Science can't destroy Religion

[Lochias]

Exceedingly happy

Sarah x

I think, for me, the crux is that a life based solely on how “happy” I am relative to other people and places isn’t a stable or liveable life at all…any worldly happiness can vanish in the blink of an eye.

One of my favorite proofs of God is the fact that I have been at peace, calm, and able to cope when the world around me collapsed. Nothing else could have brought me through.

Like my Mom has always said, “Nothing lasts forever down here.” There will come a time when happiness gives way to sadness, and vice-versa. God is there in the happy times, but even more so in the dark times, the time when we have absolutely no power to change what is happening. We ride the storm, we trust in God, and we emerge stronger, more peaceful, and more able to love even when life is dark.

Just my two cents.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I think I’m just too rational and practical, which I’m not saying is a good or bad thing, it just is how I am.

And while having very thoroughly informed myself about all the arguments on either side, I am too rational to become an atheist, that’s just how I am.

By the way, I am on your side when it comes to abiogenesis, and as a biochemist I am enormously impressed at how much progress science has made in this area in the last decade, after having somewhat stagnated for 50 years. Here is my review article for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

And yes, Szostak rocks.

 

[Hunter24]

Science cant destroy religion because on cannot prove or disprove the ultimate reality. Infact in science very little is proved with 100 percent certainty. Almost everything in science is just extramly well supported theory. Thus Science cannot pdisprove god or gods abilitys, but it can tell us what likely did happen, which is why many people are moving to a non-literal or partially-litteral interpretation of the bible. Science can’t disprove something like Genesis, but it can prove there is an incredibly high probability that the earth wasn’t created in 7 days. It can provide so much evidence that such thing are generally excepted to be the only possibility. That’s the problem.

 

[PRmerger]

I noted that there is no threads of Evolution and atheism which I think is good, good and good. I’ve seen some horrible horrible things said when people disagree over these issues and it is so . . . not needed.

God bless.

Indeed.

There certainly is much room for disagreement* and *dialogue here on the CAFs. Things can get quite contentious when discussing religion and personal points of view, but I like to think of myself sitting on someone’s patio, drinking a cocktail and eating something deliciously unhealthy, discussing religion.

http://www.imgzip.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/outdoor-patio-lighting-design.jpg

 

[atheistgirl]

I have no problem with the Second Synthesis as I’m an Open Theist I think they call it. And I probably wouldn’t be phased in the least if researchers found an adequate proof of concept for life from inorganic molecules. Well, phases in the sense that I would find my belief in God challenged, but it would probably engender in me a further awe of God.

I really don’t think Faithful Christians, or Muslims, or Jews or anyone of a devout faith, would be challenged by this.

Well, very few anyhow.

I think all that would happen, when we demonstrate and prove beyond all doubt that ‘‘life’’ can spontaneously arise, is those of faith will simply accept if that’s how it happened, then that’s how God intended it to happen.

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

Even if the someone else is God? How do we hear from him? Through His authorized spokesmen.

We each have to make several moral decisions every day, and I’m sure your priest doesn’t have the time to tell you what he thinks God wants you to do every time. When it comes to moral decisions we hear from God through our conscience. Why else would God have given us a conscience?

 

[inocente]

The first hurdle is our first temptation to sin. Usually our parents inform us immediately about right and wrong with a little tough love, thus dictating the formation of conscience.

Agreed but that doesn’t excuse us once we’re adults. Our parents or other authority figures may be racially prejudiced, homophobic or whatever, and the only way to break with the past and not in turn pass those prejudices on to our children is to review our conscience and form our own judgments by taking responsibility for ourselves.

 

[atheistgirl]

Like my Mom has always said, “Nothing lasts forever down here.” There will come a time when happiness gives way to sadness, and vice-versa. God is there in the happy times, but even more so in the dark times, the time when we have absolutely no power to change what is happening. We ride the storm, we trust in God, and we emerge stronger, more peaceful, and more able to love even when life is dark.

Just my two cents.

I’ve done this several times - ridden out the storm, but what got me through the first time was the unshakable belief in myself that my parents instilled in me, and the gift of determination that they gave me.

Later storms were comfortably ridden out with the love strength and support of family and real friends.

I know me, and my needs are very very simple. I think the simpler your needs, the better the chance you have of having them met, and once they’re met, you’re free to work on your happiness. I was just as ‘‘happy’’ setting out on my life, when I literally did not have two cents in my pocket, as I am now. It was a different in many ways, but it’s still happiness.

My mother is still alive, and she is of a great age.

We all know she will not be with us for very much longer, although she is very healthy for her age. I will be broken hearted when she dies.

