|
Post by MasterPakku93 on Apr 29, 2011 17:02:37 GMT -5
Here we can discuss our opinions. Whether or not science and religion can coexist, or if they can coexist and what your personal religious views are.
In my opinion, there is no way we can possibly comprehend the existence of God or why He/She created the Universe. Given that He/She is omniscient and omnipotent, time and space have no meaning or effect on Him/Her; therefore, I believe that God carefully planned out the Universe and then started it all with the Big Bang. Since, as I have stated earlier, time has no effect on an omnipotent being, 6,000,000,000 years passed before our little planet Earth formed. He/She then set forth the evolutionary time line, eventually leading to the creation of Humanity about 8,000,000,000 years later. I do not believe in many of the miracles stated in the Old Testament. I do, however, believe in Jesus Christ as the manifestation of God itself into human form to spread His/Her word. I believe that everything in this world was made to be explained by science, but we cannot forget religion. The first pieces of matter that were suddenly spawned into existence 14,000,000,000 years ago have eventually led to everything that we have today. Science and Religion go hand in hand; Religion explaining how we came into existence and Science explaining why this Universe works and how we can improve upon it for ourselves. Now, my beliefs raise two questions: 1.) What is God and how did He/She come into existence? 2.) What came before this Universe? 3.) Why did God create this Universe?
What are your beliefs?
|
|
Dr. Joe
Meng
Minster of Health
Posts: 255
|
Post by Dr. Joe on Apr 30, 2011 13:03:39 GMT -5
My beliefs are that the two can never coexist peacefully. The two directly contradict each other more times than anyone should ever be able to reconcile. Either science is completely right, or the religion is, and our universe works a lot smoother if there are no Gods or myths to confuse everyone.
|
|
|
Post by MasterPakku93 on Apr 30, 2011 14:20:09 GMT -5
I don't entirely agree. Science is simply a result of divine action, and it is our duty as people to try to understand and perfect it.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Apr 30, 2011 16:44:11 GMT -5
He/She then set forth the evolutionary time line, eventually leading to the creation of Humanity about 8,000,000,000 years later. That seems awfully reminiscent of the geocentric theory - everything revolves around our tiny little rock, such as the creation of the universe and the presence of God.
|
|
Dr. Joe
Meng
Minster of Health
Posts: 255
|
Post by Dr. Joe on Apr 30, 2011 19:06:00 GMT -5
I don't entirely agree. Science is simply a result of divine action, and it is our duty as people to try to understand and perfect it. I'm curious as to what makes you so confident about this. How can you know that science only exists because god did it? What proof do you have other than your faith?
|
|
|
Post by MasterPakku93 on May 1, 2011 13:30:24 GMT -5
I don't entirely agree. Science is simply a result of divine action, and it is our duty as people to try to understand and perfect it. I'm curious as to what makes you so confident about this. How can you know that science only exists because god did it? What proof do you have other than your faith? I don't, and that's the beauty of it. What proof do you have that it can't coexist with religion? We could go at this forever and never come to a conclusion. He/She then set forth the evolutionary time line, eventually leading to the creation of Humanity about 8,000,000,000 years later. That seems awfully reminiscent of the geocentric theory - everything revolves around our tiny little rock, such as the creation of the universe and the presence of God. Not necessarily. I would say that Earth may have turned out to be the first planet that could've supported human life.
|
|
Dr. Joe
Meng
Minster of Health
Posts: 255
|
Post by Dr. Joe on May 1, 2011 14:31:03 GMT -5
Science isn't the one that needs to prove whether religion is right or wrong. That's because science isn't the one making crazy claims about gods or miracles. The so called 'burden of proof' isn't on science. And until religion can come up with the proof it needs to back up those claims, it doesn't deserve to be taken so seriously.
And no, the two cannot coexist. if you believe in one, then you can only sort of half-believe in the other. This seems to apply to you. And like I said before, the two contradict each other too many times. For example, the bible says that the universe was created in seven days and the world is only 6000-8000 years old now. This directly contradicts what we know to be true. You say you believe in the big bang, but how can you just ignore something your religion says? You only half believe in religion, and there is an unfortunate amount of people that only half believe in science. There is no way you can fully believe in both one and the other.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on May 1, 2011 15:19:19 GMT -5
Not necessarily. I would say that Earth may have turned out to be the first planet that could've supported human life. Earth probably was the first planet to support human life, seeing as how a myriad of other planets could support non-human life. Now, if you suggest that Earth was the first planet to support sentient life, that may be disputable.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on May 1, 2011 15:20:43 GMT -5
Well, there is religion and there is RELIGION.
