A question for the theists

[Guest Patrokles]

Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer.

 

How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant?

 

Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand..........

 

Both science and religion rely on faith, with science you are putting your faith in the scientists interpretation just as much as the religious put their faith in the interpretation of their preachers

 

I'm staggered you actually believe that. Is putting faith in a medicine your doctor gives you the same as putting faith in life after death on the say so of a priest? It isn't for me, if I really wanted to I could look up the evidence from clinical trials and the like that the drug works. The only element of faith I require is that the papers weren't written fraudulently - very unlikely with modern medicine with constant audits and peer reviewed papers. It's not the same thing at all.

 

This is what I mean by the arrogance of Science, by the way. The incredulous cries of '... but how can you believe that?!?!?! Are you STUPID or something?! Listen, we're right, everyone else is wrong. END OF.'

 

(this isn't to say that Science isn't right about somet things. Just that it's not right about everything.)

 

 

You've mentioned this before. The faith I have in science is evident by the technology I am using to communicate this to you. That doesn't really require much faith, does it? Please give an example where science is wrong about something if you can btw, I'm all ears. No one is claiming it has all the answers, possibly there are some things we as humans do not have the capability of observing or understanding. I just don't believe organised religion has any worthwhile ideas on the mysteries of the Universe.

 

I look out of my window and see the sky, some trees, birds. I look down at the hands I am using to facilitate this wonderful technology. Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

The whole science/religion is right/wrong thing is my other point. I find it difficult to believe all of Science, just as I find it hard to believe all of Religion. As for the whole 'SHOW ME ONE TIME WHEN SCIENCE HAS BEEN WRONG!!!!' argument- it's wrong all the time! it's just that they only publish the stuff they know is probably right. There are conflicting theories even within Science, so quite how it could be correct all the time is beyond me.

 

I don't see your first point, please spell it out to me.

 

I am now fairly certain you don't understand the scientific process. Of course science is constantly progressing, occasionally there are radical paradigm shifts even where our entire understanding is overturned. That's a good, positive thing as far as I can see. What I meant was give an example where the whole premise of science has been proven to be wrong in some way. Can you do that?

 

My first point is that all of these things are tangible proof of something above and beyond science worth having faith in.

 

As for proving Science wrong, that'd be like me saying 'prove the whole premise of religion wrong.' Religious types would argue for proving Science wrong, Science's proponents would do the reverse. The whole concept of right/wrong is fuzzy, which is half my point. It's all about our perception of it.

 

Again, I'm struggling to get to grips with what you mean by science, I don't think there can ever be meaningful comparisons between science and religion, and it's not a battle to prove one is right over the other. Going back to my original point, last night I was just contemplating how vast and wonderful the Universe is, and how [organised] religion really can't do it justice or attempt to explain it, and how they actually belittle it by putting man at the centre and creating a human like all omnipotent and omniscient God. That's all.

 

And that sounded a bit gay.

 

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

[Park Life 70]

Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer.

 

How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant?

 

Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand..........

 

Both science and religion rely on faith, with science you are putting your faith in the scientists interpretation just as much as the religious put their faith in the interpretation of their preachers

 

I'm staggered you actually believe that. Is putting faith in a medicine your doctor gives you the same as putting faith in life after death on the say so of a priest? It isn't for me, if I really wanted to I could look up the evidence from clinical trials and the like that the drug works. The only element of faith I require is that the papers weren't written fraudulently - very unlikely with modern medicine with constant audits and peer reviewed papers. It's not the same thing at all.

 

This is what I mean by the arrogance of Science, by the way. The incredulous cries of '... but how can you believe that?!?!?! Are you STUPID or something?! Listen, we're right, everyone else is wrong. END OF.'

 

(this isn't to say that Science isn't right about somet things. Just that it's not right about everything.)

 

 

You've mentioned this before. The faith I have in science is evident by the technology I am using to communicate this to you. That doesn't really require much faith, does it? Please give an example where science is wrong about something if you can btw, I'm all ears. No one is claiming it has all the answers, possibly there are some things we as humans do not have the capability of observing or understanding. I just don't believe organised religion has any worthwhile ideas on the mysteries of the Universe.

