Started By
Message
re: Modern physics and ancient faith
Posted on 12/30/14 at 5:44 pm to RickySauwce
Posted on 12/30/14 at 5:44 pm to RickySauwce
quote:
Wondering if all these atheists were open minded enough to give this literature a try.
Sounds pretty interesting, but this quote gave me a good laugh. Generally, it's not the atheists who try to shame people who walk a different path.
0
Posted on 12/30/14 at 6:33 pm to mizzoukills
Posted on 12/30/14 at 6:49 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
Rather than saying that humans are devolving, I think it's better to day that we have stopped evolving. Technology has brought human evolution to a halt.
Evolution never stops.
Posted on 12/30/14 at 7:02 pm to Boom Angry
quote:
Evolution never stops.
as·ser·tion
noun
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion. 2. an act of asserting.
This post was edited on 12/30/14 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 12/30/14 at 7:30 pm to scrooster
quote:
If modern science has proved anything it is that there is no such thing as exact science .
Continual revision is a key part of the scientific method, so of course science doesn't claim exactness. The only thing science can "prove" is a negative. As far as everything else goes, we can only say a model is consistent with all evidence thus far collected. If today someone proved a negative by demonstrating the incorrectness of a model science has championed for years, they would not be viewed as a heretic, but embraced and given a Nobel prize.
quote:
... and that is where their hypocrisy comes into play. They claim to be able to explain everything through scientific procedure and experimentation
Most scientists do not claim that they can explain everything. If you find one who does, he's probably not a very good one.
quote:
Yet, historically speaking, all of science has begun with just that - a thought or faith that someone endeavored to prove correct.
Is there something wrong with having a hunch that a relationship exists and then seeking to validate your hunch through experimentation?
quote:
Life is a mystery. Science is trying to explain, not solve, many of those mysteries ... but for what purpose?
It sounds like you're in agreement with Einstein here. In Science and Religion, he spoke about science and purpose. Science in a vacuum is purposeless, and it is something outside of science that drives the questions and what to do with the answers. For example, our values might motivate us to develop a cure for cancer. Science can help with developing that cure. But after it's developed, what then? Science can't decide how much the pharmaceutical company should be able to charge, or if the uninsured should or should not be denied the cure due to not being able to pay.
Posted on 12/30/14 at 7:39 pm to Boom Angry
quote:
Evolution never stops.
Evolution is simply a change in inherited characteristics over many, many generations of a population. I don't think we'll ever cease to have mutations, so it will it probably won't stop. That being said, we've kind of outsmarted the survival of fittest idea. Centuries ago, a child born with certain conditions would die before being able to pass on their genes. Modern medicine and modern society now allow that same child to pass on their genes.
Posted on 12/30/14 at 11:10 pm to RickySauwce
Barr's work seeks to find evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe through science and the argument for intelligent design. It does not and cannot support any particular religion, certainly not "ancient faith." Science has already disproven several of the cosmological assertions of ancient faith (world is 6000 years old, made in 6 days, etc.). Even if science were able to provide satisfactory evidence of a god, it wouldn't prove any particular faith. It would just suggest that lack of belief wasn't supported by science.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 1:10 am to CrimsonCrusade
When discussing evolution we should also look at the evolution of religion over time. For instance polytheism came long, long before monotheism. Then from there separate monotheistic gods came to be.
Also most of the early empires were from different religions that were not Christian. It was only that Christianity was widespread when the atheist Constantinople was struggling to defeat the muslim based empires, and he needed to create some sort of propaganda he could rally his kingdom behind. And thus the state created what is today Christianity and passed it along through European conquest and domination.
I did particularly enjoy the poster who tried to point out that some early "scientists" were a part of Catholicism as if that would give the religion some sort of legitimacy. Apparently it never occurred to him out a lack of historical knowledge, or logic, that this was a bad way to try to prove legitimacy since you are opening yourself up to the fact that previous civilizations in both the Arabic, Indus valley, and China, were far more advanced than Europeans for much of history.
Maybe if you spent less time trying to backasswardly use the scientific method to prove Christianity is legit, you people could educate yourself more about history and the world.
Also most of the early empires were from different religions that were not Christian. It was only that Christianity was widespread when the atheist Constantinople was struggling to defeat the muslim based empires, and he needed to create some sort of propaganda he could rally his kingdom behind. And thus the state created what is today Christianity and passed it along through European conquest and domination.
I did particularly enjoy the poster who tried to point out that some early "scientists" were a part of Catholicism as if that would give the religion some sort of legitimacy. Apparently it never occurred to him out a lack of historical knowledge, or logic, that this was a bad way to try to prove legitimacy since you are opening yourself up to the fact that previous civilizations in both the Arabic, Indus valley, and China, were far more advanced than Europeans for much of history.
Maybe if you spent less time trying to backasswardly use the scientific method to prove Christianity is legit, you people could educate yourself more about history and the world.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 7:27 am to RickySauwce
"Can't science be the answer to how and religion the answer to why?"_Stan Marsh
Posted on 12/31/14 at 10:40 am to RickySauwce
Don't care, stole Chavis.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 10:42 am to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 12/31/14 at 11:08 am to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
When discussing evolution we should also look at the evolution of religion over time.
Biological evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. The general meaning of evolution is the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
I don't think either of these definitions apply to religion. The better word, I think, to describe religion is change: The act or instance of making or becoming different. If anything, religion has become less complex as polytheism has changed to predominantly monotheism.
Posted on 12/31/14 at 11:12 am to kingbob
quote:
"Can't science be the answer to how and religion the answer to why?"_Stan Marsh
Many people reconcile their feelings about the two incompatible subjects by assigning each a role in their lives. Many others, of course, deny one or the other and this creates the social discord we see so often.
Posted on 1/1/15 at 9:48 am to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
It was only that Christianity was widespread when the atheist Constantinople was struggling to defeat the muslim based empires
Tell me more about this piece of history I missed?
Was Constantinople related to Constantine?
Posted on 1/1/15 at 4:02 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
the big bang itself is faith based
no its not, its a hypothesis based on the best available evidence and observations
Posted on 1/1/15 at 7:39 pm to Cruiserhog
AKA:educated guess
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:18 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
no its not, its a hypothesis based on the best available evidence and observations
It's ... with an apostrophe.
Oh, and then in other words ... it's faith based.
Or either Christianity is a hypothesis based on the best available evidence and observations ... observations btw, which are well-documented.
Which do we have more proof of - the existence of God or the event commonly referred to as "The Big Bang?"
Which makes more sense?
A supreme being or entity - all-knowing, all-seeing, all-encompassing comprised of all the universal knowledge collected over the ions and more energy than any human could fathom, or ...
A teeny tiny ball of matter smaller than a Higgs Boson particle that all of the sudden goes BANG and converts all of its incredibly compact mass into energy which, in essence, cancels-itself-out until only the positive matter remains, all the antimatter expelled to another dimension or whatever, but with enough positive matter remaining that our universe, and everything in it, is eventually formed as the matter cools and congeals and, well, whew, anyways ...
Me personally, I like the whole idea of a Matrix being in control best .... but I have faith that there is God.
So the real question for most is, whose god wins or what form does our God take?
And there there is the question about afterlife, heaven and hell, etc.
These are the questions, fwiw, where I believe there lies a great deal of disagreement between most religions, and science.
This post was edited on 1/2/15 at 4:20 pm
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News