[Gem Windcaster]

Terez;366134 said:

Unlike religion, science doesn't claim to have all the answers, and unlike in religion, readjusting details and even paradigms based on new discoveries is all a part of the "creed" of science. No matter how hard religion tries to prove science wrong, it's only science that proves science wrong. Religion has never been successful at that, for obvious reasons.

I never claimed to have all the answers. And I don't think religion has all the answers. But I get all the answers I need in a longer perspective. Maybe I have been little unclear on that point.

Also, science is not as flexible as you would think or want it to be. Science is stumped by social structures, just like religion. I think one should endeavour to be critical about all kinds of social structures, no matter what kind of thinking they build on. Science is not exempted, or shouldn't be, in this regard.

Cause;366222 said:

Some things we can sit on the fence for since theirs no concrete proof one way or the other.

However not respecting people opinions is something we do all the time.

I think we can all agree that the opinions of white supremicists for instance hold no respect. When they say black people have smaller brains or that jews spread syphilis why you look up the truth see they are talking crap and by god, ironic use here, we should save these people children from them before their lunacy spreads.

Thats an extreme example but equally are other opinions. The world is flat. Its 6000 years old. The stars are formed by the spirits of my ancestors. The world is hollow and filled with lizard men. The jews run the worlds banks etc etc

@Cause, I think we might have different definitions of what respecting an opinion means. But I agree with you on the basics, although I think you actually can respect another persons opinion without agreeing, just like I do right now, I might add. The problem is that we sometimes have a hard time separating the opinion from the person or the action. "I can respect your opinion, but I can't respect what you do with it." I think that's the rule by which I try to live. I separate the opinion from the cultural background, from the personal traits, from beliefs and from social status. And I want to force people to take full responsibility for their own views. Nothing is set in stone.

Science is a great model for finding out many things. I think science is amazing. But that doesn't mean that it's a perfect model for finding out everything. The problem for you is that it's the only method you have or accept for finding out the truth. To me science is just one method.

Cause;366222 said:

Thats excactly what Im saying. No one needs respect my opinion. You dont believe the world is round. Go look at its curvature from a plane. Watch as a mast appears in the horizon before the ship. See how my calculations will get that artillery shell in place whilst yours wont because you dont take curvature into account. Circumnavigate the globe. Or come back and show me why the world is really flat. Hell if you do it Ill thank you, since I was deluded for years.

So in conclusion no opinion is safe. Not mine not yours. A strong argument makes its own case. Does god exist who knows. Is christianity, judaism or Islam correct? Who knows but they cant all be telling the truth. Jesus is or is not the messiah.

Its not okay to just say well jew you believe what you want and Ill believe what I want. Its good for peace, it helps us all get along, but its not an answer!

I agree with this. It just irks me that science is sometimes seen as the ultimate model for finding answers. The answers we find comes from our minds, whether it is through religion or science or some random dream. We all have to make up our minds, because noone can do it for us. "You have already made the choice, and now you have to understand it."

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster;366245 said:

I never claimed to have all the answers. And I don't think religion has all the answers. But I get all the answers I need in a longer perspective. Maybe I have been little unclear on that point.

What else does religion do, if not claim to have the answer to life, the universe, and everything? It claims to have answers for which there are no evidence. Science does not.

Gem said:

Also, science is not as flexible as you would think or want it to be. Science is stumped by social structures, just like religion. I think one should endeavour to be critical about all kinds of social structures, no matter what kind of thinking they build on. Science is not exempted, or shouldn't be, in this regard.

Science itself isn't a social structure, and criticism (and therefore flexibility) is fairly solidly built into the process of discovery (by way of competition).

[HoosierDaddy]

This thread is "The Song That Never Ends" it just keeps going on, and on, and on my friends. Lets call a truce and go beat up some Scientologists. They are just a bunch of wafflers. Deal?

Quote

"The answers we find comes from our minds, whether it is through religion or science or some random dream. We all have to make up our minds, because noone can do it for us. You have already made the choice, and now you have to understand it."

Gem: You know what, you seem like a Religion Hippy. "To each their own" kinda thing I can generally respect. The only problem is that religion, science, and some random dream are in no way equal in either provability or sequential logic.

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez;366499 said:

What else does religion do, if not claim to have the answer to life, the universe, and everything? It claims to have answers for which there are no evidence. Science does not.

Only a certain set of answers, according to me. Don't put words in my mouth.

Terez;366499 said:

Science itself isn't a social structure, and criticism (and therefore flexibility) is fairly solidly built into the process of discovery (by way of competition).

Religion in itself isn't a social structure either - it comes with social structures, but they varies widely from society to society, and is not necessarily tied to religion. Different societies deals with religion in different ways, just like different societies deals with science in different ways.

People does things for many reasons - sometimes they pin their behavior on religion, sometimes they pin it on science, or whatever. Don't make the mistake to assume that just because I have a certain faith, that I will do or think in a certain way. I get enough of that from the previous generation Christians that are sometimes set in certain ways that I never would condone. People are people, dear.

