login

Author Topic: the bible  (Read 14263 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AmandaGal

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3435
  • Liked: 14
  • Every new beginning starts with an end
    • Little Rock Information
Re: the bible
« Reply #90 on: April 21, 2008, 08:38:26 PM »
I dunno. I guess I see it the same as when someone says with certainty there is a god.

People who say with 100% certainty that there is a God are speaking from something other than science, barring those idiots who confuse religion and science.  This is the crux of the debate.  You can, arguably, have 100% faith.  You can never have 100% science.

One of the many reasons why religion and science should be totally separate things.
�mike5150� how tall are you?.....in gallons?


Offline DarthChimay

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1073
  • Liked: 0
  • How can a Pope be such a hottie?
Re: the bible
« Reply #91 on: April 22, 2008, 12:56:39 AM »
I dunno. I guess I see it the same as when someone says with certainty there is a god.

People who say with 100% certainty that there is a God are speaking from something other than science, barring those idiots who confuse religion and science.  This is the crux of the debate.  You can, arguably, have 100% faith.  You can never have 100% science.

One of the many reasons why religion and science should be totally separate things.

I absolutely agree. It just seems like, when it comes to him, people have bought into a lot of straw man arguments and unfair caricatures of what he says. Or maybe it's just that I don't find anything he's said shocking in the least. He's just saying them in a more public way than many have in a while.


Offline basselope

  • Sparkles in Sunlight
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 0
  • I wash my socks in soda water so my feet will fizz
Re: the bible
« Reply #92 on: April 22, 2008, 06:24:43 PM »
People who say with 100% certainty that there is a God are speaking from something other than science, barring those idiots who confuse religion and science.  This is the crux of the debate.  You can, arguably, have 100% faith.  You can never have 100% science.

One of the many reasons why religion and science should be totally separate things.

I absolutely agree. It just seems like, when it comes to him, people have bought into a lot of straw man arguments and unfair caricatures of what he says. Or maybe it's just that I don't find anything he's said shocking in the least. He's just saying them in a more public way than many have in a while.

i know, this is way off topic for the thread, and I wanted to be good anais.jude... please don't hilk on me.  :D

I don't mean this in smarmy way at all, so please don't take it that way... it's just an observation on my part. I've always had trouble with notion that Science an Religion are really separate. There is certainly a large portion of both camps that feel persecuted by the other and, indeed, there is a lot of persecuting going on, but at the root of it they really aren't that far apart. The achievements of the Greeks, Romans, Persians and so on not withstanding, Science, to a huge degree, was inspired by the desire to know God's universe better, and in so doing know Him better. The idea that God's universe was based on immutable laws and that men (in the purely non-sexist way, of course) might be able to understand slices of it is what got folks away from simple observation and philosophic discussion, and into studying causality. Prior to the boom in scientific study it was in large part perfectly acceptable to blame plague on the sinners and view it as God's wrath. Slaughter a few thousand of the unrighteous, flog yourself day and night and things might turn out OK. Science has taught us (some of us anyway) how to slaughter one another for entirely different reasons and with much more efficiency.

At a more basic level, both Science and Religion are fraught with holes and conflicting "truths" and require a large amount of faith in some very fundamental concepts. How many times do we use Science without knowing anything about how something works and without even considering it might fail, even when our very lives depend on it working? And how many times, after a "near miss" do we say "Thank God." even if it isn't a conscious praising? All things considered, I don't see why there shouldn't be room for both. After all, God helps those who help themselves.
They only killed half the Dinosaurs... they made the other half watch!


Offline torgosPizza

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7733
  • Liked: 247
  • Heaven is nowhere, just look to the stars.
    • RiffTrax
Re: the bible
« Reply #93 on: April 22, 2008, 06:46:37 PM »
[How many times do we use Science without knowing anything about how something works and without even considering it might fail, even when our very lives depend on it working?

But that's the point. Science is science because the results are observable, predictable, and repeatable. The theory satisfies the results when you can make a prediction about an experiment. If the result does not match, then you change the theory based on the new information (but only after many more times of running the experiment).

These things work because we know they will work - it's been proven. The same way we can test and observe gravity and electricity. No one has "seen" an electron, but we know they are there because of how other things interact with them. Sure, the best we can do is infer their presence and their other properties - as was mentioned above, no one can claim to know everything about everything - but the things we do know with some measure of certainty have gotten that way thanks to cold, hard science - not faith.


Offline basselope

  • Sparkles in Sunlight
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 0
  • I wash my socks in soda water so my feet will fizz
Re: the bible
« Reply #94 on: April 22, 2008, 07:45:57 PM »
[How many times do we use Science without knowing anything about how something works and without even considering it might fail, even when our very lives depend on it working?

