Do religion and science attempt to show the same thing?

[bhsmte]

It has nothing to do with personal preference. This is the answer to the OP's question as defined by a member of a religion. I speak only for Christianity which defines morality as objectively defined by God. In fact the example that I used was a rough paraphrase by Richard Dawkins. He is the one who suggests that science explains and religion defines good and evil (morality). By definition, morality is the determinate between right and wrong, good and evil. To state a standard of good and evil, it requires a law giver and for the Christian's worldview, the law giver is God. If one denies that there is a God to determine good from evil then one denies that there is such a thing as good and evil.

Well, I don't use religion to determine what is good or bad, I use my brain.

You can use religion if it suits you though.

 

[bhsmte]

by its very definition "morality" is not, its not subjective. One might live moral, or immorally (I don't think anyone is consistently moral), but immorality is not a morality.

You'll find variations between cultures but not total differences - you'll not find a culture where it is morally good to steal, and everyone goes around stealing.

Determining what is moral or not, is indeed, subjective.

I will say this though, if you took 100 Christians and 100 atheists and gave them 100 real life circumstances and asked them what was moral and what wasn't, they would likely agree on most things.

The other thing is, if you took two groups of Christians of the same size, they would also agree on most things, but not on all.

 

[bhsmte]

Testimony (the Old and New Testaments) - and the world around me. Genesis speaks of creation according to kind, and that is what I observe, see around me - plants, birds, insects, fish, mammals, humans. Nothing in the creation account is contradicted by what I see.

You on your own admission say you believed for forty years so what evidence convinced you to cease - other than the influence of non-believers and what evidence did they put up.

Who are you talking to?

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is incredible, either you are here to debate and acknowledge what results say or you just want to find a line or sentence.

No, I think you'll find that it is you who is cherrypicking data.

The article said three of the most rigourous studies lent support to the efficacy of prayer.

No, it said that a 2003 meta-study said something like that. However, "In all three, "the strongest findings were for the variables that were evaluated most subjectively. This raises concerns about the possible inadvertent unmasking of the outcomes assessors. Moreover, the absence of a clearly plausible biological mechanism by which such a treatment could influence hard medical outcome results in the inclination to be skeptical of results." This 2003 review was performed before the 2005 MANTRA study and the 2006 STEP project, neither of which were conclusive in establishing the efficacy of prayer."

And to quote the actual study, rather than the wikipedia article.

Well, this is an actual study. There are several meta-studies, but you chose the one most favorable to your case.

Practitioners who adhere to Division 12 criteria have
little basis for using intercessory prayer

That seems pretty clear. Professional evidence-based guidelines do not support prayer as an intervention.

, in spite of
a meta-analysis indicating small, but significant, effect
sizes for the use of intercessory prayer.

But let's see what this most-favorable-to-your-case meta-study says about rigor.

"Conversely, in 10 of the studies, prayer was unassoci-
ated with positive improvement in the condition of clients.
In addition, in many of the studies in which significant
results were obtained, the results were not uniformly pos-
itive across outcome variables. For instance, in the Byrd
(1988) study, only six positive outcomes were recorded
among 26 specific problem conditions. This type of incon-
sistent pattern raises the possibility of Type I errors.
Individual assessment also revealed nonsignificant
findings among some of the most methodologically rig-
orous studies. Studies by Benson et al. (2006) and
Krucoff et al. (2005) employed a multicenter random-
ized methodology with relatively large sample sizes. Yet
both studies failed to produce significant findings."

As the Wikipedia article correctly noted: "The review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies had failed to produce significant findings."

 

[dms1972]

No, I think you'll find that it is you who is cherrypicking data.

LOL, you hardly can claim to have dealt with the subject fairly in your summary. Give a onesided summary and you can expect someone to bring up the other side you skipt over.

 

[dms1972]

Well, this is an actual study. There are several meta-studies, but you chose the one most favorable to your case.

No, I had no idea I whether it would be favorable (on the summary it would not), I simply checked the study own conclusion against the wikipedia summary sentence. That is I looked up the footnote to the sentence you quoted.

 

[dms1972]

You on your own admission say you believed for forty years so what evidence convinced you to cease - other than the influence of non-believers and what evidence did they put up.[/quote]

who are you talking to

You, as it was you who asked the question - if I have mixed you up with someone else I apologise - I recall someone replying repeatedly to posts of mine sometime ago, saying they had been a christian for forty years.

