theist-atheist scale - where are you?

"adamprez2003 wrote:

I wonder if Science and religion are really polar opposites. They seem to appear that way in today's world but I see it more as science is an outgrowth of religion or vice versa. Religion when you boil it down is the story of creation or the search of origin or purpose. Isnt science the same on some level. There was a time when the two were intertwined. I think the schism developed more out of politics then some fundamental antagonism.

Well without opening up a can of worms here the two were intertwined before certain religions called it blasphemous and excommunicated some of the worlds great scientists. I think the points you bring up are extremely relevant. As an observation religion seems to lean towards history where as science tends to try and make forward progress so its an interesting way of being intertwined when they are such opposites. Still I think they are more friends then rivals.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

I wonder if Science and religion are really polar opposites. They seem to appear that way in today's world but I see it more as science is an outgrowth of religion or vice versa. Religion when you boil it down is the story of creation or the search of origin or purpose. Isnt science the same on some level. There was a time when the two were intertwined. I think the schism developed more out of politics then some fundamental antagonism.

"Boik14 wrote:

Well without opening up a can of worms here the two were intertwined before certain religions called it blasphemous and excommunicated some of the worlds great scientists. I think the points you bring up are extremely relevant. As an observation religion seems to lean towards history where as science tends to try and make forward progress so its an interesting way of being intertwined when they are such opposites. Still I think they are more friends then rivals.

Yup has been discussed http://forums.thephins.com/showthread.php?t=8799 and agree more friend then rivals.

I will repost something I raised in that thread...

I always thought Galileo had it right, he held that science and religion were not enemies, but rather allies-two different languages telling the same story, a story of symmetry and balance . . . heaven and hell, night and day, hot and cold, God and Satan. Both science and religion rejoiced in God’s symmetry . . . the endless contest of light and dark.

Also, if you have ever read Dan Brown's Fiction "Angels and Demon's" I have loved this passage:

“Vetra was on the cutting edge of particle physics,” Kohler said. “He was starting to fuse science and religion . . . showing that they complement each other in most unanticipated ways. He called the field New Physics.” Kohler pulled a book from the shelf and handed it to Langdon. Langdon studied the cover. God, Miracles, and the New Physics-by Leonardo Vetra.

“The field is small,” Kohler said, “but it’s bringing fresh answers to some old questions-questions about the origin of the universe and the forces that bind us all. Leonardo believed his research had the potential to convert millions to a more spiritual life. Last year he categorically proved the existence of an energy force that unites us all. He actually demonstrated that we are all physically connected . . . that the molecules in your body are intertwined with the molecules in mine . . . that there is a single force moving within all of us.”

Langdon felt disconcerted. And the power of God shall unite us all. “Mr. Vetra actually found a way to demonstrate that particles are connected?”

“Conclusive evidence. A recent Scientific American article hailed New Physics as a surer path to God than religion itself.”

“Rectifying science with religion has been my father’s life dream,” Vittoria said. “He hoped to prove that science and religion are two totally compatible fields-two different approaches to finding the same truth.”
and this one:
“Mr. Langdon, all questions were once spiritual. Since the beginning of time, spirituality and religion have been called on to fill in the gaps that science did not understand. The rising and setting of the sun was once attributed to Helios and a flaming chariot. Earthquakes and tidal waves were the wrath of Poseidon. Science has now proven those gods to be false idols. Soon all Gods will be proven to be false idols. Science has now provided answers to almost every question man can ask. There are only a few questions left, and they are the esoteric ones. Where do we come from? What are we doing here? What is the meaning of life and the universe?”
my personal favorite:
SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT AT ODDS. SCIENCE IS SIMPLY TOO YOUNG TO UNDERSTAND.


“For centuries,” the camerlengo said, “the church has stood by while science picked away at religion bit by bit. Debunking miracles. Training the mind to overcome the heart. Condemning religion as the opiate of the masses. They denounce God as a hallucination-a delusional crutch for those too weak to accept that life is meaningless. I could not stand by while science presumed to harness the power of God himself! Proof, you say? Yes, proof of science’s ignorance! What is wrong with the admission that something exists beyond our understanding? The day science substantiates God in a lab is the day people stop needing faith!”

