• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Religion and Science......

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123...5
Grootvis
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

newbie
Location: Western Cape

Total posts: 5
Posted:This is a topic i regularly get to debate about with fellow students. Why do Science rarely make any mention of a higher power ie. God, Allah, or any deity for that matter when looking at things like Evolution?

Here's my opinion:
'If we have to bring religion into science and make a statement, say from a christian point of view that 'Because there is a God, the evolution theory is totally wrong', then other religions will begin to interpret sicence according to their own views and beliefs.

The only reason why science doesn't make any mention about religion, is so that we can all have a unified view on say evolution, or laws of motion ect'

Now, what do you believe? What's your opinion?


we are all one...as we are part of space, space is also part of us.

Delete Topic

Puresock


Puresock

addict
Location: Oxford, UK

Total posts: 406
Posted:I'm not quite sure what you mean by this... I think science rarely mentions religion when it's talking about evolution because according to science, the popular religious theories about the creation of everything are totally wrong. Doesn't that make them mutually exclusive on this issue?

"Take that, math!"

Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas

Total posts: 3899
Posted:higher powers have no place in proper science, regardless of whether they exist or not. science is about how things work and why, not who made them that way.



some people try of course, but the point is, that refering to a higher power is unscientific. you can't just go saying something is like it because of god. there is no point to that and it is useless to scientific development.



I don't think they are mutually exclusive though necissarily - you can have a higher power and still have all science be correct. just don't go taking the fundamentalist christians literally...


-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas

Total posts: 3899
Posted:P.S.



if science does somehow imply a god, doesn't that disprove the many religions that (conveniently) say god shall never provide proof of his existance since you must instead rely on faith?



so probably better from the religion standpoint to keep the two seperate too....


-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

.:star:.
SILVER Member since Jan 2005

.:star:.

Pooh-Bah
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 1785
Posted:have you read Angels and Demons by dan brown? there is quite a bit about religion and science being looked at together. Although it is a fiction book there is lot in there that makes you think.

to me science is science and does not prove the existance or non-existance of a god, it is just science, the way the world works.


Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas

Total posts: 3899
Posted:dan brown has a habit of stretching the truth just a WEEEE bit to make a good story though - not that I have read that particular dan brown book though...

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Perhaps evolution exists, regardless of any god.

Another reason could be - there is no God.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:eeeeeewwww . . . .

scientific explanations don't involve god. religion can invoke science, but not vice versa.


ture na sig

Delete

Puresock


Puresock

addict
Location: Oxford, UK

Total posts: 406
Posted:Written by: Stone

Perhaps evolution exists, regardless of any god.

Another reason could be - there is no God.



Well, yeah, at some point something came from nothing (unless everything has just always been here, which is just as unlikely, really) so it's perfectly feasible to say that some kind of god appeared first and made everything, and then science took it's place and did all the hard work with evolution, I guess. Doesn't tend to be a popular view with the main religions though - I guess it doesn't make mankind important enough smile


"Take that, math!"

Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas

Total posts: 3899
Posted:then what did god come from? using a god to creat a universe does not solve the origins problem, it mearly adds an unneccisary layer to it.

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:No thread of this kind would be complete without a link to my 'Ultimate Theory of Reality' page-

http://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
br>
smile

Not so much a scientific theory, but a philosophical/logical/mathematical theory which attempts to explain why the world exists. It does mention God, but only to prove that, if the theory is correct, God could not be the creator of the world.

Any comment on the theory here would likely take this thread off-topic, so I'll supply the link to the discussion thread of the theory and request that all such comments be posted there-

http://www.homeofpoi.com/ubbthreads/show...ll/fpart/1/vc/1
br>
---------------

Many scientists are religious, but they keep religion out of science because it is part of the methodology of doing science, that it does not utilise effects that cannot be rigourously demonstrated; in its explanations.

Religion has many good aspects, but rigourous scientific method is not one of them.

Traditionally, religious organisations have often been a major impediment to scientific progress- scientists whose hypotheses question certain interpretations of scripture have been put to death, or, more often, had to seriously modify their conclusions to avoid being put to death.

To this day, the church, in many regards, puts its scriptural interpretation over and above scientific conclusions- for example the catholic church doesn't condemn condoms in the third world purely on scripture/morality, but by claiming they do not prevent AIDs.

Scientifically, condoms are considered highly effective against AIDS transmission, yet the church has published literature claiming that the AIDs virus can pass through condoms.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Puresock


Puresock

addict
Location: Oxford, UK

Total posts: 406
Posted:Written by: vanize


then what did god come from? using a god to creat a universe does not solve the origins problem, it mearly adds an unneccisary layer to it.





