Science vs Religion

[Avellan13]

Believing there is a God or some higher power controlling things is largely based on faith. But, you can't prove your faith to another person. Believing there is no God or some higher power controlling things is a much easier argument. You just counter every other argument by saying it doesn't exist.

The three different beliefs of how we got where we are (in no specific order):
Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism. I'll try to break each down to the basics. Of course, chime in, if you feel there is a need to clarify or even change something. Keep in mind...these are just the basics so don't get pissed if you don't think I gave your belief enough clout.

Evolution is the belief that we evolved though time, from apes. It was a natural evolution, without any assistance from a higher power, who some people might call God. Science says the planets and our solar system were created by the big bang theory and then over "billions and billions of years" (thank you, Carl) and the process of evolution, here we are.

Intelligent Design is a kind of parallel to evolution, with the assistance from God or some higher power to get the ball rolling. Where the assistance occurred might still be up for discussion, but those who believe in intelligent design believe we had help getting where we are, today. *And no, aliens aren't seen as a possibility of being the higher power.

Creationism is the belief that we were created by God, in His image. It's in the Bible and taught in Christian education. God is the supreme power and He created the world. Read "The Book of Genesis".

*There is also a fourth possibility that we came from aliens. This belief is based on the idea we came from another planet or aliens from another planet came here and started a colony, for whatever reason. There are different theories about this. Some people believe that we were visited by aliens at some time in the past and they assisted or guided the evolutionary path. Others feel we are the descendants of an alien existence on the planet, maybe a co-mingling of human and alien species.

That fourth one is called Scientology,or the Church of Scientology. Now these guys are weird. Scientologists believe that aliens dropped us off or something, built the pyramids, and so forth. They think that the aliens, which the scientologist insist they know are called the Intergalactice Intersteller Space Alliance, are monitoring them through nano_chips in our brains. Now whow the f- how do they know what the aliens are called? And how do they know the existence of these "nano-chips"?

 

[Stella_Omega]

The truth about subjective experiences is that they are subjective. That they are limited to one individual. And that therefore they have no bearing on the reality that the rest of us face.

Everyone is welcome to their subjective experiences. They are not welcome to make them a reality for me. The schizophrenic's voices tell him to kill his dog, how legitimate is that?

Your God doesn't approve of homosexuality, fine. YOU still can't tell me not to be homosexual. Or enforce your god's views on marriage by means of laws.

 

[teknight]

I think the vastness of absolute truth has to include subjective experiences, even if - like the schizophrenic's paranoid delusions - those experiences are limited to a single individual. Those delusions are no less "real" for that individual than my own experience of reality.

True, for social purposes, we have to find points of agreement. To create policy. To get the job done.

But as soon as we do that, we are beginning to engage in political and economic activity.

It promotes dialogue. Which is the only way people with differing world views are ever going to understand each other.

Yeah, the totality of truth includes the subjective experiences, but labels them as subjective, and, as such, not worth much in and of themselves. They're not unreal, or fake, but merely subjective and, as such, not worth much on their own.

But life=politics and economics. No?

 

[Felix_Jones]

Oh sky cake.

 

[teknight]

Oh sky cake.

Cake? In the sky?
Where do I sign up for this spiritual movement?

 

[eastern sun]

The truth about subjective experiences is that they are subjective. That they are limited to one individual. And that therefore they have no bearing on the reality that the rest of us face.

Everyone is welcome to their subjective experiences. They are not welcome to make them a reality for me. The schizophrenic's voices tell him to kill his dog, how legitimate is that?

Your God doesn't approve of homosexuality, fine. YOU still can't tell me not to be homosexual. Or enforce your god's views on marriage by means of laws.

Yeah, the totality of truth includes the subjective experiences, but labels them as subjective, and, as such, not worth much in and of themselves. They're not unreal, or fake, but merely subjective and, as such, not worth much on their own.

But life=politics and economics. No?

In case you haven't noticed, over there in the Talk forum, I try to make quite a case for the value of subjective experience!

I do fundamentally believe that subjective experience has value. We are constantly affected by both our own and each other's subjective experiences!@!! Constantly.

Science has not - yet - figured out how to account for it, except to make it irrelevant, or reduce its impact as a variable.

 

[Felix_Jones]

My imaginary space Santa's earthly delegates tell me everything I need to know.

 

[Felix_Jones]

We will not be free until the last king is hung with the entrails of the last priest.

 

[DVS]

It could just be really old pasta.

Also, and this is from the wiki article on ID:

See? It's a dodge.
They're gonna ban me from lit for say dodge too often. I'll start saying Ram instead.

But, OK. They're kinda separate as concepts. However, ID today, in the US, is creationism with a patina of science...or a pseudo science patina, meant to poke holes in science.

