Science and religion

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Krumple
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 06:04 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;172699 wrote:
Hi krumple I have read much of your work within this thread and you seem to see it close to how I do.
Some of things that you speak of I have no knowledge of so I surely would not say you are wrong but you may be. lol

This is somewhat how I see it, If a god could have always existed then why couldn't every thing else just have existed. Now I am not saying that evrything existed from the begining but things changed or evolved and things continue to evolve.

I find it to be more complex for someone to have an idea that a god all knowing and creating of all things and so on, compared to things just happening.
If a god could just exist than why couldn't all of what we observe just exist. To me it would seem less complex for things to just exist than for a god to exist then have to create all of what we observe.

I do not try to pretend to know how it all began and I feel sure that no one else knows either, they are only guessing at it.Smile


I agree, and I try to use the simplest explanation when ever I can. However; many theists try to claim that god existing would be the simplest answer and in some ways it is simple but like you point out. First you would have to have a god existing and then a motivation for that god to even decide to make a universe, and then what the hell does that god make the universe out of anyways? Which is another reason I laugh when I hear a proponent against the big bang theory asking, "How does something come from nothing?" Well if god was the creator, what did god use to create the universe? Some left over parts in his garage? I find it a contradiction that they won't allow for energy to be the cause of matter arising from nothing but they can easily write off that a god just snapped it's fingers abracadabra presto and a universe from nothing. As if that one makes more sense.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 06:31 pm
@jack phil,
jack;172467 wrote:
is the big bang hypothesis a scientific hypothesis?
There are scientists in the field who think it's not: The Farce of Physics
jack;172518 wrote:
On a side note, what are the alternatives to the big bang hypothesis?
Tired light is a candidate: Newton Physics - Links to Papers, books and web sites
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 06:40 pm
@jack phil,
I think there's no shortage of holes in both religion and science. One neglects the so called object for the so called subject, and the other neglects the so called subject for the so called object.
I don't see how science really proves itself outside a tiny minority except by its application, by which I mean technology.
I suspect there is as much unconsidered belief in science as there is in religion. No one has anything to say about the universe-sans-man? Whether life is necessary for the universe to exist in any meaningful way? How does so-called consciousness fit in here?
 
Jacques Maritain
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 06:49 pm
@jack phil,
Science is not infallible, that much is true.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 06:52 pm
@Jacques Maritain,
Jacques Maritain;172739 wrote:
Science is not infallible, that much is true.
Science has no pretensions to infallibility, it aims to be adequate, that's all.
 
Jacques Maritain
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 07:08 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;172740 wrote:
Science has no pretensions to infallibility, it aims to be adequate, that's all.

I know. Hence why it's foolish to try to claim science as the highest much less the only legitimate source of truth. Science is no substitute for philosophy or religion.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 10:45 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;172740 wrote:
Science has no pretensions to infallibility, it aims to be adequate, that's all.


I agree. Is it not a form of pragmatism? I don't think it's logically justified. It's only justified by its successful application. I respect science. I just think its implicit metaphysics promotes a view the the world is explained, when it is only described with abstractions and equations. It's all too easy to forget that only embodied particular human beings can know the universe. The universe is not separate from man, nor is man separate from the universe. Smile

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 11:47 PM ----------

Jacques Maritain;172749 wrote:
I know. Hence why it's foolish to try to claim science as the highest much less the only legitimate source of truth. Science is no substitute for philosophy or religion.


I completely agree. And I also suggest that the highest forms of philosophy touch on religious themes.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:42 pm
@jack phil,
jack;172467 wrote:

Is this not a clear case of science trying to replace religion? If religion is not scientific, how can science replace it? And what question is answered by the Big Bang Hypothesis?


Einstein said 'science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind'.

But I think they ask completely different types of questions and seek different types of answers.

First, there are many different types of thing included under the heading 'religion' and many arguments arise because no two people have exactly the same thing in mind when they speak of it. I wouldn't try and solve that by 'defining' religion, as I don't think it is possible, but it is important to understand that it means different things to different people, and it describes a wide range of phenomena, from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Second, while science may provide us with truly amazing knowledge of the physical universe and ways to measure phenomena with the most astonishing accuracy, it is generally silent in man's place in the scheme of things. Indeed, even the saying 'in the scheme of things' will be regarded as unscientific by many people.

Intuitively, I believe that it will be ultimately discovered that the 'Big Bang' was not actually The Big Bang, but A Big Bang. I mean, if it happened once.....