 

I look out of my window and see the sky, some trees, birds. I look down at the hands I am using to facilitate this wonderful technology. Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

The whole science/religion is right/wrong thing is my other point. I find it difficult to believe all of Science, just as I find it hard to believe all of Religion. As for the whole 'SHOW ME ONE TIME WHEN SCIENCE HAS BEEN WRONG!!!!' argument- it's wrong all the time! it's just that they only publish the stuff they know is probably right. There are conflicting theories even within Science, so quite how it could be correct all the time is beyond me.

 

I don't see your first point, please spell it out to me.

 

I am now fairly certain you don't understand the scientific process. Of course science is constantly progressing, occasionally there are radical paradigm shifts even where our entire understanding is overturned. That's a good, positive thing as far as I can see. What I meant was give an example where the whole premise of science has been proven to be wrong in some way. Can you do that?

 

My first point is that all of these things are tangible proof of something above and beyond science worth having faith in.

 

As for proving Science wrong, that'd be like me saying 'prove the whole premise of religion wrong.' Religious types would argue for proving Science wrong, Science's proponents would do the reverse. The whole concept of right/wrong is fuzzy, which is half my point. It's all about our perception of it.

 

Again, I'm struggling to get to grips with what you mean by science, I don't think there can ever be meaningful comparisons between science and religion, and it's not a battle to prove one is right over the other. Going back to my original point, last night I was just contemplating how vast and wonderful the Universe is, and how [organised] religion really can't do it justice or attempt to explain it, and how they actually belittle it by putting man at the centre and creating a human like all omnipotent and omniscient God. That's all.

 

And that sounded a bit gay.

 

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

Personally I think the wonder of the universe is that it is beyond explanation.

[nufc4ever 0]

when you ASSUME you make an ASS out of yourself.

 

Meant to be 'U and ME'.

[Renton 17580]

Again, I'm struggling to get to grips with what you mean by science, I don't think there can ever be meaningful comparisons between science and religion, and it's not a battle to prove one is right over the other. Going back to my original point, last night I was just contemplating how vast and wonderful the Universe is, and how [organised] religion really can't do it justice or attempt to explain it, and how they actually belittle it by putting man at the centre and creating a human like all omnipotent and omniscient God. That's all.

 

And that sounded a bit gay.

 

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

Glad we've some common ground.

 

From a personal viewpoint, I'm driven to at least try and understand things, is that not human nature? Whereas, I do think the religion often does the opposite, it ducks out of all difficult questions and fills the gaps in with God, or even worse, "God moves in mysterious ways".

 

Anyway, without astronomers we'd know a lot less about the Universe and the world would be a much poorer place for it. I'd never know what a supernova was let alone one occurred every second. The same is true in all other fields of science. Science enriches life if anything. And yes, that is a bit preachy, I realise.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3180]

when you ASSUME you make an ASS out of yourself.

 

Meant to be 'U and ME'.

 

 

Really wow thought people looked at me funny when I said that.

[Fop 1]

Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer.

 

How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant?

 

Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand..........

 

Both science and religion rely on faith, with science you are putting your faith in the scientists interpretation just as much as the religious put their faith in the interpretation of their preachers

 

Science has bog all to do with faith, it is quite the opposite, everything is eternally doubted and nothing is ever 100% certain, even universally accepted "facts" are open to question and revision (although from the human side of things you might get some stick for doing so).

 

You can have "faith" in scientists or science I suppose, but that is a human failing or limitation, science itself it the very opposite of faith/blind belief.

 

The interpretation factor comes from a weight of evidence, and is always open to change and challenge, and even with the most likely and supported of things is never completely certain (just to within a degree of certainty).

 

Organised religious can’t operate like that it would (and sometime does in schisms and such) DESTORY itself, but I guess personal spirituality kinda can.

[Fop 1]

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”.

 

Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him.

[luckypierre 0]

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”.

 

Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him.

 

and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum

[Park Life 70]

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”.

 

Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him.

 

and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum

 

 

He also said, "In the future a good science will be indistinguishable from poetry"....Stick that in yer emperical pipe and smoke it!