But we all know it’s going to happen. I knew from the time I had reason she was going to die sometime - I’m just lucky she’s lived to see me make a success of my life, marriage, business, and give her back the gift of life through her grandchidren. It will be devestating for all of us when she dies. But we will not be ‘‘unhappy’’ in the sense that together we have had a sometimes hard life, but a great life, filled with love and fun and deep deep freindship, and we all know everyone dies at some time.

In fact, it is a source of great happiness for us, that we have had her so long and she has been a rock for us when we needed her to be.

I don’t think I’m explaining this very well, because reading back the words are not quite what I’m trying to say.

Of course there will be great sadness when she goes, but that in no way diminishes the enormous happiness and joy and love she brought into everyones lives that she touched.

And it is this we remember always, because we are all going to die.

Belief in God won’t change anything.

She will still die. We will still miss her. We will still have had the great fortune of having such a truely wonderful, kind, loving, great woman in our lives.

And this we will always celebrate and remember.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

And while having very thoroughly informed myself about all the arguments on either side, I am too rational to become an atheist, that’s just how I am.

And yes, Szostak rocks.

There’s plenty of room for all of us

I’ve read your article on talkorigins.

Very intersting reading.



Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

I noted that there is no threads of Evolution and atheism which I think is good,

They are banned topics for discussion here.

They are/can be, referenced in threads, but indepth discussion of these topics is **banned **by the forum administrators.

I believe the ban is temporary and so *may *be lifted in the future, but the ban has been in place for some considerable time.

It may be because of exactly what you said about other forums - discussions involving some people may get out of hand.

I’ve never taken part in most of the forums I’ve visited where these topics are discussed, exactly because of the amount of abuse that flies in both directions.

Sarah x

 

[XRU]

They are banned topics for discussion here.

They are/can be, referenced in threads, but indepth discussion of these topics is **banned **by the forum administrators.

I believe the ban is temporary and so *may *be lifted in the future, but the ban has been in place for some considerable time.

It may be because of exactly what you said about other forums - discussions involving some people may get out of hand.

I’ve never taken part in most of the forums I’ve visited where these topics are discussed, exactly because of the amount of abuse that flies in both directions.

Sarah x

Can’t say I’m sorry (because I’ve seen some really nasty nasty talk about it) although I have learned a lot after filtering through the flames. My science training is applied so I don’t have a fraction of the knowledge to address the issues so I just read what other smart people say and try and weight what they say.

I notice you sigh your name Sarah x … . kind of like SpaceX I’ve been following SpaceX with interest.

 

[XRU]

And while having very thoroughly informed myself about all the arguments on either side, I am too rational to become an atheist, that’s just how I am.

By the way, I am on your side when it comes to abiogenesis, and as a biochemist I am enormously impressed at how much progress science has made in this area in the last decade, after having somewhat stagnated for 50 years. Here is my review article for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

And yes, Szostak rocks.

Thanks for the link. I’ll take a look at it.

BTW, Al, I keep reading studies that very high percentages of scientists do not believe in God. As a scientist has this been your experience talking to colleagues? I’m very distrustful of “studies” because the way a study is worded and conducted can have such a great effect on the outcome.

Also, do the professionals you come in contact with have as much confidence in the Second Synthesis as I have been reading or are there those who have concerns that the SS should be re-evaluated. For example, I’m reading Evolution by Shapiro who makes a good case from primary sources that Evolution is strongly influenced from external conditions facing the organism. My understanding is that SS has not integrated this into the equation.

I’m extremely interested in this as biology has always been my first love . . . for some reason history has taken a hold of me the last twenty years or so, ha ha.

I’m gonna go read you review now:thumbsup:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

**I think all that would happen, when we demonstrate and prove beyond all doubt that ‘‘life’’ can spontaneously arise, is those of faith will simply accept if that’s how it happened, then that’s how God intended it to happen. **

You’ll never see that happen spontaneously. What you might see is an intelligently designed scientific experiment by which life appears to originate spontaneously. But it’s still an intelligently designed experiment, as opposed to a spontaneous event in the history of the universe.

 

[atheistgirl]

You’ll never see that happen spontaneously. What you might see is an intelligently designed scientific experiment by which life appears to originate spontaneously. But it’s still an intelligently designed experiment, as opposed to a spontaneous event in the history of the universe.

By that I mean we’ll be able to demonstrate beyond doubt life arising from simple chemical interactions, the kind we know that were present at the formation of the earth, leading to simple biology, leading to simple life, to more complext life, to what we have now.

I have no doubt we’ll be able to do this.

And that’s when those of sincere faith will simply say, well, sure, life could have originated in that way, but that just means that’s how God meant it to arise.

So all I’m saying is I don’t think this will challenge people who hold a sincere and devout faith in a higher being.

