can we be sure that the ten commandments mean what they say?

They end the conflict between science and the bible by simply believing the bible and not science, you have tried to put the two together and have changed the meaning of the bible in your head to make your belief system work.

[jedicord]

42. Actually, nope, 'cause I think the Bible is a book written by Men

I definitely don't live by it, only the Golden Rule.

I also don't believe in Creationism, it's my way of trying to get Creationists to accept evolution, as if that would ever happen.

My belief is that there is some higher power out there, whether you call it God, Mysticism, Great Magnetic Field, Supreme Cloud Being (thanks Bartcop!). There's just too much science can't explain, so this belief has to fill in the gaps.

Something was out there during the Big Bang orchestrating Beauty. I can't hear a mockingbird sing, smell a rose, hear beautiful music, see a sunrise, etc. without wonder.

[troublemaker]

100. Please name something "science can't explain"

[sangha]

115. OK

Why is there order in the universe?

[K-W]

23. And metaphors are lies.

I dont think science and religion are competing things. Religion is not in itself a crutch, it can be a crutch, so can science.

[Alpha Wolf]

26. Please clarify...

You said:

"I think that ulimately Science will eventually answer all of our questions about the universe and reality, but until that time when the truth is known people will need some form of religion to help them through their lives."

Is it your theory that after science has answered all of our questions about the universe people will no longer need anything to help them through their lives?

If so, then shouldn't we see a gradual lessening of human misery and suffering throughout history that is relative to the increase in scientific knowledge over time? Surely science can answer more questions about the universe in 2004 than it could in 1904, 1804, 1404, 404, etc. Yet human misery and suffering continue as always. In fact, one might argue that human misery and suffering has increased with the advent of new technologies

[bloom]

110. you aren't asking me, but

_I_ think that it seems like two totally separate needs/wants.

There is the need to explain how we got here and how things more or less work and there is the need/want to connect with others (and self) in a meaningful way.


I think the first thing can be explained scientifically more or less.

The connection thing - the messages of peaceful prophets and philosophies - I think can be improved upon. Unfortunately organized religions, I think make the very matters worse that they seek to improve.

As a person raised in the Christian faith, I do see the world in some ways through some of those lenses. Like money is not the way the happiness, advertising is like getting people to worship some golden idol instead of what is important. To me, what makes sense is that GOD represents that which is important. And truthfully - I think that is how the people way back when understood it also. And Bush, etc. would all be pharisees.

[liberalmuse]

33. The patterns we see in the universe...

are those we create. We see what we want to see. I image brains have evolved to create patterns in order for our survival.

There are no miracles, just anomalies, or things we could explain if we really wanted to.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. For every 'miracle' that seems to explain proof of some gods existence or goodness, there are millions of atrocities that could make one think otherwise. Why? Why would a loving god help some sports team win a game, yet sit by while millions of people die a slow, excruciating death?

[rman]

59. theres no survival value in seeing patterns where there are none

for survival it's much more usefull to see patterns where there are patterns, in so far those are relevant to survival.

[DjTj]

37. Stephen Hawking isn't so sure...

...a good article on this topic:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_11_33/ai_84246681

"It is possible that there is no ultimate theory of physics at all. Instead, we will keep on discovering new layers of structure. But it seems that physics gets simpler, and more unified, the smaller the scale on which we look. There is an ultimate length scale, the Planck length, below which space-time may just not be defined. So I think there will be a limit to the number of layers of structure, and there will be some ultimate theory, which we will discover if we are smart enough."

"Does it seem likely that we are smart enough?" I asked.

Another grin. "You will have to get your faith elsewhere."

[Fed Up]

38. somehow I can't picture people still going to church in 5,000 years.

How many more thousands of years are people willing to await Jesus's return. The Bible says he is soon to return. That was written 2,000 years ago. (Not that I think there will be humanity left in 5,000 years.)

[kittykitty]

103. I can't even imagine there will be people here in 5,000 years! nt

39. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle

pretty much undercuts your belief & it's part of science.

[Endangered Specie]

61. How? may I ask?

68. It says that the observer affects the observed

The very act of observation changes the result, so unless you can be 100% certain about the action of observation you can't be 100% certain of what you observe.
But to be 100% certain you would have to observe the observation & you're caught in a bind then because your observing of the observation in itself would affect the observation.



Oversimplifying greatly here.

But my point is that there is no 100% certainty in anything and real science is aware of this.

There may be a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% probablity of an electron being in that place on the table in front of you, but there is always a probability also that it is on the other side of the universe.