So if we come around to the view that this particular Universe is one of a potentially infinite series of such cosmic events which might form an infinite series....then what? It's almost, so what? So, life goes on. So, the Universe booms into existence, and then after a long time, wimps back out of it again. And then, boom, and then, hiss, boom, hiss, so on ad infinitum.....

It says nothing about what is, or isn't, behind it all.....
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:46 pm
@jack phil,
I actually don't see them as completely opposed, although their focuses are different. I feel that Wittgenstein was using reason in the TLP for quasi-religious purposes. Of course that's philosophy and not natural science. But he makes some brilliant points about induction and causality that persuade me to regard science as nothing but impressive pragmatism, unworthy of being taken for truly cohesive truth.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:57 pm
@jack phil,
I have discovered this Catholic writer, who seems pretty impressive. Check out the bibliographical entries.....Stanley Jaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added 06-04-2010 at 03:58 PM ----------

and also List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:07 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;172836 wrote:
I have discovered this Catholic writer, who seems pretty impressive.
advocates the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society -from your second link. On the other hand, there are serious contributors who are christians but manage to keep their religious beliefs in place, van Fraassen, for example.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:33 am
@jack phil,
Is science description or explanation? If you argue it's explanation, than what sort of explanation? Is explanation for natural science a description of causal relationships? What are the limits of this?
 
Soul Brother
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:49 am
@jeeprs,
Krumple;172705 wrote:
I agree, and I try to use the simplest explanation when ever I can. However; many theists try to claim that god existing would be the simplest answer and in some ways it is simple but like you point out. First you would have to have a god existing and then a motivation for that god to even decide to make a universe, and then what the hell does that god make the universe out of anyways? Which is another reason I laugh when I hear a proponent against the big bang theory asking, "How does something come from nothing?" Well if god was the creator, what did god use to create the universe? Some left over parts in his garage? I find it a contradiction that they won't allow for energy to be the cause of matter arising from nothing but they can easily write off that a god just snapped it's fingers abracadabra presto and a universe from nothing. As if that one makes more sense.


Have you any idea as to the meaning of omnipotent?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 01:01 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;172844 wrote:
advocates the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society -from your second link. On the other hand, there are serious contributors who are christians but manage to keep their religious beliefs in place, van Fraassen, for example.


This speaks volumes about your ideological outlook. If Christianity, or indeed any other religious view, addresses questions of values and the nature of the highest reality, what makes you think this should be 'kept in its place'?

Many people are embarrased about anyone who is candidly religious. They don't know what to make of it, so they would prefer nobody said anything. 'Religion is alright, so long as you keep it quiet'. It is like sex was in Victorian times, don't you think?

Anyway, Stanley L Jaki seems an intellectual giant.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 01:12 am
@Soul Brother,
Soul Brother;172858 wrote:
Have you any idea as to the meaning of omnipotent?


I know the meaning but there is nothing that implies or supports first of all that there is a god and secondly that there is one that has that trait. If you take a christian biblical account. If god required six days to create everything, that is not very omnipotent if you ask me. Surely a omnipotent god would have been able to create everything in the first second. So why the six days if it is omnipotent?

If we are not talking about the biblical account of a god, then what would be your basis that there is a god and that it is omnipotent? That it can create anything from out of nothing? Which is absurd reasoning, because if a god can do that, why can't the universe?

Here is another thing. If a god were omnipotent could that god destroy itself?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 01:55 am
@jack phil,
No, but he might take you out if you keep it up.:poke-eye:

Stanley Jaki makes a strong case for the fact that Western science could only have grown out of Christian intellectual culture. Up until the last hundred years, the intellectual milieu of Western science was overwhelmingly Christian in character. Furthermore, Catholic philosophy - as distinct from fundamentalist protestantism - has never supported creationism or intelligent design.

If you subtract the idea of 'the first mover' or 'the uncaused cause' from the Western philosophical model, it is very difficult to avoid nihilism, subjectivism, or any one of a number of other intellectual dead ends which are proliferating in the current age. By way of contrast, there are many types of philosophical theism that will accomodate any of the scientific discoveries of the last century without difficulty.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 02:33 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;172844 wrote:
advocates the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society -from your second link. On the other hand, there are serious contributors who are christians but manage to keep their religious beliefs in place, van Fraassen, for example.


much of Modern science, may be....... but, just to remind, do not mistake that science arose in a christian society.
 
Soul Brother
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 02:36 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;172705 wrote:
I agree, and I try to use the simplest explanation when ever I can. However; many theists try to claim that god existing would be the simplest answer and in some ways it is simple but like you point out. First you would have to have a god existing and then a motivation for that god to even decide to make a universe, and then what the hell does that god make the universe out of anyways? Which is another reason I laugh when I hear a proponent against the big bang theory asking, "How does something come from nothing?" Well if god was the creator, what did god use to create the universe? Some left over parts in his garage? I find it a contradiction that they won't allow for energy to be the cause of matter arising from nothing but they can easily write off that a god just snapped it's fingers abracadabra presto and a universe from nothing. As if that one makes more sense.


But who said it was supposed to make sense to you? You seem to be sure as to the meaning of omnipotent, but if you are what gives the idea that a human could possibly have the power as to make sense of the workings of an omnipotent being to the point that your insight is at the same level of the being as to which we speak of? if you indeed had the same level of understanding would you not be in posecion of the same level of power of that being's? But since you do not poses the same power, I don't understand how can you came to convince yourself that you could posibly comprehend his workings? I mean its like an ant trying to understand why he cannot flatten a tree the same way an elephant can, he does not poses near the same power. So what on Earth would make you think that you could come to comprehend that which makes sense to one who is omnipotent? I just don't understand.

Humans seem to be in the illusion that they have the power to come to an understanding of nearly everything with science and expect everything to be comprehensible to them, and if there is something they cannot make sense of its nonsense. If this God is indeed omnipotent, science cannot even explain for consciousness so how can we expect it to make sense of a being who created ALL that is including the the natural laws of which science is governed by?

Krumple;172864 wrote:
I know the meaning but there is nothing that implies or supports first of all that there is a god and secondly that there is one that has that trait. If you take a christian biblical account. If god required six days to create everything, that is not very omnipotent if you ask me. Surely a omnipotent god would have been able to create everything in the first second. So why the six days if it is omnipotent?


This is a very blind approach, did he tell you that he was working to full capacity to complete it in a shortest time possible? It is said that Leonardo took around 7 years to complete mona lisa, I am more than sure that he could have completed it earlier but this would not justify my assumption as to why he didn't, as It is most certain that he had reasons.

Krumple;172864 wrote:
If we are not talking about the biblical account of a god, then what would be your basis that there is a god and that it is omnipotent? That it can create anything from out of nothing? Which is absurd reasoning, because if a god can do that, why can't the universe?


I believe that we are all speaking of an omnipotent being when we refer to God no? But you are totally missing my point, which is why I asked of your understanding of omnipotent. You are taking a very blind approach, you seem to be confusing the limits of an omnipotent being with those of which limit our universe, the notion that something cannot be created out of nothing is one that applies to us and this universe but not to an all powerful being, when you try to understand the workings of an omnipotent being it fails utterly to use your own limitations as being the same of this being's, that is as I said earlier you cannot conceive or even come close to begin to comprehend the workings of an omnipotent being because YOU ARE NOT OMNIPOTENT , your reasoning is very short sighted, you claim that certain workings of an omnipotent being do not make any sense simply because you cannot make sense of them, this is like a child out ruling Einstein's mathematical equations as nonsense simply because they do not make sense to him. If this being is indeed omnipotent than what is possible for him you cannot even begin to imagine, no scientists or no genius will ever comprehend the limits of such a being. You need to do some contemplation on the meaning of omnipotent.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 02:45 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;172861 wrote:
what makes you think this should be 'kept in its place'?
I think claims like "modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society" are extremely offensive, indefensibly inaccurate and serve no purpose outside of the promotion of christianity. Those with positions of secular authority who abuse their position to promote this kind of crap get nowhere near my criteria for "impressive".
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 02:53 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;172879 wrote:
I think claims like "modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society" are extremely offensive, indefensibly inaccurate and serve no purpose outside of the promotion of christianity. Those with positions of secular authority who abuse their position to promote this kind of crap get nowhere near my criteria for "impressive".


It is an historical fact that modern science did arise in a Christian society and it is also an historical fact that many of the founders of Western science were Christians.

Do you have any kind of argument for your position, or is it just an emotional outburst? Why exactly do you find this claim offensive?

---------- Post added 06-04-2010 at 06:59 PM ----------

Anothr thing - why do you think being dogmatically anti-religious is any more reasonable than being dogmatically religious? Isn't it the same kind of attitude?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/22/2024 at 02:58:40