Sarah x

 

[exoflare]

copy and paste the user names of any trolls who are bothering you and they will bother you no more!

Except when people quote them.

 

[PRmerger]

BTW, Al, I keep reading studies that very high percentages of scientists do not believe in God.

I have not understood this to be true.

There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.--Peter Kreeft

 

[Viviphilia]

Correct me if I’m wrong.

We are supposed to be able to conclude, with certainty, that supernatural things must exist because there is a logical necessity for such things? For example, the creation of the natural universe requires something supernatural to have created it - because things must be created by some other thing (uncaused cause, etc…)?

We are supposed to be able to make conclusions about supernatural things, with certainty, and without necessary use of empirical arguments, because science is by definition limited to the natural world and thus cannot confirm or reject supernatural things - and logic alone can confirm or reject supernatural facts?

How are we ever supposed to know if something we are examining is a natural thing and not a supernatural thing? If logic can explain both natural and supernatural things, then why would we ever choose empirical evidence over logical argumentation? Isn’t that position basically the reverse of scientism?

Don’t we require some combination of empirical evidence and logical argumentation in order to have certainty?

So, nobody wants to try and explain how we are supposed to differentiate between supernatural and natural things?

 

[atheistgirl]

Thanks for the link. I’ll take a look at it.

BTW, Al, I keep reading studies that very high percentages of scientists do not believe in God. As a scientist has this been your experience talking to colleagues? I’m very distrustful of “studies” because the way a study is worded and conducted can have such a great effect on the outcome.

This study referenced from 2007 showed the numbers to be roughly the same - with scientists involved in physics, chemistry and biology only slightly ahead at 37% level of disbelief, of other academics involved in sociology, psychology, economics and political science who come out at 31% level of disbelief.

That’s still a very high number though, at about a third. And I think it shows that the true level of atheism, especially in the United States where other studies have shown people would trust just about anyone else other than an atheist and were open about their blatent discrimination against them, are hidden, because people fear the consequences of ‘coming out’ as an atheist.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

So, nobody wants to try and explain how we are supposed to differentiate between supernatural and natural things?

I’ve been fascinated now for a time with '‘miracles’ especially those required to confirm someone a saint. They are almost invariably of a medical nature.

What I don’t know is if the medical reports from these independent doctors say ‘‘we can’t explain it’’ or ‘‘this is most unusual’’ or of they use the word miracle or any reference to the Divine. The Vatican then take this as ‘proof’ of a miracle - as the doctors can’t explain it.

The cures have to meet certain criteria, one of which is the cure has to be permanent.

The only way to know if that criteria was met is to wait until the person who had the cure, died, and more independent doctors confirmed the cause of death had nothing to do with the ailment that was miraculously cured.

But that doesn’t happen.

The cure of Sister Marie Simon Pierre is being attributed to John Paul II - yet how could they know this cure is permanent until she dies, and her death is in no way related to Parkinson’s disease.

Sarah x

 

[LogisticsBranch]

An origin of life by natural causes is now highly probable, see my article for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

(BTW, in case that based on this you think I am an atheist: I am a Roman Catholic.)

Hi Al I just read the June 27, 2012 Astrobiology, The Origin of Life Challenge: Searching for How Life Began.

"Three teams have recently been selected for funding as part of a private challenge focused on research in the origins of life. The Origin of Life Challenge is funded by chemist and entrepreneur Harry Lonsdale who, along with a team of referees including Chris McKay of the NASA Ames Research Center, selected the winners.

“The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there’s not even a consensus on how to approach the problem,” McKay said. “That’s kind of exciting, but also kind of intimidating, because we don’t know what’s going to be the right answer.”

"Though not the expressed intention, all three proposals wound up examining some aspect of the RNA world. RNA is thought to be the precursor to DNA, at one time not only carrying genetic information but also acting as a catalyst.

“The winning selection was from British chemists John Sutherland at the Medical Research Council Laboratory in Molecular Biology in Cambridge and Matthew Downer at University College, London. They intend to study the prebiotic soup in which RNA may have originally formed, hoping to replicate the process. A second one-year grant was awarded to a Canadian-American team exploring how a complex pool of short RNAs, nucleotides, and inorganic material might become self-replicating RNA. The team, which includes Niles Lehman of Portland State University in Oregon, Peter Unrau of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, and Paul Higgs of McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, will construct a laboratory system to resemble primordial Earth. A third grant was extended for a single year to Wenonah Vercoutere of NASA Ames Research Center in California and David Deamer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who will develop and test a lab simulation of volcanic hot springs and the steps that may have led to the formation of RNA.”
astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/the-origin-of-life-challenge-searching-for-how-life-began/