Conflict between religion and science

[essentialsaltes]

Typical. No meat simply attack.

It's hard to respect you when you dodge an explanation of how evolution can be both a fact and a theory.

I take it you are a scientist then. What is your field of expertise?

As others have already noted, your misunderstandings can be combatted with a high school understanding of science.

However, to satisfy your curiosity, my degrees are in physics, though I am not a working scientist.

 

[Cearbhall]

Well duhhh. You don't recognize a jab when you see it. Sit where I'm sitting taking jabs from all you guys with degrees in motel management.

Oh goodness, you're trying to turn this into a debate between people with higher education in relevant fields and people with less education. I'm afraid that isn't going to work in your favor. You won't find very many scientists who agree with you.

 

[Davian]

I doubt seriously if I know what semiconductor theory is since I am an electrical engineer. Why don't you explain it for me? I'm all ears.

I am not here to provide you with an education. Let's make it more general: Are "theories" of any value to the world? What do you think you do with them?

Just to make it perfectly clear since you appear unable to complete such calculations, the odds are 1 in 10 to the power of 340million.
In other words, a total mathematical impossibility. You may prove my figure wrong should you wish to try.

I have already pointed out the fallacy you have invoked here. The thing with theories is, that to falsify then, you must first understand them.

 

[Davian]

He reveals himself!

Yeah, we're done here. The definition and role of a theory is middle school material, so if we can't agree on that, there's nothing productive that can be stated here. I'm glad I'm getting a quality education.

 

[Davian]

Typical. No meat simply attack. Anyone with any sense could readily see that by being an electrical engineer that I certainly knew about semiconductors. I just wanted to see it he did, which I doubt.
...

Why did you then not answer my question? Is semiconductor theory "only a theory"?

 

[Davian]

The general approach for those who don’t believe in a Creator,

How many people does Jack Wellman know, that he can make a blanket statement like this?

... the argument or theory is an equation: Space + Time + Chance = Everything. How can, in what in reality is, 0 + 0 + 0 = everything!? The space did not cause matter to come into existence, nor did time. Neither can chance influence or create events. Can being come from non-being… spontaneous generation of matter from nothing? Can chance actually do anything or cause something to happen? No. Chance is only the likelihood of something occurring. There must first come “cause” before an effect can occur. - Jack Wellman

Is Jack Wellman an astrophysicist?

 

[Davian]

Cast your stones and vent your hatred boys.

You should be careful not to project your feelings on to others.

This old engineer is in excellent company:

Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895), the father of antibiotics was a godly Catholic; Gregor Mendel (1822-!884), the discoverer of genes was a Catholic creationist; Joseph Lister (1827 - 1912), the father of antiseptics was a devout Quaker; Michael Faraday (1791 - 1857), discoverer of electromagnetic induction was a Sandemanian Presbyterian; George Washington Carver (1864 - 1963), a famous black scientist, and one of the greatest botanists and inventors to ever live was a god-worshipping Christian. I have heard that George Washington Carver once asked God to teach him everything he knows. God answered, "I can't do that, but I will teach you everything about the peanut." Wernher von Braun (1912 - 1977), the father of rocket science was a Christian and a Creationist; Max Planck (1858 - 1947), a great physicist, was a Christian who firmly believed that God permeated everything; Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) was a God- believing Jew who also loved the New Testament; Antoine Henri Becquerel (1852 – 1908), the discoverer of radioactivity was a Catholic; and tens of thousands of other contributors to science and technology believed in God. Where would technology be today if it were not for Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Joseph Lister, George Washington Carver, Werner von Braun, Max Planck, Albert Einstein and thousands of other famous Intelligent Design - believing scientists and their religious beliefs? If these scientists had been taught evolution and atheism in our public schools, what would have happened to their intense belief in an Intelligent Designer that caused them to inquire how things work?

Did this people wear pants? It is my understanding that that was common to many of the world's great scientists. It may be that their successes were in spite of their religious beliefs; none of them ever came up with objective evidence for gods, correct?

Are you just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks?

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

I am not here to provide you with an education. Let's make it more general: Are "theories" of any value to the world? What do you think you do with them?


I have already pointed out the fallacy you have invoked here. The thing with theories is, that to falsify then, you must first understand them.

Your first sentence is a cop out and you and I both know it.
Yes theories have a place in the world. I have been exposed to both the electron theory and the conventional flow theory and guess what? It makes absolutely no difference, they both accomplish exactly the same results.

In answer to the fallacy you claim to have proven, I claim BS again. My belief in intelligent design has more of a probability than does your happenstance theory.

