Science vs Religion

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
With regard to the first article do you think science can, will or should eventually completely supplant religious views with naturalistic explanations of the world among the majority of people.

I think that it can do so, and maybe should do so. Since so much religion has its origins in explaining the worlds natural phenomena is seems only natural an actual, scientific explanation is far more suitable. Personally I don't believe there is a God, gods or anything else. Science if of more benefit to human society then religion, it has more to offer. In early societies religion can be a valuable tool, but in advanced societies is lacks much significance when compared to science, philosophy and the like.

People should be able to worship whoever and whatever they wish (as long as it doesn't harm others or break laws) - however I would have no problem with it, in terms of social evolution, being bypassed by things that have a greater relevance to the world we live in.

Do you personally agree more with Dawkins or with Collins?

Dawkin's. I found his recent book, The God Delusion quote a well thought out read that made a great deal of sense. In fact I have found all of his academic works to be quite sound.

With regard to the second, do you think "intelligent design theorists" will manage to subvert the U.S. education system into teaching faith-based pseudoscience and what impact do you think that would have on U.S. ingenuity, and the country's scientific and technological standing in the world.

It would be disappointing if it did, since I don't see any educational value in the theory of ID, and current educational course is full enough as it is, and I see no benefit to ones curriculum vitae in having been exposed to it in school. That said I can see how it might enter into the educational system, but I will retain my optimism in regards to American intelligence and say I don't see it completely usurping the Educational system, or putting in back 100 years.

What effect might it have on U.S. ingenuity? Marginal at best, other then confusing a lot more people it shouldn't affect scientists, because I suspect those who accept "God did it" as an answer were never going to go far in the field (though a few do.) And evolution is advancing all the time. ID theorists should be happy they can keep their theory going in the nether outside of science with people who get all angsty about the idea of mankind being responsible for its own actions.

Showhorn it into schools, and when the next evolutionary breakthrough arises that gives evolution more accuracy then ID, it is unlikely ID will survive a second time. Force a conflict and one makes it less likely one can escape unharmed. And when push comes to shove I see no way, no way at all, that evolution will loose this battle.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Thoughts on the articles and debate excerpt?

With regard to the first article do you think science can,

will

or should eventually completely supplant religious views with naturalistic explanations of the world among the majority of people.

Do you personally agree more with Dawkins or with Collins?

With regard to the second, do you think "intelligent design theorists" will manage to subvert the U.S. education system into teaching faith-based pseudoscience

and what impact do you think that would have on U.S. ingenuity, and the country's scientific and technological standing in the world.

God vs. Science
We revere faith and scientific progress, hunger for miracles and for MRIs.

I'm all for the latter. I'd rather be intelligent than morally acceptable.

Hehe...the least assholeish one. Just reading the title of the book The God Delusion tells me which one with whom I agree.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I think that it can do so, and maybe should do so. Since so much religion has its origins in explaining the worlds natural phenomena is seems only natural an actual, scientific explanation is far more suitable.

--And so much science has it's basis in religion. Little guys like, Galileo, Copernicus, and Isaac Newton were all devout Christians. Science only flourished in a Christian background(I know that the Chinese and the Middle East had alot of science and tech, but it died out rather quickly), because that background held several presuppositions necessary for science to be worth anything.

Science if of more benefit to human society then religion, it has more to offer. In early societies religion can be a valuable tool, but in advanced societies is lacks much significance when compared to science, philosophy and the like.

It would be disappointing if it did, since I don't see any educational value in the theory of ID, and current educational course is full enough as it is, and I see no benefit to ones curriculum vitae in having been exposed to it in school. That said I can see how it might enter into the educational system, but I will retain my optimism in regards to American intelligence and say I don't see it completely usurping the Educational system, or putting in back 100 years.

What effect might it have on U.S. ingenuity? Marginal at best, other then confusing a lot more people it shouldn't affect scientists, because I suspect those who accept "God did it" as an answer were never going to go far in the field (though a few do.) And evolution is advancing all the time. ID theorists should be happy they can keep their theory going in the nether outside of science with people who get all angsty about the idea of mankind being responsible for its own actions.

