Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Where do science and religion overlap?

Where do science and religion overlap?

4 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:
SheWrites wrote:Interesting thread, guys.

I think, if most Christians were honest, they'd agree with the man in the bible who says to Jesus, "I believe but help me in my unbelief."

He was talking to God in the flesh, Jesus, and Jesus did not explain all of life to him.  He was right there and mystery was not revealed.  

I agree we will never have answers to all.  I do appreciate and love the ability of scientists to research, test, hypothesize, and conclude theory.  Where would we be today without it? I think as we get closer to answers, though, the debates rise strongly on those areas that might define science and religion separately.  Many want it to meld.  Many want one to be superior to the other.  


Thanks for your thoughtful input.  The strong advance of technology and it's impact on society and culture demands that we entrust more and more of our lives and the advancement thereof, to realities and not belief.  That's why religion is dying in America, and is mostly dead in the modern industrialized nations of Europe.

If you want to discuss values and morality, these are good religious subjects.  But for Christ's sake, don't confront reality with Bibilical explanations of how the universe began, how we began, and why we're here, etc.  That's bullshit confronting reality, and as you can see, reality always overcomes anything less.

We humans can't win with any sort of combination of nonsense and reality.  The moral values of men who lived two thousand or more years ago really don't apply anymore to modern society.

Pork and shellfish are quite safe to eat, now that we have refrigeration.

One's faith and one's ability to reason make confusion for many.  I doubt it will ever be a settled issue.

As for "religion" dying...I hope.  Religion is a standard or rule followed over and over for no reason other than that's "what we do."  Relationship and faith are totally different.  

True science and pure religion (relationship and faith) are to be strived for in a good society.  But that takes an open mind and too many are afraid to "unlearn" their "faith."  Funny thing they don't realize is that faith is not learned.

Continue on....always enjoy these conversations.  Very Happy

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

SheWrites wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
SheWrites wrote:Interesting thread, guys.

I think, if most Christians were honest, they'd agree with the man in the bible who says to Jesus, "I believe but help me in my unbelief."

He was talking to God in the flesh, Jesus, and Jesus did not explain all of life to him.  He was right there and mystery was not revealed.  

I agree we will never have answers to all.  I do appreciate and love the ability of scientists to research, test, hypothesize, and conclude theory.  Where would we be today without it? I think as we get closer to answers, though, the debates rise strongly on those areas that might define science and religion separately.  Many want it to meld.  Many want one to be superior to the other.  


Thanks for your thoughtful input.  The strong advance of technology and it's impact on society and culture demands that we entrust more and more of our lives and the advancement thereof, to realities and not belief.  That's why religion is dying in America, and is mostly dead in the modern industrialized nations of Europe.

If you want to discuss values and morality, these are good religious subjects.  But for Christ's sake, don't confront reality with Bibilical explanations of how the universe began, how we began, and why we're here, etc.  That's bullshit confronting reality, and as you can see, reality always overcomes anything less.

We humans can't win with any sort of combination of nonsense and reality.  The moral values of men who lived two thousand or more years ago really don't apply anymore to modern society.

Pork and shellfish are quite safe to eat, now that we have refrigeration.

One's faith and one's ability to reason make confusion for many.  I doubt it will ever be a settled issue.

As for "religion" dying...I hope.  Religion is a standard or rule followed over and over for no reason other than that's "what we do."  Relationship and faith are totally different.  

True science and pure religion (relationship and faith) are to be strived for in a good society.  But that takes an open mind and too many are afraid to "unlearn" their "faith."  Funny thing they don't realize is that faith is not learned.

Continue on....always enjoy these conversations.  Very Happy


When science seeks to prove their is no God the argument that science and religion overlap would be true.

But science doesn't look to disprove anything, it simply looks for truth.

Religion, on the other hand, is hell bent on disproving science at almost every level -- particularly where science disagrees with claims published in holy books.

