The Co-existence of Science and Theology

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/10/2007 11:35:15 AM · #51

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

But some people, in these threads, ARE ridiculing the idea of God, or at least ridiculing the (unprovable) ideas of those who believe in God. I got no problem at all with those who do rational critique of those ideas.

R.

And people haven't ridiculed the idea of science in these threads? Of evolution? By saying to people that humans didn't evolve and were created by God is laughing in the face of the work scientists have done. They work for years to find explanations, and many creationists dismiss all their findings with, as someone said earlier in the other thread, "one-liners." I have seen very little "rational critique" of science here.

It's not fair to accuse people of dismissing your beliefs when you dismiss theirs right back.

Edit to say that this isn't an attack on Bear_Music, I'm not accusing you of dismissing others' beliefs.

Message edited by author 2007-11-10 11:36:22.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/10/2007 11:58:05 AM · #52

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Then there are those who believe in God that would have ridiculed my father's beliefs in the Great Manitou, or his asking forgiveness from the deer he killed to feed his family... because in their eyes that would not have been a true depiction of what God is nor what constitutes proper veneration.

Ridicule is not limited to the non-believers... trust me I have been there. (* but that is another subject)

Ray

Agreed. Elsewhere in similar threads I have extolled the beauty of ALL religions. I have little patience with "Christians" who are so wrapped up in their belief that theirs is "the only true religion" that they fail to see the virtues of other belief systems.

R.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/10/2007 11:59:49 AM · #53

Originally posted by JBHale:

Understood. And I agree with you. I'm all for tolerance right across the board. You won't see me dismissing anybody's ideas out of hand as worthless. I may analyze them and point out logical flaws, but I won't ridicule believers of any stripe.

R.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/10/2007 12:07:35 PM · #54

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I may analyze them and point out logical flaws, but I won't ridicule believers of any stripe.

Some ideas are ripe for ridicule. The notion of adolescent dinosaurs existing happily alongside ten million species of insects on a floating raft comes to mind. While there is nothing to be gained from destroying the character of an individual who may hold something like this to be true, there is also no need to accept this with a serious, thoughtful face, as though contemplating its value, and then begin to argue its points as though they were valid.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/10/2007 12:25:06 PM · #55

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I may analyze them and point out logical flaws, but I won't ridicule believers of any stripe.

Originally posted by Louis:

Yes, the IDEAS can be ripe for ridicule.

I am of the same opinion, but all too often I see someone try to shoehorn what sounds too much like an illogical flaw into their viewpoint which often has the effect of eroding their entire credibility.

When stated, that then comes across as a personal attack, which is why this topic is so difficult to keep as a civil discussion.

Message edited by author 2007-11-10 12:26:22.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/10/2007 01:06:51 PM · #56

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

We THINK we comprehend, or are beginning to comprehend, how this (apparently) expanding universe of ours began its expansion; but this does nothing to explain how the raw stuff that began to expand into what we now call "the universe" first came into being. maybe God's the answer...

As pointed out earlier, what I see as ripe for ridicule is when someone dismisses as an absolute impossibility the idea that the universe either came from nowhere or was always present, and then offers the alternate suggestion that it was actually created by something that itself either came from nowhere or was always present. Huh? Refuting the concepts of infinite presence and spontaneous creation also denies the possibility of God!

Message edited by author 2007-11-10 13:09:59.

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

11/10/2007 01:15:36 PM · #57

Hey look! Another existance of God topic with the usual suspects. I'll never understand why so many people like to stand in the same room and just kick each other in the nuts.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/10/2007 01:17:04 PM · #58

Originally posted by Phil:

Hey look! Another existance of God topic with the usual suspects. I'll never understand why so many people like to stand in the same room and just kick each other in the nuts.

Roflmao! You just made my bio page.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/10/2007 01:18:53 PM · #59

Ooooh... new guy! Stand still for a second Phil...

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

11/10/2007 01:20:38 PM · #60

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Phil:
Hey look! Another existance of God topic with the usual suspects. I'll never understand why so many people like to stand in the same room and just kick each other in the nuts.