“You mean the day they stop needing the church,” Vittoria challenged, moving toward him. “Doubt is your last shred of control. It is doubt that brings souls to you. Our need to know that life has meaning. Man’s insecurity and need for an enlightened soul assuring him everything is part of a master plan. But the church is not the only enlightened soul on the planet! We all seek God in different ways. What are you afraid of? That God will show himself somewhere other than inside these walls? That people will find him in their own lives and leave your antiquated rituals behind? Religions evolve! The mind finds answers, the heart grapples with new truths. My father was on your quest! A parallel path! Why couldn’t you see that? God is not some omnipotent authority looking down from above, threatening to throw us into a pit of fire if we disobey. God is the energy that flows through the synapses of our nervous system and the chambers of our hearts! God is in all things!”

"Boik14 wrote:

Well without opening up a can of worms here the two were intertwined before certain religions called it blasphemous and excommunicated some of the worlds great scientists. I think the points you bring up are extremely relevant. As an observation religion seems to lean towards history where as science tends to try and make forward progress so its an interesting way of being intertwined when they are such opposites. Still I think they are more friends then rivals.

to me religion focuses on the timeless but I think I know what you mean in that they lean on tradition. I would also make the observation that religion tends to focus on the inner truth while science tends to focus on the outer or material truths. Still as we all know things get intertwined

Love this quote BDH "SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT AT ODDS. SCIENCE IS SIMPLY TOO YOUNG TO UNDERSTAND.":up:

Here are some of my favorite quotes regarding science and religion

Freeman Dyson

Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.

Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect

To me, science and religion do not try to answer the same questions.

Religion deals with why we exist, while science deals with the how we exist.

Science really does very little investigation into someone's "purpose" while the Bible, for example, deals very little with how all this began...a small handful of sentences to be exact.

Its perfectly acceptable to be scientist who has religious faith, what can't be done, is inserting science into your faith or faith into your science. If you do, you have neither true science nor true faith anymore...you have philosophy.

Having said all that, I blame the religious for the tension between the two, more than the science community. They've notoriously impeded science through abuse of power by imprisonment, forced exile, torture, etc., throughout history. I don't think scientists of today would close ranks at the mention of god, as much as they do, if the history of religion had been more understanding.

a quote from the movie Dogma: "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. "

"Finascious D wrote:

To me, science and religion do not try to answer the same questions.

Religion deals with why we exist, while science deals with the how we exist.

Science really does very little investigation into someone's "purpose" while the Bible, for example, deals very little with how all this began...a small handful of sentences to be exact.

Its perfectly acceptable to be scientist who has religious faith, what can't be done, is inserting science into your faith or faith into your science. If you do, you have neither true science nor true faith anymore...you have philosophy.

Having said all that, I blame the religious for the tension between the two, more than the science community. They've notoriously impeded science through abuse of power by imprisonment, forced exile, torture, etc., throughout history. I don't think scientists of today would close ranks at the mention of god, as much as they do, if the history of religion had been more understanding.

a quote from the movie Dogma: "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. "

Both science and religion are subsets of philosophy

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Both science and religion are subsets of philosophy

I disagree. Religion you could make a case for, but not science. Science is fact based (when its being done correctly). You can have a philosophy based off of science, though. In the scope of this discussion, you could argue that it is, but real science is not a philosophy.

"Finascious D wrote:

I disagree. Religion you could make a case for, but not science. Science is fact based (when its being done correctly). You can have a philosophy based off of science, though. In the scope of this discussion, you could argue that it is, but real science is not a philosophy.

Science is a subset of philosophy.

Science is "fact" based, however it all starts with a "what if" base.

I do not really see how in the scope of this argument has anything to do with it. It all started with philosophy and branched off.

I totally disagree, real science is a philosophy.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Science is a subset of philosophy.

Science is "fact" based, however it all starts with a "what if" base.

I do not really see how in the scope of this argument has anything to do with it. It all started with philosophy and branched off.

I totally disagree, real science is a philosophy.

Not really though.

Science actually starts, with "how"? Things like, invention, start with what if.

I'm a 6, working my way towards 7 lol. The God Delusion was a really good read. You read any of Dawkins' other work? Was thinking of picking up some of his other stuff.

"DonShula84 wrote:

I'm a 6, working my way towards 7 lol. The God Delusion was a really good read. You read any of Dawkins' other work? Was thinking of picking up some of his other stuff.

I know this was directed at the OP, but if I may...

