Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
Then you should be able to summarise them …

" [W]hy the universe and its laws are propitious for life"

Because life as we know it requires certain conditions which happenned to evolve in our universe.

“how life originated”

Still unknown (though there are several promising lines of research based on current knowledge), though “God made it” does not explain it any better than saying “Zeus made it,” “Odin made it,” or “Arglebargle made it” unless you import a lot of unverifiable preconceptions about God.

“why it became more complex”

Combination of random genetic mutation and natural selection favored (on the whole, and with some setbacks) more complex lifeforms surviving when drastic climate change occurred; although simple lifeforms have also survived through the whole process.

“and how rational, purposeless beings with self-control and insight into reality have been produced by irrational, purposeless processes…”

By “purposeless beings” I assume you mean “beings without a purpose or reason for their existence imposed by an outside intelligence.” If that is the definition you mean, see previous summary.
“Self-control” evolved because it is a necessary survival strategy, not only for individuals but for communities. Briefly, in the long run those without it do not survive.
“Insight into reality” gradually increased with brain size and complexity. The gulf between human “insight into reality” and that of some other closely related animals is less wide or absolute than our pride likes to believe.
I assume by “irrational processes,” you mean “processes unguided by an outside force or being imposing a predetermined plan upon them” rather than “processes incapable of being understood by human reason at least to some extent.” I agree that the first sense of “irrational” applies to the universe, but not the second. As for “purposeless processes,” see comment on “purposeless beings” above.
It is a proof that the world and its contents are not self-explanatory and require explanation.
Click to expand...
How?
Click to expand...
 
SGWessells said:
Why are the universe and its laws are propitious for life?"
Click to expand...
“happened” is an unscientific and inadequate explanation.
“how life originated”
Click to expand...
Still unknown (though there are several promising lines of research based on current knowledge), though “God made it” does not explain it any better than saying “Zeus made it,” “Odin made it,” or “Arglebargle made it” unless you import a lot of unverifiable preconceptions about God.
Click to expand...

“Matter made it” is immeasurably less of an explanation than “The Supreme Being created it” - and imports a lot of unverifiable preconceptions about the power of matter.
Combination of random genetic mutation and natural selection favored (on the whole, and with some setbacks) more complex lifeforms surviving when drastic climate change occurred; although simple lifeforms have also survived through the whole process.
Click to expand...
"By “purposeless beings” I assume you mean “beings without a purpose or reason for their existence imposed by an outside intelligence.”
Click to expand...
I mean precisely what I have stated. Beings who have the power of self-control, insight and responsibility for their activity.
“Self-control” evolved because it is a necessary survival strategy, not only for individuals but for communities.
Click to expand...
Self-control presupposes the existence of a self which doesn’t exist in your scheme of things.
“Insight into reality” gradually increased with brain size and complexity. The gulf between human “insight into reality” and that of some other closely related animals is less wide or absolute than our pride likes to believe.
Click to expand...
The products of combinations of random genetic mutation and natural selection are just blind cogs in the universal machine. Neither insight nor intelligence leap into existence from nowhere.
I assume by “irrational processes,” you mean “processes unguided by an outside force or being imposing a predetermined plan upon them” rather than “processes incapable of being understood by human reason at least to some extent.” I agree that the first sense of “irrational” applies to the universe, but not the second.
Click to expand...
Then you are left with the metaphysical conjuring trick of getting something for nothing!
As noted above, not everyone assumes that the universe is “not self-explanatory.” I see nothing in your statement that “proves” it is not.
Click to expand...
Prove that it is!
On the contrary. It prompts us to look for a metaphysical rather than a scientific explanation.
Click to expand...
Thus intruding a religious explanation into areas of physical processes which are the proper domain of science.
Click to expand...

“metaphysical” and “religious” are not synonyms.
When metaphysics ruled our knowledge, so did ignorance of the natural world Science has proven to be a better explanation because it works. Metaphysics didn’t build the computers we are writing with.
Click to expand...
Without Christianity modern science wouldn’t exist.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
There has been an immense amount of theological, philosophical and logical analysis and investigation of the subject based on facts about reality.
Click to expand...
I grant you the “immense amount.” The “facts about reality” is what we are debating, so assuming it as a premise begs the question.
Click to expand...

Do you doubt the reality of your mind?
“Science” does not put anything at the center of the universe. (Nor, these days, does theology).
Click to expand...
Do you believe there is any other explanation of reality than science?
The meaning of “explain” in the phrase “explain scientists” is unclear.
Click to expand...
“Explain how scientists originated”.
Saying “Matter did it” adds nothing to our knowledge, since we know neither how nor why matter did it. How did matter create itself? Or how has matter existed forever?
Click to expand...
Religion and the uncertainties of life have taught us to believe in beings with benevolent or malevolent purposes toward us, but matter tells us nothing about these. In my experience, believers in such beings, when pressed, always ultimately take refuge in “faith” – simply deciding to believe without evidence. I’m glad it comforts them, but it is not an explanation because of the “without evidence” requirement.
Click to expand...
Believers in the primacy of matter take refuge in their closed system of tangible objects because it relieves them of responsibility for their actions and reduces moral obligations to human conventions that can be ignored when convenient! In a purposeless universe anything goes!
You are putting matter before the mind even though mindless matter doesn’t even know it exists!
Click to expand...
But you and I are not mindless matter. I have no experience of mind without matter. How would I?
Click to expand...

Do you have experience of mind at all?!
You assume your thoughts are material objects but if they are material objects material objects must be aware of material objects - a hypothesis which contradicts Godel’s incompleteness theorem and infringes the law of conservation of energy.
Click to expand...
How?
Click to expand...

Do you deny that thoughts are electrical impulses?
Click to expand...
 
rossum said:
I don’t think so. God told Adam, not Eve, see Genesis 2:16-17. You really ought to know your Bible better. Even I know that and I am not Christian. Eve hadn’t been created when God warned Adam not to eat from the two magic trees.

You are not doing your case any good by making such an elementary error in your Bible references.

rossum
Click to expand...
Really, Oh my. How about if you read past chapter 2 to chapter 3. Did that ever cross your mind. Here let me show you.

Did God really tell YOU not to eat from any trees in the garden. The women answered the serpent WE may eat of the fruit of the trees in the Garden, it on the fruit in the middle of the garden GOD SAID, you shall not EAT or even TOUCH it lest you die.

So maybe before you should think twice before you accuse me of not knowing my faith:mad:
 
StrawberryJam said:
Your answer is without question, wrong.
Click to expand...
You either believe in the word of God or you don’t. I believe in the word of God.

Rom. 5:12 proves Adam was the first Man.

Gen. 1:27 God created MAN in HIS image.

Last but not least God warns us.

1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy GUARD what has been entrusted to you. Avoid profane BABBLING and Absurdities of SO-CALLED knowledge. By professing it, some people have deviated from the Faith. Grace be with you all.
 
Tonyrey, post 182, wrote:“happened” is an unscientific and inadequate explanation."

Only if you have an adequate scientific (i.e. nonreligious) explanation which is better. Isn’t the basis of your complaint about materialistic science that it lacks a divine origin and guidance? That is, science teaches that the universe “just happened.” How could that explanation be unscientific when it is your whole gripe against science?
"“Matter made it” is immeasurably less of an explanation than “The Supreme Being created it” - and imports a lot of unverifiable preconceptions about the power of matter.
Click to expand...
First, at least we have direct experience that matter exists; we have none for a “Supreme Being”. Second, we can prove a lot about the “power of matter” but everything claimed about a “Supreme Being” is hearsay. If you read a few good science books, you would know that the power of matter is verified in many instances. I suggest Simon Singh’s The Big Bang and Natalie angier’s The Canon.
Self-control presupposes the existence of a self which doesn’t exist in your scheme of things
Click to expand...
.

Since when? Where did I ever say that a self is “not included in my scheme of things?” If I did, who is writing all these posts of mine? You make a lot of false assumptions about “my scheme of things” which leads me to believe that what you are really arguing against is
a picture in your mind of what those evil materialists believe, and you’re cutting and pasting me into it whether I fit or not.
The products of combinations of random genetic mutation and natural selection are just blind cogs in the universal machine. Neither insight nor intelligence leap into existence from nowhere.
Click to expand...
I never said they leap into existence “from nowhere.” Nor does any evolutionist. They evolved just like all our other traits, and can be found, although in a less developed stage, in many of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.
Would you please go read informative books like Shubin’s Your Inner Fish, Coyne’s Why Evolution is True, or Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God (Miller is Catholic, BTW) before making comments that prove only that your indignation against evolution outweighs your knowledge of it?

You are the one making the assertion that the universe “is not self-explanatory.” Since you made the assertion, it is up to you to prove it. I’ll bet you can’t do it without invoking a god who is self-explanatory.
“metaphysical” and “religious” are not synonyms.
Click to expand...
My apologies. Your constant use of metaphysics to justify your religious beliefs must have confused me. I amend my comment to read “Thus intruding a metaphysical explanation into areas of physical processes which are the proper domain of science.”
Do you doubt the reality of your mind?
Click to expand...
I doubt that theology provides the only, or the most reasonable explanation for the reality of my mind.
Do you believe there is any other explanation of reality than science?
Click to expand...
There is no other that is so well guarded from subjective bias and wishful thinking, or so well confirmed by its practical results. Lots of other explanations exist. Whether they are true or not is another matter.
“Explain how scientists originated”.
Click to expand...
Do you mean biologically, psychologically, or culturally?
Without Christianity modern science wouldn’t exist.
Click to expand...
I’ve read about that claim. Unfortunately, the books and articles supporting it left out the other side of the story, which includes the inquisition which tried Galileo, modern Creationists, the people who objected to anesthesia because it contradicted God’s intention that we suffer in this world, and so on. Christianity has always been divided and ambivalent toward science; every supporter has been countered by an opponent. Every Asa Grey (early supporter of Darwin) has been countered by a George Macready Price (inventor of "flood geology).
Believers in the primacy of matter take refuge in their closed system of tangible objects because it relieves them of responsibility for their actions and reduces moral obligations to human conventions that can be ignored when convenient! In a purposeless universe anything goes!
Click to expand...
This is the logical fallacy of arguing from presumed motives of your opponents. The problem is that even if that were our motive, it would not affect the truth of our claim or the cogency of our arguments. It is a red herring, and insulting to boot. It’s also a bad debating tactic, because using your fists shows that you’ve run out of arguments.
As for the “anything goes” claim, it isn’t true. In a purposeless universe, murder still kills someone, theft deprives someone of property unjustly, crime undermines social coherence, and people can figure out that life is safer and more pleasant for everyone if such actions are actively discouraged. It doesn’t take commandments thundered from a mountain to see that.
Do you deny that thoughts are electrical impulses?
Click to expand...
Are you unaware that electrical impulses are material (i.e. composed of particles obeying the laws of physics)? Thus if our thoughts are electrical impulses, they are material.
 
I have been observing the ping pong game of science vs religion/belief and conclude their can be no winner in this game.

How do I know God exists? I know from my personal experience of God and the experiences of the people we read about in the Old Testament. I am not a fundamentalist so therefore separate the historical parts of the bible from the spiritual. I read the Old Testament as the awakening of the Jewish people to the presence of spirit (God) who spoke to them not so much with a voice of God but with ideas, thoughts from the mind of God. They expressed this evolving understanding (awareness) with stories, allegories to explain these ideas, I believe all this was inspired by God with them. I don’t believe the allegories were ever meant to be taken literally.

In the New Testament I am reinforced with my belief in a source (God) for all that exists. I believe in the historical Jesus and he is the Messiah—the promise of the visible manifestation of the Christ. Christ is the fulfillment in man of this promise.

I believe Jesus had the perfect relationship with what Jesus referred to as our Father (Abba) and in that was one with God. Does that mean the man-Jesus becoming God? Or God becoming Man; either way Jesus is the manifestation of God in us the new convenient as opposed to God with us in the Old Testament.

When I read the New Testament I hear Jesus not so much telling us he came to save us from our evil ways. I hear Jesus telling us to follow him. He gave us so many lessons on how to live the life we have as best we can; forgiveness, love. I also hear that Jesus told us he did not come to change the world but that his Father, our Father has a plan to liberate us from a world that is straining through difficulties toward God’s perfect idea unfolding in man being one with him.

Jesus, for me, is the template of what man is to become and Jesus is the way to that. He is our hope of glory. We tend to focus so much on Jesus suffering and dying and not enough on his message of hope.
 
francessmith said:
I have been observing the ping pong game of science vs religion/belief and conclude their can be no winner in this game…Jesus, for me, is the template of what man is to become and Jesus is the way to that. He is our hope of glory. We tend to focus so much on Jesus suffering and dying and not enough on his message of hope.
Click to expand...
Francessmith, brilliant post!
 
francessmith said:
I have been observing the ping pong game of science vs religion/belief and conclude their can be no winner in this game.

How do I know God exists? I know from my personal experience of God and the experiences of the people we read about in the Old Testament. I am not a fundamentalist so therefore separate the historical parts of the bible from the spiritual. I read the Old Testament as the awakening of the Jewish people to the presence of spirit (God) who spoke to them not so much with a voice of God but with ideas, thoughts from the mind of God. They expressed this evolving understanding (awareness) with stories, allegories to explain these ideas, I believe all this was inspired by God with them. I don’t believe the allegories were ever meant to be taken literally.

In the New Testament I am reinforced with my belief in a source (God) for all that exists. I believe in the historical Jesus and he is the Messiah—the promise of the visible manifestation of the Christ. Christ is the fulfillment in man of this promise.

I believe Jesus had the perfect relationship with what Jesus referred to as our Father (Abba) and in that was one with God. Does that mean the man-Jesus becoming God? Or God becoming Man; either way Jesus is the manifestation of God in us the new convenient as opposed to God with us in the Old Testament.

When I read the New Testament I hear Jesus not so much telling us he came to save us from our evil ways. I hear Jesus telling us to follow him. He gave us so many lessons on how to live the life we have as best we can; forgiveness, love. I also hear that Jesus told us he did not come to change the world but that his Father, our Father has a plan to liberate us from a world that is straining through difficulties toward God’s perfect idea unfolding in man being one with him.

Jesus, for me, is the template of what man is to become and Jesus is the way to that. He is our hope of glory. We tend to focus so much on Jesus suffering and dying and not enough on his message of hope.
Click to expand...
What a nice, honest, and well-articulated post! I may never understand people with beliefs such as yours, but you expressed yourself very well and I look forward to reading more posts from you.
 
StAnastasia said:
Right, you said that. If they aren’t electrical impulses, are they magic? Fairies? What are they?
Click to expand...
Thoughts are intangible events in your mind which **you **can control and which enable you to exist rationally…
 
inocente said:
Supernatural thingamajigs. :cool:
Click to expand...
According to you everything whatsoever is composed of natural thingamajigs some which are aware that they are natural thingamajigs and they don’t want to be anything but natural thingamajigs because it liberates them from every form of responsibility for other natural thingamajigs… :bounce:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top