Concerning science and religion i will quote my-self :
Quote:
Just a little story about the difference between science and religion.
Many , many years ago, Napoleon assist to a demonstration of Foucault whit his famous pendulum. Napoleon ask Foucault " et dieu dans tout ça : and where is god in that (very approximate translation) Foucault reply : god is not an hypothesis.
More recently , Lemaitre who was a famous belgium churchmen from the catholic church, and accessorily nobel prize in physics and inventor of the big bang Theory, like to repeat what Foucault was saying, he just add, after god is not an hypothesis, i have to many respect for him. Lemaitre a very interesting and open man, was pointing out the fact , that science and religion hare to differents matters that should be never mixed together.
....which, of course, proves how solid your science is.
Active science is, by a matter of course, controversial. It means it is testable, that hypotheses are formed, tested, accepted, modified, or tossed aside. Solid (rigid) descriptions of the world are inherently anti-scientific because there is always new evidence or better ways of interpreting data. But this in no way reduces the legitimacy of scientific descriptions, it merely means they adapt to what has been shown experimentally to be true. It is not as if doubt incited people to toss aside newtonian physics, or maxwell's equations both of which (we now know) fail to provide a complete description of the properties they cover.
But again, science and religion cover different aspects of life. So it really is irrelevant that I feel one of science's strengths is that it (hopefully) will remain forever changing giving more and more accurate descriptions of the properties of the universe...
The problem here is that many religions fail to incorporate incredible amounts of evidence that run contrary to their claims on how the world works; but that is their nature. The establish a feeling of constancy in their observers lives...
'Metaphysical' means 'beyond the physical'; it is a de facto synonym for 'spiritual'. 'Your metaphysics' cannot possibly, by definition, be 'science'. billybobsky's not dealing with metaphysics but observations of the physical world. Yours are not.
Not that I'm agreeing with dmz or anything (and believe me, I'm not), you could make the argument that science is actually another kind of metaphysics--or at least that it emerges out of metaphysical approaches to the world. If metaphysical approaches to reality insist that there are things unseen that create the world around us, or that there are motives or forces that we cannot detect with the naked eye, we can see science as a means of detecting these metaphysical forces.
DNA is a bit more complicated than that. We already know we come from scientists that we have a common ancestor.
Quote:
So you are trying to use science as your proof against science.
Mitochondira are the cell elements that provide the cell with power. The DNA for mitochondria is inherited (IIRC) from the mother only, and therefore is only changed by mutation, allowing it to be used to determine how related individuals are over long periods of time.
Not that I'm agreeing with dmz or anything (and believe me, I'm not), you could make the argument that science is actually another kind of metaphysics--or at least that it emerges out of metaphysical approaches to the world. If metaphysical approaches to reality insist that there are things unseen that create the world around us, or that there are motives or forces that we cannot detect with the naked eye, we can see science as a means of detecting these metaphysical forces.
huh? Although I think I know what you are trying to say, I think you have over-reached a bit. I guess it depends on your definition of metaphysical, but the scientific method is limited to things that can be measured and tested. Metaphysics and God, in most of His forms, are beyond science. Offcourse our ability to measure the Universe around has expanded greatly from the subatomic to nearly being able to view the beginnings of time-I guess this is what you were getting at.
On another note, I would like to bring up the fact that comparing science and religion is a bit of an apple and oranges comparison. Science is a method to answering questions, religion is an answer. I do not consider science to be a religion, its a systematic and logical approach to the study of the universe. This is the reason that science doesn't belong in religious studies and creationism doesn't belong in science classes. Sorry, no equal time for creation "science" in biology class. Creationism starts with the answer and twist the evidence to fit this answer, e.g. the great flood carved the grand canyon.
.........comparing science and religion is a bit of an apple and oranges comparison.
There is that clever distinction again. One person's answers to the meaning of life are somehow not empirically equal to anothers'
Quote:
....Science is a method to answering questions, religion is an answer.
Once science absorbs enough presuppositions that cause it to stop looking at the evidence, it stops being "Science".
Quote:
I do not consider science to be a religion, its a systematic and logical approach to the study of the universe.
Again, when you guys on this forum dismiss, out of hand, this instructors' POV. You become a bit like "Christians against Christ".
