science and religion (demons, origin, historical, according)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[Editor's Note: This is not in response to any other post, but this thread brings it to mind...]
My own transition from the religion of my upbringing took years (decades, actually), during which I was subconsciously aware that I didn't believe most of what I was raised to believe... but couldn't really admit that to myself, and certainly not to others. There were many lines of thought and argument that moved me out of this limbo state, but one key step was hearing/reading this thought experiment, involving the difference between science and religion:
Imagine that we could wipe out all knowledge that humans have compiled over the ages, in effect starting over to learn about ourselves and the world around us. Over time, given the chance to develop tools and build our knowledge base, what we learned through SCIENCE would eventually reveal exactly the same things we know today. In other words, there are immutable truths about the natural world, waiting to be discovered. But once discovered, we would see that the planets move in the same way, species would have evolved in the same way, DNA would replicate in the same way, our bodies would function in the same way, and on and on.
By contrast, whatever developed through RELIGION would almost surely be completely different than what we know today. There would be different stories, different characters, different explanations for things, different codes of conduct, different holy books, different rituals, different concepts of gods and creators, and on and on. We obviously see some of that play out already in the 1000s of religions that have developed, without the need for a thought experiment. But the point of the experiment (for me) is that the total body of knowledge based on/derived through religion would be completely different than what we "know" today.
Now... perhaps this is self-evident, obvious to all. Perhaps it doesn't bother you. For me, this realization was one of the final nails in the coffin for religious thinking, as a way of understanding anything useful about myself or the world.
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 11-02-2018 at 09:40 AM..
Very good, and dead right (and I think on topic). And it points up the basis of the burden of proof, and reminds me of an argument I had with one theist. He was insisting that starting with no assumptions was itself an assumption, and I said that it wasn't. Assuming a god is an assumption that requires some validation ("Proof") whereas starting with no assumptions does not assume anything and is not an assumption and does not require proof. Since stuff evidently exists we can take it from there, and assuming nothing is merely a mental method of verifying what we know as distinct from what it just postulated.
Starting with what we can reliably know and how we know it and considering claims "how do we know that this is true?" very quickly gets rid of all the religions and just leaves us with the god -claim, and the three supports: Cosmic origins, Abiogenesis and consciousness. Morality is GONE. Well it has around here..
No I mean Morality was an argument for God when i first burst onto the forum in a flurry of ignorance and infractions, but some years ago it was finally done for as an argument for God as surely as Polystrates are done for as an argument for YE/Flood - belief. Indeed both are now arguments against (1). And really Abiogenesis is no longer a Gap for God because it has an explanation (or two ) that make a god unnecessary. In O/W we cannot rule out a god anymore than we can with evolution, but there is no apparent need for one. So while abiogenesis only has indirect evidence, it is no real Gap for God.
Consciousness doesn't actually have a mechanism. Even though we "Know" where it came from. On the other hand, we do have an explanation for cosmic origins (or I do. I just get the ideas - it's up to those professors to make them work) even though we don't really know. The accusation that we Have faith that science will come up with an explanation is hardly unjustified, given the amazing track record of science on Fact (as compared to the dismal record of religion on that) PLUS that we are damn' near an explanation of Cosmic origins, an explanation of mind, an explanation of Quantum and an explanation of the Holoverse. We can almost smell the solutions.
(1) Believers can easily be trapped into praising the good things that God dunneth and excusing the bad things. Then they can be shown that they are applying human morality to God's actions otherwise, if God dunnit it was moral (some do argue that way ) and this morality is devised by humans and it is what even the believers use. Polystrates are found growing one on the other. Therefore they were laid down over time in relatively shallow waters where they ould live while strata still built up around them and it does not fit in with a flood of 1-2 years. .
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-02-2018 at 10:36 AM..
Reason: more bloody typos
Most people were then. They had to be in order to work and in many cases, in order to stay alive. Being a 'Christian' didn't stop 'Christians' ruining his life though did it. If he had been alive today, do you honestly think he would have been a Christian?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
I can't imagine what life was like for people like Galileo back in those days. Having to live a lie just to exist and be accepted by the indoctrinated fools and church ruling tyrants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
Monumentus and fishbrains nailed it: Religion invents the problems and then provides the "solutions." A business model that has worked efficiently for thousands of years.
Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong!
Foolish thinking (like the above) clenching steadfast to ignorance (like a millstone around neck) despite the reality/evidence that many deeply-religious are not only responsible for the development of scientific methods & discoveries historically && recently, but that they do so in pursuit of discovering truths that further deepen their faith AND reason. For example,
A Franciscan Friar, (Roger Bacon), in the 1200's, fulfilling a request from the Pope, produced works that lead to development of the Scientific Method! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon
A mathematician/physicist/theologian (Blaise Pascal) in the 1600's - many important contributions to math/physics/science in his short 40-year life - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal
There are simply TOO MANY to list here; do your own search....
It used to take a LIFETIME to acquire knowledge/wisdom of evidence & truths that are now available in an instant with a simple Google Search for someone with a discerning & enlightened mind - have a good day!
Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong!
Foolish thinking (like the above) clenching steadfast to ignorance (like a millstone around neck) despite the reality/evidence that many deeply-religious are not only responsible for the development of scientific methods & discoveries historically && recently, but that they do so in pursuit of discovering truths that further deepen their faith AND reason. For example,
A Franciscan Friar, (Roger Bacon), in the 1200's, fulfilling a request from the Pope, produced works that lead to development of the Scientific Method! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon
A mathematician/physicist/theologian (Blaise Pascal) in the 1600's - many important contributions to math/physics/science in his short 40-year life - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal
There are simply TOO MANY to list here; do your own search....