There are plenty of spiritual and religious people in the science community who do not believe the more outrageous religious explanations.
Also, the idea that religion has the burden of proof is somewhat backwards, since religion is about believeing and believing means not knowing.
|
|
|
Post by MasterPakku93 on May 1, 2011 15:30:16 GMT -5
Science isn't the one that needs to prove whether religion is right or wrong. That's because science isn't the one making crazy claims about gods or miracles. The so called 'burden of proof' isn't on science. And until religion can come up with the proof it needs to back up those claims, it doesn't deserve to be taken so seriously. And no, the two cannot coexist. if you believe in one, then you can only sort of half-believe in the other. This seems to apply to you. And like I said before, the two contradict each other too many times. For example, the bible says that the universe was created in seven days and the world is only 6000-8000 years old now. This directly contradicts what we know to be true. You say you believe in the big bang, but how can you just ignore something your religion says? You only half believe in religion, and there is an unfortunate amount of people that only half believe in science. There is no way you can fully believe in both one and the other. The Old Testament was written by men who lived in the Middle East several thousand years ago. Their scientific analyses does not apply to the modern world. And I believe God caused the big bang.
|
|
Dr. Joe
Meng
Minster of Health
Posts: 255
|
Post by Dr. Joe on May 1, 2011 15:52:21 GMT -5
Science isn't the one that needs to prove whether religion is right or wrong. That's because science isn't the one making crazy claims about gods or miracles. The so called 'burden of proof' isn't on science. And until religion can come up with the proof it needs to back up those claims, it doesn't deserve to be taken so seriously. And no, the two cannot coexist. if you believe in one, then you can only sort of half-believe in the other. This seems to apply to you. And like I said before, the two contradict each other too many times. For example, the bible says that the universe was created in seven days and the world is only 6000-8000 years old now. This directly contradicts what we know to be true. You say you believe in the big bang, but how can you just ignore something your religion says? You only half believe in religion, and there is an unfortunate amount of people that only half believe in science. There is no way you can fully believe in both one and the other. The Old Testament was written by men who lived in the Middle East several thousand years ago. Their scientific analyses does not apply to the modern world. And I believe God caused the big bang. The new testament was also written by men who lived in the middle east several thousand years ago. And if the bible is wrong on the origins of the universe, then what is there to say the rest of it isn't wrong as well?
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on May 1, 2011 16:52:33 GMT -5
The Old Testament was written by men who lived in the Middle East several thousand years ago. Their scientific analyses does not apply to the modern world. And I believe God caused the big bang. The new testament was also written by men who lived in the middle east several thousand years ago. And if the bible is wrong on the origins of the universe, then what is there to say the rest of it isn't wrong as well? well, no, less than 2000 years ago ^_^ I think you have to rehash epic CT topics, somewhere I think we covered 'the Bible' extensively.
|
|
|
Post by Musogato on May 1, 2011 20:03:00 GMT -5
Aw, well that's a bit unfair. There's been a number of scientific theories that were proven wrong with later research, but that doesn't mean we should throw the whole system away. Similarly, although there are parts of the Bible that seem impossible to believe or things that no longer apply to our modern world, that doesn't mean there aren't valuable lessons to be learned in it.
As for the origin time-line, I'm no theologian, but wasn't it mentioned somewhere that a blink of an eye for God was like a lifetime for people, or something like that? If so, perhaps it's like that -- the beginning took much longer, but was stated in a way so that the early people could better understand it. (although I'm guessing that's where the 6000-year thing comes from, but some of those early old dudes were written to have lived hundreds of years, so... idk)
For the actual question though, I think the answer is complicated, just like the subject. Can there be a peaceful co-existence between any other type of rival groups? It depends on the individuals. Some can respect the differences of opinions/beliefs, and others cannot, and must prove that their way is right and everything else is wrong. And that will not really ever change, regardless of how many eons pass or what further knowledge becomes mainstream.