 

[bhsmte]

You on your own admission say you believed for forty years so what evidence convinced you to cease - other than the influence of non-believers and what evidence did they put up.

You, as it was you who asked the question - if I have mixed you up with someone else I apologise - I recall someone replying repeatedly to posts of mine sometime ago, saying they had been a christian for forty years.[/QUOTE]

The reply button works pretty well.

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[dms1972]

Normally it does, thanks for the reminder to use it.

 

[dms1972]

Determining what is moral or not, is indeed, subjective.

I will say this though, if you took 100 Christians and 100 atheists and gave them 100 real life circumstances and asked them what was moral and what wasn't, they would likely agree on most things.

The other thing is, if you took two groups of Christians of the same size, they would also agree on most things, but not on all.

I think of morality as objective-subjective, its a given, a moral order thats there. But some step outside the Tao I suppose to make their own 'rules' but that is not a morality.

 

[bhsmte]

No I think its better to understand morality as objective-subjective, its a given. But some step outside the Tao I suppose to make their own 'rules' but that is not a morality.

Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The actual Pope is (like) a hypnotist working with allegorical super-scripts affecting the collective parameters of the social subconsicous, and interpersonal belief and imagination. Like a film director working from the inside. And he is a cognitive emanation of St John the Evangelist, Jesus and Plato....

Enter Dawkins "Its all a 'bout genes actually".

Enter The Hunger Games.

Enter a flower in the park.


This is somewhere in between:

 

[DogmaHunter]

But if it were not for the graviton fairies, would not everything on Earth spin off into space?

Ow please....
If there are graviton fairies, then why do hammers not fall down in the space station?
Checkmate!

 

[DogmaHunter]

I did clarify, I first asked the other user if he would give me an example to see how he used the terms himself.
Whats the problem?

There is no problem. I just found it curious that you first brought something up and then refused to clarify it.

ANd what makes you think you need to intervene, are you an unofficial moderator, debate faciliator, or what exactly?

I'm a user on a public forum, replying to a public post on said public forum.

Some of us are not concerned about winning a debate so much as clarity about what we are talking about and understanding each other.

I'm one of those people. Hence why I ask for clarification.

You are so defensive that you can't tell a thread that is a debate from one that is merely trying to clarify an issue, and ask a question.

lol.... My complaint was about the fact that you refused to clarify the very point that you brought up, and instead tried to answer a question with another question.

But whatever....

 

[DogmaHunter]

That you can't answer, or don't like the answers doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

No, that's not what the point is at all.

The point is about how loaded questions are invalid questions.

You understand that, right?

The "why" questions you speak of, are question that ask about what the purpose is of something. These questions are loaded: they assume a purpose even exists to begin with. Which is an assumption something that isn't supported/justified. At all.

It's like asking "what tool do you use to hit your wife?" - without actually first justifying the assumption that the wife is being hit at all!

There is nothing wrong with asking.

Off course not. But there is something wrong with loading questions with unjustified assumptions!

Its those that try to stop people asking or ridicule those who do as some atheists do who are the dogmatists and brainwashers. Atheists who are against dogma should begin by stamping out the psuedo-dogmas in their own circles.

If you ask invalid questions, I'm going to point that out.
Sorry if you can't comprehend that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Testimony (the Old and New Testaments)

Testimony? Really?

Here, I'll demonstrate to you just how reliable "testimony" is...

http://www.innocenceproject.org/cas...#c10=published&b_start=0&c4=Exonerated+by+DNA

Look at the causes of why these people were falsely convicted. The overwhelming majority: testimony and so-called "eyewitnesses".

How was it then shown that these people weren't actually guilty?
Actual evidence.

- and the world around me

Could you narrow it down a bit and be a bit more specific?
What exactly about the "world around you" and how?

Genesis speaks of creation according to kind, and that is what I observe, see around me - plants, birds, insects, fish, mammals, humans. Nothing in the creation account is contradicted by what I see.

You mean besides plants existing before the sun? Day and night existing before the sun? The order being completely wrong? Having no account at all for what actually happens in biology?

So because you can find a few vague quotes left and right that "somewhat" fit what we observe - therefor the entire book is correct to every possible degree?

