Atheist Religion

[SarahM777]

Except for a few minor tweaks it was almost identical to what I got in High School. None of the questions that I asked were directly answered. All of the animals either had fins or legs. Not one has has a fin with an elbow. To much of it is still based on subjective interpretation of the data with no direct evidence to show otherwise. All there is is sign posts nothing more and nothing less.

[peky]

Except for a few minor tweaks it was almost identical to what I got in High School. None of the questions that I asked were directly answered. All of the animals either had fins or legs. Not one has has a fin with an elbow. To much of it is still based on subjective interpretation of the data with no direct evidence to show otherwise. All there is is sign posts nothing more and nothing less.

Yes, dear

[Annah]

Except for a few minor tweaks it was almost identical to what I got in High School. None of the questions that I asked were directly answered. All of the animals either had fins or legs. Not one has has a fin with an elbow. To much of it is still based on subjective interpretation of the data with no direct evidence to show otherwise. All there is is sign posts nothing more and nothing less.

...

[SarahM777]

I think that since the beginning of this I have stated that I can see how someone can take what little we really have and can see it as either creation or evolution. I just disagree that it has been "proven".
I don't think that I have come across as saying that anyone who disagrees with me is uneducated,foolish,or stupid. My direct questions have not been answered,even though they haven't been,it has been implied that I am uneducated,foolish and stupid.

[AbraCadabra]

Well dear... I for one did not think you uneducated, foolish and stupid. Not at all. And I also think you posted some good questions.
In final analysis (for me) it ALL comes down to believes... if we don't BELIEVE in science - or at least not in all that science wishes to be known as scientific... you will be presently in the minority as much as Copernicus and the like during their time period.

All is just a blip on the timeline of the universe's progress after all. Nothing to get phased about

Axélle
PS: and once we're dead who really gives rat's-ass about any of it

[SarahM777]

Well dear... I for one did not think you uneducated, foolish and stupid. Not at all. And I also think you posted some good questions.
In final analysis (for me) it ALL comes down to believes... I we don't BELIEVE into science - or at least not in all that science wishes to be known as scientific... you will be presently in the minority as much as Copernicus and the like during their time periode.

All is just a blib on the timeline of the univers' progress. Noting to get phased about

Axélle
PS: and once we're dead who relly gives rat's-ass about any of it

Axelle,

I did not mean you. But I think it proved one of your points (If I remember correctly) that science can itself be a religion. And I think that was all I was trying out that it's in the person's view point,and that it can not be definitively proven by the "evidence" and methods we have now,both evolution and creation come to a point where you have to have a certain amount of faith and faith alone in that position. Events by definition can not be proven scientifically because they can not be repeated.
It all nothing but sign posts. It will either convince you one way or another,nothing more and nothing less. Even though I can not directly prove creation I believe I have enough sign posts to convince me it's true.

[Nicolette]

Science as a belief system?

http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

[AbraCadabra]

Science as a belief system?

http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

Yes, absolutely BUT... one system that required somewhat less faith than does religion - yet it STILL requires some faith into certain propositions and hypothesis.

The problems with hypothesis alone that for that matter ... "The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite... and one is unable to go through all of them!

We need short-cuts by e.g. using Ockham's razor Theory... yet again a tool we need have some faith in. It mostly works well... but of course NOT all the time!

And who was it said we have only ONE universe? There could be an infinite number of universes... and simply we (at present) only may behold ONE only.

A few key pints for me from the article quoted are:

Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.

No scientific belief being held can be said to be absolutely true, no matter how convincing it is.

[Scientific] Beliefs are able to change in light of new evidence or ideas.

When suggesting that science has more explanatory power over a religion, one must be careful.


If an entity such as an electron, which is not directly observable, is hypothesized to explain some occurrence, how does it have more explanatory power than hypothesizing supernatural beings such as little invisible demons?

Axélle

[Nicolette]

How strong is your faith in your chosen belief system? If the unfortunate comes to pass and you acquire a life threatening cancer (god forbid), which system do you rely upon? Let's say that medical science comes up with a possible cure derived directly from evolutionary biological research. Would you prefer to place your faith in science and be a guinea pig for the new medical scientific cure or would you prefer to take your chances in faith based medicine? If science explains a possible reason for transsexuality, would this help justify your condition, or would you prefer to find an interpretation in the bible as justification? Or do you prefer to mix and match based on convenience?