Personally though, I believe that the two are connected. To me, science is the result of human curiosity, and as more discoveries are made, the more phenomenally complex we find everything to be. Everything keeps getting smaller and smaller, and yet operates like perfect machinery. It's absolutely amazing, and new discoveries are being made every year. For our entire world to have happened by chance, that this amazingly interwoven and complex universe happened of it's own fruition without any outside guidance, seems impossible to me. I completely believe that it was intelligently/divinely created.
And for the Bible, a lot of interpretation is involved. Some parts are vague, thousands of years of translating between languages can make things confusing or change the original meaning, and sections being dropped out by various churches, blahblahblah, it can be hard to understand. But it's also about people and there's as many wonderful and inspiring stories in there as there are things that make you want to yell at them. But that's life, right? It's not perfect, it's a mix of both. And like that, there are parts that are still true to our current lives, and others that may no longer apply.
And at the core, I believe that's what the difference is between these two. Science is working toward understanding how it all works, and religion is saying, "I may or may not know how it all works, but I have faith in the one who created it." And honestly, until it is proven 100% that it is one or the other, there are no wrong answers. It's just, which one works best for each individual. And for a lot of people, it's actually a mixture of both. And that shouldn't be wrong either.
|
|
Splendi
Combustion Man
I've lost my place but I can't stop this story..
Posts: 5,664
|
Post by Splendi on May 1, 2011 20:36:17 GMT -5
This is going to be a long one, so I hope you take the time to read it. I'm also going to use a lot of quotes to explain my position, as the people I'm quoting can explain things far more eloquently than I. To begin with, my general opinion based on eternal optimism is undecided, but from centuries of evidence, I'd have to say no, religion and science cannot coexist peacefully. And they most definitely cannot go hand in hand. So to begin with, we've got science. "Science isn't perfect. It's a human endeavor, and it's therefore fraught with imperfection. It's shaped by bias, and arrogance, and the intense desire to be right, and the ability to be fooled, and the difficulty people have in seeing or imagining what they don't expect." ( Greta Christina) Science is similar to religion in that it is a way of looking at the world, a method of explaining day to day or larger things that baffle us. However, science, unlike religion does this: "It's been developed over the years to do one very specific thing -- to minimize the effects of human error and bias, as much as is humanly possible. See, scientists KNOW that they, like the rest of the human race, are arrogant, stubborn bastards who crave recognition and have axes to grind. [...] And they have therefore developed this method for trying to figure out what is and isn't real about the world -- one which goes as far as we know how to minimize the effects of that arrogance and stubbornness and the rest of it." (Greta Christina) And then they can be arrogant and stubborn with reason, proof, and plenty of credit to their hard work. So basically, science goes on to show its methodology, publish papers, and allow repetition of experiments for proof; and make all of this information available for all. Sure, the system screws up, but eventually everything explained and those screw ups lead to greater discoveries. And there's a great quote from Bertrand Russel that says, "Who ever heard a theologian preface his creed, or a politician conclude his speech with an estimate of the probable error of his opinion?" Just saying.. Now, science can be difficult to understand sometimes, and maybe that's a turn off for some. Having been raised by two medical professionals and having taken numerous advanced science classes including AP Biology as well as three years of Latin, let me tell you I still get confused by terminology. But of course, I won't get into the enormous devaluing of intelligence and science education in our schools/culture. Point being, not understanding science may be a general turn off to accepting it. There's also the argument that science keeps changing, so what does one believe, or how can one truly trust it? "One of the problems is that people who distrust or dismiss science often say things like Layne did, that "history is also littered with disproved and discredited science" -- and that this somehow discredits science. But people who value science don't see this as a sign of science's failure. On the contrary -- we see it as a sign of its success, of science working exactly the way it's supposed to. When enough evidence comes along that contradicts a theory, that theory gets discarded and replaced by a better one. A theory is only as good as the most recent results." ( Greta Christina) The thing about these newer, better theories is that they are replaced by factual evidence and not just some random person jumping in with an idea. They are building blocks, and we are constantly building greater understandings. Another argument often presented against science is that it's built horrible things- from the atom bomb to agribusiness food to "reasoning" behind sick experiments on humans. The scary thing is, in some of these cases the science wasn't