No, it's more like a Chrysler to evolution's Dodge. In this analogy, with evolution as a Dodge, that makes ID parallel to it, like a Chrysler. They both have a similar body, but with distinct differences. Mopar makes parts for both, but because of different tastes, each has its own appeal.

ID says there is some evolution, but not without some help. Creationism has no evolution involved at all. It states that God created us, in His image. Neither ID nor evolution says this was exclusively what happened.

Some have said that ID is in-between evolution and creationism, sharing parts of each. But creationism says that God and only God created the world. Some who believe in ID say it may have been with God's assistance, but there are just as many who believe in ID that say while something did happen, it wasn't God's assistance. They don't consider ID to be similar to creationism. They just say complex systems imply a designer, not that designer was God. So, if it wasn't God, was it maybe...aliens? Like most beliefs, nobody knows for sure.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In case you haven't noticed, over there in the Talk forum, I try to make quite a case for the value of subjective experience!

I do fundamentally believe that subjective experience has value. We are constantly affected by both our own and each other's subjective experiences!@!! Constantly.

Science has not - yet - figured out how to account for it, except to make it irrelevant, or reduce its impact as a variable.

Um. It depends on which branch of science you're talking about. Medicine,Psychology, Neurology, biochemistry, evolutionary biology, Anthropology, finance, -- Any field of study that looks at human beings, deals with subjective experience as a phenomenon in its own right.

Regarding the bolded, a better way to say it might be; "I have a strong theory that subjective experience has value, in this and this and the other type of interaction."

I will say that I am ONLY affected by someone else's subjective experience when they make that experience known to me, and often, take action based upon it. When my daughter feels grief or joy because of her friends, for instance. I can share that experience because she makes it known to me. And the reason i can share it is because I, too, have had that same subjective experience. Grief and joy are very common-- nearly universal. We don't really have to think about whether or not we are impinging on another person's life when we share those.


The subjective experience of hearing one's GOD talk to one and tell one that God Hates Loose Women, however-- I'm going to have a whole lot of problems with you when you try to share that one as a Truth that I too must respect and abide by.

 

[Avellan13]

Ok here are a few questions for you religious folks, mainly Chistians and Catholics.

1.) If God is all-powerful and controls everything, then why did he let homosexuality exist? Because it`s been proven that homosexuality is a genetic and not a choice among people.

2.) If Adam and Eve were the ony two humans on Earth, and they had two sons, then how the hell did the human population continue? Adam and Eve`s children had no females to go with so explain that? And if there were other females it`s still impossible because two males and two females. there had to be inbreeding and inbreeding results in disorders, mental problems, and usually death.

 

[Felix_Jones]

Um. It depends on which branch of science you're talking about. Medicine,Psychology, Neurology, biochemistry, evolutionary biology, Anthropology, finance, -- Any field of study that looks at human beings, deals with subjective experience as a phenomenon in its own right.

Not so fast boy genius, don't go lumping psychology, anthropology and finance with the sciences. Those were bird courses for people not really interested in the functioning of our physical world, these were subjects where your opinions mattered.

 

[Felix_Jones]

Ok here are a few questions for you religious folks, mainly Chistians and Catholics.

1.) If God is all-powerful and controls everything, then why did he let homosexuality exist? Because it`s been proven that homosexuality is a genetic and not a choice among people.

2.) If Adam and Eve were the ony two humans on Earth, and they had two sons, then how the hell did the human population continue? Adam and Eve`s children had no females to go with so explain that? And if there were other females it`s still impossible because two males and two females. there had to be inbreeding and inbreeding results in disorders, mental problems, and usually death.

Dude, those are retarded stories for simple people, let's not humour their ridiculous views by bothering to question them.

 

[teknight]

Not so fast boy genius, don't go lumping psychology, anthropology and finance with the sciences. Those were bird courses for people not really interested in the functioning of our physical world, these were subjects where your opinions mattered.

But, psych and anthro are social sciences as is econ (and thus finance).
What are you trying to say? They're not...genuine? They're not as valid as the hard physics that CERN's experimenting with?

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Why are seemingly rational people killing innocent pixels for this thread?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Not so fast boy genius, don't go lumping psychology, anthropology and finance with the sciences. Those were bird courses for people not really interested in the functioning of our physical world, these were subjects where your opinions mattered.

The sciences we call "Hard" tend to have hundreds of years of accumulated data behind them. The "soft" ones are in much earlier stages of data collection. And of course you can't prevent folk from jumping to conclusions on the basis of not enough facts. Damn Freud, damn him!