Yeah, it is unnecessary. I was going a bit off-topic, there, sorry. I think what I was aiming at was that at some point something must have come from nothing, so science and religion are on even grounds there, but really, I'm off the rails. smile

EDITED_BY: Puresock (1115126768)


"Take that, math!"

Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas

Total posts: 3899
Posted:lol. cool

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002

flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire

Total posts: 3136
Posted:wow, i'm the only person to answer no smile



I'm currently not swayed by any religions that make claims that cannot be proven (I got some amusing spam earlier today telling me about how the bible is all wrong and the Quran is the actual word of god which obviously wasn't written by a scientist!), thus making me agnostic (although life phylosophy wise I follow WBO Buddhism). However, logically speaking theres a few questions which I don't think can currently ever be answered by human science (ie it's beyond our level of comprehension/brain capacity to understand), such as how and why we are in existance (big bang is great, but why did it happen and what was before?). For that answer I'm waiting to hear from God, or at least an entity which is god-like. I think that science can be used to explain religion, but not vice versa


Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:why does anyone think that the question 'why are we in existence' has an answer?

indeed, more generally, questions like:

1. why is there something rather than nothing?
2. why did the big bang happen?

might be unanswerable. i'm puzzled as to why people think that just because you can ask a question, it must have an answer.

this question:

3. what was before the big bang?

is nonsensical, because the big bang is supposed to be the starting point for time and space. it's like the question 'what is outside the universe?'. answer: either 'nothing' [since nothing is outside the universe] or 'nonsensical' [not only is nothing outside the universe, but nor could anything be outside the universe, by definition]


ture na sig

Delete

flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002

flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire

Total posts: 3136
Posted:i didn't say I beleive they do have any answer that's within our level of comprehension



I think they are questions which most people ponder upon at some time in their lives, and why it's something that creators of religions have picked up upon (partly because it answers people's questions and partly because you can't prove they are wrong, all you can do is have a slanging match over which religion is right)


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: flid
I'm waiting to hear from God, or at least an entity which is god-like.

But how will you know that that the entity is correct? Christian doctrine say's that the creator of the universe was omniscient, so we tend to assume that is there is a creator then they would be omniscient when this is by no means certain. And if something is outside of our comprehension then we can't ever understand it, whether it's explained by a higher being or not.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:I'll sit this one out and defer to a Simpsons Quote... Schools, science... it's all the same thing. wink



"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." -Superintendent Chalmers


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: quiet

why does anyone think that the question 'why are we in existence' has an answer?

indeed, more generally, questions like:

1. why is there something rather than nothing?
2. why did the big bang happen?

might be unanswerable. i'm puzzled as to why people think that just because you can ask a question, it must have an answer.




Some questions may indeed be unanswerable, then again they may be answerable.

Generally, if a question is sincerely investigated, if it is unanswerable it will become evident upon deep investigation; more important, it should be evident why it is unanswerable.

When it comes to questions like 'why is there something rather than nothing?', I'm not going to stop looking just because some one says either 'it may be unanswerable' or 'it is unanswerable (without giving any reason why)'.

I'll stop looking if, and when, I understand what it is about the question, that makes it unanswerable, and, IMO, that has not yey occurred with the question of 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

DoktorSkell
SILVER Member since Jan 2005

DoktorSkell

addict
Location: Van Diemans Land

Total posts: 475
Posted:In my opinion a scientist cannot be religious and keep his professional integrity.

Why? because a scientists job is to figure out why things are the way they are. if you are religious. you believe things are the way they are because thats the way god made them.

A religious scientist? well thats just doomed to fail......


Fair luna bright, fair luna moon
it shines at night but fades too soon
fair luna moon, fair luna bright
forever we dance
we dance under starlight

Delete

Selenia


Selenia

member
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta

Total posts: 28
Posted:In my religion ((I'm not christian)) there is no disagreement between religion and sience. Christianity ain't the only religion in this world.

Delete

MiG
GOLD Member since Apr 2004

MiG

Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG

Total posts: 3415
Posted:It really depends on the piety/zealousness of the scientist, and what that scientist does. Is a scientist, working on a new car's aerodynamics going to screw it all up because he/she believes that there was a bloke 2000 years ago saying 'lets be nice to each other for a change?' somehow, i think not.

i do agree, however, that an uber-pious zealot like scientist trying to figure out what's smaller than quarks might not be the best choice for the job.

But, realistically, there shouldn't be any interference between one's beliefs and one's scientific method/proof. Much the same as i know doctors that smoke, stuff like that. what you do for a living and what you do when you aren't making that living are two separate kettles of fish.


"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA

"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:
Exactly flid.

People cant think of a reason to explain some phenomena's so they invented Gods as an explanation. Even today, there are plenty of them so called borne again types who still cant understand evolution because they have never looked at nature. Instead they keep their head stuck in The Book and still use God as an explanation.

wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas

Total posts: 3899
Posted:Written by:




In my opinion a scientist cannot be religious and keep his professional integrity.



