Science and Faith

[godix]

Unfortunately, godix, they are two distinct things. One works from actual evidence. The other works from declaring something written a longass time ago holy, and then treating that as 'evidence'.

The difference is as remarkable as a flat earth versus a round one.

I used to believe that. Then I looked into string theory some. Then I remembered it's almost impossible to research any real differences between the races without running smack into the 'black people are dumber, we can prove it' bullshit that STILL hasn't seem to fucking died. Then I see people using science to try and explain why we're here and what it's all about. Then I remember that for a long long time the church was also the most modern and scientific group in Europe. Then I paid attention to what the actual core issues of the step cell debate or abortion were.

Then I wondered what the fuck does it matter? Religion or science, whichever describes the world the closest for us is fine. Science can explain factual matters like 'what shape is the earth and does it go around the sun or vice versa' far better than religion. However religion is far better at explaining morality of social interactions than the semi-scientific game theories floating around. It takes a fanatic to claim all science is wrong and religion is the only way to go but it also takes a fanatic to claim the reverse.

[Shazzy]

Unfortunately, godix, they are two distinct things. One works from actual evidence. The other works from declaring something written a longass time ago holy, and then treating that as 'evidence'.

Err, it also stems from observation of current human interaction, purpose, and moral struggle and how it's possible for a divine creator to fit into all of that. Religion only stops at the Bible in Georgia.

[Arigatomina]

Religion only stops at the Bible in Georgia.

Indiana and Ohio, too, from my own visits to various churches in my curious youth. But it's more that religion revolves around the bible, rather than stopping at it. For every group using that book for good there are two others using it for bad. I blame the book. A third "Really New Testament" is long overdue. But who would write it? And who today would really believe the men writing it were doing it because God told them to revise the rules to fit the new generation?

No one has ever seen a single cell creature turn into a human, we have to take the theory of evolution on faith.

Nuh, uh. We have to take the specific changes on faith, like the development of the eye. We can see the big ones with our eyes. I can link you to some sites and textbooks to walk you through the known "intermediate" fossils showing animals' evolution. The same "evidence" Creationists say we haven't found. There isn't much money in digging up the earth to find fossils, we haven't been doing it very long, but we've managed to find quite a few that are clear signs animals have evolved between "kinds". Ichtyostega - Fish/Amphibian, Archaepteryx - reptile/bird, land mammals to whales, etc. That's not faith, it's fact.

Whether or not that evolution took place because of random chance (environment, mutation, survival of the fittest) or because God made it happen that way - that's up to faith. Fossils don't show us the meaty insides so we can't tell how those evolved over time. I don't expect that to change no matter how technologically advanced we get. So, yeah, why evolution happened the way it did is a matter of faith. Whether or not it happened has been proven a dozen times over. It did. Any scientist whose degree wasn't funded by a church can walk you through the evidence.

But I think even evolution is self-evident. Layman or not. Four legged animals vs human - those animals stood up. Any land animal versus birds - again they stood up only this time they learned to fly. You can see it just by going to a zoo. According to creationists those big cats are a different "kind" from your tabby and neither of them evolved from a shared ancestor. So why are they basically identical except for size?

Religions often use "self evidence" as a proof of God's existence. Walk through the forest - how could all those plants have grown so wildly diverse if not for God? Well, how could all those furry four legged animals not be proof that one furry four legged animal evolved into a whole bunch of furry four legged animals over time? It works both ways. Evolution just has the job of finding actual fossils to prove what's already self-evident. Religion takes it as a matter of course with no need to defend or prove itself.

The only time the two actually argue is when Creationists try to decide what a "kind" is, since that depends on each person's interpretation of one line in Genesis. If you define "kind" as animals/plants (and maybe insects) then Evolution and Creationism work fine together. We haven't found any fossils showing the plant/animal step of evolution because those fossils are too small for your average dinosaur hunter to find. The bible never said how God made each "kind" let alone what each "kind" was. I see no problem believing God was the force and evolution the method.

[dwchang]

This thread made me LOL.

I like how much Kalium looks like a fanatic while Godix and requiett keep owning him. For someone who hates fanatics who believe and have FAITH in something so hard...you sure look like one yourself. Just like a religious person trying to shove religion down my throat, you're doing the exact same thing here with "NOOOOO SCIENCE FTW YOU RETARD!"

LOLZ

[Jnzk]

It takes a fanatic to claim all science is wrong and religion is the only way to go but it also takes a fanatic to claim the reverse.

Godix hit the nail on the head. Extreme atheism can be just as scary as religious fundamentalism. I don't belong to church and am more like an agnostic, but I have nothing against people who hold a strong belief. As long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me.

[Beowulf]

I forget if I've posted in this thread before but here it goes:

There is a God. To not believe in a higher power is probably the ultimate arrogance.

A million monkeys pounding on a million keyboards WILL NOT produce the works of Shakespeare, and even if they did once in a bajillion years, you're dead by then, so it doesn't happen in your (see: everyone's) reality.

