Science-Religion. Which wins?

<p>

</p>

<p>Arguable, but for the sake of your point I’ll accept this claim. Note that it is not empirically justified in any way.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I have not seen an explicit link between duty and the process of natural selection, so this is yet another assertion.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>NO. You are not very perceptive.</p>

<p>A religious person could argue that religion is “not necessary” for moral behavior because of natural law, i.e. a recognition in an innate manner of the benevolent reality of certain actions because of the command of a particular divine being. So although the religion itself may not be present, the tenets of that religion still are, at least in the mind of that particular adherent. So even people who are seemingly operating without that religion are NOT operating in a vacuum, they are merely operating in the same framework, albeit unwittingly.</p>

<p>And this is all irrelevant – I only care about the ability to justify a consistent moral system on the basis of empiricism (and without gaping holes).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What moral tendencies? Murder, for example? Why is murder wrong? Why is your answer to that question correct? And the next answer? etc. You are either missing my point or choosing to ignore it. As usual, I’ll let you pick the option you like. Again, you are assuming the false nature of religion when discounting natural law, something that you are not able to do unless you are willing to prove your own framework.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So, what compunction do I have on a moral level to do these things?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Assertion, assertion, assertion. You are simply ignoring what I am asking and substituting your own drivel for a potentially interesting answer.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And what would that basis be? What morality would it dictate?</p>

<p>Prove it. And I will concede. You haven’t even STARTED. All you’ve explained is how religion is seemingly not necessary for morality to exist.</p>

<p>But you have fallen into the trap you so despised and asserted without proof.</p>

<p>So, let’s start again. Perhaps your reading comprehension has improved.</p>

<p>Prove murder is wrong using empiricism with the following assumptions allowed:</p>

<p>1) The world is “real” in that it exists
2) Scientific is correct but only descriptive</p>

<p>You do not have to use either.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are conflating reality with empirical reality. They are different.</p>

<p>Ultimately, unless science can take us back all the way to the very beginning, there will be no other explanation for how we as humans and the universe as we know it got here. Right now, people relying on science assume that there was a BANG and then everything began to form. Well, in my experience where there is nothing, there is always nothing unless there is an outside presence to change that. Therefore, nobody can disprove religion because quite frankly, it is the only thing that can explain how there was a bang in the first place. The complexity of the universe and us as human beings must also be taken into account. How could we just evolve into the complex individuals that we are today? All the way to the minutest cell, the biological processes happen in an exact way for us to live. There is no way that this came to together by chance. Even Einstein said that he chose to believe that even HE does not throw dice.</p>

<p><intermission>

Yep. Malloreon #3, if I’m not mistaken. It might be Malloreon#4 though.
Carry on.
</intermission></p>

<p>[function]initiate threadjacking[/function]</p>

<p>/threadjacking</p>

<p>please.</p>

<p>When one side stops answering this thread will die. Until then, if you don’t like it go join the Foreign Legion.</p>

<p>Bump. I am eager to hear if anyone wishes to respond to my most recent posts.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, the problem of evil is a perfectly valid empirical argument against the existence of the supernatural, yet it had not been explicitly referenced in this discussion.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There is absolutely nothing present to logically lead one to such a definitiveness. Why attribute things that are readily comprehensible to naturalistic causes but simply dismiss the more difficult questions as the distinct act of some pixie in the sky? You are using the same “God did it” belief to satisfy your own inability to explain it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why is it necessary to attribute it to any “god” at all?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Reaching a state of intellectual contentedness by asserting that the presence of a divine being rationalizes the universes’ existence is like a fifteenth-century explorer justifying that the world is flat because he cannot determine it to be round or for an ancient Greek to attribute the seasonal fluctuation to Hades’ kidnapping of Persephone. To the informed twenty-first century individual, the former two cases are absolutely bizarre, sophistic, and illogical despite the welcomed, “clearheaded” rationality in the minds of those who resided in more ancient time periods. It draws the same parallel with those who invest belief in the supernatural today. Historically speaking, I find it quite likely that today’s religious beliefs, similar to those of more primitive eras, will merely become the literary entertainment for future years. Based on the historical progression to supernatural minimalism – from the acceptance of various primeval animisms, to polytheistic belief, to today’s monotheism, perhaps we will eventually proceed to drop one additional god.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Then what created this god of yours if you believe that something cannot come from nothing? Providing some supernatural explanation merely creates not only an unsupportable, cop-out explanation but one that leads to more unproductive questions. </p>