Another related question is -- is light a wave or a particle? Are they ever going to figure that one out? Believing they will is an act of faith. Thus of religion.

[Endangered Specie]

76. Actually, that question is being addressed...

And to say it will never be solved is absurd and, quite unlikely, considering oh so how many time people have claimed a limit to what we can learn.

78. Read carefully what I wrote and you'll see that I did not

say it would never be solved.

What I said is that believing it will be solved is an act of faith.
Quite a different point.

[Endangered Specie]

85. ok, guess it depends on how one reads it...

I think there is a high probablity that the question will be answered.

Id also reckon that scientists in the know, when they say they believe it will be solved, might be based on what they know that we don't.

[pmbryant]

81. Clarification

This is a bit off-topic, but I feel compelled to make a correction regarding your last statements:

Another related question is -- is light a wave or a particle? Are they ever going to figure that one out? Believing they will is an act of faith. Thus of religion.

Light is extremely well understood by scientists these days (thanks to the quantum revolution in the first half of the 20th century). It is both a wave and a particle. Sometimes it behaves like one; sometimes like the other. Overall, we can predict the behavior of light extremely well. Alas, our language, developed in an environment in which quantum effects are negligible, doesn't have a good single word to describe what light acts like. But we already have an excellent understanding of its behavior.

Back to the main point, I think you are correct that those who believe that "science" will eventually solve certain mysteries have a religious-like faith in the scientific process and the ability of humans to comprehend the Universe. I'm not sure I have that faith, myself.

--Peter

84. Thanks, that's what I meant actually

It's been awhile since I studied that stuff though so I misstated.
My clarification would be how can something be a wave and a particle?
Isn't light the only thing that behaves that way?
Ordinarily we would think that something is a wave or a particle, not both, but light seems to be both.

You stated it better than I did though.

[Endangered Specie]

41. I see Religion and Science filling two different roles...

Science is meant to describe and discover physical facts about the real world (universe, multiverse etc...).

Religion fills a void that science cannot fill and that is ethics and morality (not saying people w/o religion cant be moral, and of course, religion, like science, can be abused easily).

Science is strictly in the business of finding facts, religion should stick to trying to be a positive ethical force amongst humans, the two should not step on the other's ground.

[RichardRay]

43. Which of you 'scientists' isn't based on faith?

All you guys jabbering about quantum theory and string theory and the GUT or whatever - how many of you can do the math required to understand those conjectures? How about just the math required to understand good old fashioned Newtonian mechanics?

Just being able to _do_ math doesn't count - I'd say it requires the ability to derive the principles from foundations. Of course, if you've got a provable foundation for your flavor of math I'd love to hear about it.

If you can't do the math yourself, and you haven't done so if you can, and you haven't done a defense of your understanding if you got that far - then I'd suggest that you're proceeding on the basis of faith no less than a religious person is.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Gripe, Gripe, Gripe.

"do the math". At least there IS Math, and not just mumbo-jumbo.

Please post a picture of your invisible man in the sky. Preferably in color.

[sangh0]

52. How do you know there is math for this

if you don't know the actual math

BTW, nearly all religious people do NOT believe in an "invisible man in the sky" We just talk about it to confuse the atheists

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Actually, I do know the actual math.

Besides, if quantum physics didn't work, experientially, then the electronics in the chips in my computer wouldn't be allowing me to send this to you. Do you think they're offering blessings to the virgin mary down at the Intel Fab plants?


Beyond which, your point is what?

[RichardRay]

65. jI sincerely doubt that, tho I could be wrong

I know enough of the math to know just how hard the math is that truly allows one to understand those concepts and deal with them with facility, not just based on some rules you learned that tend to work.

Rules that tend to work can just as well be based on religious faith as they can in any other.

What's the underlying, provable assumption of your flavor of mathematics?

(BTW - my religious practice doesn't have any invisible men or women, so I can't send one....)

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[Warren DeMontague]

95. The Underlying Unprovable Assumption Behind Everything Mathematical

is that A=A. Prove that. Past a certain point, nothing can be proven. No duh. I can't prove that I'm not a head in a jar hallucinating this entire episode, and you can't prove that I'm not a sasquatch sitting here on the other end of the internet.

Other than that, I find your post insulting, and I'm not about to dig out my quantum physics texts from 15 years ago to hit you with some mathematical gibberish to try to make a point. I'm a big boy, I know that I know what I know. You Believe what you want. I'm done with this thread.