Quote:
Creationism starts with the answer and twist the evidence to fit this answer, e.g. the great flood carved the grand canyon.
Atheism, Humanism, etc. (or Paganism---a loose catch-all) starts with the answer and is twisting and cajoling the evidence to fit that answer. Hence, the GREAT BIG asparagus piss you people took on Asterix's instructor. Asterix asked an honest question and got an answer more befitting a turf war among a bunch of thugs than a group of educated people.
Out of one side of your mouths "science" is this white-coat, rubber gloved, clean-room look at the universe---out of the other side you ignore the reality: a swirling morass of opinions and arguments over the foundational nature of the universe. The "scientific" community is constantly promising for the money-shot look at the "way it all works" but in reallity what you end up believing in is the unsubstantiated belief that "science" will ever come to a TRUE consensus.
You don't understand what Science is. You also don't understand what Paganism is.
Science is not a faith, not a belief system, not a religion. It is a way of explaining, through observation, how the universe works. If new observations are made, or if new interpretations of existing observations are made, then science can change. It's designed to change. Religion can change, but it is often quite reluctant. Science, on the other hand, is designed to be always changing. Although some individual scientists may be afraid of change, and may hold faith in science or an ultimate scientific truth, that doesn't mean that is the way science works as a whole. A good scientist will accept that his theories may be proven totally wrong.
You've said this before, and I corrected you once but you disagreed. You lump everyone who doesn't go by your exact belief system into a broad category which you call "paganism." That is absolutely false, and wrong. I find it exceedingly rude that you do this, because it is completely incorrect. I am NOT a Pagan, and I never will be. Paganism is a religion (or perhaps a category of religions), atheism is separate belief, agnosticism is another separate belief... and so on.
dmz. You haven't answered my posts. Why is this? Are you going to?
Do you believe that the points I make in my posts are unanswerable?
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
There is that clever distinction again. One person's answers to the meaning of life are somehow not empirically equal to anothers'
Empirically speaking, you're right - they're not. I could posit all sorts of nonsense to explain anything I like, and that would be perfectly alright in the absence of any sure-fire way to test the facts. If you choose to find meaning in your life through the worship of any God or Gods of your choice that would be fine too, but while you couldn't prove that your God is any 'better' than mine, I could prove the principles of erosion, mutation, whathaveyou. I can prove beyond any doubt that Genesis, say, does not offer a convincing explanation of the world's age or geology.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Once science absorbs enough presuppositions that cause it to stop looking at the evidence, it stops being "Science".
I'm sure you have an example in mind here, and I'd very much like to see it. Because I read 'Nature' and 'New Scientist', and I can promise you that research in cosmology, genetics, paleoanthropology and geology are all progressing quite nicely and telling us more about the world and the cosmos every day.
You're the one choosing to ignore this. You're the one ignoring the evidence. Not all of those who believe that one sacred text from the Middle East, in which a creation account that does not tally in any way to the observable evidence, and which is no more likely to be correct than the creation tales of the Yoruba of West Africa or the Indians of the Argentinian Amazon, is the only possible explanation.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Atheism, Humanism, etc. (or Paganism---a loose catch-all)
Since when has 'paganism' been a 'loose catch-all' for 'non-Christian'? I'm not a polytheist. I don't believe in any god or gods, so I'm not a 'pagan'. This is pretty rude, you, know. Strictly speaking, 'pagan' means 'polytheistic', not 'irreligious' anyway, so I hope that you don't mean that Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus and many West Africans are 'pagans' too?
I think if you want to call non-Christians 'pagans' then you're not really going to have any right to object if someone were to call you a 'Jesus freak' or a 'God Botherer', so I'd suggest that you chill.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
[Bstarts with the answer and is twisting and cajoling the evidence to fit that answer.
The "scientific" community is constantly promising for the money-shot look at the "way it all works" but in reallity what you end up believing in is the unsubstantiated belief that "science" will ever come to a TRUE consensus. [/B]
Give me the address of one single Creation Science research unit.
Give me the URL of any peer-reviewed Creation Science journal.