Even Albert Einstein believed in intelligent design though an atheist. You are more intelligent than he I suppose?

 

[Cearbhall]

My belief in intelligent design has more of a probability than does your happenstance theory.

Even Albert Einstein believed in intelligent design though an atheist. You are more intelligent than he I suppose?

You realize that intelligent design is evolution, right? The only difference is the idea that there was an intelligent being who directed the process with a goal in mind. However, it's impossible to measure the probability of a higher power, so I'm not sure how you aim to prove it with math.

I listed a number of scientists who were Christians and you disputed none on the list.

Why would I? They made wonderful contributions to science despite the relative lack of scientific knowledge in their societies.

 

[Davian]

Stay on subject. Your assignment is to refute my math.

I do not fault your math. You have failed to show how it applies to actual evolutionary theory.

Which brings us back to your understanding of "facts" and "theories".

Answer me this: Is it a fact that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Cast your stones and vent your hatred boys. This old engineer is in excellent company:

You seem to be confusing criticism for hatred.

 

[WindStaff]

I suppose atheists don't comprehend the Apocalypse of John. The Revelation, brother- our God has given you a direct threat- you have known your master. You either believe or disbelieve, but what are you going to do when John's prophecies come?
Many have forgotten about that. The feast of crows, when they feed on your bodies_
The Lord literally speaks of ending yo self.

Good luck with that

 

[Cearbhall]

I suppose atheists don't comprehend the Apocalypse of John. The Revelation, brother- our God has given you a direct threat- you have known your master. You either believe or disbelieve, but what are you going to do when John's prophecies come?
Many have forgotten about that. The feast of crows, when they feed on your bodies_
The Lord literally speaks of ending yo self.

Good luck with that

Everything about this post is going to puzzle me for the rest of the night.

 

[Davian]

I suppose atheists don't comprehend the Apocalypse of John. The Revelation, brother- our God has given you a direct threat- you have known your master. You either believe or disbelieve, but what are you going to do when John's prophecies come?
Many have forgotten about that. The feast of crows, when they feed on your bodies_
The Lord literally speaks of ending yo self.

Good luck with that

Do you have a date for that?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I find that some people on here argue that there is no true conflict between religion and science.

I think there is and it can be packaged quite neatly:

"Religious thinking demands unchanging belief while scientific thinking demands the ability to change your beliefs"

That's the crux of it all. The scientific mindset demands us to be able to evaluate a situation and change our mind if new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves. There can be no "commitment" in science.

The religious mindset demands commitment, does it not? Can you be a "tentative Christian" who is only Christian until new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves? To me, that is not the picture that the Bible paints.

Science is simply observing, studying and experimenting to learn how the natural world works. Christianity is a worldview that among other things, claims God created all that has been created and that He has made Himself known to us chiefly in the person of His Son Jesus.

One is a belief system, one is a method of learning about nature. What is required to be a Christian? To believe on the Lord Jesus. What is required to do science? Looking at things in nature and finding out how they work.

If we were to name off some of the well known scientists of the past and present, we would find not a few were/ are Christians.

Are some systems of belief inherently unconducive to science? Sure. I can think of several. Christianity is not one of them. In fact, Christianity is the one major world religion that is most conducive to science. Once again the history of western/modern science bears this out.

Just because one is committed to something it does not follow that they are thinking unscientifically. If that were the case, then scientists who are committed to doing science would not be thinking scientifically which is absurd. This demonstrates why your argument is a non-sequitur.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Science is simply observing, studying and experimenting to learn how the natural world works. Christianity is a worldview that among other things, claims God created all that has been created and that He has made Himself known to us chiefly in the person of His Son Jesus.

One is a belief system, one is a method of learning about nature. What is required to be a Christian? To believe on the Lord Jesus. What is required to do science? Looking at things in nature and finding out how they work.

If we were to name off some of the well known scientists of the past and present, we would find not a few were/ are Christians.

The claim isn't that scientists cannot be Christians or that Christians cannot be scientists, but that a religious mindset and a scientific mindset differ on some fundamental level. That an individual can flexibly go from one to another, depending on the situation, is not at issue here.

Are some systems of belief inherently unconducive to science? Sure. I can think of several. Christianity is not one of them. In fact, Christianity is the one major world religion that is most conducive to science. Once again the history of western/modern science bears this out.

It only bears this out if you ignore those parts of history that indicate otherwise.

Just because one is committed to something it does not follow that they are thinking unscientifically. If that were the case, then scientists who are committed to doing science would not be thinking scientifically which is absurd. This demonstrates why your argument is a non-sequitur.