[RichardRay]

123. Sorry not good enough.

Tautology doesn't get you there. Holding that it does just proves that you've never actually looked into the question.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[sangh0]

72. Do you know the math to string theory? If yes, please provide the proof

The discussion wasn't limited to quantum theory, and string theory is unproven

Beyond which, your point is what?

My point is that if you're going to demand proof you should

1) Apply the same standard to yourself, and provide the proof for your beliefs

2) Familiarize yourself with the subject you're demanding to be proved. Few people of faith believe in invisible men in the sky. Statements like that only demonstrate that you are ignorant concerning the things you criticize.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I didn't say anything about string theory.

I fully admit that my knowledge of string theory is limited. However, it's just that- a theory.

"Few people of faith believe in invisible men in the sky"

Okay, "God" is a man, supposedly.. at least according to what passes for Christianity in this country.
You can't see "him", hence, he's invisible.

Maybe "he's" not in the sky, (so, where is he?) but other than that, I hardly think my assertion applies to "few people of faith".


Beyond that, I'm not going to sit here all day and run down the equations for quantum physics just to answer some insulting, snotty, and downright rude posts. (that goes for the other guy, too) I took classes on quantum physics in college, for instance, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to my god-damn transcripts. Likewise, you're welcome to believe in whatever you want. My opinion on religion is that I don't care if people want to believe the Universe was built out of cheese by an army of 500 foot tall green orangutans.. just keep it out of my kids' science classes at the public school, and I would prefer to not have to acknowledge your superstitions through my secular government.

It's been stated by me, and others, that quantum physics WORKS- it's the basis of the electronics in the computers we're using right now. That's all the "Proof" I think I need. Don't like it? Try sending an email on your rosary.

[sangh0]

83. No, you didn't, but string theory is part of the discussion

and I don't see where you got the authority to limit the discussion to quantum physics. Also, string theory isn't really a theory. According to the Scientific Method, a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven. String "theory" has yet to be proven, so therefor it would be more accurately labelled "string hypothesis"

Okay, "God" is a man, supposedly.. at least according to what passes for Christianity in this country.
You can't see "him", hence, he's invisible.

According to Christianity, God is NOT a man. Even within the Christian population, the idea that God is a corporeal entity is relatively uncommon.

Beyond that, I'm not going to sit here all day and run down the equations for quantum physics just to answer some insulting, snotty, and downright rude posts.

And don't expect us to sit here all day and run down the religious philosophies that support our belief in God just to answer some insulting, rude and downright ignorant poster

I took classes on quantum physics in college, for instance, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to my god-damn transcripts

And I took classes in religion, but that doesn't mean that you're entitled to my transcripts. It works both ways. If you want to demand proof, be ready to do the same.

It's been stated by me, and others, that quantum physics WORKS- it's the basis of the electronics in the computers we're using right now. That's all the "Proof" I think I need. Don't like it? Try sending an email on your rosary.

Actually, computers were invented before we had discovered quantum physics. Now we know that religion isn't the only subject you are not terribly familiar with.

[pmbryant]

88. Computers/quantum physics

Actually, computers were invented before we had discovered quantum physics. Now we know that religion isn't the only subject you are not terribly familiar with.

I think he meant to say "modern transistor-based electronic computers", rather than simply "computers", but that is the common usage these days, so I think we can forgive him the shorter term.

(I am certainly no expert on how computer circuits work, though.)

--Peter

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Thank You.

Now, Sango or sangha--

Most modern high-tech electronics, as well as the laser that you play your CDs and DVDs with depend on the equations of quantum mechanics in some form or another. Sorry. Deal with it.

Beyond that, you know, someone tried to stifle debate by saying, in essence, "well, if you can't prove to me that you have a deep understanding of the equations behind quantum theory, shut your mouth".. At which point, I responded, I do, actually, (like I said, I took classes on Quantum Physics in college) and the response from this poster was "I Don't believe you". Well, hate to break it to you, but that's fucking rude. And It's also akin to me asserting that you're just spouting off your mouth about religion in a way you're not entitled to, because you're not, say, the pope.

And you toss around words like "ignorant"-- but what point have you made here today, other than you just don't like it that other people have opinions about religion that are different than yours, and you really wish that people who believe in the tenets and experiential validation of science would just admit that those beliefs are as equally baseless as, say, the belief in the tooth fairy. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to play that game.