You are not a mainstream Christian. Your views are not those of the vast majority of other Christians. Christians kill each other all the time over doctrine. Christians disagree all the time, over gay marriages, divorce, contraception, whatever, and scientists (well, everyone else alive on the planet) don't take this as 'proof' that God doesn't exist. Hell, you can't know the meaning of the word 'controversy.'
While you're deciding whether or not to respond to my three last posts, here are a couple of URLs for you. Earth Sciences: papers in 'Nature' magazine, an old, respected journal with papers written by Christians, atheists, Muslims, Hindus and agnostics, none of whom, after decades of study, have suddenly found cause to doubt the age of the cosmos or the forces that shaped the world. New Scientist. Does what it says on the tin. The Astrophysical Journal, established in 1895, full of far-out shit that happens to be true.
Once science absorbs enough presuppositions that cause it to stop looking at the evidence, it stops being "Science".
Yup. And everyone agrees with this. It becomes a sort of non-moralizing belief system at that point. This is why science over time attempts to dismantle assumptions because it isn't science if it doesn't . This is why you must clearly state them before proceeding on to a new theory.
Quote:
[B}
Again, when you guys on this forum dismiss, out of hand, this instructors' POV. You become a bit like "Christians against Christ".{/B]
No. I dismissed his POV because it doesn't match any evidence, makes no rational sense, and was completely irrelevant to math. He is a fundamentalist teacher who should stick to the accepted curriculum and stop taking advantage of the poor educational system to spread his irrational nonsense.
There will never be a true consensus in science, there will always be descriptions. If a grand unified theory came to be and matches all evidence it still doesn't make claims about anything that is within the realm of religion.
According to the genesis mars and the sun are satellites of earth
No Powerdoc, they aren't.
The Genesis account does not say that the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth. That was a superstition held to by the religious nuts that had it in for Galileo.
If you're going to ridicule the Creationist account at least stick to Genesis.
Ahh Christianity... you would think more adherents in this day and age would take a closer look at the religion's origins and discover (like many other religions) that it is merely an evolution/amalgamation of others that came before it. And I'm sure these evolved from religions that came before them, and so on, etc...
It's not like this information is hard to come by.
Comments
Just a little story about the difference between science and religion.
Many , many years ago, Napoleon assist to a demonstration of Foucault whit his famous pendulum. Napoleon ask Foucault " et dieu dans tout ça : and where is god in that (very approximate translation) Foucault reply : god is not an hypothesis.
More recently , Lemaitre who was a famous belgium churchmen from the catholic church, and accessorily nobel prize in physics and inventor of the big bang Theory, like to repeat what Foucault was saying, he just add, after god is not an hypothesis, i have to many respect for him. Lemaitre a very interesting and open man, was pointing out the fact , that science and religion hare to differents matters that should be never mixed together.
Originally posted by dmz
....which, of course, proves how solid your science is.
Active science is, by a matter of course, controversial. It means it is testable, that hypotheses are formed, tested, accepted, modified, or tossed aside. Solid (rigid) descriptions of the world are inherently anti-scientific because there is always new evidence or better ways of interpreting data. But this in no way reduces the legitimacy of scientific descriptions, it merely means they adapt to what has been shown experimentally to be true. It is not as if doubt incited people to toss aside newtonian physics, or maxwell's equations both of which (we now know) fail to provide a complete description of the properties they cover.
But again, science and religion cover different aspects of life. So it really is irrelevant that I feel one of science's strengths is that it (hopefully) will remain forever changing giving more and more accurate descriptions of the properties of the universe...
The problem here is that many religions fail to incorporate incredible amounts of evidence that run contrary to their claims on how the world works; but that is their nature. The establish a feeling of constancy in their observers lives...
(But it does move) - referring to the Earth
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
'Metaphysical' means 'beyond the physical'; it is a de facto synonym for 'spiritual'. 'Your metaphysics' cannot possibly, by definition, be 'science'. billybobsky's not dealing with metaphysics but observations of the physical world. Yours are not.
Not that I'm agreeing with dmz or anything (and believe me, I'm not), you could make the argument that science is actually another kind of metaphysics--or at least that it emerges out of metaphysical approaches to the world. If metaphysical approaches to reality insist that there are things unseen that create the world around us, or that there are motives or forces that we cannot detect with the naked eye, we can see science as a means of detecting these metaphysical forces.