Showhorn it into schools, and when the next evolutionary breakthrough arises that gives evolution more accuracy then ID, it is unlikely ID will survive a second time. Force a conflict and one makes it less likely one can escape unharmed. And when push comes to shove I see no way, no way at all, that evolution will loose this battle.

Evolution requires as much faith as I.D., just for the lack of solid evidence for either. Quite honestly, both are based on logical conclusions from the fact that the world exists. IDT says that "The world is complex and, apparently, ordered. Maybe there was an intelligence to make it that way." Evolution requires incredulity towards metanarratives. Darwinian evolution has been proved to be statistically impossible, given the amount of time and supposed pre-historic conditions of the earth. (A simulation was run by supercomputers. They said it couldn't be done.) Neo-Darwinism is pretty much incomprehensible as it has no united theory. IDT cannot be proven or disproven using scientific methods. Neither belief handicaps a scientist's ability to work in fields other than the Origins of the Earth.

Having discussed the question with several college professors, the best argument I got was "Well, we're all here, so evolution must have happened, because everyone knows religion is for morons."

That, and IDT and Evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Science only flourished in a Christian background................I know that the Chinese and the Middle East had alot of science and tech, but it died out rather quickly

Originally posted by finti
well the Chinese "science" of using paper money is still around though among other things, medical sciense of muslims etc

My point was, despite it's more violent culture and lack of technology compared with the Middle East and Orient, Christianized Europe became the scientific powerhouse, not China or the Muslim Empire.

Originally posted by Jadyn
My point was, despite it's more violent culture and lack of technology compared with the Middle East and Orient, Christianized Europe became the scientific powerhouse, not China or the Muslim Empire.

Yes, because of an anti-Christian struggle.

The Jesuits banned science for 300 years....Spanish Inquisition limitted Galileo's further study...

It took a long time before Christianity was removed from power, where science flourished.

My point was, despite it's more violent culture and lack of technology compared with the Middle East and Orient, Christianized Europe became the scientific powerhouse, not China or the Muslim Empire.

Originally posted by finti
because they stole "borrowed" ideas from the middle east and China
the power struggle within Europe turned into a colonisation frenzy to try to make the world civilized like Europe, this due to the influence by a certain religion

What time period are you referring to? The Crusades? That was something altogether different, and not unprovoked. The British Empire? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things in church history I'm not terribly proud of, but you can't blame Christian teaching for the politics and personal failings of it's leaders.

Yes, because of an anti-Christian struggle.

The Jesuits banned science for 300 years....Spanish Inquisition limitted Galileo's further study...

It took a long time before Christianity was removed from power, where science flourished.

"the major part of the Church intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas."--- The Crime of Galileo by Girgio de Santillana.

"The truth is that, on the whole, the Catholic church had no arguement with Galileo's theories as science. Their objection had to do with Galileo's attack on Aristotelian phiolosopohy--and all the metaphysical, spiritual, and social consequences they associated with it...The reason chyrchmen resisted giving up Aristotelian physics and cosmology was because these were intimately tied to an overall vision of moral and social life. If that tie were broken, they feared morality itself would be destroyed. Hence, Galileo seemes to promote doctrines that were not only wrong bu dangerous."--- The Soul of Science page 38-39 by Nany R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton.

Originally posted by Jadyn
What time period are you referring to? The Crusades? That was something altogether different, and not unprovoked. The British Empire? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things in church history I'm not terribly proud of, but you can't blame Christian teaching for the politics and personal failings of it's leaders.

You can't blame Christianity for what Christians have done" 🙄

nah nah they stole things from the muslim world from the crusades and after just like they stole from every culture they encountered and destroyed after the crusades, and I cant blame the christian teachings for its failures only the makers of that teaching that allowed its followers to act as they did

Originally posted by finti
nah nah they stole things from the muslim world from the crusades and after just like they stole from every culture they encountered and destroyed after the crusades, and I cant blame the christian teachings for its failures only the makers of that teaching that allowed its followers to act as they did

The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, British, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, they all did the same thing. Every "great" civilization has become so by a combination of conquering and assimilating.

Not to mention, most of the bad things done in the name of the church by Church officials or followers were due to corruption and selfish motivations. Do you blame the entire Congress for the sins of one corrupt Senator? Do you doom any hope of world diplomacy because some U.N. ambassadors an officials serve themselves rather than the greater good?