Evolution and Creationism are both bullshit. We are evolving and de-evolving all the time, and it has a lot more to do with society and the fluoride in your toothpaste than it does gorillas. The hammerhead shark didn't EVOLVE into a hammerhead shark people. It was made that way, or came about that way, however you want to put it. Over the corse of millennia, the NormalHead shark didn't bash its head into things as its primary means of defense.

If you can't accept that there is a TON of stuff in this world that science can't explain, you're really missing out. How about the Pyramids. People have been trying to figure that shit out for quite a while and still nothing. If I was God, and there were people walking around sincerely believing that all this incredible stuff I put together was a product of trillions of years of random chances and misfires, I would be laughing my ass off.

All you have to do is look up at the stars on a cloudless night to figure out there is a lot more to life than science.

[Otohiko]

I like how much Kalium looks like a fanatic while Godix and requiett keep owning him.

I see who owns who here in quite the reverse pattern

Funny though, since despite siding with Kalium I don't consider myself an atheist or even an agnostic; however I do have far more sympathy with his position as whatever notions of spirituality I have I arrived to mostly by critical examination which the pure atheist position is far better at generally.

Godix - I think we've established that science itself has moved past modernism; the ultra-scientific people themselves are outdated and pure scientific objectivism has been discredited. On the other hand many of the methods of inquiry still stand and in the end I think 'taking the most plausible theory', be it scientific, religious or otherwise - should be a matter of as LITTLE faith and as MUCH evidence as reasonably possible.

As far as explanations of morality - what morality?

I personally don't believe in objective morals; I do believe into some natural balances constructed into people on instinctive levels, but otherwise (through my own experience) I've observed that morals can actually be rather destructive, by virtue of being a social construct that can be reframed with relative ease. Although I consider myself fairly altruistic in nature, I personally shun the idea that people are moral by default; it cheapens the idea of good will and counteracts reason.

I think the whole starting point of the argument, and one that should be kept in focus here, is pretty simple: the matter is accepting things on faith vs. accepting things on evidence and argument; these are not mutually exclusive but my position is that the latter should always be the overriding. You may throw aside the modernist notion of objectivism, but you can't throw aside the notion of reason and critical analysis.

One reason I distance myself from the agnostic position is that it thrives in ambiguity and indecisiveness; if one takes the critical effort, I think it's ultimately possible to examine a wide range of possibilities and arrive at ones that are more logical and those that are less logical. They may be different possibilities, and I respect those who conclude otherwise than me. Last I checked though, science has not dismissed the notion of logical patterns as, if not proof, then at least an indication that something is inherently likely.

If we're talking about spirituality as a personal construct in reasonable terms, then there's no reason it should be dismissed. Religion is a completely different matter.

[Beowulf]

rofl, Otohiko is a True Neutral.

/dnd

[Arigatomina]

How about the Pyramids. People have been trying to figure that shit out for quite a while and still nothing.

Um, that one was solved a year or two ago. They did it by using the wind. Think of kites and rollers. I don't remember which journal it was published in, but it was big news a while back. They even uncovered the paths they used to bring the stones in and the times when the wind was best for the work. I'm sure there's a book out on it by now.

[godix]

So, yeah, why evolution happened the way it did is a matter of faith. Whether or not it happened has been proven a dozen times over. It did.

There is a theory that god created everything just the way it is now and seeded fossils in the rock to throw us off the correct answer. There is another theory that micro-evolution is true but macro-evolution is not so god made one type of cat which went through changes to produce all the felines we see now. As for the missing link fossils, a depressingly large number of the ancient animals we know about are postulated from a single very incomplete skeleton. When scientists have a skull, thighbone, and one or two ribs they do the best they can but can you really say they have enough to actually prove anything? Now personally I do believe in evolution and I do know more of the facts behind it that the vast majority of believers, however my point is that evolution is not the only possibility to explain the world we see today. Unless there's someone around that can honestly say 'Yeah, I remember the day when the amoeba grew legs and walked out of the ocean...' then evolution is a theory. And not even a well established theory like gravity, it's a theory that's undergone a lot of changes and appears that it will go through more.

Godix - I think we've established that science itself has moved past modernism; the ultra-scientific people themselves are outdated and pure scientific objectivism has been discredited. On the other hand many of the methods of inquiry still stand and in the end I think 'taking the most plausible theory', be it scientific, religious or otherwise - should be a matter of as LITTLE faith and as MUCH evidence as reasonably possible.

Now that's a statement I can agree with and fairly accurately sums up my views. Sadly some feel that pure scientific objectivism is still alive and is the only way to view the world.

I personally don't believe in objective morals

I never said anything about objective morals. I just said morality. I'm fully well aware that almost anything society considers immoral now has at least one civilization in history that considered it perfectly moral. I do note there has never been a society through history that doesn't have some sort of morality through. A sense of 'right' and 'wrong' seem to be built into humans although what actions are considered right and wrong changes. Do I agree with those morals? Sometimes. I think the 'thou shall not kill' rule is a pretty damn good idea while the 'hate homosexuals' rule is destructive, unfair, and just wrong. But overall my morality, and almost everyone elses except for true psychopaths, is shaped largely by my society which in turn is largely shaped by religion. Thus religion is far more influencal in morality and is a far better viewpoint to looking and judging morals.