It used to take a LIFETIME to acquire knowledge/wisdom of evidence & truths that are now available in an instant with a simple Google Search for someone with a discerning & enlightened mind - have a good day!
100% wrong, wrong, wrong, and foolish is not the word I would use for your argument.
These discoveries could have been made regardless of the beliefs of the person, and despite their religious beliefs. ALL of their findings are as valid if there are any gods or not.
It is yourself that doesn't understand for very well known , indeed wearingly often used reasons. Science does not work on infallible pronouncements, but on explanations, testing, debate, mistakes and corrections. The self correcting comes out of being wrong - which means that it self - corrects (with human agency). You are simply strawmanning both science and those who refer to its' findings as a model of the way things work, without having anything to put as an alternative.
The odd reference that you made elsewhere to James Shapiro just seems to be investing faith in a different kind of genetics -based evolution rather than mutations -based. This is just the sort of disagreement and debate that science does, and if genetic shift turns out to be the explanation, well and good. And I still won't get what your problem is with evolution -science or with atheists who use science as a database of information rather than guesswork, faith in fairy -stories or ignorance.
You are absolutely certain that genetic mutations leading to evolution of new species have all been errors. That is not science.
Shapiro has shown good reasons for doubting your absolute faith in evolution by chance and selection. But unfortunately you aren't able to understand any of this.
You are absolutely certain that genetic mutations leading to evolution of new species have all been errors. That is not science.
Shapiro has shown good reasons for doubting your absolute faith in evolution by chance and selection. But unfortunately you aren't able to understand any of this.
Yeah! That's the ticket! We're all dum-dum heads except you!!
Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong!
Foolish thinking (like the above) clenching steadfast to ignorance (like a millstone around neck) despite the reality/evidence that many deeply-religious are not only responsible for the development of scientific methods & discoveries historically && recently, but that they do so in pursuit of discovering truths that further deepen their faith AND reason. For example,
A Franciscan Friar, (Roger Bacon), in the 1200's, fulfilling a request from the Pope, produced works that lead to development of the Scientific Method! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon
A mathematician/physicist/theologian (Blaise Pascal) in the 1600's - many important contributions to math/physics/science in his short 40-year life - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal
There are simply TOO MANY to list here; do your own search....
It used to take a LIFETIME to acquire knowledge/wisdom of evidence & truths that are now available in an instant with a simple Google Search for someone with a discerning & enlightened mind - have a good day!
Harry is right. This argument trying to credit religion (if not Creationism ) with the discoveries of science is really not justified. True, the church was the only place for the reservation and transmission of learning - after all science was just explaining how God dunneth His Work. But the discoveries owed everything to science and nothing (other than the books and learning) to the Church.
What is worse, is if the discoveries did not agree with Church Dogma of the time, there was trouble. The switch from the Ptolemaic system (Aristotelian dogma) to the Copernican, resulting in one burning and a forced recantation and house arrest.
Newton was a god -believer of course, as everyone was, pretty much. It's true that the Enlightement gave rise to irreligious deism ( ) but though they had no more time for organised religion than I or Einstein, they all supposed that God dunnit as there was no other explanation.
Darwin changed all that. Just for species, but it seem became applies to cosmic origins, too, and whether they happened to be religious or not had no bearing on the work they did which was all to the credit of science, not religion.
Foolish thinking (like the above) clenching steadfast to ignorance (like a millstone around neck) despite the reality/evidence that many deeply-religious are not only responsible for the development of scientific methods & discoveries historically && recently, but that they do so in pursuit of discovering truths that further deepen their faith AND reason. For example,
The reasons _some_ highly religious people were able to make such great contributions to the field however is that they were able - unlike many - to seperate the two effectively. Scientists are not often religious - but when they are they leave their religion at the door. The evidence devoid nonsense that religion teaches has never actually informed science - furthered it - added to it - or added evidence for it to use.
So people doing science while religious is not at all interesting like you appear to think. If they did science _using_ religion however you might have something approaching a point. As it stands now however - you really do not.
Once upon a time though it was the world of Islam that was the shining light of the scientific world. No longer it seems. Which I have heard strongly blamed on one particular man Al Ghazali and his works "Incoherence of the philosophers" and "Deliverance from Error" - though it would be foolish to solely blame him, it still shows the nonsense that accures when people stop being able to keep their religion out of science.
You are absolutely certain that genetic mutations leading to evolution of new species have all been errors. That is not science.
Shapiro has shown good reasons for doubting your absolute faith in evolution by chance and selection. But unfortunately you aren't able to understand any of this.
It is a misunderstanding of genetic mutation to think of them as 'errors' (let alone always deleterious, as some have claimed) they are a mechanism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) that make a god unnecessary. In O/W we cannot rule out a god anymore than we can with evolution, but there is no apparent need for one. So while abiogenesis only has indirect evidence, it is no real Gap for God. 
where it came from. On the other hand, we do have an explanation for cosmic origins (or I do. I just get the ideas - it's up to those professors to make them work) even though we don't really know. The accusation that we Have faith that science will come up with an explanation is hardly unjustified, given the amazing track record of science on Fact (as compared to the dismal record of religion on that) PLUS that we are damn' near an explanation of Cosmic origins, an explanation of mind, an explanation of Quantum and an explanation of the Holoverse. We can almost smell the solutions. 
) and this morality is devised by humans and it is what even the believers use. Polystrates are found growing one on the other. Therefore they were laid down over time in relatively shallow waters where they ould live while strata still built up around them and it does not fit in with a flood of 1-2 years. .
Having to live a lie just to exist and be accepted by the indoctrinated fools and church ruling tyrants.
