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.
Well the major religions of today would, but I could think up a number of religions that would thrive under the removal of scientific ignorance from the general public.
Theism would die, and theistic religions likely would die with it. Religion is separate from theism. There are a variety of religious practices that don't rely on theism.
in defense of my belief, even after numerous breakthrough DISCOVERIES of science, starting with galileo's round earth. there are a LOT of aspects in our life that science JUST can't answer. how did the big bang started? whats the point of aging to our evolution? why must we die? why do only humans speak not the animals,plants,insects. why do we have diff languages, dialect, accents. why do we feel the need to love and be loved? those DNAs, those genes and their importance were DISCOVERED, not made by science.
So.... so..... let me see if I'm grasping the logic of your.... uhmmmm... argument, baket. Since the relatively new process of structured logic and research study design (science, only in use since the late 1800's) has yet to provide ALL the answers, all in one convenient Reader's Digest-like handbook, you'll just conclude that there must be a Godly intervener?
You see, how we evil scientists work is that we have on the one hand a set of religious mandates, of an overly rigid construct of man's imagination. It comes complete with a set of historically unquestioned and formalized belief requirements that God help you, you cannot dismiss.
On the other hand, we have those who've said, quite genuinely: "OK. you're saying this is how it works. Let's test that, shall we? We'll look for concrete evidence, or if that's hard to find, we'll look for predicted manifestations."
In other, simpler words, if we put whole apples into the juicer, we can predict we'll find apple juice at the outlet spout, if we're trying to ascertain if juicers work as stated. Reasonable? (Or, God was in the juicer and magically made whole apples into juice. Because apple juice is so "heavenly", after all!).
But, at odds with your accusations, scientists really have looked at all or most of the biblical statements about Genesis, the Earth's geology, astrophysics, biology, fossils, etc. With an open mind. "Looking for the juice" as it were.
What we do find, however, is a colossal FAIL at every turn. Now, this is an entirelyreasonable conclusion, given that, if the entire story is a myth, you'd expect all of it's consequences to not prove out very well, right?
The consistency of that FAIL on so many levels only bolsters the ugly little possibility that it's all a fable run amok, but willingly believed, hook, line and sinker, by a bunch of folks who need to have a warm and fuzzy metaphor to believe in. Too bad they've carried it to the point of literal beliefs in the impossible or implausible. And that they also choose to ignore or mis-interpret more scientific results.
____________________________
**By the way, a brief commentary on those various questions you asked about DNA, behavior, the Big Bang, communications, aging, etc. Many of those questions have been answered, or your questions are based on incorrect assumptions. That certainly does not mean your assumptions as to the answers are correct. It simply means, as others have also suggested, that your education so far is sorely lacking.**
so aging is necessary for evolution? i missed that, but well i dont care really.
On the chance that you don't not care, I have a pretty good understanding of evolution, and I couldn't figure out why life-long health and increasing longevity aren't selected for in all life forms. So I researched. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the various theories, while acknowledging that the question hasn't been fully answered yet:
1. Just because we haven't yet found an answer to a question using the scientific method doesn't mean it can't and won't be answered eventually. Think about it: every question that science has answered was unanswered until that point.
2. It doesn't logically follow that, if science hasn't provided an answer about something, then God must have done it.
3. It's okay to say, "I don't know. Nobody really knows yet." There's nothing wrong with uncertainty.
in defense of my belief, even after numerous breakthrough DISCOVERIES of science, starting with galileo's round earth. there are a LOT of aspects in our life that science JUST can't answer. how did the big bang started? whats the point of aging to our evolution? why must we die? why do only humans speak not the animals,plants,insects. why do we have diff languages, dialect, accents. why do we feel the need to love and be loved? those DNAs, those genes and their importance were DISCOVERED, not made by science.
I'm probably just nit-picking, but who in science says that only humans speak? Just because we aren't able to understand them doesn't mean that "the animals, plants, insects" are not speaking to each other.
Theists presume everything in the Bible as correct, then use the Bible to prove everything -- prove the presumption. This is known as "Begging the question" tactic: Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theism would die, and theistic religions likely would die with it. Religion is separate from theism. There are a variety of religious practices that don't rely on theism.
