TINNY Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 religious people who also accept sciencethat assumes science is compatible with religion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Why wouldn't it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 well you'd have to make those three(FT, LG, SG & TG) agree with that first before saying "work with those religious people who also accept science?" because they claim that in order to be religious, you'll have to reject science. As LG's sign says "if god existed, science would be meaningless". you have to turn that around first dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 I believe that religion and science need not be mutually exclusive so long as one agrees that science is true. Science has never disproven the existance of a diety so it is a possibility, even if not accepted. I don't necessarily believe that god interferes with the universe on a daily basis because I don't think that anything is random, everything has a logical cause and a logical effect. I think that god is more of the programmer to the universe's code, who wrote the structure and then watched it develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 I believe that religion and science need not be mutually exclusive so long as one agrees that science is true.yes, but there are many religions. of course, if the religion is the truth, then it has to be completely compatible with science. I don't necessarily believe that god interferes with the universe on a daily basis because I don't think that anything is random, everything has a logical cause and a logical effect. I think that god is more of the programmer to the universe's code, who wrote the structure and then watched it developso everything is predestined by the code, and humans have no free-will upon which they will be judged. it seems that you have a rather narrow conception of God having fun with his programming, and watch his product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 so everything is predestined by the code, and humans have no free-will upon which they will be judged. it seems that you have a rather narrow conception of God having fun with his programming, and watch his product. I must admit, my views seem to be a paradox, but in essence, yes. Refer to my impossibility of thought thread. I know through experiance that I have free will, I know through logic that I don't. I wish I could explain it better. I can form the thought in my head, but I can't form it into words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Rather than fight against religion, why not work with those religious people who also accept science? You would be able to change the system better from within than without. What about all those religious people who do not accept science? And which "system" are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 I can't figure out where this thread is going. It's not worthwhile discussing creationism/evolution in this forum. There are lots of others out there in cyberland just for that purpose. This one is for scientists, or so I thought. I agree with Linda here (although our site is for everyone, not only scientists). All our creationism/evolution debates tend to fall into the same endless circles, and sometimes I wonder if it is worth it at all. But nevertheless I think it's about time we shut down this discussion as a) most of the issues have been discussed elsewhere :) the original topic was about teaching creationism in school This thread has wandered far off topic and while many posts are interesting I recommend that people pick up the ideas they want to use for new threads and start them there. So I'll check back in anouther 24 hours or so and close it if it is not back on track. This is not to censor anyone, but to try to keep a sense of focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 that assumes science is compatible with religion...Well, they're certainly not the same. The interesting thing is that religion makes a lot of claims about the universe, and the ones that can be checked in the first place have usually been shown false. Also, when people say "god" it's not clear what they mean, and even if they were, it's sometimes impossible to prove its existence or nonexistence. Science can only check things that occur in nature, for example if the universe and the Earth are 6000 years old, or if a global flood is possible, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 I believe that religion and science need not be mutually exclusive so long as one agrees that science is true. Science has never disproven the existance of a diety so it is a possibility, even if not accepted.Science has not disproved a lot of things, but that doesn't mean there's good reason to believe in those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 True, but if science hasn't disproved it then there is a possibility of it being true. It isn't yet false though it isn't yet true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 I suppose one reason why science hasn't disproved god is because it's a moving target, that is, there is no clear definition of god, which doesn't make the concept an explanation, just a claim, and a vague one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 In other words, because god is, supposedly, unknowable, there is no way science could come up with a definitive answer either way, so saying that because science hasn't disproved it gives it a chance is in invalid statement? That makes sense, if science could never know one way or the other, then it can't have any bearing on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Rather than fight against religion, why not work with those religious people who also accept science? You would be able to change the system better from within than without.And who says that is not the intended process, including here? But in ordcer to "work with those religious people who also accept science" we need to reverse the order. To work with people that accept science with religion as a 2ndary hold over. It is often more a matter of visibility. They do not know an option exists. Further it is interesting to see you suggest there are "those religious people who (do not) accept science". (By default, or there would not be the differentiation of those that DO) That there are "religious people" that outright reject science completely. Can that be considered in any way to be a rational approach to life? That brings us to that arbitrarly line in the sand I bring up all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 that assumes science is compatible with religion...No, in fact it shows that there is a line drawn between the two. That people use some mix of the two. That people use science (facts, reason) for some aspects of their lives and religion (blind faith, unsupported beliefs) for others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 So, you think that because religion can only be supported by religion, and something which needs to refer to itself to prove it's truth has no credible truth to it, religion must be false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 16, 2004 Report Share Posted December 16, 2004 Yes, there are people who reject science and no, that is not a rational approach to life, what is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.