The Passion...

[J-Proof]

Hey C -- I think both sides feel the same way about the issue. That when science appears to confirm religion, one side of the fence boos and hisses. And when science seems to prove something without religion, the other side of the fence boos and hisses.

I personally know that it is not on my shoulders to try and convert the universe to believe what I believe -- I just offer an explanation for why I believe what I believe if so questioned

When's lunch dude-- I need carne fries or something

[msmpls]

Hey C -- I think both sides feel the same way about the issue. That when science appears to confirm religion, one side of the fence boos and hisses. And when science seems to prove something without religion, the other side of the fence boos and hisses.

I personally know that it is not on my shoulders to try and convert the universe to believe what I believe -- I just offer an explanation for why I believe what I believe if so questioned

When's lunch dude-- I need carne fries or something

pretty much sums it up right there.

I have intentionally refrained from voicing my stance on the whole religion vs. science debate and I know that my posts are ambiguous enough that it isn't necessarily easy to deduce my beliefs.

But if you ask me (and I know that no one did) I think it's pretty hard to argue that everything in our known universe operates by the same set of rules regarding energy. You can call that energy whatever you want: Goddess, God, Allah, Yahoowey, Bruce Chi, or Qi or Ki or whatever you damn well please but that energy is what makes everything and anything possible: the movement of electrons, the interaction of molecules, the binding of peptides and monosaccharides to form the macromolecules protein and sugar and even the life-giving properties of cohesion and temperature regulation of water.

Science strives to document this energy and provide insight into the implications of this energy while religion strives to put all of that meaning into a context in which we can use it to guide our motivations and interactions.

I think it's sad that science and religion are so often seen as two poles of theorem when, in my opinion, these two ideas are inexorably linked and the only differences between the two are the definitions we place and the ways in which each are used to persecute believers of one or the other.







oh yeah, what are carne fries?

[Priest4hire]

In all fairness I don't think the David and Goliath story is particularly religious as such. It might be a story in a religious text but the details of how David does the deed aren't particularly religious. As such all science is doing is suggesting how such a story might have happened. But being killed by a rock to the head isn't exactly miraculous.

When it comes to the miraculous I tend to agree with Kierkegaard. 'Proving' miracles with scientifically inspired explanations at best just strips them of their religious content. The whole idea is that god is above and beyond natural law--he created natural law of course--and thus science isn't applicable. A miracle is a miracle because it violates natural law.

This is the best short definition of what a religion is:

"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to the sacred. Beliefs and practices that unite into one single moral community all those who adhere to them." "[The sacred is] that which permeates, influences and relates to material reality and yet is recognized as part of another reality not subject to the limitations of material reality."

You'll notice god isn't mentioned. At any rate science is the systematic study of the natural world. That's why it's so effective: it only deals with that which can be properly studied and replicated and thus it is highly dependable. But that also means it simply can not ,in any way, tackle that which is beyond material reality. Such things are the providence of philosophy and religion. It may be that science can eventually be applied to such questions but I doubt it. Science is a very powerful tool, the best we have ever created to understand our world, but right from the start there was an understanding that it was limited in scope. That's why science moved away from metaphysics quite early and, despite its philosophical foundation, philosophy in general.

[J-Proof]

oh yeah, what are carne fries?

Prepare yourself.... for the wonder of....

CARNE FRIES!!!!

[Tarantulas]

oh yeah, what are carne fries?

Prepare yourself.... for the wonder of....

CARNE FRIES!!!!

If a potato could take a shit, this is likely what it would look like.

[msmpls]

that looks pretty gross ...but I'm sure it tastes better than it looks 












shit - probably shouldn't be so judgemental....being that girl who eats ants and all...

[Tarantulas]

Hey C -- I think both sides feel the same way about the issue. That when science appears to confirm religion, one side of the fence boos and hisses. And when science seems to prove something without religion, the other side of the fence boos and hisses.

I personally know that it is not on my shoulders to try and convert the universe to believe what I believe -- I just offer an explanation for why I believe what I believe if so questioned

When's lunch dude-- I need carne fries or something

Science is not and has never striven to confirm religious views.  Or did I miss something on Nova confirming the parting of the Red Sea?

I think the "science" you speak of gets the same respect in the real scientific community as an episode of Mythbusters.

[J-Proof]

I love ants....tasty little devils!

And T -- you are acting like "science" has a goal..... Science is an instrument that humans observe.

[Tarantulas]

I love ants....tasty little devils!

And T -- you are acting like "science" has a goal..... Science is an instrument that humans observe.