I agree with Dawkins on about 110% of what he says. However, he's too angry for my tastes. I think he comes more from a, "hatred of religion" sometimes.

maybe i should elaborate on why i said science and religion are polar opposites. yes, they both try to answer questions that we don't know the answers to... but that is where the similarties end. they go about answering these questions in entirely different ways.

science thrives on evidence, whether it be good or bad for current theories. the mantra of science seems to be "our best answer at the moment." and that is the good part about science - it is refinable. in fact it encourages refinement upon the discovery of new evidence.

can the same be said for religion? not even close. religion is not based on evidence and it is not refinable. it thinks it has the answers to everything, even though all of these "answers" are based on nothing. they see something that is not explained and say "GODDIDIT!" without even considering other possibilities.

science: start with the evidence, and arrive at a conclusion based on that evidence
religion: start with a conclusion, and use that conclusion to explain everything

"DonShula84 wrote:

I'm a 6, working my way towards 7 lol. The God Delusion was a really good read. You read any of Dawkins' other work? Was thinking of picking up some of his other stuff.

"Finascious D wrote:

I know this was directed at the OP, but if I may...

I agree with Dawkins on about 110% of what he says. However, he's too angry for my tastes. I think he comes more from a, "hatred of religion" sometimes.

Dawkins does hate religion (and with good reason), but his hatred is easily paralleled and probably surpassed by Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. TGD is the only Dawkins book i have read, but i have read Hitchens and Harris as well. i dont really want to focus on one guy.

"crunk-colt wrote:

Dawkins does hate religion (and with good reason), but his hatred is easily paralleled and probably surpassed by Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. TGD is the only Dawkins book i have read, but i have read Hitchens and Harris as well. i dont really want to focus on one guy.

Like I said I agree with him, and I used to be a religion hater myself, but I realized along the way that, the anger and hatred, puts one at odds with the other side and resolutions never come forth. Personally, I've never seen anyone soften their stance or open their mind when the opposition comes at the discussion angry.

This is a tough topic, and its hard to not be too judgmental or opinionated. I put 4. I was raised Roman Catholic and still am, as is my wife and our child. At this point, it is closer to being a family relic and tradition than anything else though. For who knows how many centuries, our blood has been one way, and its something we celebrate and embrace. But the traditions and motions we go through are not really about being God fearing or finding salvation. Its simply a ritual our family goes through, the same as our ancestors did for generations before.

I think a problem with the generation before, is that they took their teachings and upbringing too literally. School taught them about God. Mama taught them about God, and thats just the way its gotta be. I see a lot of people put their self worth into the decisions they make. Some need God and use him as a crutch, so they believe. Others deny him because of past experiences.

But as a 4, I think its fascinating to deny the possibility of the one extreme vs. the other. I see a lot of cynical people who are quick to deny an existence because the truth is simply not in front of their face. The fact is, there is no proof to either confirm or deny God and no argument carries any true weight in changing this fact.

Some of the smartest people I know believe in God. I mean rare and elite intellect. And I see people who let themselves get influenced by religious zealots seeming stupidity or ignorance, and the go and deny God, and grow to hate religion.

The truth is not out there for us. You can only feel. You can only think you know.
One thing I agree with was Hardkore, and the fact that, maybe God is a force. Perhaps a galaxy making phenomena. Or an entity, not necessarily with a gray beard, that is beyond any sort of tale we tell ourselves to help us think we're not alone, and the party doesn't end once we expire. Part of me can't help to think though, that we come from nothing, and we simply go back to nothing. And that's really what its all about right? What happens to us when we die?

"Finascious D wrote:

Not really though.

Science actually starts, with "how"? Things like, invention, start with what if.

So inventions are not part of science?

For anyone interested I point to this website...if anyone has this book, I find you fortunate...but the site is loaded with the content as well.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta00.htm

"Philosophy," writes Sir William Hamilton, "has been defined : The science of things divine and human, and of the causes in which they are contained ; The science of effects by their causes ; The science of sufficient reasons ; The science of things possible, inasmuch as they are possible ; The science of things evidently deduced from first principles ; The science of truths, sensible and abstract ; The application of reason to its legitimate objects ; The science of the relations of all knowledge to the necessary ends of human reason ;The science of the original form of the ego or mental self ; The science of sciences ; The science of the absolute ; The science of the absolute indifference of the ideal and real --or, The identity of identity and non-identity ." (See Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic.)

In his treatise on Atheism, Sir Francis Bacon tersely summarizes the situation thus: "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." The Metaphysics of Aristotle opens with these words: "All men naturally desire to know." To satisfy this common urge the unfolding human intellect has explored the extremities of imaginable space without and the extremities of imaginable self within, seeking to estimate the relationship between the one and the all; the effect and the cause; Nature and the groundwork of Nature; the mind and the source of the mind; the spirit and the substance of the spirit; the illusion and the reality.

