You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does science make belief in God obsolete?
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
Quote from acronym:
Another pointless argument.
Science is a process of establishing physical facts and proof, evidence, where religion is the science of (its proclaimed a science, theology, no i dont think its a science either, so dont bust my balls on it) debating what could or may have been or happened or might, and could have been or happened or may, without so much as a shred of legitimate scientific (or even logic, that branch of science that doesnt involve theology) proofs.
What you are talking about is blind belief Acronym -- not religion.
"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction."
This definition is from the Wikipedia, and should suffice for now, although there are better and more detailed definitions.
Metaphysics is based on logic. The king of philosophers, Aristotle spent a great deal of time pondering the Divine, and we know that until the Renaissance no one had a greater influence on science than Aristotle.
Likewise, Newton was a great Biblical scholar, and published more in that area and certainly devoted a much greater part of his time there than in the sciences.
And there are too many other numerous other great scientists to mention in this type of a forum that contradict what you stated about above about religion. However, if you were referring to blind belief instead which indiscriminate people often mean when they are talking about religion then you would be correct, and unfortunately in the established religions for the common man there is a great deal of blind belief which causes much damage as we see now in particular in Islam.
Quote from vhehn:
"Does science make belief in God obsolete? "
no superstious beliefs will always be with us. they seem to be hardwired into humans.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080513122249.m3ds3b6j&show_article=1
Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.
The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.
As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
Einstein was no Bible scholar nor is he known as a scholar of metaphysics.
He couldn't even do his taxes, and we know that morally he was particularly lax -- maybe that clouded his views on the Torah.
Chosen doesn't mean in the way most people think of the word "chosen." It really isn't a gift, but a burden. Jews have to keep 613 commandments, non-Jews only 7. Chosen means that one was chosen to keep 613 commandments vs. 7 commandments. Failure to keep all these 613 commandments entails punishment for Jews as it is for non-Jews who fail to keep their 7 commandments.
Obviously, if one can adhere to all 613 commandments vs. someone who is meticulous with just 7 commandments then from a spiritual point that person would be greater, but it should also be obvious that one has a much greater chance of failure with 613 commandments than with 7 commandments.
His views in the area of relativity carry weight, but in this area he is like a small child, and it would be foolish for anyone who is serious about exploring metaphysics which connects to practical matters in daily life like ethics to pay any attention to them.
Quote from BernardRichards:
Einstein was no Bible scholar nor is he known as a scholar of metaphysics.
He couldn't even do his taxes, and we know that morally he was particularly lax -- maybe that clouded his views on the Torah.
Chosen doesn't mean in the way most people think of the word "chosen." It really isn't a gift, but a burden. Jews have to keep 613 commandments, non-Jews only 7. Chosen means that one was chosen to keep 613 commandments vs. 7 commandments. Failure to keep all these 613 commandments entails punishment for Jews as it is for non-Jews who fail to keep their 7 commandments.
Obviously, if one can adhere to all 613 commandments vs. someone who is meticulous with just 7 commandments then from a spiritual point that person would be greater, but it should also be obvious that one has a much greater chance of failure with 613 commandments than with 7 commandments.
His views in the area of relativity carry weight, but in this area he is like a small child, and it would be foolish for anyone who is serious about exploring metaphysics which connects to practical matters in daily life like ethics to pay any attention to them.
sure. lets dismiss einstein and believe what some primitive sheep herders wrote down instead.
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
I agree with you to a point. The whole dark matter thing has always bothered me, becasue it's kind of extrapolated because their models don't work in certain areas. But, that said, I don't think any scientist believes the universe is steady state any more.
And that is the point. Scientists believe That is why we really cannot assume to make all those into "solid conclusions." Our understanding As I said previously, we realized we were unaware of 96% of the universe. So how can anyone make a solid conclusion? Scientists have beliefs like anyone else. They just like to surround those beliefs with Greek letters, "hypothesis" "postulate" "theorem" so somehow others think they have arrived. I would say science is still about 96% blind to the entire nature of all things.
You said you were a evolutionist, right? Well, there are puzzlers about evolution that no one can explain or the explanation seems unlikely, right? You've got punctuated equilibria, parallel evolution and a lot of things that seem to have nothing to do with natural selection. Yet it's clear from genetics that evolution did occur at least in large part. But would you throw out the entire theory of evolution just because you can't explain the Cambrian Explosion, for example?
I think that's analagous to what you're doing here: throwing out the Big Bang because they are fine tuning their knowlegde of the universe.
I didn't say to throw out the Big Bang. I said that our understanding leans on a sample size of one singularity (big bang), that we have never observed directly (but through indirect evidence). and our understanding has taken several left turns and may again, I personally subscribe to it.
My main contention throughout, is that people keep leaning on science in their arguments, when science itself is mostly a considerable house of hypothetical cards, with the reality that much of it will likely be slightly to drastically altered. It cannot even give reliable final answers to the observable. It is ludicrous when people try to apply it to divinity. Science is a powerful tool about repeatable, observable, empirical, verifiable. It is not designed for things like art, theology, romance, humanities and other things.
.I'm simply a lay person who enjoys both science and faith...
As do I.
Quote from smilingsynic:
There is no scientific evidence of a personal God. If there were a personal God, there would be evidence of it.
This is obviously a guess.
Science does not deal with blind leaps of faith, but rather in natural phenomena.
Great. Then cosmologically, about the 11 dimensions, multiverse, dark energy and dark matter, black holes, etc.. Most of the evidence is made on complex computational models, and we have little direct evidence of these. How do these differ from faith?
Perhaps you would care to elaborate on the scientific belief that there must be life on other planets, basically, because there are so many planets, that there must be?
What is gravity made of? Scientists hypothesize that there must be some form of base constructor such as "gravitons", but cannot find it. Why?
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Yeah, but you're probably the exception. Most non-believers don't realize where all this is headed: genetics has proven evolution and Christians will have to ever-increasingly believe in it. There really won't be any other choice over the next couple of decades.
What happens when science and religion can live together harmoniously?
Genetics proved evolution? Humans supposedly came from chimpanzees but chimps have 2 MORE chromosomes than humans? And the genome projects have shown that humans share more DNA with dogs than chimps? We did not come from dogs buddy..... or chimps...
The story about humans starting in Africa and migrating out to europe and becoming the "new and improved model" [figure it out, it's entirely racist in origin] was proven bogus by the human genome project, there is not enough genetic difference to support the idea of separation by more than a few thousand years.... I'm telling you, it's big science with a purpose of making you believe what they want you to believe and demeaning you in the process. They operate the same as big pharma, they cover up what they don't want you to know by just not commenting on it and not publishing it and feeding you the rubbish they want you to believe......
The statement is a logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance variety, so there is little to refute beyond that simple fact.
Quote from smilingsynic:
Does anyone care to (try to) refute this?
Until this is refuted, the answer to the original question proposed in this thread is "yes".
Quote from maxpi:
Genetics proved evolution? Humans supposedly came from chimpanzees but chimps have 2 MORE chromosomes than humans? And the genome projects have shown that humans share more DNA with dogs than chimps? We did not come from dogs buddy..... or chimps...
The story about humans starting in Africa and migrating out to europe and becoming the "new and improved model" [figure it out, it's entirely racist in origin] was proven bogus by the human genome project, there is not enough genetic difference to support the idea of separation by more than a few thousand years.... I'm telling you, it's big science with a purpose of making you believe what they want you to believe and demeaning you in the process. They operate the same as big pharma, they cover up what they don't want you to know by just not commenting on it and not publishing it and feeding you the rubbish they want you to believe......
dr dino has polluted your mind:
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
" Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."