And maybe you should get out more, in terms of talking to actual christians. Whether or not they believe "God" is corporeal, they generally seem to agree he's "male", which to me also implies "man". Yes, if he's invisible, "he" probably doesn't have an actual flesh-and-blood body, except maybe in the case of jesus, which is a whole nother mess of contradictions I'm not going to get into right now.

[sangha]

114. You've missed the point - Most religious people aren't American Christians

You asked for proof of God's existence. If you truly feel that proof is required, you should apply the same standard to your own assertions and provide proof for them.

Most modern high-tech electronics, as well as the laser that you play your CDs and DVDs with depend on the equations of quantum mechanics in some form or another. Sorry. Deal with it.

Maybe you didn't notice, but I haven't expressed any hostility to science ever, and I've never denied that quantum physics led to development of transistors. I did refute your claim that the invention of COMPUTERS was dependent on quantum physics.

Beyond that, you know, someone tried to stifle debate by saying, in essence, "well, if you can't prove to me that you have a deep understanding of the equations behind quantum theory, shut your mouth"..

I never said you have to shut up. You asked someone for proof, and I held you to the same standard. Now I'll do it again. Please prove that I told you to "shut up"

And you toss around words like "ignorant"-- but what point have you made here today, other than you just don't like it that other people have opinions about religion that are different than yours

I have no problems with differing opinions, but when someone posts fictions as facts, I'll point out the mistake, and the number of fictions you have posted is an indication that when it comes to religon, you are ignorant. You seem to think that most of the religious are American Christians, and that most American Christians believe the Bible is the literal truth and that most religious people think God is male. These are not matters of opinion, they are assertions of "facts" which are untrue.

And maybe you should get out more, in terms of talking to actual christians. Whether or not they believe "God" is corporeal, they generally seem to agree he's "male", which to me also implies "man".

I suggest you get out of the country more. Most religious people are neither Christian nor American. Most religious people are either some form of Buddhist, or Hindu and they do not believe in a male god.

Yes, if he's invisible, "he" probably doesn't have an actual flesh-and-blood body, except maybe in the case of jesus, which is a whole nother mess of contradictions I'm not going to get into right now.

If one does not have a flesh and blood body, then one cannot be male or female. Sex is determined by DNA, which is corporeal.

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Oh... And.

"Actually, computers were invented before we had discovered quantum physics. Now we know that religion isn't the only subject you are not terribly familiar with."

What kind of computers? The abacus?

When was quantum physics discovered?

When was the computer invented?

Who's not terribly familiar with what they're talking about?

[sangha]

116. The first computers were mechanical, not electrical

.

[RichardRay]

125. I tried to be polite...

I said I doubted it although it could be true.

The fact that you took some courses in quantum physics in college 15 years ago doesn't go very far to support the idea that you have a foundation in math adequate to the task required. So I'm starting to be more certain of my statements.

You dont' seem to have a problem requiring folks who have a religious practice to be rigorous, I believe that it's fair to require the same rigor in your case. I don't need your transcripts - a simple citation of a publication in a refereed journal in which you demonstrate something foundational in math will be quite sufficient. When I get that I'll tender my abject aplogies - until then the challenge stands.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

p.s. - practitioners of my religion are urged to inspect all statements critically, to reject those they cannot support for themselves from their own experience and have willingly thrown out major tenets as they were shown to be untrue by science. Your Christian jingoism is showing, even if you believe you've rejected it.

RR

[Warren DeMontague]

128. Oh, blow me.

Find one statement I've made on this thread, anywhere, that is factually incorrect.

Beyond that, screw you.

[Endangered Specie]

55. I think thats a little bit overstating...

If something is held to be valid in the scientific world I am inclined to accept it.

The reason WHY I do this is not based on faith, its based on the track record of the scientific community and science in general, which is overall a pretty good record, when stuff does come up that is bogus, the scientific process weeds it out pretty fast (some examples include the suppposed cold fusion and elements 116, 118 or such being discovered).

And for the record, most scientists arent buying string theory. And GUT is a goal, it hasnt been reached yet.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Second That...

"when stuff does come up that is bogus, the scientific process weeds it out pretty fast (some examples include the suppposed cold fusion and elements 116, 118 or such being discovered)."

Yup. Whereas it only took the Catholic Church, what... 400 Years to grudgingly admit that they were wrong about the Earth Going Around The Sun?

[Endangered Specie]

70. My trust in science is based on evidence and history.

and the numerouse science courses Ive taken in HS and college. Ive always liked how they are structured not to just feed you information, but to have you test it for yourself.

