Thread Rating:

Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 14th, 2011 at 7:07:21 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

Religion has no fear of science because science only speaks the truth and supports religious ideas. The war is between moral relativism and science.


Science and religion are at odds sofaras being opposites in those definitive forms; but both are pure in those abstract and concrete forms. Both can be the "best and worst of times". Were i to argue that God became the natural world, i would trade off on the former's perfection (over both of the mental and physical) only. And progress to the resultant imperfections of the scientific trying to be religious, and versa... those trying to embrace/rid the other. Ideally, why not allow for also the pure forms to remain all along? All of that would be beyond us anyway. Why the push to either cleanly unify everything, or the opposite?
Quote: FrGamble

Science has some pretty strong conclusions to make but our modern culture doesn't want to hear anything that might reinforce the religious truth, especially about morality.


You can say that again! Also politics plays a large role in the science-machine. But fear not, though, it's the deal we cut for ourselves which is always better than that left to the universe in our behalf. It just cuts you out, and after "flushing you down the toilet". Can't outsmart the universe, it can avenge/revenge you in ways you'll never see coming. And the bad outweighs the good in this version of it.
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
Garnabby
Garnabby
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
November 14th, 2011 at 7:14:34 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Not sure what this means, but note that you not being able to imagine something does not necessarily mean that it cannot exist.


Of course, i'm not God. (He/she's too busy trying to save him/herself.)
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
November 14th, 2011 at 7:35:17 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

The idea of science and religion at war is a late 19th century thought that has already been rounded dismissed.



And the idea what we're at war with Germany and Japan is a 1940s idea that has been dismissed, too. Right? Or is the war over and we won?

Quote:

So I guess you are right in that the war is over, because it was never a war to begin with. From the beginning of modern science up to this crazy idea that they were against one another the relationship has really been one of friendship (with a few unfortunate spats that happen in every relationship). In the Church's view that is what it should be, two friends who need each others help to grow in knowledge and understanding.



Poppycock! Science has no need of religion.

I must say I admire how the Catholic Church realized it couldn't stand against solid, scientific proof that kept contradicting doctrine, so it chose to change doctrine to allow for science. Sure, the story of Genesis is now a "parable," rather than a literal telling of events, because you can't believe in a six-day creation without evolution and not look foolish. But when you say "Science is our friend! Science has always been our friend!" I'm reminded of a certain book where people say "The enemy is Eastasia! We have always been at war with Eastasia!"


Quote:

If God didn't make it and it is just some random collection of stuff with no order, what purpose is it to study that? What can we learn from it?



We can learn how things are, how they work and why they work as they do. What else did you expect?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
November 14th, 2011 at 7:38:44 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Religion is always the last
part of civilised society to get 'wised up'. And they always
go into it kicking and screaming. Now you want us to
believe the Church always had our best interests at heart,
when they actualy had their OWN best interests at the
forefront. The whole purpose of organised religion is
not to expand thought, but to stop it. Box it up and sell
it as a packaged deal. Used to be easier when the world
was full of ignorance. The sell is a little tougher these days.



Dude, you've got the wrong thread and the wrong history books. It sounds like what you call 'wised up' are passing fads and wishful thinking and the Church has no time for either. The Church is about eternal and objective truth and unfortunately too many people kick and scream against it because it is not the subjective and changing truth they like. It is your OWN interests that make you think such woeful and wrong headed things about the Church. The Church is only trying to serve mankind and present a message it believes will help truly 'wise up' the world not to its OWN interests, which are often selfish and ill formed, but the interests of God - which are all about making our lives better. The whole purpose of organized region is to help us overcome the ignorance of our closed and little minds to discover something beyond ourselves. I admit this is a little tougher sell because there is so much ignorance and me, me, me mentality out there these days.
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
November 14th, 2011 at 7:56:39 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed


Poppycock! Science has no need of religion.



Crazy talk! Science and religion need each other. Here is a nice quote from William Lane Craig, "Furthermore, the whole scientific enterprise is based on certain assumptions which cannot be proved scientifically, but which are guaranteed by the Christian world view; for example: the laws of logic, the orderly nature of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties in knowing the world, and the objectivity of the moral values used in science. I want to emphasize that science could not even exist without these assumptions, and yet these assumptions cannot be proved scientifically. They are philosophical assumptions which, interestingly, are part and parcel of a Christian world view. Thus, religion is relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. More than that, the Christian religion historically did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born and nurtured." (essay, What is the Relation between Science and Religion?)

Quote: Nareed

I must say I admire how the Catholic Church realized it couldn't stand against solid, scientific proof that kept contradicting doctrine, so it chose to change doctrine to allow for science. Sure, the story of Genesis is now a "parable," rather than a literal telling of events, because you can't believe in a six-day creation without evolution and not look foolish.



Just a reminder that the Bible is not a science book. It never was meant to be an eye witness account of creation. It imparts truths, such as the universe was created ex nihilo by God. These truths or doctrines have never changed. What is amazing to me and certainly frustrating to you is that science comes around to discoveries that point to these deeper truths eventually. Robert Jastrow, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, envisions it this way: "[The scientist] has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers)
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
November 14th, 2011 at 8:06:42 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

Crazy talk! Science and religion need each other. Here is a nice quote from William Lane Craig,



He wouldn't be the first scientist to be completely ignorant of philosophy and epistemology. The "Christian" world-view he praises comes from ancient Greek philosophers, most certainly including Aristotle.


Quote:

Just a reminder that the Bible is not a science book.



Anymore.

Quote:

What is amazing to me and certainly frustrating to you is that science comes around to discoveries that point to these deeper truths eventually.



We have always been at war with Eastasia. The lack of exclamation points just changes the tone, not the meaning.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 433
  • Posts: 25291
November 14th, 2011 at 8:14:53 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

It sounds like what you call 'wised up' are passing fads and wishful thinking and the Church has no time for either.



Passing fads like 'the earth isn't flat' and 'the earth revolves around
the sun', is that what you mean? These were crazy lunitic heresies
500 years ago, but the Church 'wised up' when they had no other
choice.

Quote: FrGamble

The Church is about eternal and objective truth and unfortunately too many people kick and scream against it



Yup, just like when you told us midwives were witches
and should be burned at the stake.

Quote: FrGamble

The Church is only trying to serve mankind and present a message it believes will help truly 'wise up' the world not to its OWN interests,



Yes, the world saw that 'message' during the Inquisition. Convert or die.
Now that its illegal to kill people who won't convert (dang it) you get
them thru guilt. Oh boy..
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
November 14th, 2011 at 8:34:23 PM permalink
EvenBob, good response. I don't know what to tell you about the past mistakes to help you not be so blind to the present. You make me feel a healthy sense of guilt for the sins of the past and it converts me to be ever more vigilant in the rejection of violence and the use of love, service, and reason to bring people to Christ. I would not for example write people off or judge their motivation based on the past, I would show them forgiveness. This would enable me to be free and open minded to the thoughts of others.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
November 14th, 2011 at 8:42:35 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

The world is indeed not random in fact it is unbelievably fine tuned for life. I think it was Stephen Hawking who said that if the universe expanded even the smallest fraction of a second, we're talking million, millionth of a sec. slower than all would have collapsed again into itself. If you tinker with things like gravity or other laws of physics just a little bit life as we know it can't exist. All of this points a design to the world around us and an amazing intellect behind the structure of the world. This is why we can have so much fun studying events and why we are confident is making predictions based on laws that are consistent and work together in an awesome way.



That's the Anthromorphic Principle argument right there.

God exists if we exist, and as we can clearly exist, therefore God. Thing you seem to keep missing in my replies is that -there is no need for God- in any of these arguments. This doesn't prove or disprove his existence, but he is not needed. At no point has a scientific answer been usefully explained as "God did it". On investigation we've found more and interesting mysteries and mechanisms behind it. Ideas have been revised, tested and discredited over time, and new truths found.

As my country man, William of Ockham once wrote : Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora (It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer).

(I prefer: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem : entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity, but Ockham didn't write that. Nice place Ockham, I grew up near there)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
November 14th, 2011 at 9:06:52 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit


God exists if we exist, and as we can clearly exist, therefore God. Thing you seem to keep missing in my replies is that -there is no need for God- in any of these arguments. This doesn't prove or disprove his existence, but he is not needed. At no point has a scientific answer been usefully explained as "God did it". On investigation we've found more and interesting mysteries and mechanisms behind it. Ideas have been revised, tested and discredited over time, and new truths found.



I think I get it and I think I agree. Science can never reach the point where it would say "God did it" because science would have no way of testing that. It is a truly supernatural conclusion only able to be reached through philosophy or theology. Science joyfully continues to delve deeper and deeper into the mysteries of our world and the universe. There will never be a shortage of new truths found and every new truth found does not prove or disprove the existence of God but they continue to provide more evidence that the existence of God is a logical, albeit it non-scientific, conclusion. Thanks.

  • Jump to: