Park Life 70 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'm not defending religion or saying I believe the Bible literally, here. All I'm saying is that there are good parts of religion to take on board, just as there are destructive parts. Equally, Science has done a lot for us as a species (less so, many other species on the planet), but there are negative parts too. Personally, I believe in forming your own weltanschuuang and tailoring it to what you believe and want, rather than subscribing to any of the pre-existing belief systems (science being one of these). I believe that no one is going to agree with everything proposed by Christianity, or Science, or Buddhism, or Kabbalah, or whatever, so why subscribe to them? Basically, I exist. I can influence certain things; namely, my own life, and the lives of those close to me. If I'm happy, making other people happy, and not causing any damage to anyone else, and having the odd positive impact on lives, then I'm content. It's unnecessary for me to get involved with the big questions in the world, because, frankly, there will always be things beyond Religious or Scientific comprehension- beyond ANY form of comprehension- and I'm more than happy to leave a bit of mystery in the world. In fact, I find it reassuring in some ways that there exists something greater than anyone will be able to explain. Excellent. That is all any of us can really hope to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 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 Yes. And they regularly change their position as new things are discovered, but that is part of the process. Science is open to change, yes. Religion isn't in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3594 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 (edited) I'm not defending religion or saying I believe the Bible literally, here. All I'm saying is that there are good parts of religion to take on board, just as there are destructive parts. Equally, Science has done a lot for us as a species (less so, many other species on the planet), but there are negative parts too. Personally, I believe in forming your own weltanschuuang and tailoring it to what you believe and want, rather than subscribing to any of the pre-existing belief systems (science being one of these). I believe that no one is going to agree with everything proposed by Christianity, or Science, or Buddhism, or Kabbalah, or whatever, so why subscribe to them? Basically, I exist. I can influence certain things; namely, my own life, and the lives of those close to me. If I'm happy, making other people happy, and not causing any damage to anyone else, and having the odd positive impact on lives, then I'm content. It's unnecessary for me to get involved with the big questions in the world, because, frankly, there will always be things beyond Religious or Scientific comprehension- beyond ANY form of comprehension- and I'm more than happy to leave a bit of mystery in the world. In fact, I find it reassuring in some ways that there exists something greater than anyone will be able to explain. Weltanschauung actually, it pays to check your spelling if you are showing off Edited February 28, 2007 by spongebob toonpants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'm not defending religion or saying I believe the Bible literally, here. All I'm saying is that there are good parts of religion to take on board, just as there are destructive parts. Equally, Science has done a lot for us as a species (less so, many other species on the planet), but there are negative parts too. Personally, I believe in forming your own weltanschuuang and tailoring it to what you believe and want, rather than subscribing to any of the pre-existing belief systems (science being one of these). I believe that no one is going to agree with everything proposed by Christianity, or Science, or Buddhism, or Kabbalah, or whatever, so why subscribe to them? Basically, I exist. I can influence certain things; namely, my own life, and the lives of those close to me. If I'm happy, making other people happy, and not causing any damage to anyone else, and having the odd positive impact on lives, then I'm content. It's unnecessary for me to get involved with the big questions in the world, because, frankly, there will always be things beyond Religious or Scientific comprehension- beyond ANY form of comprehension- and I'm more than happy to leave a bit of mystery in the world. In fact, I find it reassuring in some ways that there exists something greater than anyone will be able to explain. Weltanschauung actually, it pays to check your sopelling if you are showing off I'm not showing off. I just like the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'm not defending religion or saying I believe the Bible literally, here. All I'm saying is that there are good parts of religion to take on board, just as there are destructive parts. Equally, Science has done a lot for us as a species (less so, many other species on the planet), but there are negative parts too. Personally, I believe in forming your own weltanschuuang and tailoring it to what you believe and want, rather than subscribing to any of the pre-existing belief systems (science being one of these). I believe that no one is going to agree with everything proposed by Christianity, or Science, or Buddhism, or Kabbalah, or whatever, so why subscribe to them? Basically, I exist. I can influence certain things; namely, my own life, and the lives of those close to me. If I'm happy, making other people happy, and not causing any damage to anyone else, and having the odd positive impact on lives, then I'm content. It's unnecessary for me to get involved with the big questions in the world, because, frankly, there will always be things beyond Religious or Scientific comprehension- beyond ANY form of comprehension- and I'm more than happy to leave a bit of mystery in the world. In fact, I find it reassuring in some ways that there exists something greater than anyone will be able to explain. Weltanschauung actually, it pays to check your spelling if you are showing off TOO LATE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Has Rents been on the wacky baccy? I agree with the premise though. Look at the 'world views' 2500 years ago and now and its clear that anyone claiming any form of higher knowledge was mainly spouting bollocks then. Apart from those cultures who were expert astrologists of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3594 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'm not defending religion or saying I believe the Bible literally, here. All I'm saying is that there are good parts of religion to take on board, just as there are destructive parts. Equally, Science has done a lot for us as a species (less so, many other species on the planet), but there are negative parts too. Personally, I believe in forming your own weltanschuuang and tailoring it to what you believe and want, rather than subscribing to any of the pre-existing belief systems (science being one of these). I believe that no one is going to agree with everything proposed by Christianity, or Science, or Buddhism, or Kabbalah, or whatever, so why subscribe to them? Basically, I exist. I can influence certain things; namely, my own life, and the lives of those close to me. If I'm happy, making other people happy, and not causing any damage to anyone else, and having the odd positive impact on lives, then I'm content. It's unnecessary for me to get involved with the big questions in the world, because, frankly, there will always be things beyond Religious or Scientific comprehension- beyond ANY form of comprehension- and I'm more than happy to leave a bit of mystery in the world. In fact, I find it reassuring in some ways that there exists something greater than anyone will be able to explain. Weltanschauung actually, it pays to check your spelling if you are showing off TOO LATE. oops. Good word though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 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 Yes. And they regularly change their position as new things are discovered, but that is part of the process. Science is open to change, yes. Religion isn't in general. Agreed. I think religion has a 'bad rap' and deservedly so....But if we replace 'that word' with spirituality..It moves a little closer to Science. I agree with Pat and you in this context, but I can see that my 'spirituality' has nothing to do with organised religion if you like. Spirituality is a never ending search with no guarantees as in some ways is Science.....Not sure if I've said this right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I just wish we didn't have to label everything and ourselves. Just do what you like, believe what you want, as long as it's genuinely what you do feel. Name it after yourself. I subscribe to Benism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Science isn't anything, but scientists, yes once the ego gets involved it is like anything else. But science is just the truth, or the search for it anyway, you can't say it is arrogant anymore than you can say photons are arrogant. In that context science can never be wrong, because it's always about finding out and understand better. Agree. I'd like to know where Patrokles obvious antipathy towards science stems from and whether he accepts what it so far has discovered about the Universe is true or not. Also, what hope of advancement does religion bring? See above. As for your other point, I'm not dissing either Science or Religion. I think that the real arrogance is from those who just dismiss one or the other, which many on both sides do. As for advancement, the tenets of much religion are charity and love. If it's corrupted by the followers, then fair enough, but at its basic heart, much religion is about enlightenment, or improving the world. Yes, there have been atrocities in its name, but that's to do with the followers, not the principles. It would be extremely hypocritical and somewhat typical of scientists to claim the moral high ground when you consider that it's all exactly the same; in principle, Science is about making things better, but it can be as corrupt and devastating as religion, in the wrong hands. H-Bombs, chemical warfare, spying, etc, etc. Based on what I have said, why can't I dismiss Christianity of being very unlikely to be correct? If it is the right religion, then that means all the others are false. Is that not arrogant? As for Charity and Love, I can only assume you haven't actually read the Bible or Koran. They are full of murder and hatred in equal measure as charity and love. And it is not science's place to make any moral decisions - it is up to society to make use of the technology that science brings as it feels fit. There is nothing inherently evil about the H bomb, for instance. Arguably it has been an immense force for good so far. Your argument resembles that of the worst kind of Religious zealot, to be fair, which is somewhat ironic. You come across as a little blinkered. Nowhere have I mentioned Christianity as the one true religion; in fact, I've gone out of my way to avoid doing so, which you haven't. The fact is, not all religions agree, obviously. They can't all be right, obviously. But not all scientists agree. It's all the same. That's what bothers me about this Religion versus Science tripe; you're both exactly the same! I believe what my own senses tell me and what I can understand from them, nothing more, nothing less. I hardly see how that makes me comparable with someone who believes in the literal truth of a book written thousands of years ago which clearly contradicts what we know of the natural world. Your the one making this a religion versus science battle, the two cannot be compared and the whole notion is frankly boring and banal. Why don't you reread my first post, state whether you believe the basic facts are correct or not, and tell me specifically if this fits into the idea of having a personal God, and more specifically, the Abrahamic God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3594 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 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. I think you may have missed my point.You choose to believe the doctors, others choose to believe the priests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Science isn't anything, but scientists, yes once the ego gets involved it is like anything else. But science is just the truth, or the search for it anyway, you can't say it is arrogant anymore than you can say photons are arrogant. In that context science can never be wrong, because it's always about finding out and understand better. Agree. I'd like to know where Patrokles obvious antipathy towards science stems from and whether he accepts what it so far has discovered about the Universe is true or not. Also, what hope of advancement does religion bring? See above. As for your other point, I'm not dissing either Science or Religion. I think that the real arrogance is from those who just dismiss one or the other, which many on both sides do. As for advancement, the tenets of much religion are charity and love. If it's corrupted by the followers, then fair enough, but at its basic heart, much religion is about enlightenment, or improving the world. Yes, there have been atrocities in its name, but that's to do with the followers, not the principles. It would be extremely hypocritical and somewhat typical of scientists to claim the moral high ground when you consider that it's all exactly the same; in principle, Science is about making things better, but it can be as corrupt and devastating as religion, in the wrong hands. H-Bombs, chemical warfare, spying, etc, etc. Based on what I have said, why can't I dismiss Christianity of being very unlikely to be correct? If it is the right religion, then that means all the others are false. Is that not arrogant? As for Charity and Love, I can only assume you haven't actually read the Bible or Koran. They are full of murder and hatred in equal measure as charity and love. And it is not science's place to make any moral decisions - it is up to society to make use of the technology that science brings as it feels fit. There is nothing inherently evil about the H bomb, for instance. Arguably it has been an immense force for good so far. Your argument resembles that of the worst kind of Religious zealot, to be fair, which is somewhat ironic. You come across as a little blinkered. Nowhere have I mentioned Christianity as the one true religion; in fact, I've gone out of my way to avoid doing so, which you haven't. The fact is, not all religions agree, obviously. They can't all be right, obviously. But not all scientists agree. It's all the same. That's what bothers me about this Religion versus Science tripe; you're both exactly the same! I believe what my own senses tell me and what I can understand from them, nothing more, nothing less. I hardly see how that makes me comparable with someone who believes in the literal truth of a book written thousands of years ago which clearly contradicts what we know of the natural world. Your the one making this a religion versus science battle, the two cannot be compared and the whole notion is frankly boring and banal. Why don't you reread my first post, state whether you believe the basic facts are correct or not, and tell me specifically if this fits into the idea of having a personal God, and more specifically, the Abrahamic God. I disagree. You did that with the first post where your implications were clear, and most of your subsequent posts, which made your disdain for religion clear. Incidentally, I responded to your point when I pointed our that it's inevitable that religious books and theory written by humans are going to have humans as central to the story. As I said, who knows that ants wouldn't write a book (if they could) about the son of God being an ant? Science has man as the most important species because of our advancement, etc, too. It just does it in a different way: 'we're clearly the best!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 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. I think you may have missed my point.You choose to believe the doctors, others choose to believe the priests. OKayyyyyyyy........ Which is more reasonable in your view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Science isn't anything, but scientists, yes once the ego gets involved it is like anything else. But science is just the truth, or the search for it anyway, you can't say it is arrogant anymore than you can say photons are arrogant. In that context science can never be wrong, because it's always about finding out and understand better. Agree. I'd like to know where Patrokles obvious antipathy towards science stems from and whether he accepts what it so far has discovered about the Universe is true or not. Also, what hope of advancement does religion bring? See above. As for your other point, I'm not dissing either Science or Religion. I think that the real arrogance is from those who just dismiss one or the other, which many on both sides do. As for advancement, the tenets of much religion are charity and love. If it's corrupted by the followers, then fair enough, but at its basic heart, much religion is about enlightenment, or improving the world. Yes, there have been atrocities in its name, but that's to do with the followers, not the principles. It would be extremely hypocritical and somewhat typical of scientists to claim the moral high ground when you consider that it's all exactly the same; in principle, Science is about making things better, but it can be as corrupt and devastating as religion, in the wrong hands. H-Bombs, chemical warfare, spying, etc, etc. Based on what I have said, why can't I dismiss Christianity of being very unlikely to be correct? If it is the right religion, then that means all the others are false. Is that not arrogant? As for Charity and Love, I can only assume you haven't actually read the Bible or Koran. They are full of murder and hatred in equal measure as charity and love. And it is not science's place to make any moral decisions - it is up to society to make use of the technology that science brings as it feels fit. There is nothing inherently evil about the H bomb, for instance. Arguably it has been an immense force for good so far. Your argument resembles that of the worst kind of Religious zealot, to be fair, which is somewhat ironic. You come across as a little blinkered. Nowhere have I mentioned Christianity as the one true religion; in fact, I've gone out of my way to avoid doing so, which you haven't. The fact is, not all religions agree, obviously. They can't all be right, obviously. But not all scientists agree. It's all the same. That's what bothers me about this Religion versus Science tripe; you're both exactly the same! I believe what my own senses tell me and what I can understand from them, nothing more, nothing less. I hardly see how that makes me comparable with someone who believes in the literal truth of a book written thousands of years ago which clearly contradicts what we know of the natural world. Your the one making this a religion versus science battle, the two cannot be compared and the whole notion is frankly boring and banal. Why don't you reread my first post, state whether you believe the basic facts are correct or not, and tell me specifically if this fits into the idea of having a personal God, and more specifically, the Abrahamic God. I disagree. You did that with the first post where your implications were clear, and most of your subsequent posts, which made your disdain for religion clear. Incidentally, I responded to your point when I pointed our that it's inevitable that religious books and theory written by humans are going to have humans as central to the story. As I said, who knows that ants wouldn't write a book (if they could) about the son of God being an ant? Science has man as the most important species because of our advancement, etc, too. It just does it in a different way: 'we're clearly the best!' I disagree, science does not put humans in a unique position in the universe like religion does. Of course we are presently the dominant species on the planet, but importantly, we are part of nature, not seperate from it. If, by mentioning facts about the observable universe, that means I am arguing for science, then what else can I do? I honestly don't think we share the same meaning of the word though. To me science is just the process of observing the natural world and interpreting what we see. It requires little faith except for faith in our own powers of deduction. If you have a problem with this, well, what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Worth pointing out that Science is equally arrogant. Personally, I follow neither, though I feel both have things to offer. Science isn't anything, but scientists, yes once the ego gets involved it is like anything else. But science is just the truth, or the search for it anyway, you can't say it is arrogant anymore than you can say photons are arrogant. In that context science can never be wrong, because it's always about finding out and understand better. Agree. I'd like to know where Patrokles obvious antipathy towards science stems from and whether he accepts what it so far has discovered about the Universe is true or not. Also, what hope of advancement does religion bring? See above. As for your other point, I'm not dissing either Science or Religion. I think that the real arrogance is from those who just dismiss one or the other, which many on both sides do. As for advancement, the tenets of much religion are charity and love. If it's corrupted by the followers, then