[SarahM777]

Yes, absolutely BUT... one system that required somewhat less faith than does religion - yet it STILL requires some faith into certain propositions and hypothesis.

The problems with hypothesis alone that for that matter ... "The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite... and one is unable to go through all of them!

We need short-cuts by e.g. using Ockham's razor Theory... yet again a tool we need have some faith in. It mostly works well... but of course NOT all the time!

And who was it said we have only ONE universe? There could be an infinite number of universes... and simply we (at present) only may behold ONE only.

A few key pints for me from the article quoted are:

Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith.

No scientific belief being held can be said to be absolutely true, no matter how convincing it is.

[Scientific] Beliefs are able to change in light of new evidence or ideas.

When suggesting that science has more explanatory power over a religion, one must be careful.


If an entity such as an electron, which is not directly observable, is hypothesized to explain some occurrence, how does it have more explanatory power than hypothesizing supernatural beings such as little invisible demons?

Axélle

The key to it is that is it does NOT say no faith at all.

[Sarah Louise]

My faith in my choosen belief system (Christianity) is doing just fine.  And I have no problem accepting medical cures discovered through "science".  After all, God created science, so all medical discoveries we have are through God's power.

[Nicolette]

So your faith in science is obtained through your god? Science and religion are not mutually exclusive or at loggerheads? I like it.

[suzifrommd]

The way I see the difference between science and faith:

Faith requires no ability for its truth to predict events.

Science requires its truth to be able to predict observational results and outcomes and demand that its truth be changed if predictions are incorrect.

E.g. If Science knowledge sets the age of the earth at 6000 years old, and finds something that appears 7000 years old, science requires itself to change that knowledge.

[AbraCadabra]

The way I see the difference between science and faith:

Faith requires no ability for its truth to predict events.

Science requires its truth to be able to predict observational results and outcomes and demand that its truth be changed if predictions are incorrect.

E.g. If Science knowledge sets the age of the earth at 6000 years old, and finds something that appears 7000 years old, science requires itself to change that knowledge.

And this simply so long one knows that all this requires FAITH and BELIEVE into the scientific method...

This discussion would be mute if it were not for science ever so often to arrogate itself into a place where FAITH and BELIEF (into its methods) where not any issue at all.

It's this believe e.g. "doctors are always to be right" because after all they ALSO belong to science... as does the Pharma-Industry, etc. etc. etc.
There is a LOT of BS happening in the name of science... my impression.

It has become the same sort of emotional believe-process that was behind the idea that the earth was flat... that had to be irrevocable.

Now scientific 'truth' is passed on as irrevocably right... until it's changed, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, ...

A little bit more humbleness might not be such a bad idea I feel, so both systems would not need to fight but rather complement each other?

Oh, and of course the same applies to any religious overzealousness...

Axélle
PS: Is this getting one ever so frightenly un-girl-like discussion?

[Nicolette]

I have no problem with religion, unless it impedes scientific progress or women's rights. Oh, and add LGBT into that.

[Annah]

Science requires its truth to be able to predict observational results and outcomes and demand that its truth be changed if predictions are incorrect.

E.g. If Science knowledge sets the age of the earth at 6000 years old, and finds something that appears 7000 years old, science requires itself to change that knowledge.

^this...big time

Various scientific views changes time after time depending on hypothesis and study and the results. There is always study to improve itself or to dwelve deeper into a mystery (the human genome for example)

Religion doesn't do this.

Various religious thoughts may and sometimes will add a different light or viewpoint to a certain creed or orthodox behavior (Process theologians, Karl Barth, Kierkegaard, etc, etc) but the roots of their studies stay the same. If you veer to far to the either side of the creed or orthodox position of the faith you are studying then you become a heretic.

Hell, I am a pastor and I can tell you that much of many religions has creeds set in place like it is stone. If you deviate from it you are an outcast. Something as simple as abolition of slavery, women rights, the rights to marry inter racially and gay rights are pushed and pulled from every direction against change all the time. It's like giving a toddler vegetables to eat.

With science, if someone comes up with a claim that is out there then other scientists who disagrees will simply say "prove it." If the scientist can prove it then the scientific community will accept it. It's the scientific method.

Religion is a philosophy. Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Scientific method is an operation which proves a certain hypothesis.