Roflmao! You just made my bio page.

That'll run you about 5 bucks. Unlimited uses though.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Ooooh... new guy! Stand still for a second Phil...

Too late Shannon. My boys started hurting the second I walked in.

cheekymunky

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/10/2007 01:21:09 PM · #61

I'm gonna have to get me one of these:

LOL

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/10/2007 01:31:54 PM · #62

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We THINK we comprehend, or are beginning to comprehend, how this (apparently) expanding universe of ours began its expansion; but this does nothing to explain how the raw stuff that began to expand into what we now call "the universe" first came into being. maybe God's the answer...

As pointed out earlier, what I see as ripe for ridicule is when someone dismisses as an absolute impossibility the idea that the universe either came from nowhere or was always present, and then offers the alternate suggestion that it was actually created by something that itself either came from nowhere or was always present. Huh? Refuting the concepts of infinite presence and spontaneous creation also denies the possibility of God!

But I'm not refuting those. Not at all. I'm just saying possibly God's as valid an answer as any other. My point is, we do not, and cannot, know.

R.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/10/2007 01:41:40 PM · #63

Originally posted by Phil:

Hey look! Another existance of God topic with the usual suspects. I'll never understand why so many people like to stand in the same room and just kick each other in the nuts.

Guess it makes about as much sense as people coming into a thread in which they have no interest and providing commentary like the above.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/10/2007 01:43:33 PM · #64

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm just saying possibly God's as valid an answer as any other. My point is, we do not, and cannot, know.

Whether or not we know does not make all possibilities equally valid. I don't KNOW that the universe wasn't created by super-intelligent horseradishes, but I also don't consider the possibility as valid as any other. It may be possible, but even our limited body of knowledge makes that scenario extremely unlikely.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/10/2007 02:24:36 PM · #65

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

I'm gonna have to get me one of these:

LOL

You'll need a helmet too ...

... the other day I saw Isaac's Sensei practice kicking an empty soda bottle off the top of a 6'9" mannekin's head ...

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

11/10/2007 03:02:57 PM · #66

Originally posted by Louis:

I'm guessing yours look like nilla wafers by now?

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/10/2007 03:07:05 PM · #67

Regarding the coexistence of science and religion...
if you are religious, then you must agree that since god is responsible and in charge of everything, the science and the scientists was created by it with its approval. Because nothing escapes it.
If you are not religious, all you need to do is accept the fact that there are people on earth, in fact a huge majority, that accept religion as a guiding light in their lives. Religious people do obey laws of science, and the nonreligious also accept and realize the impact of religion on everyday life. (Unless, that is, you live in a cave and never get out. Valid for both religious and atheists.)

It is possible to mix the two in many cases. There are a few concepts where the two collide and act as matter and antimatter, but people should stay away from such collisions, enormous energy is dissipated without any use except for a great lightshow for some. This thread notwithstanding.

Regarding the claim that you cannot prove non-existence of anything, I'd like to correct Robert, or rather to qualify this statement some more.

If you just spell out an item in an undefined area and undefined time limits, then sure, the statement applies. If you, however, try to specify what and where and when and try to deny the existence of something, then you may be able to validate the claim simply by analyzing the what, where and when)

Such are the examples of a giant turtle, Noah's ark etc.

-S.

rox_rox

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/10/2007 10:06:06 PM · #68

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by rox_rox:
Both Science and Religion exist to convince us that they are unilateral entities; when the evidence clearly points to the fact that they are inseparably intertwined.

What evidence is that?

Sorry it took me so long to answer this; and sorry that you will probably find my answer unacceptable, but here goes:

Areas of human consciousness, for example. Dreaming, Out of Body Experiences, Near Death Experiences, Precognition.

I think there is sufficient evidence that dreams exist, yet science is unable to prove the exact mechanisms involved. As studies continue, some questions are answered, but more are raised. It's easy enough to say that, given enough time and study, these questions may be answered scientifically. However, it's also proposed that there may be a paranormal element to these experiences that we cannot comprehend in our present state of being.