(I don't know any finance theorists by name, so can't call them out)

 

[Felix_Jones]

But, psych and anthro are social sciences as is econ (and thus finance).
What are you trying to say? They're not...genuine? They're not as valid as the hard physics that CERN's experimenting with?

That is exactly what I am saying. They're soft, they're bird...and the thing that I want to ask every economist in the world: what's it like to be wrong all the time?

They're not sciences, they're humanities. It's studying human behaviour, oh sure they'll apply some tenets of logic, even statistical analysis to give them that veneer of legitimacy. I suspect that that's mostly so that the people who study these things don't feel like they're wasting their time, or worse, their parents tuition money.

 

[teknight]

Why are seemingly rational people killing innocent pixels for this thread?

They're asking for it, those damn dirty pixels! Why are they so tiny? What are they plotting?

That is exactly what I am saying. They're soft, they're bird...and the thing that I want to ask every economist in the world: what's it like to be wrong all the time?

They're not sciences, they're humanities. It's studying human behaviour, oh sure they'll apply some tenets of logic, even statistical analysis to give them that veneer of legitimacy. I suspect that that's mostly so that the people who study these things don't feel like they're wasting their time, or worse, their parents tuition money.

Really? I've done psych experiments, the kind where labs were involved, as well as a variety of controls. But, you're right, it was soft, and thus, a crock.

What have you got that's better than economics? How do you account for economic downturns?

 

[Felix_Jones]

They're asking for it, those damn dirty pixels! Why are they so tiny? What are they plotting?


Really? I've done psych experiments, the kind where labs were involved, as well as a variety of controls. But, you're right, it was soft, and thus, a crock.

What have you got that's better than economics? How do you account for economic downturns?

Downturns? Where are the economists warning us about crashes and unemployment spikes before they happen? Oh sure there will be the odd one but he is consistently drowned out by the Ben Bernankes and Alan Greenspans of the world who do nothing but screech "buy!" and "borrow!". My problem with economics as a field of study is that it has been consistently hijacked by people with no understanding of what money does or how it is used. I suspect a single mother who has to choose between food or shelter knows more about economics than all the armies if Ivy League assholes who write studies for think tanks urging quantitative easing or deregulation or whatever.

 

[Felix_Jones]

Anyway...religion = silly lies for stupid people.
science = the best method for investigating our surroundings.

 

[teknight]

Downturns? Where are the economists warning us about crashes and unemployment spikes before they happen? Oh sure there will be the odd one but he is consistently drowned out by the Ben Bernankes and Alan Greenspans of the world who do nothing but screech "buy!" and "borrow!". My problem with economics as a field of study is that it has been consistently hijacked by people with no understanding of what money does or how it is used. I suspect a single mother who has to choose between food or shelter knows more about economics than all the armies if Ivy League assholes who write studies for think tanks urging quantitative easing or deregulation or whatever.

OK. So, you have a bone to pick with econ, hence, it's all wrong. All of it. 100%. You are absolutely right.

Your so called humanities have a far more difficult task than the hard sciences, since we've not yet gotten to the deterministic aspects of those fields of study. So, if you ask me, the hard sciences are the social sciences. The other stuff is far easier to work with.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As we can see, by Felix's example, there are science fundies just like there are religious fundies.

Felix, my dear, scientists are wrong, a lot of the time, and some scientists are wrong all of the time. the older and more established a science is, the less wrong you'll be-- because you are no longer looking for empirical data, you're building on the data that was hunted down before your time.

You admire, I'm sure, the brave pioneers that went out into the unknown and lost wagon wheels to rocks and died in the deep floods fording the rivers. yet you scorn the brave pioneers who are forging new areas of knowledge, incurring all the hazards of uncharted territory-- because they are not yet infallible.

Faith teaches people to expect infallibility, science should teach people to accept and expect a measure of uncertainty.

We need to be sending our children to science schools on Sundays, instead of Bible schools.

 

[teknight]

Buddhism (particularly Zen Buddhism), though, as a philosophy and not a religion is pretty cool. Of course, my one friend makes a fairly convincing argument for it, and lets me rib her on the details, so, it's always a fun exchange... hence my bias.

 

[Avellan13]

Buddhism is one of the few religions that doesn`t force or try to presuade others to join. The Buddhist monks are the kindest people you`ll ever meet.

I met one before and they`re, well interesting. They believe in enlightenment and inner peace and I respect them for that. They don`t hate or oppose religions. In some ways they actually embrace it.

 

[teknight]

Buddhism is one of the few religions that doesn`t force or try to presuade others to join. The Buddhist monks are the kindest people you`ll ever meet.

I met one before and they`re, well interesting. They believe in enlightenment and inner peace and I respect them for that. They don`t hate or oppose religions. In some ways they actually embrace it.

Sample size of one? Uncool.