With Philosophy, more specifically, religion is a system of thought, experiences, and inter related ideas which make metaphysical, epistemological, and culturally conditioned claims about the nature of reality itself.

I view science just as importantly as religion. One without the other is chaos. Religion and spirituality (if performed right) serves more of a sociological role and therapy for people. Science expands our knowledge of the universe and progress us outwards.

If there was no science, we would still be dying from long ago cured illnesses, living in huts with no electricity, have limited knowledge of the universe outside of our own earth, etc etc.

When I hear people say Science is wrong, the Bible is right it scares the hell out of me. This is important: the Bible was NEVER meant to be a scientific handbook to explain the facts of the formation of the universe. The Bible is a book with collected stories to express certain truths that are important to some people.

When you take the Bible (which HAS NEVER been proven as a scientific tool) and then use it as your source of a scientific method, you will never be right. In regards to "science" you can perform limited anthropological and archeological research with the Bible...but not Physics, Quantum Physics, Evolution, etc.

[AbraCadabra]

I can go with that (the above)... so long science NEITHER goes and claims religion/God - as Nietzsche had put it: "God is dead... and we killed him".

At one stage science was (is?) overstepping the mark and it is this, which makes for the impression the science had become the "new age" religion.
All things scientific are RIGHT and most if not all things religious are daft or foolish...

A scientific system as some understand does not require ANY faith or any BELIEVES, and all things scientific by definition are totally and irrevocably rational always and ONLY.

No faith or believe at all seems required, and claiming all this with something reminiscent of fundamentalist religious fervour.
Welcome to self-delusion...

With that same sort of fervour some atheists also like to claim their PURELY rationalist/scientist motivation – ONLY. No exceptions at all, so if something is "scientific" it HAS to be right. Amen.

I have been subject to this, which is why I mention it - and I do NOT think myself being such an exception...

Axélle

[Annah]

i think the reason why many view Christianity as daft and foolish is because how we (I am talking about my religion in particular on a personal level...not the generalization of "we" as in you and I or others in this thread) have acted foolish and daft when it came to religion.

It doesn't help christianity much when religious leaders say that Dinosaurs were created by Satan to test our faith, how fossils were created by Satan to trick us, and so forth and so on. From a ministerial point of view, I can't say I blame people who view Christianity that way.

This type of outlook towards Christians from the science community dates back for almost a thousand years and yes I do blame Christianity for dropping the ball. St. Thomas Aquinas embraced the cohabitation of religion/science and since Augustine, Aquinas was the leading theologian of his time and many still argue of all time within the realm of Christianity.

Aquinas applauded the merits of Science and stated it would (paraphrasing) be foolish and unwise to discredit the works of Science. However, with the expansion of the Holy Roman Empire, the Papal Powers over the states, and the increasing views that people felt Christianity was being threaten by "the moors" and other outside influences, they put a stop to many scientific endeavors.

It wasn't until the Pope lost his sovereign power of the Countries in Europe and elsewhere did the Renaissance take root and started to expand greatly. Sciences, art, humanism, secularism, it all began to flourish because people weren't afraid of being burnt to the stake (well..they still did in some nations..but that's another story).

So, I tend to believe hundreds of years of scientific tests, data, and rationalization when it comes to creation verses a collection of books that talks of talking asses, Prophet swallowing fish, and prophets dashing the Babylonian babies upon the rocks and rejoicing.

[SarahM777]

It doesn't help christianity much when religious leaders say that Dinosaurs were created by Satan to test our faith, how fossils were created by Satan to trick us, and so forth and so on. From a ministerial point of view, I can't say I blame people who view Christianity that way.

I have never known of anyone that I know,that has stated such,but knowing that many of those who say they are Christians do not even know 10% of what is actually in the Bible it doesn't surprise me. If one doesn't know it's very easy to pass off things that sound plausible.

Let's face it seems at times that more Atheists,agnostics and Muslims know the Bible better.

[Nicolette]

I got to know a stealth Jehovah's Witness who became my best friend for a year at university. Finally trusting me, they admitted their beliefs to me, including dinosaurs fossils as a test of faith. They were a very mysterious and secretive person, disappearing sometimes in the afternoon, probably doorstep proselytizing. In every other sense, they seemed completely scientific and rational. That must take some serious compartmentalization.