But that's the point. Science is science because the results are observable, predictable, and repeatable. The theory satisfies the results when you can make a prediction about an experiment. If the result does not match, then you change the theory based on the new information (but only after many more times of running the experiment).

These things work because we know they will work - it's been proven. The same way we can test and observe gravity and electricity. No one has "seen" an electron, but we know they are there because of how other things interact with them. Sure, the best we can do is infer their presence and their other properties - as was mentioned above, no one can claim to know everything about everything - but the things we do know with some measure of certainty have gotten that way thanks to cold, hard science - not faith.

Believe me, I understand your point perfectly. My point is that you personally (or me, or anyone) haven't done all of the Science for ourselves. We take it on faith that the work has been done and that it's dependable. After all, every one around us uses it all the time, it's what makes the world tick, just as religious faith makes the universe tick for those with that faith. We know for certain that the current model of the universe is flawed. There is still no Grand Unified Theorem, we simply use what we know will work for our purposes, just as the righteous would pray and atone and say "see, it worked" when the plague petered out, or when the afflicted are healed by the Blessed Virgin. I know it's on a very different level of demonstration, it's just the very basic concept that is similar. We still rely on the immutable laws of the universe even though we, individually, don't really understand them.

And religion also changes when confronted with impassible conflicts. Granted it's much more slowly and very grudgingly, but I can well remember when certain radical paleontologists were scoffed at for suggesting that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Those guys took some pretty heavy heat from the Scientific community. So did Steven Hawking for his thoughts on Black Holes, etc, etc.
They only killed half the Dinosaurs... they made the other half watch!


Offline DarthChimay

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1073
  • Liked: 0
  • How can a Pope be such a hottie?
Re: the bible
« Reply #95 on: April 22, 2008, 09:53:52 PM »
[How many times do we use Science without knowing anything about how something works and without even considering it might fail, even when our very lives depend on it working?

But that's the point. Science is science because the results are observable, predictable, and repeatable. The theory satisfies the results when you can make a prediction about an experiment. If the result does not match, then you change the theory based on the new information (but only after many more times of running the experiment).

These things work because we know they will work - it's been proven. The same way we can test and observe gravity and electricity. No one has "seen" an electron, but we know they are there because of how other things interact with them. Sure, the best we can do is infer their presence and their other properties - as was mentioned above, no one can claim to know everything about everything - but the things we do know with some measure of certainty have gotten that way thanks to cold, hard science - not faith.

Believe me, I understand your point perfectly. My point is that you personally (or me, or anyone) haven't done all of the Science for ourselves. We take it on faith that the work has been done and that it's dependable. After all, every one around us uses it all the time, it's what makes the world tick, just as religious faith makes the universe tick for those with that faith. We know for certain that the current model of the universe is flawed. There is still no Grand Unified Theorem, we simply use what we know will work for our purposes, just as the righteous would pray and atone and say "see, it worked" when the plague petered out, or when the afflicted are healed by the Blessed Virgin. I know it's on a very different level of demonstration, it's just the very basic concept that is similar. We still rely on the immutable laws of the universe even though we, individually, don't really understand them.

And religion also changes when confronted with impassible conflicts. Granted it's much more slowly and very grudgingly, but I can well remember when certain radical paleontologists were scoffed at for suggesting that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Those guys took some pretty heavy heat from the Scientific community. So did Steven Hawking for his thoughts on Black Holes, etc, etc.

I think the difference here you might be missing is that science relies, by definition, on the natural, whereas religion relies, by definition, on the supernatural. Supernatural events are unexplainable; if they weren't, they wouldn't be supernatural. Because of this, you can't run repeatable, testable experiments based on supernatural hypotheses, so the sort of faith required is very different than that required by science.

As far as your examples go, sure there were people who rejected the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs and several other things, but they were won over by evidence and the ability to test the evidence themselves. Religion isn't like that; what do you test when someone tells you god has changed his mind?

The analogy between science and religion fails here. The faith one has in science is based on natural laws, but the faith one has in religion is based on the supernatural and that difference is critical.


Offline basselope

  • Sparkles in Sunlight
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 0
  • I wash my socks in soda water so my feet will fizz
Re: the bible
« Reply #96 on: April 23, 2008, 04:25:25 AM »
The analogy between science and religion fails here. The faith one has in science is based on natural laws, but the faith one has in religion is based on the supernatural and that difference is critical.

And Science has determined that 96% of the universe is comprised of something we cannot detect except by it's effect on the 4% we can detect. That strikes me as being a little esoteric. ;D
I really don't disagree with you, I only point out that neither you nor I test those hypothesis for ourselves. We go through our daily lives with the faith that the system we've entrusted our lives with will not fail us catastrophically. It's more a philosophical observation than a direct comparison.
They only killed half the Dinosaurs... they made the other half watch!