<p>Moreover, something can come from nothing, as evidenced by quantum field theory (“vacuum fluctuations”). See the [Casimir</a> Effect](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect]Casimir”>Casimir effect - Wikipedia).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The creation of the universe? If so, I touched on that briefly in the third paragraph of this post: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064919747-post192.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064919747-post192.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>But it is perfectly acceptable (and more intellectually sincere) to state that one simply does not know the answer rather than indiscriminately adhering to farcical, inauthentic, or invalid claims in recognition of current epistemic boundaries.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Certainly the latter, but not the former two. But entwining ourselves in literary character analysis is not quite pertinent to the main scope of the discussion.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course, countless many individuals attempt to follow religious doctrine simply because they fear their own mortality. It’s completely understandable.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Superfluously envisioning divine intervention is a psychological vestige of our primitive past. Humans greatly blunder on the concept of agency detection or the need to unnecessarily attribute certain phenomena to a separate yet similar power when there is absolutely no practical basis for doing so.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Supernatural belief or religious fundamentalism does not resolve any uncertainty or seek truth whatsoever; it claims to already have the answers to life’s inquiries by merely fabricating them. Science applies observation, seeks answers via reliable, replicable data, and draws from multiple sources. Supernatural belief, on the other hand, draws from one synthetic source, adds superfluity to naturalistic explanation, provides unfruitful solutions, departs from rational, critical thought, breeds tacit acceptance, hinders the willingness to find new solutions, manipulates on a sociopolitical basis, provides false hope, invites any individual to make a spurious or deceptive claim regarding reality despite its perceived inanity, does not substantiate belief, defies sound rationality and coherence, runs counter to other faith-based systems and naturally derived explanations, and does not evidence empirical assertions. In essence, only one body actively endeavors to achieve a rational intelligibility to our world, of accumulating a cohesive body of knowledge and validity to our conjecture. Thus, science, and by reasonable extension, naturalism, atheism, and secular humanism inevitably succeed as an intellectual framework.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But it is not attributed to the central concern of whether consciousness is intelligible but rather because it had been functionally embargoed for so long as a research topic in neuroscience. There has been research completed, however, that seeks to explain the underlying neuronal mechanisms of the phenomenon.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hahalolk’s 5,000 years of civilization remark was arbitrary and in no way suggested that human civilization itself is that old. Again, archaeological evidence has determined that humanoid civilization dates back 2.5 million years.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Scientists regularly use Potassium-40 (with a half-life of 1.28 billion years) and Uranium-238 to date older fossils. Disputing the validity of the tests is nothing more than the irrational adherence to fundamentalist religion, as each has been proven repeatedly, with reliable precision, and magnificent resolution.</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/index.html]Evolution[/url”>http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/index.html]Evolution[/url</a>] (The geological timescale at the bottom of the page might interest you)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, it doesn’t. The Big Bang, for instance, which you claim to be “unobservable” is corroborated by through the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation and its subsequent fluctuations, the abundance of lighter chemical elements, large-scale universal homogeneity, Hubble’s Law and cosmological redshift, the nature of stellar formation and evolution, hierarchal clustering of galaxies, dark matter, dark energy, Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, Sunyaez-Zel’dovich effect, Tolman tests, expansive formation of the universe, astronomical observations of time dilation within Type Ia supernovae, and most importantly, the inherent uniformity between derived or theoretical and mathematical frameworks with experimentally verified results.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is patently unethical for parents to impose their beliefs on young children who don’t yet possess an innate capacity to reason for themselves.</p>

<p>And are you honestly implying that religious belief in necessary to instill moral values? I have written on that subject on multiple occasions here and have discredited that claim.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There is margin of error in nearly all measurements to some extent – but a 2.5 million year calculation that is mutually fortified through various sources is not inclined to have a 99.8% error.</p>

<p>I would suggest that you read this: [Radiometric</a> Dating - A Christian Perspective](<a href=“http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html]Radiometric”>Radiometric Dating)</p>

<p>From the paper:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And particularly this: [Radiometric</a> Dating](<a href=“Radiometric Dating”>Radiometric Dating)</p>

