Whey do science & religion have to be at odds with one another?

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, the problem isn't in science or in religion -- it's in people on both sides who use one or the other for the purpose of elevating themselves.

Science, as any education, has the potential to be misused, and manipulated by an elitist majority. Knowledge is power, and there are plenty of people who want more power.

Religion has attracted the weak and impotent who wish to feel less weak and impotent. To think that the omnipotent creator of the universe will rewrite reality to suit your prayers is quite the ego boost.

So really, who's to blame?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, if only the Creationists would realize this.

Why?

I've been saying that for almost four years here, and it means nothing to you guys.

I've even come up with two challenges that support absolutely no evidence for the Creation Event, and what do you guys want to do?

Argue it!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why?

I've been saying that for almost four years here, and it means nothing to you guys.

Saying it and being sincere about it are two different things.

I've even come up with two challenges that support absolutely no science for the Creation Event, and what do you guys want to do?

Argue it!

Because lacking evidence, you're left with nothing but your own character as a witness.

Someone needs to break it to you -- gently -- how little that counts for around here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Religion has attracted the weak and impotent who wish to feel less weak and impotent.

You might want to check your history books on that one.

Those who marched out in the name of religion marched much farther than those who didn't.

The Muslims come to mind here --- Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great being exceptions.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You might want to check your history books on that one.

Those who marched out in the name of religion marched much farther than those who didn't.

The Muslims come to mind here --- Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great being exceptions.

The weak and impotent find strength in numbers -- thank you, AV -- for proving my point for me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Saying it and being sincere about it are two different things.

Are you admitting you can't tell the difference with me?

Because lacking evidence, you're left with nothing but your own character as a witness.

Um ... who's lacking the evidence?

You, me, or both of us?

Someone needs to break it to you -- gently -- how little that counts for around here.

Go right ahead, you're demonstrating how much you're missing its point.

 

[AV1611VET]

The weak and impotent find strength in numbers -- thank you, AV -- for proving my point for me.

Try again.

The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you admitting you can't tell the difference with me?

Nope -- I just assume that in any thread you involve yourself in, your main goal is to lash out at whatever threatens to draw attention away from you, and thus, make you seem less important.

Saves time -- and thus far, you've never disappointed.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Try again.

The weak and impotent get a boost by being God's special people -- I never said there was only one way, AV.

 

[Freodin]

You guys realize what you're demonstrating, don't you?

Have you ever heard of Diabolical Plagiarism or Diabolical Mimicry?

Yes... so why do you insist on using it? Why do you keep on using the diabolical plagiats?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes... so why do you insist on using it? Why do you keep on using the diabolical plagiats?

As I recall, the last time AV used these terms, he used them wrong.

A part of me is morbidly curious to see if he ever bothered to acknowledge -- let alone correct -- his error.

 

[DiabeticDude]

1

To which question is that an answer for? Since it's definitely not to mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

To which question is that an answer for? Since it's definitely not to mine.

Then allow me to explain.

There is no evidence --- that is the nature of creatio ex nihilo.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Then allow me to explain.

There is no evidence --- that is the nature of creatio ex nihilo.

Indeed. That is exactly why Brahma exists. He left no evidence at all. He is the God of creation after all, commanded to create the world by Vishnu. I think therefore we can all agree that Hinduism is correct.

 

[anyman]

Why do science & religion have to be at odds with one another?
The story of creation is vague & excludes detail. God created man from the dust of the earth & time is something entirely different to God than it is to man. If you accept both of those ideas then they are not at odds with science. If Genesis laid out all the details, would its origional readers really be able to grasp them? Is it possible that it used timeless language for all generations? No matter how the universe came to be, there will always be that first domino that fell & started everything. Just a thought.

A good reference for my origianal post is "Summa Of Theology" by St Thomas Auinas.

The section titled The Cause Of Existing: God
I left it out because I was trying to be breif. If your not farmiliar with the text, the bottom line is that everything has a first cause. Nothing can call itself into existance. Example a stone can't throw itself. If you believe the big bang theory what caused the big bang. Aquinas believed that if you went back to the first cause, no matter what it was, you find God. God created man from the dust of the earth in a day. We have the raw ingrediants, but not the recipe he used. Later we find out that to God a day is a thousand years & draw the conclusion that time is relative. Hope that helps. I like the house analogy though.

 

[Cabal]

You guys realize what you're demonstrating, don't you?

Have you ever heard of Diabolical Plagiarism or Diabolical Mimicry?

It's not about mimicry, it's making a point.

Which appears to not have been grasped...

 

[anyman]

One other way of looking at things it that science explains how and religion explains why. Problems start when people confuse the two.

Well Put!

 

[jayem]

There would be gray areas of course; how would you categorize 'love', for instance?

I'm going off topic here, but love is most certainly a natural phenomenon. There is evidence from animal studies that pair bonding is promoted by oxytocin, which is produced in the hypothamalmus and released by the pituitary. Interesting article here. (Of course, this hormone is also what triggers labor and it likely promotes maternal bonding to the baby.)

Point is, the feeling we call love is surely produced by neurochemical activity in the brain. We don't yet understand it fully, but there's nothing supernatural about it.

 

[anyman]

I'm going off topic here, but love is most certainly a natural phenomenon. There is evidence from animal studies that pair bonding is promoted by oxytocin, which is produced in the hypothamalmus and released by the pituitary. (Of course, this hormone is also what triggers labor and it likely promotes maternal bonding to the baby.)

Point is, the feeling we call love is surely produced by neurochemical activity in the brain. We don't yet understand it fully, but there's nothing supernatural about it.

That's a good example. You can believe that God is love & that God created us to express & receive Love. A scientific explanation of how we physicaly perceive love is oxytocin. You can accept that as fact but still believe that love transends our perception. You can also believe that God designed our physical bodies & used oxytocin for that purpose. it goes back to the previous statement that science is how & religion why.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Indeed. That is exactly why Brahma exists. He left no evidence at all. He is the God of creation after all, commanded to create the world by Vishnu. I think therefore we can all agree that Hinduism is correct.

No, no, no... It's Iggy the Magic Elf!