[sangh0]

73. And that's EXACTLY what my religious beliefs are based on

Evidence, history, and the numerous religious studies I've engaged in. I've always liked how they were structured not to just feed you information, but to have you test it for yourself.

[Endangered Specie]

79. Intersting "religion" you have...

A Religion is supposed to be believed in purely on faith, Ive discoovered that those who require evidence/proof of their religion lack faith, and thus, arent really religious.

Ive never heard of a religious study group that offers evidence of how their claims are true, and offer third party diagnostics, perhaps you could clarify what those religious beliefs are?

[sangh0]

86. Not based "purely" on faith

Faith is an important component, but my beliefs are not "pure" in that respect, nor does religion require them to be. However, I agree with you about those who require proof for their beliefs.

Ive never heard of a religious study group that offers evidence of how their claims are true, and offer third party diagnostics, perhaps you could clarify what those religious beliefs are?

I'm sorry but I don't understand that question.

[RichardRay]

122. Requirement for faith a Christian concept

not universally necessary for all religious beliefs. Would you suggest that because I can don't support phlogiston that I reject combustion?

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[Endangered Specie]

71. They werent wrong

They misspoke ;)

[sangh0]

87. We are discussing "religion", not "the Catholic Church"

Please don't smear all religions on the basis of one religion.

[Endangered Specie]

90. Im not smearing religion...

I was cracking a little anti bush joke... they are never wrong, they just misspeak.

sense of humour guys and gals!

[sangha]

117. You're right

I was too quick on the draw. My apologies

[troublemaker]

101. This is a misunderstanding of "faith"

I have never been to Spain, yet I am convinced it exists. That is not Faith, it's an hypothesis so well supported by evidence that it is functionally a fact. I would readily bet everything I have against a dollar on the proposition that Spain exists, but its existence isn't a metaphysical absolute. Just a really strong hypothesis.

And even if I visited Spain that wouldn't change. Everything is hypothetical... I do not *know* whether the keyboard I am typing on exists, because I have only my demonstrably fallible senses to rely on. Again, my "certainty" that there's a keyboard here is merely an hypothesis so well supported by evidence that it's functionally a fact.

There is conceivable evidence that would demonstrate to me that Spain or my keyboard do not exist. If that evidence shows up I will change my working hypothesis.

Faith, however, is not a certainty borne of great preponderance of evidence. It is FAITH. Not only does faith not rely on evidence, it frequently flies in the faith of evidence. It is a non-rational conviction by definition.

If a Christian's faith is based on evidence he is most likely going to hell because he has no faith.

[Guaranteed]

108. I also find it odd that something's existence could possibly be proved

A PRIORI, simply through mathematical calculations.

[Big Blue Marble]

53. Science as it is today has given us for the first time in

in human history the ability to destroy ourselves and our planet. Religion with all its flaws does not give us that capability.

[Endangered Specie]

58. Do you want me to list the good things science has brought us?

Or are you going to bash science?

Science is not an ethical pursuit, it is the pursuit of knowledge.

[Big Blue Marble]

62. I am not bashing science. I have a great deal of respect for the honest

pursuit of knowledge in all its forms including spiritual knowledge. But the fact remains that science not religion has put our world on the edge of the precipice

[Endangered Specie]

66. Umm, humans are the ones who use science for good or bad...

Scientists can be good or evil, since they are human, but science itself cannot be blamed for what its discoveries are used for (that people, many whom are religious I might add, insisted on building).

I dont think its right to blame religion in general for the numerous attorcities, wars, crimes and genocides that "religious" PEOPLE commit.

[Big Blue Marble]

89. Are we not intrinsically bound to our endeavors of science and religion?

They are both the expressions of who we as humans are. I think it would be hard to find an evil scientist, despite the stereotypes. Most of the knowledge of science has been gained through the hard work of well-intentioned scientists. All scientific knowledge is of course a two-edge sword. Those who would argue the benefits of science and its superiority over religion must account for the damage that it has brought to the world.
For example most of the environmental damage that has occurred since World War II resulted from the scientific " advancements" of our time. The accumulation of scientific knowledge has directly led to the accumulation of environmental destruction.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Greed, Stupidity and Short-Sightedness have done that...

Not science.

I'm hard pressed to come up with any solution to our current problems that would involve us becoming less informed about the true workings of reality and our world.

