The Problem with Science Vs Religion Debates

[chibiq]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

So what do Christians have to work with? The Old Testament books, handed down for a good few millennia, then the New Testament, added when the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled, and closed the book that we now know as the Bible. The only thing Christians have to work with is interpretation of this one piece of data that is never going to change.

Science, philosophy, and things of that sort, on the other hand, are subject to change at a moment's notice. Any scientist will tell you that the very nature of science is unbound, able to shake the very foundation of everything we know with the findings of even an amateur, an elementary school student, who accidentally digs up a fossil with his plastic shovel and pail. Science, therefore, is also open to interpretation, but it is also free from the restraint of dogma.

So, if in a week or year or millennia, if science happens to find out that Christians were telling the truth the whole time, that our beliefs were indeed correct, science can't be faulted for being "wrong". It's the nature of science to change, so being wrong is only a part of its (good lord give me a better word..) evolution (doh. ).

So we have two sides. One that stands on a firm foundation, unchanging, and another that's like a bottle in the ocean, taking it whichever way the current or wind is going.

As a matter of fact, if you look at it in the technical aspect, you have numerous different sides, because scientists almost never agree 100% with each other's interpretations. So you have these many different sides that are able to morph into anything the latest tidbit of data throws to them versus the one lonesome side that must defend themselves with a book at was finished almost 2000 years ago. How fair does that really seem to you?

Atheists expect Christians to have the answers to every nitpicked fault they find in Christianity that pertains to science, and it's just plain unreasonable. Not only that, they expect the answers on the fly, or else they crank their insult machine up and go to town.

How fair are these arguments that science keeps bringing up, when they know themselves the facts they're arguing with can change at any minute?

[Beto]

I offer no need for a prime mover any more than I offer a need for a skunk.

There exists a skunk. There exists a prime mover. No need to complicate things.

Sure there is. Don't you think that's a rather weak analogy (I'm hoping sfs doesn't read this, and starts saying I'm seeing weak analogies everywhere...)? Why compare a skunk, with all the available evidence to support its existence, with a prime mover, and humanity's need for either?

[Rathpig]

This is circular reasoning, if we postulate no prime mover, we raise the question of what moved the matter and energy. Unknowns or unexplained remain with or without a prime mover. Elimination of a prime mover solves no problem. Acceptance of a prime mover solves no problem. That which is, simply is.

And this is where you are confused in your cosmology and your understanding of evidence.

"The prime mover" is a meaningless construct. Your reasoning is where the circular ideas begin.

Evidence exists that energy and matter are neither created or destroyed. Evidence exists that hydrogen in mass forms more complex molecules through known actions within physics. The burden of proof for my explanation is found in any physics textbook.

You have postulated a "prime mover" that has no basis in reality. Moreover you have not even attempted to support your thesis beyond the inane idea that it is intuitive to you personally therefore it must be reality.

Your "prime mover" is as much a mythical construct as the Christian "God" or any other deity. Because you propose an entity that exists outside of known physics, the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders. A Deist has no more support in science than someone who proposes a pink unicorn or perhaps a skunk as their deity.

Deism is just another emotional attachment to mythology.

[BeHereNow]

Jahawker Soule

Is I say Zen is anything, I have misrepresented it.
In Zen one seeks to become ‘one with all’, ‘within, rather than outside’, to ‘understand what it important to understand’, to have ‘full realization’. This only comes through mental awareness, attained intuitively. Zen masters have attained this and have been willing to transfer this to their students. Because this understanding is beyond reason, rationality, or materialism, transference is very difficult.

In effect, the master’s task is to lead the way for the student to realize intuitive proof.

Because intuitive proof is a very personal experience, it is unique with each student, and not all masters are able to bring all students to this intuitive awareness.

If this transference occurs, the intuitive proof is accepted by both individuals.
Others may have had similar awakenings, but they can never be exactly the same.
It is objective truth, experienced on a subjective level.

This is also what science tries to do. It tries to present the ultimate, objective, unvarnished truth, to the individual, who is always wearing tinted glasses, realizing objective truth through subjective senses and thoughts.

Some will say it often succeeds.
I would agree.
Science does it one piece at time.
Satori does it all at once, instantaneously.
Most would say science is the more productive of the two, others might disagree.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Beto

I would say man needs neither.
I would say some men think they need one or both.
I do not know if we agree.

[BeHereNow]

Raithpig

If a Deist makes the claim for a prime creator, who gets to decide what is acceptable evidence?

If an atheist makes the claim for eternal existence, without a prime creator, who gets to decide what is acceptable evidence?

[realthinker]

I was thinking of a hypothetical situation where everyone accepts the proof that "God" doesn't exist, just to see to what extent religion is really necessary in people's lives. Basically what I'm trying to convey is that people are "good" because it's beneficial to society, and thus, to the individuals. No one needs "God" to be good. It's an evolutionary trait. So is "evil", as a means for self-preservation, and a "Satan" is also not required. I think "good" people would be just as "good" and "bad" people might be a little less "bad". Note that I don't consider people that help others for fear of "God", or hoping for reward, as "good".