<p>

If you continue to fabricate excuses to circumvent the veritable proof that incontestably contradicts your position, then there is absolutely no reason to continue this portion of the exchange. You invariably maintain that your holy book is true by all literal means and if there is any unequivocal and objectively attained verification that refutes your position, you feel that the evidence should be discarded rather than your bible. You refuse to look at it not because of the “evidence” that you claim, but rather because it contradicts your holy book, which propounds an unsupported doctrine on which you are unwilling to compromise – or essentially a firm, indelible anti-scientific mindset.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Resorting to personal attacks is a manifested sign of frustration, not amusement.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Regardless from where the quotes are taken, it does not fundamentally alter the central message. If the character embraces the concept of slavery (or any form of immoral servitude), the suppression of basic women’s rights, the stoning of adulterers, and promotes genocide or ethnic cleansing, nothing of a more mild nature between the passages is going to transfigure the essence of those statements.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Here is a passage regarding the Amalekite genocide:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Deuteronomy 7:2 provides explicit support for the Canaanite genocide:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Those wars were rationalized through religious foundation.</p>

<p>[Genocide</a> and resurrection. Holy war as political propaganda on the pages of the Bible](<a href=“http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/genress.html]Genocide”>http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/genress.html)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The Christian Bible certainly did not serve as a paradigm of virtuous behavior or as a moral embodiment for future generations to fend off certain cruelties or inhumanities that are so palpable to us today, such as slavery. Moreover, it had absolutely no influence on slavery’s eventual abolishment. Very ironically, Christianity, as organized through its churches, is historically notable for its noninterventionist policies or unvarnished opposition to moral developments. Would serfdom or slavery have persisted for so long into the current era if it were not the Christian Bible’s negative influence?</p>

<p>That is all for now. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to provide Baelor with a considered reply.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Isn’t it generally accepted that Sumer was the first civilization?
EDIT: although I guess the point of that statement was that artifacts have been found back to 2.5 million years, which is plausible</p>

<p>At any rate, is it really necessary to take every single word of the Bible literally? There’s absolutely no reason why science and religion should not get along, and there’s absolutely no lack of a precedent to say so. While I often find it annoying the way science tries to quantify the most beautiful secrets of life and thus turn them into dry facts that turn humans into uncreative automatons, the obstinacy of many in the religious community in rejecting any changes in our knowledge of the world is at times ludicrous. The Hebrews who wrote the Bible had no idea that China or the Americas existed, and the history represented in the Bible is not so much a history of the world as a history of the Hebrew people, and even then was written to be not a comprehensive textbook or historical record but rather a set of guidelines for how people should live their lives.</p>

<p>Secondly, this entire thread is a trial in futility. Nobody will ever prove science; nobody will ever disprove religion. People choose on an individual basis to be religious or not - it requires a leap of faith as Kierkegaard put it. Once someone has made that decision of their free will, there is no possibility of being able to see the world without that spiritual power that religion attempts to explain. The question is not whether religion is true or not, but whether any alternative set of beliefs can explain the existence of all that should not exist, and all that is felt instinctively in spite of all the mechanism of the universe.</p>

<p>^ It is especially plausible when said artifacts are datingn using methods which may be flawed, and the assumption of an evolutionary timeframe. Real history goes back to Summer, unless you count the biblical accounts.</p>

<p>It has always puzzled me as to why archaeologists eagerly use the ancient Sumerian or Egyptian records to fill out their histories of that time, yet try to reject the biblical history of the nation of Israel.</p>

<p>^ *Sumer. It is the first known civilization, believed to have begun about 6000 BC.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What are you calling civilization?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, it does.</p>

<p>We observe redshift and background radiation. You infer a Big Bang. I consider a Big Bang to be one possibility. You consider it to be the only possibility.</p>

<p>By your definition, a creator god is also observable, in the sense that some people believe the observed nature of the universe to fit with the concept.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[See</a> here.](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064895486-post145.html]See”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064895486-post145.html)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How can it be unethical? By your belief they have no choice but to do so, as it is simply a cause-and-effect result of the previous state of the universe.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, I am implying that humans are more than just molecules interacting in complex ways, and that even those who disbelieve that fact have a mind and a sense of morality.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You misunderstand my position. The truth of the Bible does not hang on dating or on evolution. If I felt the evidence sufficient, those scientific theories would be compatible with my theological beliefs. My position of these scientific issues:</p>

