Science can't destroy Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
Al

Right. The universe on its own suddenly and accidentally came into being with Higgs Boson particle ready to go!

Abracadabra! 😃
Click to expand...
Aah, but you don’t understand, my friend: It’s all the multiverse, don’t you see?

As if that would be less Abracadabra! 😃
 
In my opinion, Science and God (perhaps not Religion as a whole) are in harmony.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I do believe superstition can work both ways. I think it is **more **superstitious to believe that the laws of the universe mindlessly formed themselves to be capable of producing us, than it is superstitious to believe that that these laws were intelligently created with the view toward producing a lawful universe that could not only produce us, but could make us able to understand the very laws that produced us.

There are simply too many wheels within wheels to convince me that we are all minor accidents emanating from the major accident called the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
👍 Indubitably.** It is irrational to attribute rationality to irrational events.**
 
Al_Moritz said:
Touchstone,

Your post continues to show your philosophical confusion on the matter. For one thing, there are no “godless principles of science”. Yes, they are naturalist, but for any believing scientist, including the first scientists who invented the scientific method in the first place, natural causes are not godless, but secondary causes through which God as primary cause lets His creation unfold. This is classical philosophy and theology from many centuries before the scientific revolution, but I don’t expect you to be informed about such rational subtleties – after all, religion and theistic philosophy is just “irrational superstition” to you.

I have made my case, and anyone, except you, who has closely followed my arguments and who knows both about science and philosophy, will logically agree with my arguments. I am finished discussing this matter with you. If you intend to continue to believe in the concept of a non-existing “scientific worldview” I cannot stop you from being irrational on this matter.

Your replies have only confirmed what I have observed over and over again through the years: Atheists tend to be philosophically confused and uninformed. That confusion may not always be the underlying reason why they became atheists (though sometimes it appears to be), but it certainly facilitates the transition to atheism.

Several years ago I might have become an atheist myself, had not my knowledge of philosophy and the analytical thinking associated with it held me back at that point (and that then gave me breathing space me to thoroughly inform myself about issues like the fine-tuning of the laws of nature and the Argument from Reason, issues that I knew next to nothing about at the time). No need for me to brag about the philosophical knowledge that I had then, though – I had acquired it under fortunate circumstances that were not based on my own merits. I got “lucky”, I guess. Otherwise I might very well be on your side now.
Click to expand...
Al:

Was it “luck,” or grace?

God bless,
jd
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Al

Right. The universe on its own suddenly and accidentally came into being with Higgs Boson particle ready to go!

Abracadabra! 😃
Click to expand...
Charlemagne:

Well, sort of. The Higgs was present before STEM. They were carefully placed inside the singularity (Greylorn’s “micropea”), so that upon the initial expansion (the start of STEM) they would provide what would appear to us as mass, after the universe began.

You see, this view - which is likely the correct view, IMHO - eliminates the common, unintelligent argument of the non-theist, that God is not necessary for there to be the property of mass. This moves the property of mass to where it belongs, i.e., in the milieu of STEM simultaneously with STEM. Nevertheless, all of this may still be nothing more than a hologram of incredible resolution. 🤷

God bless,
jd
 
As a person born in the age of mass science, I cannot even begin to imagine how or why science could damage religion.

If there is any religion that could be undermined by science, it would not be (IMO) worth saving.

The Church taught the West how to do science.
 
Qoeleth said:
As a person born in the age of mass science, I cannot even begin to imagine how or why science could damage religion.

If there is any religion that could be undermined by science, it would not be (IMO) worth saving.

The Church taught the West how to do science.
Click to expand...
Amen:)
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I do believe superstition can work both ways. I think it is **more **superstitious to believe that the laws of the universe mindlessly formed themselves to be capable of producing us, than it is superstitious to believe that that these laws were intelligently created with the view toward producing a lawful universe that could not only produce us, but could make us able to understand the very laws that produced us.