HoosierDaddy;366543 said:

This thread is "The Song That Never Ends" it just keeps going on, and on, and on my friends. Lets call a truce and go beat up some Scientologists. They are just a bunch of wafflers. Deal?

Gem: You know what, you seem like a Religion Hippy. "To each their own" kinda thing I can generally respect. The only problem is that religion, science, and some random dream are in no way equal in either provability or sequential logic.

Haha, religion hippy! That made me LULZ big time!

I don't have a problem comparing religion and science, or other thoughts. It's in my right as a thinking being to compare whatever the heck I want. It's not PC, but I don't care, PC is for followers, and I'm not a follower. The only reason I follow Christ is because he forced me through his love to give him some credit for what he did. Btw, the only reason religion and science are not 'comparable' is because you guys say they aren't. I say otherwise. Any thinking can be compared.

As for 'provability' and 'sequential logic' - I don't get what you're saying. Is science so above everything else that it can't be discussed critically? Of course not! Can't faith be discussed in a logical and evidential manner? Of course it can. (even though proof is not one of its strongest suits ) Neither proof nor disproof are grounds for ruling out a discussion.

Free your minds.

[Terez]

Gem Windcaster;367146 said:

Only a certain set of answers, according to me. Don't put words in my mouth.

How about don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth when I'm not?

[Optimus Prime]

Doesn't it come down to evidence against belief in the end, no matter how you argue it Gem?

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez;367224 said:

How about don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth when I'm not?

It seemed to me that you were, but I'm glad we cleared that up! Sorry if I assumed something that wasn't true.

Optimus Prime;367227 said:

Doesn't it come down to evidence against belief in the end, no matter how you argue it Gem?

Sorry? Explain please?

[Urb]

His face turned red!

[Gem Windcaster]

That was priceless Urb! :lachen70:

I like the look on the face of the guy with brown hair and glasses! Priceless!

Btw, Hovind is that guy I mentioned that I just can't stand - I hope he learned something from that meeting.

[Agraba]

Science is simply an endeavor to gain knowledge through observations and falsifying experiments; nothing more. Everyone in the world practices science whether or not they're aware of it; any time they set up a small condition just to observe results and form a conclusion. When a holy priest who deems science as anathema decides to throw a squirrel some bread, sees it eat the bread, then unconsciously wonders if that was a particular trait of that squirrel or a natural affinity of all squirrels, then throws bread to three different squirrels on separate occasions just to gage the conclusion, he's practicing science. Gasp!

The real "religion vs science" question is: do you willingly take things based mostly on faith, or will you only accept ideas that are widely credited by extensive use of the scientific process? Some are the former, some the latter. Once they both understand and accept that, I really can't picture any argument between them beyond "you, the opposite of my respective viewpoint, are stupid for entertaining that viewpoint." "Why?" "Because things should/shouldn't be taken on faith." "Why?" .......

[Skywalker]

Not sure if it has been posted in this thread before, but this opinion piece in the NY Times caught my eye. It is a very cogent argument in favor of teaching evolution in schools:

http://www.nytimes.c...n/13judson.html

Quote

Evolution should be taught — indeed, it should be central to beginning biology classes — for at least three reasons.

First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. (snip)

The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the planet is causing other organisms to evolve — and fast. (snip)

The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, “The Republican War on Science,” the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration’s policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude. (snip)

Good stuff. Read the whole thing...

[Cause]

Evolution should be taught in science class because scientists whose expert testimony is best suited to make the call say it should. Historians direct history class people with doctrates in literature and language teach english. Scientists teach science.

[Silencer]

Cause;369755 said:

Evolution should be taught in science class because scientists whose expert testimony is best suited to make the call say it should. Historians direct history class people with doctrates in literature and language teach english. Scientists teach science.

Quoted for truth.

Also, good article, Skywalker.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

Opposing science to religion on a factual level is plain wrong.

It's like blaming science for not imparting morality or purpose to people.

Science is the multi-tool of reality - it makes achieving things throughout the physical world possible.

Religion and spirituality in general give purpose to physical existence - like culture it helps you find out which aspects of life make you happy. It's the difference between what you want and what you need. Science can't give you that.

That's everything there is to it - the rest is wasting time and believe me from personal experience - I've had this same conversation dozens of times.

PP: I'm into pharmaceutical studies so I guess with all the chemistry biology mathematics and physics that makes me a scientist.

I only hope that it doesn't come to define my whole life in the end.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 16 October 2008 - 12:17 PM

[D Man]

Jesus, is this still here?

[Terez]

Yes. Thanks for resurrecting it after a two month rest.

[D Man]

Oops.

Forgot how slowly this board moves.

[Darkwatch]

I wish people would remember this thread and use it so that other threads would stay on topic.

[Cause]

Disucssion forum seems to be a it slow of late. Someone needs to start up any topic soon

[Morgoth]

Cause, on Dec 20 2008, 03:02 AM, said:

Disucssion forum seems to be a it slow of late. Someone needs to start up any topic soon

we just agree too much outside of religion