Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

reply to post by swanne


I have to disagree with that.....

Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

reply to post by Cuervo


I think Neil was suggesting we can coexist, not that religion is reconcilable with science. Contrast that last video with this one. Seems pretty clear what his thoughts on this reconciliation are:



Also agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exlcusive.

AfterInfinity

swanne
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

There is more to our universe than what a bunch of humans can measure.

...Says the human.

It takes a human to know what a human can and cannot do.

swanne

AfterInfinity

swanne
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

There is more to our universe than what a bunch of humans can measure.

...Says the human.

It takes a human to know what a human can and cannot do.

Really? Then what does it take to know what a god can and cannot do?

This is what christian religious extremist zealot, totally ignorant of Jesus's teachings of love, did at their worst hour: Inquisition + Witchhunts Killed A Total of 63,000 to 65,000 People

And this is what only one materialist did in the name of evolution: Mao Zedong Killed 45 Million People in 4 Years.

That's because without religion, science goes mad. It needs a hand to guide it. Otherwise, things like this happens:

reply to post by swanne

Every theories scientists have, they created it because they had faith it was the good one.

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
What is a scientific theory?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Can anybody pretend to know? That's my point. If you cannot know what God can and cannot do, then why reject the possibility of his existence altogether? Shouldn't we wait and explore the Universe before entertaining prejudices against christians? Wouldn't a true scientist be open-minded?

Evolution does exist. But what put evolution into motion? Can we be that arrogant and pretend that we know even though we don't?

reply to post by Cuervo


Fair enough. But there's no conspiracy to prop up evolution. The guy who disproves it would be rich and in every text book from now on. What scientist would pass that up?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Theories are not facts.

swanne
This is what christian religious extremist zealot, totally ignorant of Jesus's teachings of love, did at their worst hour: Inquisition + Witchhunts Killed A Total of 63,000 to 65,000 People

And this is what only one materialist did in the name of evolution: Mao Zedong Killed 45 Million People in 4 Years.

That's because without religion, science goes mad. It needs a hand to guide it. Otherwise, things like this happens:

No, that's just humans being humans. With or without religion, we will find a reason to blow stuff up and feel good doing it. Also, I fail to see what Mao Zedong has to do with the relationship between science and religion.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I hardly picture buddhist monks developing nuclear bombs in their monasteries and threatening to blow the World with them...

Just my two cents.

Also, I fail to see what Mao Zedong has to do with the relationship between science and religion.

Zedong's maoism directly comes from Marxism. Marxism was one of the greatest proponent of hatred against governments and, since christians hate hate, secularism.

swanne
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I hardly picture buddhist monks developing nuclear bombs in their monasteries and threatening to blow the World with them...

Just my two cents.

edit on 23-2-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)

Many of the most respected and cherished Buddhists commit suicide quietly through starvation/mummification. Also, Buddhists are not necessarily religious.

Either way, correlation is not causation. Elementary mistake, dear Watson.

reply to post by swanne


Read what it said an contrast that with what you originally said. You stated scientists just do it on faith, as if it wasn't the result of evidence. That's categorically false.

Now just doing it on faith is certainly the nature of your belief….. so why would you bring that up in a negative light?

If you cannot know what God can and cannot do, then why reject the possibility of his existence altogether? Shouldn't we wait and explore the Universe before entertaining prejudices against christians?

Because while we cannot know either way if 'god' exists, we can evaluate the claims of Christianity and dismiss it. We can do so because that religion makes scientific claims. In other words we can reject Yahweh without rejecting 'god'.

swanne
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Can anybody pretend to know? That's my point. If you cannot know what God can and cannot do, then why reject the possibility of his existence altogether? Shouldn't we wait and explore the Universe before entertaining prejudices against christians? Wouldn't a true scientist be open-minded?

Evolution does exist. But what put evolution into motion? Can we be that arrogant and pretend that we know even though we don't?

I'm not prejudiced against Christians, they just tend to stick their necks out the furthest. And what I see is not you being open-minded, I see you cementing a predesignated conclusion with cherry-picked observations. If this god is real, then clearly, you barely know the first thing about it. Every claim, every belief, and every postulation boasts dozens of exceptions that don't follow a single coherent rule. In other words, any deity currently touted as an existent entity has such a profound history of inconsistency and inaction outside of the consequences set in motion by their enthralled followers that they might as well not exist at all. And that's what I've spent all my time on these threads trying to say. It makes very little sense to discuss the particulars of a being whose existence you have yet to verify, let alone quantify. But if I just sit here and twiddle my thumbs quietly, theists will have the ONLY voice, the ONLY opinion, just like they used to. You can talk, but don't cry if we answer.

So in short, no, I don't pretend to know. But I am here to make sure you don't either.

reply to post by swanne


Theories are better then facts. A theory is a collection offa ya that lead to a conclusion . A fact is 1 fact. It's a common misconception.


It's really sleazy trick the creation scientists use people not in the scientific community.

reply to post by ArtemisE


So theories are better than facts?

reply to post by raymundoko


I thought most people learned the difference between common language of theory and scientific theory in high school but I soon realized on this site there is a large portion of society that either never learned, dont care to learn or have forgotten which is why I have a link in my signature to clear up such things.

Please take the time to familiarize yourself.

Lucid Lunacy

Also agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exlcusive.

edit on 23-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

How does that make sense? Agnostic is being open to the possibility. Atheism is actively disbelieving. He understands the difference which is why he is explicit about him not being an atheist.

I didn't get to watch the video but if it's about religion not being reconcilable through the scientific method, that is correct; it's not. At least, not when we get to the "repeatable" part of the method where another person should be able to replicate your actions to get the same result. Spirituality doesn't work that way since it is inherently a personal experience. A person can prove it to themselves (as some religious scientists must have done at some point) but they cannot prove it to another in a lab setting. Yet.

On a personal level, this doesn't make it any less valid in the eyes of science as long as the person is being unbiased.

reply to post by Cuervo


Please familiarize yourself with the term agnostic atheist. I would say that is probably the predominant group in the atheist camp. Just use any search engine it is a common term.

Cuervo


How does that make sense? Agnostic is being open to the possibility. Atheism is actively disbelieving. He understands the difference which is why he is explicit about him not being an atheist.

Agnostic atheism:

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]

Very few atheists would describe themselves as gnostic atheists as most subscribe to agnostic atheism. Who wouldn't change their mind if compelling evidence was presented? That no such evidence exists is why atheism exist.

Does Neil Degrauss Tyson believe in God?

www.youtube.com...

He does not associate with movements but he does not believe in a god (or gods).

And I would say, if I find a word that came closest it would be agnostic. Agnostic -- the word dates from the 19th century -- Huxley -- to refer to someone who doesn't know but hasn't yet really seen evidence for it but is prepared to embrace the evidence if it's there but if it's not won't be forced to have to think something that is not otherwise supported.

His philosophical views would be best described as agnostic atheism.