bad. It was flawless. It was just applied in a profoundly unethical way. This stuff is real. It happened. And it would be wrong to pretend that the benefits we've gained from science somehow negate the unimaginable horrors it's brought. "All I can say is this: It's not like human beings need science to do terrible, stupid things to each other. And it's not like the religious/ spiritual impulses of humanity haven't led to horrors as well. For every atom bomb and toxic farm and electroshocked homosexual you can show me, I can show you a religious war, a witch-burning, a piece of knowledge being violently suppressed, a fraudulent psychic preying on the hopes and fears of the gullible, a child getting beaten up for being Catholic or Jewish or Muslim. And unlike the scientific method, religious or spiritual beliefs often don't have a built-in self-correcting mechanism. Quite the contrary. Any religious or spiritual belief that's based on the idea that faith/ feeling/ doctrine/ intuition trumps evidence (and many of them are) has the exact opposite -- a built-in self-perpetuating mechanism." (Greta Christina) And of course, the largest argument seen is that science can't explain everything. "There are huge, important questions about life and human experience -- what kind of art we like, what kind of sex we like, where we decide to live, what career we pursue, who we fall in love with -- that are fundamentally subjective, that are about how we experience the world and not how the world is, and that are to a great extent best understood by introspection and emotion. [...] And of course, in everyday life, we have to make quick decisions about the world without subjecting them to years of careful research and replicability and peer review. Whether to pet the dog or stay three feet away from it, whether we have time to make that left turn before the light turns red, whether someone we pass on the street might be a threat... all these evaluations and thousands more have to be made fast, with limited evidence and our gut feeling." (Greta Christina) Now, like I said, I'm undecided on the whole idea of whether two can coexist peacefully simply because I'm quite Millenarian in my beliefs. I think that if we put aside our greater differences and worked for the betterment of the species as a whole we would get along a lot better. But of course that's absolutely absurd. Some religious people think that the way to ensure our overall betterment is to not allow people to marry legally simply because they love someone of the same sex. Some believe that it's not a women's right to make medical decisions for herself, therefore she must be told by a man what to. I don't agree with any of that, so here we see our problem. Anyway.. "If your religion claims that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago? That there was, in recorded human history, a gigantic planet-wide flood that wiped out almost every living thing? That humans were created in one shot out of whole cloth -- or whole dirt -- and plonked down on the earth by the hand of God in basically the same form we're in now? Science sure has something to say about that. "No" is what science has to say about that. [...] If you believe evolution happened but God nudged it along in the direction he wanted? Science can't definitively disprove that... but in pointing to the deeply flawed, seemingly pointless, Rube Goldberg nature of so much of the "design" of living things, it sure can make the idea look wildly implausible. If you believe you have an immaterial soul that's the ultimate recipient of your perceptions and the ultimate source of your choices and actions? Science can't definitively disprove that -- yet -- but in pointing to all the ways that physical changes to the brain shape our perceptions, our choices, our actions, our sense of self, everything we think of as the soul, the sciences of neurology and neuropsychology sure are putting a dent in it. Etc., etc., etc." ( Greta Christina) This is not to say that believing in something is ridiculous. Sure, religion provides great building blocks for morality. (Not to say that atheist have no morals. I myself am a vehement atheist and if you've been paying attention this entire post is really atheistic.) Belief is grand. But I'm under the ideal that religion is like a penis- it's great if you have one, but please, don't shove it down my- or others- throats. (I just love vulgar analogies.. don't you?)
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on May 2, 2011 20:31:53 GMT -5
I believe there is generally far too much emphasis in defining people by their beliefs instead of their actions and practices. Tell me what and how much you eat, drink, smoke, snog, shag, hunt, kill,etc. Even your weight and height will probably give me a lot more definitive insight about what kind of person you are than what you profess to believe (which may or may not be completely contradicted by your actual practices in daily life). Beyond the fundamental and time tested attributes of the human condition and its resulting nature, there is precious little that is set in stone. Closer on point, both science and faith have, in fact, developed side by side for centuries and to this day, there are many many people who are both devout in their respective faiths and yet have a very healthy respect for science. For them, there is no contradiction as they find a balance that works for them and helps them both makes sense of the world they were born into, their place in it and meaning in an (always) all too brief life.
|
|