fair enough, but at its basic heart, much religion is about enlightenment, or improving the world. Yes, there have been atrocities in its name, but that's to do with the followers, not the principles. It would be extremely hypocritical and somewhat typical of scientists to claim the moral high ground when you consider that it's all exactly the same; in principle, Science is about making things better, but it can be as corrupt and devastating as religion, in the wrong hands. H-Bombs, chemical warfare, spying, etc, etc. Based on what I have said, why can't I dismiss Christianity of being very unlikely to be correct? If it is the right religion, then that means all the others are false. Is that not arrogant? As for Charity and Love, I can only assume you haven't actually read the Bible or Koran. They are full of murder and hatred in equal measure as charity and love. And it is not science's place to make any moral decisions - it is up to society to make use of the technology that science brings as it feels fit. There is nothing inherently evil about the H bomb, for instance. Arguably it has been an immense force for good so far. Your argument resembles that of the worst kind of Religious zealot, to be fair, which is somewhat ironic. You come across as a little blinkered. Nowhere have I mentioned Christianity as the one true religion; in fact, I've gone out of my way to avoid doing so, which you haven't. The fact is, not all religions agree, obviously. They can't all be right, obviously. But not all scientists agree. It's all the same. That's what bothers me about this Religion versus Science tripe; you're both exactly the same! I believe what my own senses tell me and what I can understand from them, nothing more, nothing less. I hardly see how that makes me comparable with someone who believes in the literal truth of a book written thousands of years ago which clearly contradicts what we know of the natural world. Your the one making this a religion versus science battle, the two cannot be compared and the whole notion is frankly boring and banal. Why don't you reread my first post, state whether you believe the basic facts are correct or not, and tell me specifically if this fits into the idea of having a personal God, and more specifically, the Abrahamic God. I disagree. You did that with the first post where your implications were clear, and most of your subsequent posts, which made your disdain for religion clear. Incidentally, I responded to your point when I pointed our that it's inevitable that religious books and theory written by humans are going to have humans as central to the story. As I said, who knows that ants wouldn't write a book (if they could) about the son of God being an ant? Science has man as the most important species because of our advancement, etc, too. It just does it in a different way: 'we're clearly the best!' I disagree, science does not put humans in a unique position in the universe like religion does. Of course we are presently the dominant species on the planet, but importantly, we are part of nature, not seperate from it. If, by mentioning facts about the observable universe, that means I am arguing for science, then what else can I do? I honestly don't think we share the same meaning of the word though. To me science is just the process of observing the natural world and interpreting what we see. It requires little faith except for faith in our own powers of deduction. If you have a problem with this, well, what's the point? That's fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3594 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 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. I think you may have missed my point.You choose to believe the doctors, others choose to believe the priests. OKayyyyyyyy........ Which is more reasonable in your view? I dont beleive that the earth was created in seven days, I cant prove it though. It is my choice to have more faith in the answer provided by science than religion in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34338 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 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. I think you may have missed my point.You choose to believe the doctors, others choose to believe the priests. OKayyyyyyyy........ Which is more reasonable in your view? I believed the priest when he told me it wouldn't hurt a bit. He lied. At least the doctor admitted that I might feel a slight prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3187 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 According to this website http://www.ps.uci.edu/~silvestr/thesis/THESIS/node4.html Only 5 known Supernovas have been known to exist. Therefore your initial premise is a bit shaky. Article in the National Geographic this month about it. I haven't read it all yet but I imagine it involves extrapolation with the assumption the rest of the Universe is similar to what we can observe locally, as well as observation of the remnants of previous supernovas. Scientific for guess. when you ASSUME you make an ASS out of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34338 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 when you ASSUME you make an ASS out of yourself. Hello, David Brent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 (edited) 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. Edited February 28, 2007 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now