Science and Faith

This forum is for members to discuss topics that do not relate to anime music videos.

Postby godix » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:02 pm

Kalium wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2002

Postby Shazzy » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:06 pm

Kalium wrote: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.
AMV guides for Mac users
DOWNLOAD THIS AMV
Quarter-life crisis: a sense that everyone is, somehow, doing better than you.
User avatar
Shazzy
 
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Location: The Universe

Postby Arigatomina » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:27 pm

Shazzy wrote: 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?

Godix wrote: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.
User avatar
Arigatomina
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2003

Postby dwchang » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:40 pm

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
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Jnzk » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:43 pm

godix wrote: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.
User avatar
Jnzk
Artsy Bastid
 
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Finland

Postby Beowulf » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:50 pm

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.
User avatar
Beowulf
 
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Location: in the art house

Postby Otohiko » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:02 pm

dwchang wrote: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 :roll:

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.
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby Beowulf » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:13 pm

rofl, Otohiko is a True Neutral.

/dnd
User avatar
Beowulf
 
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Location: in the art house

Postby Arigatomina » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:27 pm

Beowulf wrote: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.
User avatar
Arigatomina
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2003

Postby godix » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:52 pm

Arigatomina wrote: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.

Otohiko wrote: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.

Otohiko wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
 
Joined: 03 Aug 2002

Postby Kalium » Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:10 pm

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

Not so. The height of arrogance is to say "There is a higher power, it created me, and it specifically cares about me and what I do to the exclusion of all else that is". That is arrogance of the highest degree. To place yourself above the rest of the universe is probably the greatest arrogance possible, absent multiple universes.

Beowulf wrote:A million monkeys pounding on a million keyboards WILL NOT produce the works of Shakespeare

Make a few simplifying assumptions, run the numbers, and then give me the odds. You cannot, in all intellectual honesty, make the claim that it cannot happen. Well, unless you happen to know fuck-all about statistics, probability, and randomness.

Beowulf wrote: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.

Start laughing. If you think all of evolution is random, you really have no clue what you're talking about.

Beowulf wrote: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.

Astronomy is a wondrous field.

godix wrote: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.

It's called "Last Thursdayism". It's unprovable, unfalsifiable, and makes no predictions. It's pretty worthless.

godix wrote: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.

This is called "Young-Earth Creationism". It suffers from a dramatic dearth of evidence.

godix wrote: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.

Oh, do not pull this semantic crap with me, godix. You're smarter than that. In the context of science, 'theory' means something very different. It doesn't mean 'idea'. That's a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a system that explains current evidence and makes predictions. Evolution is very well-supported by the evidence, should one bother to actually check. Yes, it's been changed and added to. That is the nature of science. If you want solid and unchanging, go back to the Bible.

And please, stop abusing the English language. What has it ever done to you?
User avatar
Kalium
Sir Bugsalot
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Location: Plymouth, Michigan

Postby Arigatomina » Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:28 pm

godix wrote: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.

There's no supportive evidence for either of those theories, and you know it. That's why they're religious theories (all with roots in Creationist arguments) and not scientific ones. :lol: There isn't even evidence in the bible to make anyone think God would take that much time in between those "seven days" to create traps and tricks and "oh this will really throw them for a loop" fakes when he didn't even plan men to get out of the garden to start with. Those aren't theories, either. They're hypotheses that will never be proven because in the first one only God can tell us if he's a practical joker and in the second, only God knows why he let four legged animals evolve from big cats into little cats and whether they came from the same source animal as dogs and foxes, or not. It's not science when God's the only one who knows the answer and he's not talking.

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?

You can't learn much from one fossil, but once more specimins are found you can work toward completing the picture. Oddly enough, some of the rarest "links" are found in various places. Other intermediate fossils are suprisingly complete - like Lucy's. Don't forget that hoaxes are quickly discovered because the bones don't match. Scientists validate their evidence before putting weight on that evidence. You're not giving them enough credit. They actually have to prove their hypothesis before they can teach them as "proven theories" and that means multiple fossils must be found even for the rarest animal before they can state (as a fact) that animal once existed. They don't base it around one incomplete pile of bones.

...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.

Hypothesis. You're saying it hasn't been proven yet. But, yeah, I agree about the amoeba bit. I only buy the fossil record - not the big bang guesses and plants turning into animals. Animals all follow the same patterns. Plants are an entirely different group. A link is not self evident and we've found proof of it.

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.

Yes, but you have to admit that it's always been religious groups attacking evolution. Darwinism would have been accepted if he hadn't mentioned the self-evident fact that apes and humans look the same. No one wants to accept that, Lucy's two branches or not. It's icky. Humans are special, we're not animals. Gravitation, on the other hand, only had to fight for a hundred years or so before people stopped getting hung and burned for claiming the earth rotated around the sun instead of the other way around. It doesn't matter which body does the rotating, or if God used gravitational force to keep his sun shining on the earth as long as humans aren't lumped with apes. That's just insulting and anti-biblical. :P

It's not the science that people have always had a problem with, it's the way that science makes it hard to believe the earth was made in seven days and men were made out of clay. Most advanced countries still teach evolution and will continue to long after the US starts teaching Genesis to kids in public schools.
User avatar
Arigatomina
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2003

Postby Otohiko » Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:34 pm

godix wrote: 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.


Oh, I'm totally up for a pragmatic approach to morals. In fact as I said, I basically embrace Christian moral philosophy. I think we need to distinguish between moral philosophy and moral dogma. I'm entirely in favour of a weighted and pragmatic moral philosophy - just not "god says masturbation makes you go to hell" and such.
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby Fall_Child42 » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:11 pm

Arigatomina wrote: Don't forget that hoaxes are quickly discovered because the bones don't match. Scientists validate their evidence before putting weight on that evidence. You're not giving them enough credit. They actually have to prove their hypothesis before they can teach them as "proven theories" and that means multiple fossils must be found even for the rarest animal before they can state (as a fact) that animal once existed. They don't base it around one incomplete pile of bones.


I'm gonna pull the old Brontasaurus the beloved animal we all learned about as children, a creature that lived in prehistory, Quite the popular Dinosaur if i remeber correctly. (not mine of course I liked the pterodactyl) It starred in the popular animated feature The land before time and god knows how many sequals. Never existed. Body and head from two different dinosaurs. Never knew all that was required for proof was Fossil Lego.
Image
User avatar
Fall_Child42
has a rock
 
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: Jurassic Park
Status: Veloci-tossin' to the max!

Postby Arigatomina » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:48 pm

Fall_Child42 wrote:Never knew all that was required for proof was Fossil Lego.

Times change when it comes to science. Technology changes with time. Scientists admit when they make mistakes and adjust to correct them. The missnamed bracheosaurus was a mistake and they admitted it. If you look at online talk about the land before time today, children now call Little Foot a bracheosaurus - because the mistake was corrected in time to teach them the real name of that dinosaur. It's not science's fault some people graduated from high school before they got the memo on that particular fossil. And do keep in mind that fossil was missnamed over 100 years ago. We have much better databases to use in classification and comparison for fossils found in the last 20 years.
User avatar
Arigatomina
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2003

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pwolf and 0 guests