You are confusing the point. The suggestion is not that merely being committed to an idea is unscientific; it is that being absolutely committed, without reason sufficient to warrant that level of commitment, is not in keeping with a scientific mindset.

 

[God's Child]

Mod Hat On​

This thread has undergone a clean up due to the violation of the flaming rule. This rule states:​

Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. ​

If you noticed a post of yours missing, it was removed in the clean up. Please remember to stick with the original topic and not to flame. Thank you and may you have a nice day.​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It only bears this out if you ignore those parts of history that indicate otherwise.

What parts are you referring to?

You are confusing the point. The suggestion is not that merely being committed to an idea is unscientific; it is that being absolutely committed, without reason sufficient to warrant that level of commitment, is not in keeping with a scientific mindset.

I can agree with the above but I don't think that is what the person who started this thread had in mind.

It seems to me they are bringing up the whole "science and religion are irreconcilable enemies of one another" argument which is simply absurd and a position that has been all but abandoned by those in the academy who in the past tried to argue it. You still have a few holdouts, Dawkins comes to mind, but even many of those who could once be found singing his praises have left his side ever since his dogmatic militant atheism has been seen for what it is, little more than the fundamentalism he spends so much of his time ranting and raving against. He just happens to be on the other side of the fence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What parts are you referring to?

Just off the top of my head, Galileo comes to mind.

I can agree with the above but I don't think that is what the person who started this thread had in mind.

It seems to me they are bringing up the whole "science and religion are irreconcilable enemies of one another" argument which is simply absurd and a position that has been all but abandoned by those in the academy who in the past tried to argue it. You still have a few holdouts, Dawkins comes to mind, but even many of those who could once be found singing his praises have left his side ever since his dogmatic militant atheism has been seen for what it is, little more than the fundamentalism he spends so much of his time ranting and raving against. He just happens to be on the other side of the fence.

You are once again confusing the issue, solely for the purpose of taking a stab at Dawkins it seems. The argument is that scientific and religious mindsets differ on a fundamental level, not that science and religion are necessarily enemies (although, in some cases, they certainly are). This is not a new idea, and not one that has been "abandoned," contrary to what you claim.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Just off the top of my head, Galileo comes to mind.

I asked you what I did in the hopes that you would come up with something other than the Galileo affair.

While I wait for you to furnish me with examples of those parts of history that indicate Christianity was a hindrance to scientific progress, I will ask that you explain why you think the Galileo affair was an instance where Christianity hindered science.

You are once again confusing the issue, solely for the purpose of taking a stab at Dawkins it seems. The argument is that scientific and religious mindsets differ on a fundamental level, not that science and religion are necessarily enemies (although, in some cases, they certainly are). This is not a new idea, and not one that has been "abandoned," contrary to what you claim.

Certain religious mindsets are indeed antagonistic and unconducive towards science. I already stated this.

Religion seeks to answer the fundamental questions posed by sentient human beings. Science is one of several methods at the disposal of said beings which allows them to acquire knowledge of the natural world in which they exist. Some religions are inherently unconducive to this method. They may stress for instance that there is no need to engage in scientific pursuits due to the fact that the natural world can never really be understood for what it is. They may stress that nature is sacred and must not be profaned by inordinate curiosity and spurious experimentation. They may stress, as many animist religions which still exist in Africa, that nature should be feared and worshiped and never subjected to the prying eyes and inquisitive minds of mere mortals.

These views and those like them are conspicuously absent from the views presented to us in the New Testament. In the latter we have an omnipotent, omniscient Creator bringing into existence a natural world of order and beauty with a specific end in mind. We have a loving Creator creating man in His own image and likeness and who is the one upholding and sustaining all that is by His mighty power. We have order, we have purpose, we have meaning, we have intention, and we have God back of it all who is the very grounds for the justification for what we call "induction" in the first place.

It was the Judeo-Christian worldview that functioned as the womb wherein modern science as we know it was birthed and it was Christians who believed that there was a world of order and beauty that existed outside of themselves sustained by an unchanging God that were the catalysts for the spread of this thing we call science.

In fact sir, science is only possible for the one whose worldview can account for this grounding of induction.

So it is for good cause that when we hear atheists claim they do not believe in God we simply smile and recall what Paul says in Romans 1.

Anytime anyone uses inductive reasoning, they are assuming God exists. This means that everyone assumes God exists because everyone uses inductive reasoning. God has made life in such a way that reasoning itself is evidence of His existence. God is literally undeniable.