Religion has never, I repeat NEVER concerned itself with finding or stating truth on anything. 

Like I argued in the beginning of this debate, science deals with reality and religion deals with belief.

It's when religion insists some ridiculous statement written thousands of years ago and then re-written dozens of times through the ages, is true that the conflict between truth and fantasy takes on a serious edge.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Wordslinger wrote:When science seeks to prove their is no God the argument that science and religion overlap would be true.

But science doesn't look to disprove anything, it simply looks for truth.

Stephen Hawking Declares That Science Can Prove God Does Not Exist

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/stephen-hawking-confirms-non-existence-god-by-offering-scientific-proof-1467528

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Before we make science into our alternative religion,  remember that science is a double-edged sword.
Yes of course it's given us technological advances which have made our lives better.
But those same technological advances have given us serious water and air pollution,  genetically modified foods,  tens of thousands of atomic bombs aimed at each other,  and the list goes on.  And many scientists themselves are now concerned about the future advancement of artificial intelligence and what possible horrors that might lead to.

Methinks it best not to have any religions,  including making science into a replacement religion.
Best to approach religion and science with skepticism.  Not worship.
No different than how we should approach government and corporations. And media.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Bob, there is only one word that describes someone who believes we should be skeptical of science:  "stupid."

Why should anyone be skeptical of a scientist reporting the results of his explorations and effort to understand something tangible?  Would that apply to scientists who proved the world orbited the sun?  Or that gravity is what caused things to fall, or the speed of light traveling through space?

What value is there in being skeptical of such findings?

Are you skeptical when you floss with strands produced by manipulating petroleum?

Scientists don't pretend to know what God intends.  If you want to push being skeptical, there's the target.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Wordslinger wrote:Bob, there is only one word that describes someone who believes we should be skeptical of science:  "stupid."


Well the person who was skeptical of what those tobacco company scientists were telling us might have been stupid,  but he probably quit smoking because of his stupidity.   I wish I'd been that stupid.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I'm a little puzzled to learn that you aren't the least bit skeptical of what these scientists are telling us, wordslinger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Bob wrote:I'm a little puzzled to learn that you aren't the least bit skeptical of what these scientists are telling us,  wordslinger.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Bob, when some 97% of scientists claim global warming is real and that our activities are surely all if not most of the cause, and then we get a string of rising temperature data over a long period of time, plus whacko weather, ice melting in Siberia and on our Tundra, and then consider that a real effort to reduce emissions from the use of fossil fuels would, at the very least, improve air quality for EVERYONE in the world, and harm nothing except the coffers of Exxon and BP, etc., I'd be a jackass to stand back and refuse to participate.

 Of course, my perspective is somewhat colored by the fact I smoked for forty years and now, even though I quit in 1990, I have COPD and asthma.  I was one of the dorks who listened to what "scientists" who had sold their integrity to tobacco companies had to say.  Because I wanted it all to be true ...

But the truth was, the scientists who had been bought by Marlboro, etc., were lying for cash, and the bastards who made cigarettes knew absolutely their product was addictive and killing people -- knew it back in the late 50s!

That's the problem when polluters who enthusiastically sell their products despite knowing they are killing innocent people, buy up legislators and lobbyists.

That's the world Semi-Sane Markle and all his ilk applauds and endorses.  Fuck the poor, fuck the innocent, fuck their health.  Take their money and run! Fuck solar and wind power!

Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.   Benito Mussolinin



Reality.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Wordslinger wrote:  I was one of the dorks who listened to what "scientists" who had sold their integrity to tobacco companies had to say.  Because I wanted it all to be true ...

Well at least you weren't skeptical of them.  Because according to you that would have been "stupid".  lol

Skepticism is actually what science is all about,  wordslinger.  It teaches us to be skeptical of everything including science.  
So to make the unbelievably thoughtless statement that "anyone who is skeptical of science is stupid",  is rebuking a basic tenet of science itself.

REALITY!