Offline AmandaGal

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3435
  • Liked: 14
  • Every new beginning starts with an end
    • Little Rock Information
Re: the bible
« Reply #97 on: April 23, 2008, 05:27:08 AM »
I agree to a certain extent that both science and religion require a kind of faith.  I've never seen an atom.  I have faith that they exist. I've seen mathematical proofs and I've ran a cyclotron so I've excited them.  I've never seen "gravity," but I know it's there.  If I jump, I fall.  If I jump again, I fall again.  We've seen time and time again that science can be wrong, so we are taking things in "faith."

I think it's language that is confusing the issue.  The "faith" of science is trusting the data.  You trust that this is really how it is and that these things really were reported correctly, etc.   You trust the steps in logic.  You trust the observations of the scientists before you.  You trust your repeated observations.  So, there is "faith" in that trust.

The "faith" of religion is more than about trusting the data.  You're given no real data to trust.  If you were, it wouldn't be religious faith. 

Why do you believe in God? What data do we have? The Bible?  To say you trust of the data (and I use the term loosely) presented by the Bible because they were written by God, and because of the data in the BIble you believe in God is circular.  Science is not circular like that. 

Most people would say it's more than the data in the Bible.  Most people would say they feel it to be so.  They know it in their hearts.  With religious faith, there comes a point that it has to take the next step from something in the natural world to something inside of you, if that makes sense.  With science you never do.  You make logical conclusions from the data.  You repeat your observations.  You get the same results.  You do this over and over and then you believe it to be true. 

Religious faith is a personal proof.  A personal step.  It is something you may not be able to prove to others, but you know it's true.  Something you may not be able to repeat may have convinced you there is a God and may have given you perfect faith.  It happens all the time.  I always like to hear my Christian friends tell me why they're 100% convinced their god is the right one. Each story is different.

With science, if someone asks, "Why do you believe in gravity?" we all pretty much say the same thing :)
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 05:29:13 AM by AmandaGal »
�mike5150� how tall are you?.....in gallons?


Offline DarthChimay

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1073
  • Liked: 0
  • How can a Pope be such a hottie?
Re: the bible
« Reply #98 on: April 23, 2008, 09:33:18 AM »
The analogy between science and religion fails here. The faith one has in science is based on natural laws, but the faith one has in religion is based on the supernatural and that difference is critical.

And Science has determined that 96% of the universe is comprised of something we cannot detect except by it's effect on the 4% we can detect. That strikes me as being a little esoteric. ;D
I really don't disagree with you, I only point out that neither you nor I test those hypothesis for ourselves. We go through our daily lives with the faith that the system we've entrusted our lives with will not fail us catastrophically. It's more a philosophical observation than a direct comparison.

Well, they determined it through very sound means (I'm assuming you're talking about dark matter). And they have detected it: http://www.physorg.com/news98450367.html

That's just one example of what dark matter is, and it isn't esoteric. You should check out the Astronomy Cast; they have a lot of great info about what dark matter is and how we know it exists. Within our lifetimes, the evidence has become quite overwhelming.

With science, if someone asks, "Why do you believe in gravity?" we all pretty much say the same thing :)

Yes. We say, "Watch this!" and throw a kitten out a window. Or a bible (to bring it 'round circle).


Offline basselope

  • Sparkles in Sunlight
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 0
  • I wash my socks in soda water so my feet will fizz
Re: the bible
« Reply #99 on: April 23, 2008, 05:12:55 PM »
Well, they determined it through very sound means (I'm assuming you're talking about dark matter). And they have detected it: http://www.physorg.com/news98450367.html

That's just one example of what dark matter is, and it isn't esoteric. You should check out the Astronomy Cast; they have a lot of great info about what dark matter is and how we know it exists. Within our lifetimes, the evidence has become quite overwhelming.

Yea, that was cool as heck when Hubble caught that!
But, there again, Science can't claim proof in the strictest sense. We can only say that we're pretty dang sure it's there because we can see what it does, and that when it's included in our model of the Universe (as we understand it)  the model works.Science can only claim a very high probability based on very controlled observations and calculations of  the phenomena when applied to our current understanding of physics. It still takes a little faith that enough of the system up to this point is basically right.
I really thought that the mechanics of particle entaglement would be a stumbling block for quite some time, but they've got it pretty well sorted out now. And I'm sure they'll do the same for Dark matter and Dark Energy in time... but they're not there quite yet. They still have some 'splainin to do-like a modern day Enuma Elish.

(I just threw that in for thread continuity... I really don't know much about it.)  :-\
They only killed half the Dinosaurs... they made the other half watch!