Seems to me if one of religion's reasons for being is to inform the values of human beings, it's doing a piss-poor job of it. Because many of the most vocally self-righteous "religious" people on the planet seem to have no problem destroying natural resources, increasing the discrepancies between rich and poor, and waging warfare on humans, animals, and ecosystems alike. In fact, all they really seem to care about, in a religious context, is people's sex lives. Meanwhile, most environmentally aware people I know are either secular humanists, pagans, or subscribe to a more jeffersonian/deist approach to religion.

And scientists discovered global warming, and most of them (the ones who aren't on energy company payrolls) are doing their darndest to get the public aware of the danger. Meanwhile, the religious "left behind" crowd sticks rapture stickers on their SUVs while they simultaneously stick their heads in the sand. Did "scientists" invent the internal combustion engine? Well, maybe. But businesspeople put it into use. Now, I don't know anyone who realistically thinks we're going to go back to the days of horses and buggys.. So, again, science is going to need to help us work forward through this mess.

[Endangered Specie]

80. Thats a rather blunt way of putting it

;)

[Big Blue Marble]

92. Science without a spiritual foundation may not save us this time.

As Dr. Barry Commoner, an American environmental scientist, explained over thirty years ago, in his book "The closing circle; nature, man, & technology", linear solutions to scientific problems lead to more problems. We need a new way of being in our world beyond science and beyond current religions. The truth is both have failed us.

Note: I think global warming may be caused by our scientific efforts to control our environment.

Books by Barry Commoner:
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Commoner%2C%20Barry

[DjTj]

63. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

But remember that science has also given us for the first time in human history the ability to eat root beer flavored jelly beans.

[Big Blue Marble]

67. Even if the root beer flavor is artificial!

Thanks for the welcome. It is good to be here.

[bloom]

111. "Religion with all its flaws"

gives people the reason to. :shrug:

[gulliver]

96. I like Feynman's answer.

Essentially admit you don't know. Admit you want to know. Try to know. That's the answer. Maybe I'm not doing Feynman justice, though.

[troublemaker]

105. That's a typical scientific back-handed sop

I hate it when scientists talk about religion! It's as painful as when they talk about music and art. (Bach and Escher do not a culture make.)

Christianity is not about being so awed by the big mysteries that we admit our fallibility, it is about FAITH. There is no humility, uncertainty or wiggle room.

People need to READ the New Testament. It's not really very ambiguous. Are people simply afraid to read it so we can all continue to believe in some socially acceptable happy-horseshit Christianity that's a meaningless melange of harmless nostrums?

[gulliver]

112. Science and religion are not separate, IMO.

At least that is the way I see it. The separation between faith and science is artificial and exists, IMO, for historical reasons. You should be able to experience it all with one mind. Feynman's world view was not impoverished at all. He and Jesus would have liked each other a lot. Feynman was a scientist who loved to play the bongo drums, talked with a New York street kid accent, wanted to know truth, etc.

I know where you are coming from about scientists, but Feynman was different, and so was Einstein (to my limited lights).

[dave29]

113. Thanks for bringing up Feynman

He's a hero of mine.

[midwayer]

98. Science vs Religion

Science vs Religion

Science is man's attempted study of his physical environment, the world of energy-matter; religion is man's experience with the cosmos of spirit values; philosophy has been developed by man's mind effort to organize and correlate the findings of these widely separated concepts into something like a reasonable and unified attitude toward the cosmos.

http://www.truthbook.com/1542.cfm

&

http://www.truthbook.com/1542.cfm


I, personally do not subscribe to the "religion is a crutch" syndrome..

I would rather think as religion as man's inherent desire for wisdom and knowledge about our universe, our world, all things spiritual

[Bake]

99. I'll take both, thank you very much

Science, assuming we puny bags of mostly water are capable of understanding it, can explain, at most, HOW. It can never explain why, and never will. Those who place their "faith" totally in science will ultimately be left cold and disappointed. Science can never address the WHY of the universe, or the WHY of human existence.

I'll take both, thank you. And properly understood, there is no conflict between the two.

Bake

[opihimoimoi]

119. Like the spermota traveling the Fallopian Tube, we Humans have no clue

where we are heading for...and, like most sperm, we most likely will die, in our case, self extinct...

Sad.

[ulysses]

120. three years later

and you still crack me up, opi. :D

[opihimoimoi]

126. Its been FUN...ain't it though?

Yeah Baby,

Come, we go fishing....

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

124. ok, who out there

is forcing all these poor people to read religion threads when they really don't want to? Meanies!

;-)

[thistle]

127. I don't think science will answer all our questions, and I don't think

religion's usefulness is in any way a "substitute" for what science can't yet answer.