Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[Freethinker]

I believe that religion and science need not be mutually exclusive so long as one agrees that science is true.

Interesting, so you consider Science to be the one of the two that would be wrong should the two disagree!

Science has never disproven the existance of a diety

This shows an ignorance of what Science/ Scientific Method is. Just as in Philosophy, NON-existance is not something that can be PROVEN. To suggest it could shows a complete lack of understanding of the process of proving something.

so it is a possibility, even if not accepted.

And this further proves your lack of understanding. This is the Fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however.

 

IOW we can use Science to prove that something DOES happen or DOES exist, but not that it does NOT.

 

Simple test. PROVE that Flying Reindeer do not exist. You can provide all kinds of reasons to not accept their existence, but you can not PROVE it does NOT exist. See:

 

The Atheist's Certainty

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_wilson/certainty.html

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.

So you do not believe in an Theistic/ Christian type god. That was the belief of most of the most influential Founding Fathers of the US. They were Deists.

 

I can understand how this concept is supportable back then. Before Science had provided so many substantial explanations for things. But QM (Uncertainty, for example) rejects the possibility of a intellectual designer.

[Freethinker]

yes, but there are many religions. of course, if the religion is the truth, then it has to be completely compatible with science.

Ah so you admit that if a religion's claims in it's source of revelation do not agree with Science, it is the RELIGION that is wrong!

 

Funny, you refuse to admit this when in discussions the contradictions come up.

 

(Note: One thing I prefer in the old forums, it included the previous quote as well. Reference is lost in some cases if not)

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.

Any concept of a god requires "a rather narrow conception" as any god concept will violate logic at some point.

[Freethinker]

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.

This woould require that the defnition of god exclude ANY interaction with our physical existence. If ANY interaction existed, that interaction COULD be tested scientifically.

 

If "god" is an entity that has no physical interaction with out physical existence, then for all intents and purposes it does not exist to us. Thus supporting a NON-theist. *A*theist view.

[pgrmdave]

Interesting, so you consider Science to be the one of the two that would be wrong should the two disagree!

 

No, I never said, nor implied that. I believe in science first and formost, it is experimentally provable whereas with religion, it comes more from a feeling than experimentation. And yes, that is irrational, I don't care, and neither do any of the other religious people in these forums. There is no proof for god, and yet we believe.

 

This shows an ignorance of what Science/ Scientific Method is. Just as in Philosophy, NON-existance is not something that can be PROVEN. To suggest it could shows a complete lack of understanding of the process of proving something.

 

Non-existance can be proven, just not easily. I can prove that there is not a car on top of my monitor by gathering facts of other cars and showing that the space above my monitor does not fit that definition. But you are right that an argument for god cannot contain that.

 

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.

 

 

 

And this further proves your lack of understanding. This is the Fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false.

 

I never said that it must be true, merely that it was in a limbo between true and false, neither proven nor disproven. If you are going to quote me as saying it's a possibility, you shouldn't try to say that I said it's true.

[Freethinker]

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.

Religion is circular logic yes. The Christian god must be true because the bible says so and the bible must be true because god wrote it (or divinely inspired it's writing). Is the common approach.

[pgrmdave]

If "god" is an entity that has no physical interaction with out physical existence, then for all intents and purposes it does not exist to us. Thus supporting a NON-theist. *A*theist view.

 

So you admit that god might exist, simply have no effect on us? :)

[Freethinker]

Yes, there are people who reject science and no, that is not a rational approach to life, what is your point?

As you specifically acknowledge here, there is a sliding scale. Science on one side, Religion on the other. Pure "rational approach to life" on the Science side. "(N)ot a rational approach to life" on the religious side. The more religious, the less rational.

 

Thus as you indicate in order to live a fully RATIONAL life one must reject religious approaches.

[pgrmdave]

No, just because rejecting science is irrational doesn't mean that science is rational and religion is not. In fact, the entire time I've been trying to show that they are not opposite any more than philosophy and science are opposite. They are merely different.

[pgrmdave]

Religion is circular logic yes. The Christian god must be true because the bible says so and the bible must be true because god wrote it (or divinely inspired it's writing). Is the common approach.

 

So, science is circular logic as well. Try to prove science without using science.

[pgrmdave]

Go on, try to do it.

[Todesangst]

The existance of new theory these days are pretty much motivated by certain urges to prove that we are right or rather there are things more acceptable than previous thought. personally, i would say the abhorrance of the teaching of something else other than evolution is quite unjustified. New theories like Tinny have wrapped up is quite, well as a matter of fact quite interesting. Before Einstein came up with his theories or rather being accepted fully(not still) is almost in his diying age. I would say freethinking is a preferred way of learning. So maybe it takes time before your ideas are acepted Tinny. maybe not that long though. As you might have suggest, evolution might still have the best view and influence over the world today.

So i think let they teach whatever ideas they have and let see which is better preferred. Hey its a democratic world out there. And certainly, i hate poison.

Anyway Freethinker can you provide some more use of PDA's in the other thread. it is very much anticipated, and let open some eyes out there.

Doesn't anyone notice that both parties have SIMILAR attitude in terms of presentation, similar to what i called Extremely religious people. Personally, hate them who doesn't want to be a little considering, anyway there might have some reason for it.

[Freethinker]

So you admit that god might exist, simply have no effect on us? :)

It would be more correct to say that if an entity of this type exists, it does not fit the term "god" and there is no value in discussing it as there is nothing that can be said about it. Other than it does not exist and is not relevant in our physical existence.

[pgrmdave]

Is it possible that an outside entity was critical to the creation of this universe, even if it is no longer involved, in your mind?

[TINNY]

Ah so you admit that if a religion's claims in it's source of revelation do not agree with Science, it is the RELIGION that is wrong!

fully agreed.

[TINNY]

Is it possible that an outside entity was critical to the creation of this universe, even if it is no longer involved, in your mind?

aha.. the philosophy of Tomas Aquinas.

[TINNY]

getting back to the topic. evolution is limited to animal life. when we try to discuss what causes it, they say abiogenesis, and that's another topic. this shows a lack of completeness and coherence in an explanation of the universe. or perhaps, not unified.

so I sorf of remembered about Roger Penrose who said that there is an underlying field that is the driving force of matter to progress in a series of unfolding events. So if this were true, then it is better than evolution since it unifies all of existence in a coherent theory in order to ultimately understand wwho we really are. I don't remeber the details of it. But, i;m sure you science fanatics have come across Penrose and should have a general idea of his philosophy and science. :)

[Freethinker]

No, just because rejecting science is irrational doesn't mean that science is rational

Yes it does follow, by mutual exclusivity and the law of identity.

and religion is not.

It was YOUR comment. YOU specifically connected an extreme religious stand with rejection of a rational approach/ science.

In fact, the entire time I've been trying to show that they are not opposite any more than philosophy and science are opposite. They are merely different.

Philosophy does not reuire the suspension of critical thinking that religion does. In fact Philosophy not only demands the application of CT, it helps define the process.