DNA is a bit more complicated than that. We already know we come from scientists that we have a common ancestor.
So you are trying to use science as your proof against science.
Mitochondira are the cell elements that provide the cell with power. The DNA for mitochondria is inherited (IIRC) from the mother only, and therefore is only changed by mutation, allowing it to be used to determine how related individuals are over long periods of time.
Originally posted by midwinter
Not that I'm agreeing with dmz or anything (and believe me, I'm not), you could make the argument that science is actually another kind of metaphysics--or at least that it emerges out of metaphysical approaches to the world. If metaphysical approaches to reality insist that there are things unseen that create the world around us, or that there are motives or forces that we cannot detect with the naked eye, we can see science as a means of detecting these metaphysical forces.
huh? Although I think I know what you are trying to say, I think you have over-reached a bit. I guess it depends on your definition of metaphysical, but the scientific method is limited to things that can be measured and tested. Metaphysics and God, in most of His forms, are beyond science. Offcourse our ability to measure the Universe around has expanded greatly from the subatomic to nearly being able to view the beginnings of time-I guess this is what you were getting at.
On another note, I would like to bring up the fact that comparing science and religion is a bit of an apple and oranges comparison. Science is a method to answering questions, religion is an answer. I do not consider science to be a religion, its a systematic and logical approach to the study of the universe. This is the reason that science doesn't belong in religious studies and creationism doesn't belong in science classes. Sorry, no equal time for creation "science" in biology class. Creationism starts with the answer and twist the evidence to fit this answer, e.g. the great flood carved the grand canyon.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
.........comparing science and religion is a bit of an apple and oranges comparison.
There is that clever distinction again. One person's answers to the meaning of life are somehow not empirically equal to anothers'
Quote:
....Science is a method to answering questions, religion is an answer.
Once science absorbs enough presuppositions that cause it to stop looking at the evidence, it stops being "Science".
Quote:
I do not consider science to be a religion, its a systematic and logical approach to the study of the universe.
Again, when you guys on this forum dismiss, out of hand, this instructors' POV. You become a bit like "Christians against Christ".
Quote:
Creationism starts with the answer and twist the evidence to fit this answer, e.g. the great flood carved the grand canyon.
Atheism, Humanism, etc. (or Paganism---a loose catch-all) starts with the answer and is twisting and cajoling the evidence to fit that answer. Hence, the GREAT BIG asparagus piss you people took on Asterix's instructor. Asterix asked an honest question and got an answer more befitting a turf war among a bunch of thugs than a group of educated people.
Out of one side of your mouths "science" is this white-coat, rubber gloved, clean-room look at the universe---out of the other side you ignore the reality: a swirling morass of opinions and arguments over the foundational nature of the universe. The "scientific" community is constantly promising for the money-shot look at the "way it all works" but in reallity what you end up believing in is the unsubstantiated belief that "science" will ever come to a TRUE consensus.
Science is not a faith, not a belief system, not a religion. It is a way of explaining, through observation, how the universe works. If new observations are made, or if new interpretations of existing observations are made, then science can change. It's designed to change. Religion can change, but it is often quite reluctant. Science, on the other hand, is designed to be always changing. Although some individual scientists may be afraid of change, and may hold faith in science or an ultimate scientific truth, that doesn't mean that is the way science works as a whole. A good scientist will accept that his theories may be proven totally wrong.
You've said this before, and I corrected you once but you disagreed. You lump everyone who doesn't go by your exact belief system into a broad category which you call "paganism." That is absolutely false, and wrong. I find it exceedingly rude that you do this, because it is completely incorrect. I am NOT a Pagan, and I never will be. Paganism is a religion (or perhaps a category of religions), atheism is separate belief, agnosticism is another separate belief... and so on.
Do you believe that the points I make in my posts are unanswerable?
Originally posted by dmz
There is that clever distinction again. One person's answers to the meaning of life are somehow not empirically equal to anothers'
Empirically speaking, you're right - they're not. I could posit all sorts of nonsense to explain anything I like, and that would be perfectly alright in the absence of any sure-fire way to test the facts. If you choose to find meaning in your life through the worship of any God or Gods of your choice that would be fine too, but while you couldn't prove that your God is any 'better' than mine, I could prove the principles of erosion, mutation, whathaveyou. I can prove beyond any doubt that Genesis, say, does not offer a convincing explanation of the world's age or geology.