Another would be the subject of UFOs. Whatever the explanation for this, no one can deny that something is happening. Some scientists are interested in proving specific mass hysteria, which is almost as intriguing as the idea of otherworldly visitors. Others are happy to contend that humans are responsible. Religious believers are all over the map on it. Regardless, scientific and religious beliefs are intertwined on such subjects, at least for the foreseeable future.

On a side note: A good many scientific minds have been converted from atheism to other belief systems in the course of their studies. However, trying to convince them that teenage dinosaurs took a boat ride with 10 tons of creepy crawlies, will not likely do the trick.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/10/2007 10:08:34 PM · #69

From an article in the New York Times called Rethinking What Caused the Last Mass Extinction about findings in a New Jersey Riverbed:

"Dr. Landman said he had since become increasingly confident that the iridium layer at the creek remained where it was deposited. It is presumably a true marker of an asteroid impact with global repercussions, and this further complicates understanding of the mass extinction. Why is there no evidence at the creek for the almost immediate post-impact destruction, as assumed by the standard theory?
. . .
After the event producing the iridium residue, and the occurrence of any accompanying disasters, Dr. Landman said, the extinctions were not immediate everywhere, certainly not among marine organisms off New Jersey.

â��This is what I imagine happening,â�� he said. â��Storms of biblical proportions and a heavy discharge of river floods might have buried sediments rapidly. These marine communities may have flourished immediately afterward as a result of a lot of organic material, such as plankton, dying and settling to the depths for their consumption."

Science ASSUMING? Storms and floods of BIBLICAL proportions? RAPID sedimentation?

Who'da thunk?

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/10/2007 10:10:06 PM · #70

I don't think 'inseparably intertwined' is the best description for for how science and religion address the examples you post.

Both science and religion have various theories about many things, but that's about the only commonality between the two. Both are mechanisms for trying to explain the unknown.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

11/10/2007 10:36:45 PM · #71

Originally posted by david_c:

While the two may "co-exist", they aren't really compatible. It seems to me that Science is an attempt to understand and explain the natural world. Theology posits a "supernatural" realm that, by definition, cannot be measured by the scientific method.

Theology explains matters of faith.

Science attempts to explain matters of reality.

Christian theology is 100% compatible with all known science (not guesses and fabricated explanations, but real true observable science).

rox_rox

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/10/2007 10:54:35 PM · #72

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Yeah, not the best way of making my point. I was drinking wine last night, when I made that original post, it made better sense then:)

What I'm trying to say is that although there are fundamentalists on both sides of the spectrum, there are a great number of people who believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, or in both.

For example, I consider myself a big fan of science, but I also think that an intelligence beyond our current understanding may one day be explained within a scientific context. Therefore, in the minds of people like myself, they are intertwined.

11/10/2007 10:55:58 PM · #73

Originally posted by RonB:

Science ASSUMING? Storms and floods of BIBLICAL proportions? RAPID sedimentation?

Who'da thunk?

Hehe... did you actually think about that before you wrote it? Ooh, ooh... I sneezed and Einstein said, "God bless you!" That's proof! That's proof! C'mon.

If a giant asteroid blasted a good chunk of Central America into the stratosphere, wouldn't you expect some pretty darn severe weather and lasting climate change? It would certainly have to be to cause the global extinctions that we see in the fossil record, and even 'regular' storms can move lots of sand and earth, so why should rapid sedimentation be any surprise? Do you even know what the standard theory is (because you clearly STILL don't understand how they work)?

Side note: I sincerely hope that you're not trying to suggest that this scientist's findings support the story of Noah's Ark, because I still haven't fully recovered from the dinosaur thing. Any suggestion that this event that apparently took a few hundred years to kill off the local species might have been The Great Flood intended for that purpose might push me over the edge. "Captain's log, year 188... still waiting for the wickedness to die off. The carnivores are getting restless..."

11/10/2007 10:58:52 PM · #74

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Christian theology is 100% compatible with all known science (not guesses and fabricated explanations, but real true observable science).

Is this just sarcasm or a joke? I'm pretty sure Galileo wouldn't agree. ;-)

Message edited by author 2007-11-10 23:08:50.

rox_rox