<p>1: The concept that humans are simply complex molecular reactions is logically inconsistent and cannot be accepted.</p>

<p>1b: Extrapolating from that fact, there exists such a thing as supernatural sentience. It exists in all humans.</p>

<p>2: Given (1), there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of a greater supernatural sentience.</p>

<p>3: In the observed physical universe, all effects have a cause. This raises the question, “what was the First Cause?” There are two options:</p>

<p>a: There was no First Cause. The universe has always existed.</p>

<p>b: There was a First Cause. In this case, the First Cause must have been “supernatural”, for if it were not it would have neccesarily had a cause itself.</p>

<p>Choice (a) is not really an explanation, and is not testable. Choice (b) could take numerous forms.</p>

<p>So much I consider to be logically irrefutable. From here, we must propose theories and test them against the evidence.</p>

<p>Evolution: All life is the result of complex molecular interactions, which started as a soup of organic molecules and developed into the complexity today.</p>

<p>Creation: All life was created in complex form, and has undergone lateral and downward adaptation since then.</p>

<p>Both theories have evidence that seems to support them, and evidence that seems to contradict them. I consider the weight of contradictory evidence to be heavier on evolution, and thus I consider Creation to be my working hypothesis.</p>

<p>I have a question for you, mifune:</p>

<p>Do you reject Creation on the basis of evidence or logic?</p>

<p>If logic, please show me why it is logically impossible, and show me how evolution is not.</p>

<p>If evidence, please tell me what evidence you would require in order to accept it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>thats wrong. Redshift and the CMBR prove that the universe started at a small area in space and drifted outward. All evidence from astronomy shows that to be true. its not an inference in the way that you might be thinking of it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong again. there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE THAT GODS EXIST. you cant prove it exists at all. and if you cant prove it, then you cant realistically say that it exists being that the burden of proof is on you not us. its illogical to trust that it does and natural explanations are far superior to supernatural ones. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What does that mean? whatever it is it sounds completely fallacious.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you understood evolution for what it is-an irrefutable fact-you wouldn’t be saying that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>you have absolutely no idea what youre talking about if you say that creation is true while evolution is false. you are absolutely brainwashed by your bible that you are unable to even understand the actual evidence.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Completely wrong. whats so logically inconsistent with “1a”? Thats what living organisms are! </p>

<p>Do you realize that scientific literature (demonstrated fact) and other religious people on here will not agree with you on everything that you say? youre obviously just asserting one false proposition after the other.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. </p>

<p>MM, your opinions are completely misinformed: 6000 year old earth, evolution is wrong, saying that a god exists without proving it at all -which you cant-, use false premises to draw a fake conclusion, mindlessly disbelieve scientific fact and contradict other religious people in your own faith and those outside of your faith</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That sums up your viewpoint. You INFER from redshift and CMBR that the universe began in a small area. I have no problem with that inference.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you are the one trying to supress and mock my beliefs, prohibit them from being taught, and discredit anyone who believes them, then the burden of proof is on you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>When you typed those words, what caused your hands to move? Impulses from your nerves. What caused those impulses? Chemical reactions in your brain cells. What caused those reactions? According to you, the laws of physics determine and the state all the related molecules were in the instant before. Do you think that you really had any choice in the matter?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Would you be convinced if I told you “If you understood evolution for what is is-a bunch of nonsense-you wouldn’t be saying that”?</p>

<p>Stating your side to be true without presenting evidence does not enhance your position.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Assume your view is true. In other words, matter and energy are all that exist, and they follow the natural laws, no exceptions.</p>

<p>In other words, the universe is analogous to a pile of blocks that has been knocked over and is falling. Everything in the universe is the way it is because that was the way the blocks fell. This includes the molecules in your brain. You only think that I am wrong because the molecules happened to fall into the state we call “thinking someone is wrong”.</p>

<p>there is no reason to believe that the way a particular set of blocks happened to fall will correlate with the overall shape of the entire pile. Even if it did, there would be no means by which the falling blocks could determine which set of themselves was in that “correct” configuration.</p>

<p>How can you claim your belief to be based on logic, when it is merely the result of the factors the influenced the molecules in your brain and you had no choice in the matter?</p>