An ancient philosopher once said: "He who has not even a knowledge of common things is a brute among men. He who has an accurate knowledge of human concerns alone is a man among brutes. But he who knows all that can be known by intellectual energy, is a God among men." Man's status in the natural world is determined, therefore, by the quality of his thinking. He whose mind is enslaved to his bestial instincts is philosophically not superior to the brute-, he whose rational faculties ponder human affairs is a man; and he whose intellect is elevated to the consideration of divine realities is already a demigod, for his being partakes of the luminosity with which his reason has brought him into proximity. In his encomium of "the science of sciences" Cicero is led to exclaim: "O philosophy, life's guide! O searcher--out of virtue and expeller of vices! What could we and every age of men have been without thee? Thou hast produced cities; thou hast called men scattered about into the social enjoyment of life."

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

So inventions are not part of science?

They use science. I use a light switch but I'm not an electrician.

An inventor can be a scientist. It took the abstract to come up with the idea, but it takes the concrete to prove it works.

Again, you're basing it off the "what if" question, which isn't what science is about. Science is about "how". Figuring out the "how" through research, observation and experimentation is not a philosophy.

"Finascious D wrote:

They use science. I use a light switch but I'm not an electrician.

An inventor can be a scientist. It took the abstract to come up with the idea, but it takes the concrete to prove it works.

Again, you're basing it off the "what if" question, which isn't what science is about. Science is about "how". Figuring out the "how" through research, observation and experimentation is not a philosophy.

how does changing the question, change it from philosophy?

Lots of our greatest scientists start with "What if", and then get to the hows. Without "what if" or "why" there is no How. You can not seperate them. How is pretty useless without what if or why.

Still "how" is just another philosophical question. Science is the philosophy of figuring out the "how"s.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

how does changing the question, change it from philosophy?

Lots of our greatest scientists start with "What if", and then get to the hows. Without "what if" or "why" there is no How. You can not seperate them. How is pretty useless without what if or why.

Still "how" is just another philosophical question. Science is the philosophy of figuring out the "how"s.

Because "what if" is a philosophical question. Less so then "why". "How" is a mechanical question.

Most of our great scientists, are known for asking "how" not "what if". At least not until they asked and answered the how first.

How is hardly useless without a why. That's your own personal philosophy.:up:

"Finascious D wrote:

Because "what if" is a philosophical question. Less so then "why". "How" is a mechanical question.

Most of our great scientists, are known for asking "how" not "what if". At least not until they asked and answered the how first.

How is hardly useless without a why. That's your own personal philosophy.:up:

How do we get to how without the why?

Why is a huge philosophical question. It is one of the ultimate philosophical question that will never be answered by science.

How is a mechanical question when there is an ability to actually test it. Before that, it is purely philosophical. Such as, "how does the universe still accelerate?"

Philosophy isn't just sitting on a rock thinking about things.

All questions, "how", "why", "who", "what" are philosophical questions. We just understand more now and are able to figure something out. It doesn't take something out of philosophy and turn it into science. It just goes into the subset of philosophy that we call science.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

How do we get to how without the why?

Why is a huge philosophical question. It is one of the ultimate philosophical question that will never be answered by science.

How is a mechanical question when there is an ability to actually test it. Before that, it is purely philosophical. Such as, "how does the universe still accelerate?"

Philosophy isn't just sitting on a rock thinking about things.

All questions, "how", "why", "who", "what" are philosophical questions. We just understand more now and are able to figure something out. It doesn't take something out of philosophy and turn it into science. It just goes into the subset of philosophy that we call science.

I don't call science a subset of philosophy. It's cool if you do, but don't include me in the "we."

I'm an Athletiest.....which is basically just an Athiest jock. LOL. :lol:
Posted via Mobile Device

"Stitches wrote:

I don't call science a subset of philosophy. It's cool if you do, but don't include me in the "we."

So science isn't a system of beliefs accepted by a group of school?

I do believe that there is thinking and beliefs in science.

Just re-reading through the thread. I find it fascinating that the onus of proof that there is a God is on religion but yet no one has asked the non-believers why they dont believe in God? So ill ask it now...fire away.

The majority of people who do believe feel God is in some form omnipotent. I know I feel that way. But if he is neither seen or heard how can his "legend" be believed? For me that conclusion is simple: There are certain things the human mind just cant process fast enough or are outside of our ability to hear (dog whistle anyone? lol). Is it not possible God could be outside of that spectacle?

havent read the thread and dont intend to tangle much but i just want to remind the 7s that you are asserting a belief