Well the major religions of today would, but I could think up a number of religions that would thrive under the removal of scientific ignorance from the general public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex
That's not what I said.. someone needs to read peoples post, before replying.
May be not what you meant but it is what you said. If you would read your post before hitting submit, maybe you would fair better.
Kudos for point number one's obvious clarity and logic. Kudos again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
1. Just because we haven't yet found an answer to a question using the scientific method doesn't mean it can't and won't be answered eventually. Think about it: every question that science has answered was unanswered until that point.
2. It doesn't logically follow that, if science hasn't provided an answer about something, then God must have done it.
3. It's okay to say, "I don't know. Nobody really knows yet." There's nothing wrong with uncertainty.
Re: your point no. 3: Well, perhaps not for you and I, Honuman, but ongoing questioning and consequentchange is apparently completely unacceptable to many in our world. They despise advancing knowledge. Not so much when it results in softer toilet paper, but if it explains the previously inexplicable, like the origins of life or man or that sunflower in your garden, and it brings into focus that the world is changing and getting smarter, then it's got to be debunked or ridiculed. This is one of the prime drivers of religious conviction and dedication: hold to your faith no matter what. It got a bunch of innocent folks to drink some really cool purple KoolAid a few years back too!
I'm more and more convinced that there's perhaps a specific gene set for "blind allegiance" [the BA gene], because, like asking a zebra to change it's stripes, or a koala to change it's diet, or a Christian fundy to think things through critically and rationally, some things cannot be accomplished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyfor
I'm probably just nit-picking, but who in science says that only humans speak? Just because we aren't able to understand them doesn't mean that "the animals, plants, insects" are not speaking to each other.
Exactly, Whyfor. As a field-experienced biologist who watched free-ranging large mammals, I observed polar and grizzly bears communicating verbally and effectively, even non-aggressively amongst their family, but it was admittedly rather simple. Additionally, Timothy Treadwell could have told you of many such instances, but of course he made some fatal anthropomorphic flaws in his interpretations of that language.
But simple conversations are demonstrably NOT the case for whales, dolphins, monkeys and others. We're just the only organisms that we completely understand*. Kinda shortsighted to ignore or denounce all the other successful communicators,, wouldn't you agree baket?
Human arrogance and superiority complex rears it's ugly head. Again and again, endlessly fomented by ignorance-based religious dogma.
__________________________
* Tho' there's some v. real evidence right here on C-D that we humans don't do that good a job communicating between ourselves. Simple statements or questions here unleash a tirade of insults, back-stabs or completely illogical or unrelated outbursts. Of course, never from us calm, organized scientists; we're entirely too polite. Controlled. Decisive. Well-bred. Logical. And pleasant to have around.
Invite a scientist to dinner! We tell GREAT stories that you can believe!
But, at odds with your accusations, scientists really have looked at all or most of the biblical statements about Genesis, the Earth's geology, astrophysics, biology, fossils, etc. With an open mind. "Looking for the juice" as it were.
What we do find, however, is a colossal FAIL at every turn. Now, this is an entirelyreasonable conclusion, given that, if the entire story is a myth, you'd expect all of it's consequences to not prove out very well, right?
The consistency of that FAIL on so many levels only bolsters the ugly little possibility that it's all a fable run amok, but willingly believed, hook, line and sinker, by a bunch of folks who need to have a warm and fuzzy metaphor to believe in. Too bad they've carried it to the point of literal beliefs in the impossible or implausible. And that they also choose to ignore or mis-interpret more scientific results.
You might enjoy these quotes rifleman.....
"The notion that science does not concern itself with first causes -- that it leaves the field to theology or metaphysics, and confines itself to mere effects -- this notion has no support in the plain facts. If it could, science would explain the origin of life on earth at once -- and there is every reason to believe that it will do so on some not too remote tomorrow. To argue that gaps in knowledge which will confront the seeker must be filled, not by patient inquiry, but by intuition or revelation, is simply to give ignorance a gratuitous and preposterous dignity."
-- H L Mencken (1930)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
-- H L Mencken
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.
Exactly my point.