Yes, observe objectively...  Not with a "how do we prove this bullshit bible story to be true" goal in mind

The BBC special mentioned earlier in the thread was a bunch of conjecture to try and explain away things in the bible that modern people find unbelievable.  Red Sea / Reed Sea... David and Goliath...  and it turns out that Samson's hair was a mullet.

[J-Proof]

I don't see how trying to prove something happened using science as an instrument isn't objective. Objectivity depends on frame of mind, not the goal.

[Tarantulas]

I don't see how trying to prove something happened using science as an instrument isn't objective. Objectivity depends on frame of mind, not the goal.

"What sort of crap can we sling to explain this away"

That is the start and end of any effort to use "science" to try and back some religious concept.

The fact that idiots tell grade schoolers that the Grand Canyon was cut from "the great flood" (a flood mind you that is also a story in other cultures of the area at the same time) is despicable.  Don't worry, they have all manner of pie charts and statistics to back their claim... the only thing missing is actual science.

If you believe in this sort of "science", then you have a misunderstanding of what science actually is.

[J-Proof]

"What sort of crap can we sling to explain this away"

That is the start and end of any effort to use "science" to try and back some religious concept.

I have no idea where you have gotten your extreme bias from, or how many Chrisitan scientists you have actually spoken to about this matter, or how many theologians you have interviewed, or how much philosophy you have studied, but since you have a perception of reality that I don't agree with, I'm jsut oing to step aside and say "It's all good, homes...."

And to set the record straight, I agree with you on several key issues -- the greta flood didn't cause the Grand Canyon. But just as many idiots can be found on either side of the fence, bro... So I won't clump you up with them if you don't clump me up with them either.

I gots me carne fries and a sobe, so I'm all happy

[msmpls]

I love ants....tasty little devils!

And T -- you are acting like "science" has a goal..... Science is an instrument that humans observe.

Yes, observe objectively...  Not with a "how do we prove this bullshit bible story to be true" goal in mind

The BBC special mentioned earlier in the thread was a bunch of conjecture to try and explain away things in the bible that modern people find unbelievable.  Red Sea / Reed Sea... David and Goliath...  and it turns out that Samson's hair was a mullet.

a bunch of conjecture? please. No, the objective was to use scientifically substantiated evidence (ie. acromegaly is a condition that causes excessive testosterone production which in turn causes excessively large extremities; acromegaly, if left untreated, causes cells in the pituitary to divide unchecked, becoming cancerous (adenoma); pituitary adenoma can cause pressure on the brainstem and therefore leaving the patient vulnerable to ischemic stroke) to scientifically explain what may have happened as described by a story in a work of ancient literature.

These were scientists doing these studies: endocrinologists, neurologists, anatomists, and physiologists. Not preists and rabbis. They were not explaining away. For crying out loud, get off your high horse. I wasn't saying "See! The scientists proved that this or that or whatever!" no. I said that this is evidence that there may be some truth in some of some parts of this document. So please don't be so condecending.

[Tarantulas]

I love ants....tasty little devils!

And T -- you are acting like "science" has a goal..... Science is an instrument that humans observe.

Yes, observe objectively...  Not with a "how do we prove this bullshit bible story to be true" goal in mind

The BBC special mentioned earlier in the thread was a bunch of conjecture to try and explain away things in the bible that modern people find unbelievable.  Red Sea / Reed Sea... David and Goliath...  and it turns out that Samson's hair was a mullet.

a bunch of conjecture? please. No, the objective was to use scientifically substantiated evidence (ie. acromegaly is a condition that causes excessive testosterone production which in turn causes excessively large extremities; acromegaly, if left untreated, causes cells in the pituitary to divide unchecked, becoming cancerous (adenoma); pituitary adenoma can cause pressure on the brainstem and therefore leaving the patient vulnerable to ischemic stroke) to scientifically explain what may have happened as described by a story in a work of ancient literature.

These were scientists doing these studies: endocrinologists, neurologists, anatomists, and physiologists. Not preists and rabbis. They were not explaining away. For crying out loud, get off your high horse. I wasn't saying "See! The scientists proved that this or that or whatever!" no. I said that this is evidence that there may be some truth in some of some parts of this document. So please don't be so condecending.

The problem is that it didn't really happen.  It's a story book.  So they used science to explain away a storybook.

Science could be just as easily used to explain why Mary Poppins "flys" if you are interested...

[J-Proof]

just let it go msmpls lol -- I'll share some ants with you if you wish!