Originally posted by dmz
Once science absorbs enough presuppositions that cause it to stop looking at the evidence, it stops being "Science".
I'm sure you have an example in mind here, and I'd very much like to see it. Because I read 'Nature' and 'New Scientist', and I can promise you that research in cosmology, genetics, paleoanthropology and geology are all progressing quite nicely and telling us more about the world and the cosmos every day.
You're the one choosing to ignore this. You're the one ignoring the evidence. Not all of those who believe that one sacred text from the Middle East, in which a creation account that does not tally in any way to the observable evidence, and which is no more likely to be correct than the creation tales of the Yoruba of West Africa or the Indians of the Argentinian Amazon, is the only possible explanation.
Originally posted by dmz
Atheism, Humanism, etc. (or Paganism---a loose catch-all)
Since when has 'paganism' been a 'loose catch-all' for 'non-Christian'? I'm not a polytheist. I don't believe in any god or gods, so I'm not a 'pagan'. This is pretty rude, you, know. Strictly speaking, 'pagan' means 'polytheistic', not 'irreligious' anyway, so I hope that you don't mean that Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus and many West Africans are 'pagans' too?
I think if you want to call non-Christians 'pagans' then you're not really going to have any right to object if someone were to call you a 'Jesus freak' or a 'God Botherer', so I'd suggest that you chill.
Originally posted by dmz
[Bstarts with the answer and is twisting and cajoling the evidence to fit that answer.
The "scientific" community is constantly promising for the money-shot look at the "way it all works" but in reallity what you end up believing in is the unsubstantiated belief that "science" will ever come to a TRUE consensus. [/B]
Give me the address of one single Creation Science research unit.
Give me the URL of any peer-reviewed Creation Science journal.
You are not a mainstream Christian. Your views are not those of the vast majority of other Christians. Christians kill each other all the time over doctrine. Christians disagree all the time, over gay marriages, divorce, contraception, whatever, and scientists (well, everyone else alive on the planet) don't take this as 'proof' that God doesn't exist. Hell, you can't know the meaning of the word 'controversy.'
While you're deciding whether or not to respond to my three last posts, here are a couple of URLs for you. Earth Sciences: papers in 'Nature' magazine, an old, respected journal with papers written by Christians, atheists, Muslims, Hindus and agnostics, none of whom, after decades of study, have suddenly found cause to doubt the age of the cosmos or the forces that shaped the world. New Scientist. Does what it says on the tin. The Astrophysical Journal, established in 1895, full of far-out shit that happens to be true.
Originally posted by dmz
Once science absorbs enough presuppositions that cause it to stop looking at the evidence, it stops being "Science".
Yup. And everyone agrees with this. It becomes a sort of non-moralizing belief system at that point. This is why science over time attempts to dismantle assumptions because it isn't science if it doesn't . This is why you must clearly state them before proceeding on to a new theory.
[B}
Again, when you guys on this forum dismiss, out of hand, this instructors' POV. You become a bit like "Christians against Christ".{/B]
No. I dismissed his POV because it doesn't match any evidence, makes no rational sense, and was completely irrelevant to math. He is a fundamentalist teacher who should stick to the accepted curriculum and stop taking advantage of the poor educational system to spread his irrational nonsense.
There will never be a true consensus in science, there will always be descriptions. If a grand unified theory came to be and matches all evidence it still doesn't make claims about anything that is within the realm of religion.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Out of interest, dmz, how does Creation Science explain today's photographs of water erosion on Mars? Did the Great Flood happen there too?
I really, really want to know if there was a Great Flood on Mars too.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
According to the genesis mars and the sun are satellites of earth
No Powerdoc, they aren't.
The Genesis account does not say that the Sun and the planets revolve around the Earth. That was a superstition held to by the religious nuts that had it in for Galileo.
If you're going to ridicule the Creationist account at least stick to Genesis.
It's not like this information is hard to come by.
Cheers,
C.
Originally posted by Concord
It's not like this information is hard to come by.
Just hard for some to accept.