Hypothetically, I'd say we're not quite human any more. Part of the human condition, I believe, is spirituality. That arises from uncertainty with regard to existence and the consequences of mortality. For God to go away we'd have that uncertainty removed. I can't imagine very completely right now what that might mean to the human condition. Our whole concept of time and maturation who knows what would be different. Our sense of identity would likely not be such an issue as we move from simple self-awareness as a child to social self-awareness as a teen. Our advancement toward old age would be different. The value we place on life and our treatment of the individual would likely change. At the least, we'd not argue about hte value of life. We'd have to know the consequences of mortality, thus knowing the real impact of death on the individual. It's a weird thing to contemplate.

[Rathpig]

If a Deist makes the claim for a prime creator, who gets to decide what is acceptable evidence?

The burden of proof is not satisfied by someone's person feelings.

After all:

"Because intuitive proof is a very personal experience, it is unique with each student", says BeHereNow, I assume that Deism is a personal experience that has no place in a discussion of science, evidence, or objectivity.

If an atheist makes the claim for eternal existence, without a prime creator, who gets to decide what is acceptable evidence?

The evidence presented has been the basic nature of known physics. The decision was made through the application of scientific method and testable reality. Entities were not multiplied unnecessarily.



Science is a collective decision derived through testable evidence, objective discovery, and peer review. The claim that matter can not be created or destroyed which leads to an assumption of rudimentary eternal existence is the outcome of reason and experimentation. It is not a personal intuitive assumption created to satisfy an emotional need.

[Confused]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

So what do Christians have to work with? The Old Testament books, handed down for a good few millennia, then the New Testament, added when the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled, and closed the book that we now know as the Bible. The only thing Christians have to work with is interpretation of this one piece of data that is never going to change.

Science, philosophy, and things of that sort, on the other hand, are subject to change at a moment's notice. Any scientist will tell you that the very nature of science is unbound, able to shake the very foundation of everything we know with the findings of even an amateur, an elementary school student, who accidentally digs up a fossil with his plastic shovel and pail. Science, therefore, is also open to interpretation, but it is also free from the restraint of dogma.

So, if in a week or year or millennia, if science happens to find out that Christians were telling the truth the whole time, that our beliefs were indeed correct, science can't be faulted for being "wrong". It's the nature of science to change, so being wrong is only a part of its (good lord give me a better word..) evolution (doh. ).

So we have two sides. One that stands on a firm foundation, unchanging, and another that's like a bottle in the ocean, taking it whichever way the current or wind is going.

As a matter of fact, if you look at it in the technical aspect, you have numerous different sides, because scientists almost never agree 100% with each other's interpretations. So you have these many different sides that are able to morph into anything the latest tidbit of data throws to them versus the one lonesome side that must defend themselves with a book at was finished almost 2000 years ago. How fair does that really seem to you?

Atheists expect Christians to have the answers to every nitpicked fault they find in Christianity that pertains to science, and it's just plain unreasonable. Not only that, they expect the answers on the fly, or else they crank their insult machine up and go to town.

How fair are these arguments that science keeps bringing up, when they know themselves the facts they're arguing with can change at any minute?

First, let me commend you on sticking your neck out here. We have a few too many members who may not lack information, but leave much to be desired in their presentation of it.

You picked one heck of a way to make a bang.

To cover the whole thing, this is what I will say:
The meaning of scripture has evolved as society has evolved. It is not so cut and dry anymore. Passages that were seen as literal (i.e. Cmass signature) are now seen more as a metaphor or they are ignored completely. Much is open to interpretation now.

Scientific knowledge evolves. The methodology of it doesn't. If a flaw was to be found in the methodology, it would effectively render science moot, much as the contradictions in scripture has done to Christianity.

The comparison you are trying to make between debates about science and religion cannot be made because they do not exist. One can debate scientific knowledge, not methodology because the methodology has stood the test of time. Despite the advancement of knowledge and technology. Religious knowledge changes so often it is difficult for many to understand the newest interpretations.

Do you understand what I am trying to get across here?

[BeHereNow]

Raithpig

I catch the drift of your evasive reply.

For the record, I do not accept the contents of your physics books as evidence there is no god, but I do understand why you feel it is.

Cheers.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jahawker Soule

Is I say Zen is anything, I have misrepresented it.

On the contrary, you have done a marvelous job communicating how utterly bankrupt it is to appeal to intuition as a reliable guide to truth. When you wash your bowl, it is materialism and not intuition at work.

[BeHereNow]

Jayhawker Soule

Yes, I see your point.
I will consider that my bowl may not need washed.
In fact, I may not need a bowl.
(consider the lilies of the valley, etc, etc,etc)