[Guest alex]

Hey guys....

[Renton 17580]

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”.

 

Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him.

 

and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum

 

 

He also said, "In the future a good science will be indistinguishable from poetry"....Stick that in yer emperical pipe and smoke it!

 

Did he? Source please!

[Renton 17580]

Hey guys....

 

You're late!

[sweetleftpeg 0]

It was used to keep people in order through fear, and as they had little understanding of science it worked for a canny while. That's it really.

[Guest alex]

It was used to keep people in order through fear, and as they had little understanding of science it worked for a canny while. That's it really.

Still does the job tbh.

[geordieshandy 0]

It was used to keep people in order through fear, and as they had little understanding of science it worked for a canny while. That's it really.

 

Fairly spot on.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

It was used to keep people in order through fear, and as they had little understanding of science it worked for a canny while. That's it really.

Still does the job tbh.

 

In third world countries you could argue.

[Renton 17580]

It was used to keep people in order through fear, and as they had little understanding of science it worked for a canny while. That's it really.

Still does the job tbh.

 

In third world countries you could argue.

 

Like America you mean?

[sweetleftpeg 0]

It was used to keep people in order through fear, and as they had little understanding of science it worked for a canny while. That's it really.

Still does the job tbh.

 

In third world countries you could argue.

 

Like America you mean?

 

Well, I was also going to say the less educated coutries as well..so yes.

[Guest alex]

It was used to keep people in order through fear, and as they had little understanding of science it worked for a canny while. That's it really.

Still does the job tbh.

 

In third world countries you could argue.

Renton beat me to it tbh. I don't think much of the world is as 'Godless' as England. Northern Ireland for example

[The Fish 8946]

I think what makes me more accepting of Sciencitific theories is that they refer to themselves as such (in the main) They accept that they do not offer conclusive and total proof, but they explain as much as they can with the information that they have and can understand at the time.

 

Religion remains entrenched in a value system and idealogical viewpoint that has not been entirely relevant for over 2000 years.

 

Science is, by it's very nature self doubting and the community that drives it are malleable and urgent in their desire for the next discovery. The religious peers study ancient texts to reaffirm their already internalised belief system, they revolt against any form of change.

 

This is why Science, imo, is nothing like religion. Religion proposes to be the absolute truth and anyone who strays from the path is damned, Science is just the search for the absolute truth and anyone who strays from convention (and has their theories sufficently suported) is celebrated.

[Park Life 70]

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”.

 

Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him.

 

and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum

 

 

He also said, "In the future a good science will be indistinguishable from poetry"....Stick that in yer emperical pipe and smoke it!

 

Did he? Source please!

 

Here's one on mysticism:

 

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)"

 

I'll dig the poetry one out for you as well....I quite like this one probably one of my fave's and pertaining to this debate...

[Renton 17580]

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”.

 

Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him.

 

and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum

 

 

He also said, "In the future a good science will be indistinguishable from poetry"....Stick that in yer emperical pipe and smoke it!

 

Did he? Source please!

 

Here's one on mysticism:

 

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)"

 

I'll dig the poetry one out for you as well....I quite like this one probably one of my fave's and pertaining to this debate...

 

I only asked because it didn't come out of a Google and I know you are prone to making stuff up.

[Park Life 70]

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”.

 

Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him.

 

and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum

 

 

He also said, "In the future a good science will be indistinguishable from poetry"....Stick that in yer emperical pipe and smoke it!

 

Did he? Source please!

 

Here's one on mysticism:

 

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)"

 

I'll dig the poetry one out for you as well....I quite like this one probably one of my fave's and pertaining to this debate...

 

I only asked because it didn't come out of a Google and I know you are prone to making stuff up.

 

No worries fella...Here's another....

 

 

In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. (Albert Einstein, 1930)"

[Renton 17580]

 

No worries fella...Here's another....

 

 

In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. (Albert Einstein, 1930)"

 

Context is very important with Einstein though. He was not a believer in any organized religion or a personal God, that is the crux of the present discussion.

[geordieshandy 0]

More aware of the beauty of true science and mathematics, then when the right answer was found it would be very simple and in it's way beautiful.