By that logic, Spiderman is real and lives in New York because New York exists.

You on your own admission say you believed for forty years so what evidence convinced you to cease - other than the influence of non-believers and what evidence did they put up.

I can't speak for him.
However, most people I encounter give as reason that they just realised that they weren't really justified to believe what they believe.

That, in combination with the things we actually know from science and how it's not really compatible with their religious views.

Usually, it's not just "one thing" that "turns" a theist.
It's a process of diminishing beliefs till they realise that there's nothing left.
It's not a black and white world.

I know people who identify themselves as christians but who would agree with me a lot more then they would with a plenty of christians on this site.

 

[DogmaHunter]

by its very definition "morality" is not, its not subjective. One might live moral, or immorally (I don't think anyone is consistently moral), but immorality is not a morality.

What is subjective is what people call "moral".

It's not hard to see if you put in a little effort.
Try to come up with 5 things that were considered moral or morally neutral just a few centuries ago that are considered barbarically immoral today.

I'm sure you don't need more then 5 minutes to come up with such a list.
Even today, it's plain to see. What is "moral" on one side of the world can be considered immoral on the other side of the world.

You'll find variations between cultures but not total differences - you'll not find a culture where it is morally good to steal, and everyone goes around stealing.

Because the word "stealing" is already loaded with an immoral factor.
Just like the word "murder" is.

Indeed "murder" is bad everywhere. Because it literally means the "unjustified" killing of someone.

There are certainly instances where one culture will consider a killing bad while another might not. That other culture will NOT be calling that killing "murder".

The same goes for the word "stealing".[/QUOTE]

 

[essentialsaltes]

No, I had no idea I whether it would be favorable (on the summary it would not), I simply checked the study own conclusion against the wikipedia summary sentence. That is I looked up the footnote to the sentence you quoted.

From the Wiki article.

"Various, broader meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect.. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that "There is no scientifically discernable effect for intercessory prayer as assessed in controlled studies".[1] However, a 2007 systemic review of 17 intercessory prayer studies found "small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer" in 7 studies"

You didn't look at the 2006 study, or the 'various studies', you went to the 2007 study that had at least some positive results to report in 7 of 17 cases. Though yes, ultimately that study reported that prayer did not meet the professional "criteria for evidence-based practice".

 

[golgotha61]

Ok...

To be fair though, you don't know if Jesus was resurrected anymore than a buddhist knows buddha achieved nirvana/total enlightenment, or anymore than muslims know Mohammed spoke with god.

So basically, you're just assuming that you have the truth in Christ and basing your morality on that.

The witness of the biblical accounts of His resurrection supports the claim of that resurrection. Studies in the various biblical criticisms and secular investigations into the truthfulness of the resurrection accounts have not been able to successfully falsify the resurrection accounts. For many, these investigations have helped in convincing scholars that the Bible is truthful. Further, if the body of Christ can be produced or if its disappearance can be proven to be orchestrated by man, I will join you in your rejection of God’s existence and His authority over mankind. Until then, I follow faith that is rooted in reason and logic.

There are three tests that I use for determining truth which Ravi Zacharias outlines in his lectures:

1. Logical consistency.

2. Empirical adequacy.

3. Experiential relevance.

Logical consistency

Nothing in the physical universe can explain its own existence, i.e., something does not come from nothing. In order for there to be something (and there is), there must be at least one state that is self-existent and does not derive its existence from something else. And it must be nonphysical. This does not posit God, it posits a nonphysical entity that explains its own existence and is uncaused.

Empirical adequacy

The raw materials that have resulted in the universe as we have it have been simultaneously brought together in an amazing array of combinations. Combinations that are to amazing to have happened by accident. This is the argument to design.

Experiential consistency

The Biblical narratives in the New Testament reveal why Jesus was who He claimed to be and is followed by millions. A comparison of Jesus, Mohammad, Krishna (no evidence for a true existence), Buddha, and Mahavira show the extreme differences in their claims and demonstrations. Only one, Christ, ever claimed to be divine. For the follower of Christ the fact that the universe is not self-existent, plus the obvious intelligence embedded in the universe, and the experiential verification of what Jesus taught and did, make belief in Him a very rational and existentially fulfilling reality.