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Bob wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:  I was one of the dorks who listened to what "scientists" who had sold their integrity to tobacco companies had to say.  Because I wanted it all to be true ...

Well at least you weren't skeptical of them.  Because according to you that would have been "stupid".  lol

Skepticism is actually what science is all about,  wordslinger.  It teaches us to be skeptical of everything including science.  
So to make the unbelievably thoughtless statement that "anyone who is skeptical of science is stupid",  is rebuking a basic tenet of science itself.

REALITY!
  In 1994 a throat specialist examined me and told me I had a cancer growing on my larynx -- from smoking.  I went through two operations and 35 days of radiation therapy -- and I survived.

If I had been skeptical, I wouldn't be here.

If you smoke, quit.  If you need help, I'll tell you how.  I failed five times and finally learned how to beat nicotine. 
When I quit I was smoking 4 packs a day.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Wordslinger wrote:
  In 1994 a throat specialist examined me and told me I had a cancer growing on my larynx -- from smoking.  I went through two operations and 35 days of radiation therapy -- and I survived.

If I had been skeptical, I wouldn't be here.

I'm sincerely very happy you had a positive outcome and survived.
But my father was told by a physician who was also practicing medical science that his "elective surgery" was not risky.  And the elective surgery killed him.
If my father had been skeptical,  he would not have died.  At least not then.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Bob, the great majority of scientists work at universities, many with government grants.

Men like Stephen Hawking do not pursue their experiments and research to get rich.  They pursue knowledge by crossing research frontiers.

If a man like Hawking says something is true, you would be foolish to disregard his work.

Yes, as in your personal example, doctors make mistakes -- after all, they're human. 

It's something else, however, when a scientist skews his findings or outright lies to satisfy an employer.

I'm really not inclined to pay attention to the findings of a man who is paid by a fuel company.  Are you?

Guest


Guest

Way back in the day the findings of scientists were supported by the Catholic Church. When you read biographical accounts of Copernicus and Galileo, to name a couple, their infatuation with God's creation drove them to their discoveries.

Modern man and thought have driven the divide because we so box things into labeled areas of thought. Can a Christian be a scientist in this day and be believed? Most likely not. The division widens.

Modern man can be really dumb in my opinion -both the believer and non-believer.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

SheWrites wrote:Way back in the day the findings of scientists were supported by the Catholic Church.  When you read biographical accounts of Copernicus and Galileo, to name a couple, their infatuation with God's creation drove them to their discoveries.  

Modern man and thought have driven the divide because we so box things into labeled areas of thought.  Can a Christian be a scientist in this day and be believed?  Most likely not.  The division widens.

Modern man can be really dumb in my opinion -both the believer and non-believer.

I agree entirely with your closing line.  After all, we elected Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Clinton and Bush I and II, and Obama.

And look where we are today!  A broken, harshly divided country where 1% own more than 50% of the cash, unemployment is rampant, as is racism, and the MIC has bought off our elected leaders.  And we've fought more wars (all of which we've lost since Korea) than any other modern country.

Yes, we ARE stupid!

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Wordslinger wrote:

If a man like Hawking says something is true, you would be foolish to disregard his work.

I'm not disregarding his work.  But I'm not inclined to take his or anyone else's ideas as being the gospel either. And that goes for my own ideas as well.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Bob wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:

If a man like Hawking says something is true, you would be foolish to disregard his work.

I'm not disregarding his work.  But I'm not inclined to take his or anyone else's ideas as being the gospel either.  And that goes for my own ideas as well.
I have no problem with anyone being cautious.  It depends on the subject really.  Personally, with the Global Warming issue, I'd much rather error on the side of a cleaner environment than more of the filthy same.  Do you see a benefit to increased burning of fossil fuels?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Wordslinger wrote:

I'm really not inclined to pay attention to the findings of a man who is paid by a fuel company.  Are you?

I'm especially not inclined to pay any attention to that.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Where do science and religion overlap?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum