Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In modern times many people either trust in science or believe in religion but I believe the two are one.

The problem with words is that it forms a strict category where if something did not completely comply with the definition of that term, it is said to be not associated with that term.

Science is merely mans study of the environment we live in and ultimately is just a tool of God. God created what we know today as DNA, evolution, and all the periodic elements. These are just all part of his miracles in creation. But science cannot study the conscience, the faith, the belief. These too are also of God. Because they are intangible with no known way of proving or analyzing how they work, many fanatics of science rule them out altogether.

God wishes for us to believe in that which we do not know is certain, that is just how he wishes it to be. He could perform miracles for every bad situation that ever occurs in this world but why shelter your children than teach them to learn (not saying that God does not perform any miracles). Jesus was put in this world to defy what was common knowledge then and to preach the truth. Ultimately he was prosecuted, suffered, and died. Shortly he was resurrected for eternal life. Because it is hard for us, humans, to understand this, as everything in our logical reasoning minds defy this, many of us wonder what truly happened. But those that do believe, who choose to believe, who tell themselves and pray unto God, I choose to believe that which I do not see, that which I do not understand, will be blessed for it. God could have easily chosen something which we could understand, but he chose not to. This is just God’s will. You could say he delights in those who believe in the unbelievable.

As man continues his journey unto this earth and as we learn more knowledge about the earth that we live in, we discover more about this earth but less about God. Man’s reasoning is mathematic, 1 + 1 must equal 2. We apply this sort of logic with everything that we see today, whether it is the shape of a chair, or the distance it takes to get from one place to another. Through the study of our environment, we as humans feel like we understand everything about what is around us. We have become cocky, arrogant, and confident in that we have unraveled this earth and know everything about it. How false that is I cannot begin to tell you. There are things in this world that we are not meant to understand. The conscience, heroic acts, temptations, empathy, etc. We as humans must accept that there are things we are just unable to understand because we cannot touch it, cannot feel it, and cannot see it; but just because so does not mean it doesn’t exist. Man was closer to God at the beginning of time than we are now.

All in all, what I’m trying to say is this. Believe there is a higher power, Someone guiding our life, teaching us along the way. He will not force decisions upon us, but he will put us in situations where you have a choice. This choice may go against all reasoning and everyone around you will tell you that you are a fool for doing it. But listen to your heart, for your belief is there for a purpose, a means to guide you. Judge the decision by the power of that belief. And ultimately, accept to yourself, that we are merely humans who may not be designed to understand this world and how it works; so therefore, anything and everything is possible. When a situation comes where you feel as if there is no way out, pray unto Him who guides you, and He will show you the way.
You don’t have one religion, so tell me science now is compatible with what religion? I don’t see it logical when people say religion, because there is not one religion, there is thousands and science can’t be compatible with all religious beliefs and dogmas.
 
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:
Quote where I’ve ever said anything like that, or are you lying?
 
“happened” is an unscientific and inadequate explanation."
You assume scientific explanations are the only valid ones…
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?
Science doesn’t explain itself!
“Matter made it” is immeasurably less of an explanation.

You infer that it exists.It exists…

You infer that it exists - with your mind.
we have none for a “Supreme Being”.
We have none for Supreme Matter!
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 would suggest you read some books about the power of the mind. Have you tried auto-hypnosis?
Self-control presupposes the existence of a self which doesn’t exist in your scheme of things…
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?

What is your notion of the self?
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.
Precisely the same vacuous assertions as those by dawkins about evil religion!
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 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.

Evolved from the dust! Highly credible… :rolleyes:
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.
Totally irrelevant. Is there any evidence that the universe created itself?
Do you doubt the reality of your mind?
I doubt that theology provides the only, or the most reasonable explanation for the reality of my mind.

What precisely is your mind?
Do you believe there is any other explanation of reality than science?
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.

Do you believe there is any valid explanation of reality other than science?
“Explain how scientists originated”.
Do you mean biologically, psychologically, or culturally?

Don’t you believe they originated in atomic particles?
Without Christianity modern science wouldn’t exist.
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).

All that is irrelevant. **You haven’t refuted Jaki.
**
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!
This is the logical fallacy of arguing from presumed motives of your opponents…

The fact remains you are trapped in a closed system of tangible objects which are not morally responsible for their activity.
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.
How do you justify your assumption that the principle of equality is valid?
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.
**Are **your thoughts electrical impulses?
 
Your reference to “Supernatural thingamajigs” suggests that they are a load of nonsense…
Correct, and anyone who thinks otherwise can speak up any time they like.

But you misrepresented me and implied I lack integrity and morals. If you really think a large proportion of humanity is mad and immoral because it doesn’t share your genius, righteousness and specific personal views, why not take a few moments to ponder the probabilites. :rolleyes:
 
Thoughts are intangible events in your mind which **you **can control and which enable you to exist rationally…
tonrey, Can you please say a bit more about this? How do you know thoughts are in your mind? Do you mean inside your skull, or do they hover nearby? If thoughts are not electrical impulses tied to the neurophysiology of a particular brain, why do I have my own thoughts, and you have your own thoughts? Why don’t I have my cat’s thoughts? Are thoughts species specific? How can I be sure my thoughts are inside my heard rather than being perched on a telephone wire in the tree outside my house?

I hope you have answers to these fascinating questions!

StAnastasia
 
Your reference to “Supernatural thingamajigs” suggests that they are a load of nonsense…
With the equally facile response that it is a load of nonsense to believe that everything is composed of natural thingamajigs…
But you misrepresented me and implied I lack integrity and morals.
How could I imply anything about you when I haven’t even mentioned you?!
 
How do you know thoughts are in your mind? Do you mean inside your skull, or do they hover nearby?
Your questions reveal the assumption that everything must have a physical location. The expression “in your mind” is metaphorical in a similar way to the statement “In God we live and move and have our being.” God is not generally restricted to physical phenomena. If you believe we are made in God’s image and likeness it is hardly unreasonable to suppose that our nature is in some respects intangible…
If thoughts are not electrical impulses tied to the neurophysiology of a particular brain, why do I have my own thoughts, and you have your own thoughts? Why don’t I have my cat’s thoughts? Are thoughts species specific? How can I be sure my thoughts are inside my heard rather than being perched on a telephone wire in the tree outside my house?
All these questions are still based on the assumption that we are no more than biological machines…

Do you believe truth, freedom, justice and love are perched on telephone wires - or anywhere else for that matter?
 
Your questions reveal the assumption that everything must have a physical location. The expression “in your mind” is metaphorical in a similar way to the statement “In God we live and move and have our being.” God is not generally restricted to physical phenomena. If you believe we are made in God’s image and likeness it is hardly unreasonable to suppose that our nature is in some respects intangible…
OK, so where are your thoughts? Are they inside your skull/brain? My thoughts feel like they are inside my skull. When I’m thinking, I don’t feel like I am remotely accessing my thoughts which reside in France, or Nigeria, or Australia, or Argentina, all place that I have visited.
All these questions are still based on the assumption that we are no more than biological machines…
No, they are not based on that assumption.
Do you believe truth, freedom, justice and love are perched on telephone wires - or anywhere else for that matter?
Not on telephone wires. Those concepts are inside our heads and other people’s heads. We can converse about them because we share with other people a set of assumptions about them.
 
Code:
             *
Your questions reveal the assumption that everything must have a physical location. The expression “in your mind” is metaphorical in a similar way to the statement “In God we live and move and have our being.” God is not generally restricted to physical phenomena. If you believe we are made in God’s image and likeness it is hardly unreasonable to suppose that our nature is in some respects intangible…
Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint them within your skull? When you die do you cease to have thoughts?
All these questions are still based on the assumption that we are no more than biological machines…
.
No, they are not based on that assumption.

What else are we?
Do you believe truth, freedom, justice and love are perched on telephone wires - or anywhere else for that matter?
Not on telephone wires. Those concepts are inside our heads and other people’s heads. We can converse about them because we share with other people a set of assumptions about them.

Are truth, freedom, justice and love merely concepts?
 
Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint them within your skull?

Good question. There is some indication of brain localization, but I’d have to look more carefully. The scientist in the next office of my department writes me: “My sense is that it’s messy. Stimulating or damaging a chunk of the brain can knock out a memory, but fMRI studies of people remembering something will show activity spread fairly widely. Thoughts can’t be localized to a particular neuron, say, and probably not to a small brain region.”
When you die do you cease to have thoughts?
 
Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint them within your skull?
The fact that electrical activity in the brain is related to thoughts does not imply that thoughts **are **electrical activity.
When you die do you cease to have thoughts?
I imagine so, until the resurrection, when God recreates a brain for you. None of the people I know have shown evidence of having thoughts after death.

So you don’t believe we have a soul? Or even if we do the soul is unable to think without a body - which suggests that God is incapable of thought!
Are truth, freedom, justice and love merely concepts?
No, they certainly are concepts, but they are also values and ideals that have guided human actions for thousands of years.

So they don’t refer to the **correspondence **between belief and reality, situations, **relations **between people and personal activity? In other words truth or freedom or justice cease to exist if they are not recognised - which means they are human inventions rather than discoveries!
Collectively we speak and write and think about truth, freedom, justice and love. But an essay on love does not mean that love is sitting on your page. Rather, the symbols in words have a collective meaning that can be accessed by individual minds.
Symbols imply that there is a **reality **to be symbolised…

This where science becomes useless and metaphysics takes over. 🙂
 
The fact that electrical activity in the brain is related

to thoughts does not imply that thoughts **are **electrical activity.

I don’t see any evidence that thought is separate from electrical activity.
So you don’t believe we have a soul? Or even if we do the soul is unable to think without a body - which suggests that God is incapable of thought!
 
The fact that electrical activity in the brain is related
Is electrical activity an adequate explanation of insight, intuition, induction, and inspiration? Is reasoning merely a process of mechanical computation?
So you don’t believe we have a soul? Or even if we do the soul is unable to think without a body - which suggests that God is incapable of thought!
Everything has soul. And I see no evidence to lead me to conclude either that dead humans think or that thought is possible without a neurophysiological substratum. Nor do I see evidence – other than anthropomorphic biblical stories – that god “thinks” in any sense like biological creatures like crows and humans and elephants think.

Do you believe in a personal God? In what sense are we made in God’s image? Does God know what He is doing?
In other words truth or freedom or justice cease to exist if they are not recognised - which means they are human inventions rather than discoveries!
Those are your words, not mine.

They are implied by your statement that truth, freedom, justice and love are simply concepts, values and ideals in the human mind - and correspond to nothing in reality. What is a fact? A figment of the imagination?
Symbols imply that there is a **reality **
to be symbolised…
True.

Then what are the realities to which those symbols refer?
 
The neuroscientist who sees thoughts on an EEG machine is a magician!
I am not a neuroscientist.

You added a machine, to the person.

Like the tools we need to see things our senses can not see.

Your tools may be a book.

The ones neuroscientists rely on are not given to us from a book.
 
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science

Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed
Yes, the modern peer review system of submitted for review science papers is positively anti-science because the great pressure placed on the reviewers to favor orthodoxy, and reject those that conflict with orthodoxy. Secular Humanism is orthodoxy and has been over the last 140 years. The science paper on acupuncture that you referenced may be a victim of that, but it is a very poor example.

On the other hand, The Theory of Evolution has been utterly debunked on the Macro-evolution level, and so has the secular humanistic Big Bang Theory.

On the micro level, Mendelian Genetics rules on the variation of the species.
 
Yes, the peer review of submitted science papers is positively anti-science because the great pressure placed on the reviewers to favor orthodoxy, and reject those that conflict with orthodoxy. The science paper on acupuncture that you referenced may be a victim of that, but it is a very poor example.

On the other hand, The Theory of Evolution has been utterly debunked on the Macro-evolution level, and so has the secular humanistic Big Bang Theory.

On the micro level, Mendelian Genetics rules on the variation of the species.
 
Yes, the peer review of submitted science papers is positively anti-science because the great pressure placed on the reviewers to favor orthodoxy, and reject those that conflict with orthodoxy. The science paper on acupuncture that you referenced may be a victim of that, but it is a very poor example.

On the other hand, The Theory of Evolution has been utterly debunked on the Macro-evolution level, and so has the secular humanistic Big Bang Theory.

On the micro level, Mendelian Genetics rules on the variation of the species.
The Theory of Evolution has not been debunked.
Which Big Bang Theory is secular and humanistic?
 
The Theory of Evolution has not been debunked.
Be careful on a catholic forum trying to diss the Big Bang Theory.

Do some research on it before spouting off like that.
I agree that the universe appears to be expanding at very high speeds. My problem is that the Theory was devised strictly by scientists who were determined that the Big Bang had to be a materialistic theory. That there must not be any room for an intelligent being called God allowed in the Theory. My view of our universe and life on this planet requires an Intelligent Being in order to impose boundary conditions on the Laws of Physics and chance to bring about the universe as we know it.

The Big Bang Theory is a purely mathematical abstract construct with very little or no basis in reality, except that the universe is expanding and that the expansion appears to be accelerating. The math was invented by materialists in an effort to explain the observation of our expanding universe and the known helium and deuterium abundances found in the universe. The math is constantly being tweaked in an effort to explain the big bang as well as the formation of galaxies, stars, planets etc. As with biogeny, cosmogony has become permeated with evolutionary assumptions and conclusions, yet, despite this, the Big Bang points to an extremely fined tuned low entropic beginning of our universe that suggest an uncaused cause, that must exist, that caused the universe to come into existence, and many have concluded the uncaused cause to be an intelligent being, the I AM, God Himself.

Whenever problems arise, a big banger will just add some more mathematics to the equation, thus we have this mysterious mathematical ‘inflation’ to help bring the ‘materialistic’ Big Bang theory into agreement with observations. If there was ‘inflation’ at all, then we do not know what started the inflation and what caused the inflation to suddenly stop.

Mathematical changes also resulted from the “Big Bangers” failure to find the predicted gravitons, monopoles, etc. Using their preconceived materialistic worldview as a constraint, and their intelligence, big bangers simply devised more mathematics to explain away their failure to observe the predictions of their Big Bang Theory, and now the “Big Bangers” have new mathematical reasons why we do not observe the predicted gravitons, monopoles, etc. If they had found the predicted gravitons and monopoles in the first place, they would not have bothered to add the new math that makes them invisible.

I’ll leave it at this for now.

Telestia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top