The Problem with Science Vs Religion Debates

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
chibiq
Student
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

The Problem with Science Vs Religion Debates

Post #1

Post by 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. #-o).

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?

byofrcs

Post #91

Post by byofrcs »

..........
byofrcs wrote:
It's not that science has a refusal to believe that anything is supernatural, but that all is natural. It is religion that posits a "supernatural" that defies examination. Science says that all things can be examined and thus all things are natural.
chibiq wrote: Isn't that a refusal to to believe that anything is supernatural?

And sure, science can claim that all things can be examined, but that's not a claim that all things HAVE been examined, or even WILL be examined.
As I have clearly stated, there are things which are supernatural which are outside of the scope of science because they are outside of our Universe and all that's related to the universe. The origin of the universe is clearly within the scope of science just as the origin of any tangible artifact. We see the universe around us. Technology such the Planck satellite will help further understanding of what we see.

Your last sentence I think is an appeal to ridicule (any other's wish to comment ?) and it doesn't negate my claim.
byofrcs wrote:Natural and supernatural are secondary qualities of the one reality of this universe. If religion clearly claimed things outside of this universe that did not influence in any way our universe then that is what science can never know but religion we see here doesn't do that.
chibiq wrote:Science is pretty pigheaded, isn't it? It thinks that what it can see is all there is, and nothing is outside of its vision... yet it theorizes on things such as alternate planes of reality and other dimensions. Then, in the same breath, it refuses to allow Christianity the same freedom.

It claims random objects can pop from "vacuums" with no real explanation other than they came from an alternate universe, and yet refuses to believe there's anything outside of its own current understanding of reality, a mistake it's made plenty of times before.
No, as I said there are things outside of the scope of science. When you refer to a claim of science please can you reference it. By objects at random from a vacuum do you mean the Casimir effect ? This can be tested and is a factor to consider in nanotechnology.

Christianity is not restricted nor refused to consider any hypotheses ! Whatever gave you that idea ?. Anyone can think that 'x' is caused by 'y' and then you test you claims. It is that simple.
byofrcs wrote:Religion here very clearly claims the origin of our universe and life plus ongoing influences through various mechanisms (prayers and miracles). Thus it is only religion that has the delusion in that it arbitrarily chops reality up and places a fence around certain dogma and it calls this the supernatural whilst failing to see that if it is in any way involved in this one universe then all things are natural.
chibiq wrote:Again, doesn't science do the same thing? Science places fences around its own theories and calls them the reality, doesn't it? Hasn't it done this before even when it was wrong? Then when it finally realizes its mistake, it chuckles and says "Oh well, this is simply the nature of science. We can change our [dogma] whenever see fit."
You may ridicule the self-correcting mechanism of science that builds knowledge but it is only you that chuckles rather than science. Science corrects the error in the knowledge and moves on.

Equally others complain about how religious dogma changes on a whim. The many versions of the Bible (Bible Gateway has 20 English language versions) plus the many councils, synods, diets over the years to establish what is heretical.

The difference in that whereas a failure in knowledge in science may kill people due to misunderstanding or failure of process outside of the knowledge e.g. material strengths, chemical and medical testing, the failure in knowledge in religion is called a heresy and it has been deliberately used to kill people.

Einstein clearly showed the flaws in Newtonian physics. No one laughed then and no one is laughing today.
chibiq wrote: SCIENCE CAN'T WITNESS THE SUPERNATURAL! It just can't, and no matter how many endless debates we have on it, there will never be any proof shown to an unbeliever, and an unbeliever will never accept that they can't have proof without faith.
That's what I've been saying !. Science can't witness the supernatural. What you define as the supernatural though includes magic and other confidence tricks that fuel religion.
byofrcs wrote:It is only those things fully outside of our universe and in which have had absolutely no effect on our universe that are truly supernatural in which science just cannot know. No religion I know of claims that is the case.
chibiq wrote: So you're saying if something goes against what scientists consider to be the natural order of things, it's still natural? Jesus walking on water was natural? Moses parting the sea was natural? Why are naturalists always stuck on the definitions of things..
No I did not say that. Given that there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus it is heresay. Moses ? Again after over 3000 years the stories get elaborated and there are many other myths and legends written since the dawn of time.

Spiritualism and Religion is littered with con-artists and tricksters of every kind. When put to the test they fail spectacularly. Jesus and Moses are only protected from ridicule by time.

It's very simple and you can make a lot of money too - just show James Randi your supernatural thing and pick up your money. Post back where when you get the cheque.
chibiq wrote: If I spew fire out of my mouth with no possible explanation of why it happened (no fuel, etc), it's supernatural, regardless of where it happened or how it happened, and that's the definition we're going to use. Stop nitpicking.
But it almost certainly has a natural cause. Simply labelling things which we don't understand today "supernatural" is just a way of ringfencing them from discovery. What are you afraid of ? To this day I don't understand how some magicians do their tricks. They are amazing to watch. I know there is a trick but that's their job and they do it well.

And only the naive would presume "supernatural". I have clearly stated what the supernatural is as far as science is concerned and your breathing fire isn't it.

Stop hiding in the gaps.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #92

Post by McCulloch »

chibiq wrote:If something is in the Bible and is unexplainable by science and attributed to someone who God was with, then I accept it to be a miracle.
I see that as a somewhat narrow scope of options:
  1. It could be figurative.
  2. It could be exaggeration.
  3. It could be made up.
  4. It could be divine intervention (a miracle).
chibiq wrote:Likewise, nowadays, if someone prays for something and what they pray for comes to pass, I accept that also to be a miracle.
Wow, really? So if the Leafs win the cup, it is because of the prayers of the Leafs fans.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #93

Post by Cathar1950 »

McCulloch wrote:
chibiq wrote:If something is in the Bible and is unexplainable by science and attributed to someone who God was with, then I accept it to be a miracle.
I see that as a somewhat narrow scope of options:
  1. It could be figurative.
  2. It could be exaggeration.
  3. It could be made up.
  4. It could be divine intervention (a miracle).
chibiq wrote:Likewise, nowadays, if someone prays for something and what they pray for comes to pass, I accept that also to be a miracle.
Wow, really? So if the Leafs win the cup, it is because of the prayers of the Leafs fans.
Yes, and if they don't win God doesn't like them.
Or the answer was no to the Feafs fans but yes to the winning sides fans.
It is all so clear Mack. :whistle:

Post Reply