There are simply too many wheels within wheels to convince me that we are all minor accidents emanating from the major accident called the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you based that on truthiness. 🙂

As an atheist I saw no harm in admitting there are things we don’t know, and as a Christian still see no harm. I’d say it’s more that the superstitious are those who claim to know, whether theist or atheist. A bit of doubt is essential for faith. Imho
 
inocente

Doubt is very essential. More essential is to overcome doubt. Some can. Some cannot. 😉
 
Al_Moritz said:
Touchstone,

Your post continues to show your philosophical confusion on the matter. For one thing, there are no “godless principles of science”. Yes, they are naturalist, but for any believing scientist, including the first scientists who invented the scientific method in the first place, natural causes are not godless, but secondary causes through which God as primary cause lets His creation unfold. This is classical philosophy and theology from many centuries before the scientific revolution, but I don’t expect you to be informed about such rational subtleties – after all, religion and theistic philosophy is just “irrational superstition” to you.

I have made my case, and anyone, except you, who has closely followed my arguments and who knows both about science and philosophy, will logically agree with my arguments. I am finished discussing this matter with you. If you intend to continue to believe in the concept of a non-existing “scientific worldview” I cannot stop you from being irrational on this matter.

Your replies have only confirmed what I have observed over and over again through the years: Atheists tend to be philosophically confused and uninformed. That confusion may not always be the underlying reason why they became atheists (though sometimes it appears to be), but it certainly facilitates the transition to atheism.

Several years ago I might have become an atheist myself, had not my knowledge of philosophy and the analytical thinking associated with it held me back at that point (and that then gave me breathing space me to thoroughly inform myself about issues like the fine-tuning of the laws of nature and the Argument from Reason, issues that I knew next to nothing about at the time). No need for me to brag about the philosophical knowledge that I had then, though – I had acquired it under fortunate circumstances that were not based on my own merits. I got “lucky”, I guess. Otherwise I might very well be on your side now.
Click to expand...
Hi Al,

I can tell you’re very smart and educated. That’s why I’m a bit disappointed to see all the generalizations in your above post. I thought that Touchstone’s positions were well argued and I’m not sure why you are calling her confused. I think that’s a little unfair. It looks like you might be frustrated that Touchstone’s arguments are not as easily refuted as you would like them to be. I hope you will reconsider throwing in the towel and perhaps even consider making some concessions to what might be superior reasoning.
  • V
 
Vivi

This is a chronic error of of the humanist/atheist factions, to assume that they are more intelligent than believers and therefore believers should “throw in the towel” to their superior intelligence.

I call it the Dawkins Syndrome, though it could also be called the Ingersoll Syndrome, since Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) is the one who began the tradition of denigrating the intelligence of Christian scholars.
 
Viviphilia said:
Hi Al,

I can tell you’re very smart and educated. That’s why I’m a bit disappointed to see all the generalizations in your above post. I thought that Touchstone’s positions were well argued and I’m not sure why you are calling her confused. I think that’s a little unfair. It looks like you might be frustrated that Touchstone’s arguments are not as easily refuted as you would like them to be. I hope you will reconsider throwing in the towel and perhaps even consider making some concessions to what might be superior reasoning.
  • V
Click to expand...
“Touchstone is right and you are wrong” is hardly a compelling argument for her cause. Why is Touchstone’s reasoning superior, in your opinion?
 
tonyrey said:
An accident is not a credible basis for order, value, purpose, meaning or a rational existence. We would expect an accidental universe to be chaotic, valueless, purposeless, meaningless, unpredictable, unintelligible and - above all - irrational…
Click to expand...
Well if it was chaotic etc, then we wouldn’t be here discussing it (and I know you know about the anthropic principle).

I keep getting told: It’s obviously designed - just look at it. But my response is always: what would it look like if it were entirely natural?

Well, it would look exactly like it looks like now.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Vivi

This is a chronic error of of the humanist/atheist factions, to assume that they are more intelligent than believers and therefore believers should “throw in the towel” to their superior intelligence.

I call it the Dawkins Syndrome, though it could also be called the Ingersoll Syndrome, since Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) is the one who began the tradition of denigrating the intelligence of Christian scholars.
Click to expand...
Hi Char,

What do you call it when people say things like the following:

“I have made my case, and anyone, except you, who has closely followed my arguments and who knows both about science and philosophy, will logically agree with my arguments”

I mean, I like to think I know about both science and philosophy and yet for some strange reason I wasn’t ready to say that I could agree with Al yet. I guess I must be confused, right? Or maybe I just have a low intelligence? Too bad the debate ended so soon because I think this is an interesting topic and I like to see two smart people go back and forth until someone changes their mind. Isn’t that kind of scientific?
  • V
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top