Originally posted by Jadyn
The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, British, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, they all did the same thing. Every "great" civilization has become so by a combination of conquering and assimilating.

I know..what makes Christians any better ?

My point is Christians are just like any other people, and do NOT possess ANY sort of moral superiority or guidance. They are lost and need to figure things out, just like the rest of us.

Thank you for proving my point.....

Originally posted by Jadyn
Not to mention, most of the bad things done in the name of the church by Church officials or followers were due to corruption and selfish motivations. Do you blame the entire Congress for the sins of one corrupt Senator? Do you doom any hope of world diplomacy because some U.N. ambassadors an officials serve themselves rather than the greater good?

Christianity, just like every other organization, must be held accountable for both the good and bad they have done.

The Congress does not claim to be inspired by God.

U.N. Ambassadors do not claim to be inspired by God.

The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, British, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, they all did the same thing

Not to mention, most of the bad things done in the name of the church by Church officials or followers were due to corruption and selfish motivations. Do you blame the entire Congress for the sins of one corrupt Senator? Do you doom any hope of world diplomacy because some U.N. ambassadors an officials serve themselves rather than the greater good?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I know..what makes Christians any better ?

My point is Christians are just like any other people, and do [b]NOT possess ANY sort of moral superiority or guidance. They are lost and need to figure things out, just like the rest of us.

Thank you for proving my point.....

Christianity, just like every other organization, must be held accountable for both the good and bad they have done.

The Congress does not claim to be inspired by God.

U.N. Ambassadors do not claim to be inspired by God. [/B]

I never said we were superior. Yeah, we're trying to figure things out, in our own way. We make mistakes. We're human. That doesn't make us wrong.

So, because we claim to be inspired by a God you don't believe in, we should be better than everything else? Where's the logic in that?

I agree, we should be held accountable for what we've done. We do the best we can. We punish those that we catch doing wrong. But if one member does something, why should all of us be punished? We do not punish and entire nation for the crimes of one felon. Otherwise, the entire population of the earth would be in some sort of jail.

Originally posted by Jadyn
I never said we were superior. Yeah, we're trying to figure things out, in our own way. We make mistakes. We're human. That doesn't make us wrong.

true

Originally posted by Jadyn

So, because we claim to be inspired by a God you don't believe in, we should be better than everything else? Where's the logic in that?

valid

Originally posted by Jadyn

I agree, we should be held accountable for what we've done. We do the best we can. We punish those that we catch doing wrong. But if one member does something, why should all of us be punished? We do not punish and entire nation for the crimes of one felon. Otherwise, the entire population of the earth would be in some sort of jail.

What defines wrong?

God has a recorded tendency to punish people en masse for what a few people do. (Sodom and Gromorrah)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

What defines wrong?

God has a recorded tendency to punish people en masse for what a few people do. (Sodom and Gromorrah)

Sodom and Gomorrah were two ENTIRE CITIES in which there were not 10 PEOPLE who were righteous.

Genesis 18:23-32(New International Version)
23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [f] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge [g] of all the earth do right?"

26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."

29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."

30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

Read the story before you quote it.

Originally posted by Jadyn
Sodom and Gomorrah were two ENTIRE CITIES in which there were not 10 PEOPLE who were righteous.

Genesis 18:23-32(New International Version)
23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [f] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge [g] of all the earth do right?"

26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."

29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."

30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

Read the story before you quote it.

OM-NI-PO-TENT

He didn't have to kill the good people

With UNLIMITED POWER he could have not killed those 9 people in the city who might have been good. Besides are you saying that in those two cities there were even hundrends children that God hated enough to kill? Think about the story before you quote it.

Think about the great flood that killed millions of animals and plants who hadn't sinned against him. God has never been one for sparing the inoccent.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
OM-NI-PO-TENT

He didn't have to kill the good people

Do us all a favor, and actually read the entire post before you respond next time. The problem was that none of the people in Sodom and Gommorah were good. The same rationale can be applied to the times of Noah. And sadly, that very same rationale is beginning to slowly become applicable to the world today.