Why? because a scientists job is to figure out why things are the way they are. if you are religious. you believe things are the way they are because thats the way god made them.



A religious scientist? well thats just doomed to fail......







actually not true. many scientists are deeply religious, including my Ph.D. advisor. but beleiving in God does not mean you literally beleive in say creationism. Einstein was also very religious (though i his case I do think it interferred with his judgement - "god does not play dice" is what he said about quantum mechanics rolleyes )



what makes a good scientist is rigerous adherance to the scientific method. many religious scientist beleive their work demostrates the sublime beauty of the way god works and are therefor even more rigerous in their scientific pursuit because of this.


-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:Religion and science aren't all locked in conflict (And of course by religion Im talking about Christianity). Science starts from nothing and builds up, religion starts from everything and builds down. Both are explanatory systems with several merits. Quantum mechanics paints a view of the universe that is almost downright Eastern Religious in nature (all is one, etc.).

Arguments that atheism is proved by science (Let's say Richard Dawkins here) are really quite rediculous and fall prey to the same assumptions that theists use. At best you can argue for a rigorous agnosticism, but the God question can not be proved.

Further, all science is done based on an assumption that may be mistaken (hey you have ot start somewhere), and that is material realism. Basically, what we perceieve is an accurate representation of reflection of the way things really are and really act in the universe. Consequently, the WAY we perceive the world (cause-effect relationships, time, material bodies all together) form the basis for science. Science tells us how our method of perceiving the world works, but strictly speaking, doesn't prove the world is really the way it describes it. Leaves a nice backdoor for religion.

And as has already been said, many scientists ARE religious. The design argument (that this couldnt all happen from chance, its proof of a designer, etc.) is often invoked there. When you really start looking at the "probabilities" that they have worked out, it looks like life shouldn't be possible, or at least extremely improbable. Further the breakdown of physics at the beginning of the universe is also cited sometimes. Basically, some scientists believe that God must be (in some form anyway) to at least kick things off.

That all being said, I dont think religion and science should be merged at all. They perform two similar, but importantly different functions. Science starts from a few basic assumptions (material realism) that are generally taken as common sensical, whether they be true or not. Religion starts with all the answers (Because God said so) and works down to how the world works. Science answers the "what" and the "how" and religion answers the "why" questions (mutually exclusive domains). Each also has its practical application: one furthers development and use of the worlds features, and the other provides answers to questions we could think about all day and never come to a conclusion about. An opiate for the masses? I digress... of course they both do other things too, just a few examples.

Oh and as for FEATURES of God, those are all silly me thinks... the tri-omni thing seems contradictory with freewill, and omnipotence has its own logical problems (can God create a rock so big he cant lift it), and since these logical inconsistences exist you cant really reason your way into the PROPERTIES a "God" would have... Personally, being a true infinite I think it would be more like the Tao (encompassing all opposites) than anything else... but the question of if a "God" exists is dealing more with general existence, not with such properties.


Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas

Total posts: 3899
Posted:Written by: i8beefy2


The design argument (that this couldnt all happen from chance, its proof of a designer, etc.) is often invoked there. When you really start looking at the "probabilities" that they have worked out, it looks like life shouldn't be possible, or at least extremely improbable. Further the breakdown of physics at the beginning of the universe is also cited sometimes. Basically, some scientists believe that God must be (in some form anyway) to at least kick things off.







agree with i8beefy2 in general, just wanted to point out that from other points of view, life is not just probable, but an inevitable expression of entropy that will occure where ever it is possible to exist (that is anywhere that entropy can be increased by its presence).


-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:Written by: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=genesis&version1=31
br>

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.



3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.





So he/ she/ it/ they made the heavens and the earth... in the dark?



umm

EDITED_BY: Unfortunatly Can Obtain Fruit (1115212936)


Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:smile

That's talent for you


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas

Total posts: 3899
Posted:but who made the dark?!?!?!

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

_Clare_
BRONZE Member since Oct 2002

_Clare_

Still wiggling
Location: Belfast

Total posts: 5967
Posted:ubblol



Yeah Jon, who made the dark? Well?!!



(ahem. apologies for the off-topicness of this post.)


Getting to the other side smile

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:Wow! That link is awsome! Thanks bro, Ill be sure to make use of it when arguing religion with people now!

Delete

Page: 123...5

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [religion science] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > When does religion become extremeism [61 replies]
2. Forums > dominance of religion [45 replies]
3. Forums > Religion and Science...... [128 replies]
4. Forums > JUDGEMENT DAY, for religion [60 replies]
5. Forums > religion and poi [77 replies]

     Show more..