are science and religion connected?

[AgGun]

lately i have been thinking about how to and what it feels to take a scientific view on life and seeing that (im christain FYI if this sounds atheist and excuse my spelling please) we are just cmplex moleicluar structures and all our feelings are interprited by specilized atoms and moulicules that make up our body systems but all of this was able to happen (most thought) because of the big bang (i think ~) but what was responsible for the creation of the star that exploded in the big bang, this is where religon comes in. Maybe God (or to other people Gods) created that which created it all. (if you have other opinions or this has been debated please tell me)

 

[cF=)]

Indeed, our body and mind are made from complex organic compounds and bound to obey chemistry and physical laws. The argument you bring however falls into a common misconception: the need of a beginning to the Universe. Our world doesn't necessarily need a start, an alpha or whatever, it might have just originated past the point of a singularity.

This has been discussed thoroughly here.

 

[lordzedd]

the reason science ever.. came to be was because the men who were called scientists wanted to know about God's creation. there are people today who view science as evidence of a creator, but at the same time the processes for nearly everything can be explained using what we know about our world. what science can't really solve is the origin of the universe.. it has tried with evolution, but neither it nor creationism can ever solve all the questions.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

what science can't really solve is the origin of the universe.. it has tried with evolution, but neither it nor creationism can ever solve all the questions.

Huh? Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. And sure, maybe science can never solve ALL the questions (though we have some very good models of the origin of the universe), but creationism doesn't really solve ANY questions.

 

[DeliciousCake]

If you want to go ahead and try to argue that MAYBE God or some other divine being created the proceedings up to the Big Bang, then you have to prove that A) God was created by something higher than him, or B) explain how he defies our concept of time. Science really can't explain much of that, and if you're religious you deal with it through faith, and if you aren't you accept that there are things that we don't understand.

 

[yossarian22]

What you call the scientific point of view is the materialist reductionist point of view. More recent criticisms of this position tend to revolve more around consciousness than the Cosmological Argument (which you basically stated)

As for you argument, saying 'God did it' is about as intellectually stimulating and useful as yelling "Blerque!" loudly and decisively.

I hope nobody dredges up that old cliche of "Science is the how, Religion is the why"...

 

[The Executive]

What you call the scientific point of view is the materialist reductionist point of view. More recent criticisms of this position tend to revolve more around consciousness than the Cosmological Argument (which you basically stated)

As for you argument, saying 'God did it' is about as intellectually stimulating and useful as yelling "Blerque!" loudly and decisively.

I hope nobody dredges up that old cliche of "Science is the how, Religion is the why"...

Why muist they be mutually exclusive? Why can't they work together? I've heard the argument that evolution can't be true because the fact that it takes species billions of years to evolve portrays a weak and stupid God who could not initially achieve results He wanted in his creations and thus had to wait. However, one of God's primary virtues is patience. Could it be that evolution was part of His plan (not evolution to the extent that Darwinism would have you believe, but to a lesser degree)?

 

[yossarian22]

Why muist they be mutually exclusive? Why can't they work together? I've heard the argument that evolution can't be true because the fact that it takes species billions of years to evolve portrays a weak and stupid God who could not initially achieve results He wanted in his creations and thus had to wait. However, one of God's primary virtues is patience. Could it be that evolution was part of His plan (not evolution to the extent that Darwinism would have you believe, but to a lesser degree)?

I am not specifically referring to evolution, but rather in general.

From the OP
...but what was responsible for the creation of the star that exploded in the big bang,[?] this is where religon comes in. Maybe God (or to other people Gods) created that which created it all. (if you have other opinions or this has been debated please tell me)....

This is basically a long winded way of saying "God caused it all"; The equivalent of yelling "Blerque!". It answers nothing.

There is no reason why what you say is false. There is just no reason to believe it is true. Well, to be fair there may be. I have just never seen a strong argument come out of something like the Cosmological argument.

 

[TheManaLord]

The big bang and God are both inexplicable notions. In science, it is common to site the big bang as the "beginning" of the cosmos and everything therein. In religion, it is common to cite that god created everything we know. How are they different? Where is the defined beginning? There is still the question, what came before the big bang, and what came before God. That is where these things are the same. Scientists say that the big bang just happened, and that's that. And theologians and zealots claim that God just is and has always been. That's where the basis of belief systems must stem from. What would rather believe, something that has indeed provided real world explanations on things in our universe, or the good book?

They both can lead to enlightenment and answers, but they both fall short in the crux of the matter.

So in these ways they are connected and bound by the same stipulations.

 

[The Executive]

"Blerque!"

Is this French?

 

[yossarian22]

Is this French?

I just picked the first onomatopoeia that came to mind. It is meaningless.
So yes, it probably is French.

 

[The Executive]

I just picked the first onomatopoeia that came to mind. It is meaningless.
So yes, it probably is French.

Yes, it is.

 

[cF=)]

The big bang and God are both inexplicable notions.

Not really.

Science continues to go further into the beginning of our Universe. It's not like we're still stuck in front of wall asking ourselves 'dammit, how could we dodge a singularity?'. There's even a whole wikipedia page on it, with probably lots of mistakes in understanding... whatever.

Anyway, the argument of 'God is behind everything' is as testable as 'Pinky and the Brain created an universe in which they have a TV show'.

 

[TheManaLord]

If you didn't isolate that quote and take it out of context I went on to explain that the time period before those happenings are inexplicable. The bing bang event itself and the idea of a god existing are completely fine. But again, the rest of the post.

 

[cF=)]

Nothing is really fine in your post, hence why I could remove a quote from it and analyze your whole opinion from that point. You sprout complete non-sense when you ask yourself a question such as 'what came before god?' and go on telling lies right here:

There is still the question, what came before the big bang

If your limited knowledge stops you from answering that question and you find stimulating asking yourself if God did it all, fine by me. The problem arises when you use your ignorance as an argument to tell me science never invented mathematical models that go right PAST the moment of creation (or in Stephen Hawking's case, no creation at all). It's still all theory, but it is there and we're working on it.

By pushing the limits of God always a little further - as global knowledge increases - you're just hiding an inexplicable variable into vitalism. In other words, when what you taught was impossible to explain is exposed, you deny the previous position of God and place it elsewhere.

Example: If it's not at the edge of Earth, it's the Sun. But when it's finally not the Sun, it might be in nature. Now that biology's a well supported theory, why not say God's in the Big Bang? Unfortunately, when you crack down the big bang, people get mad and finally say God is the step behind everything.

Completely logical.

 

[TheManaLord]

The first way to discredit an argument is with insults. I think you derived the wrong intentions from my post, there's no reason to insult me for that.

This debate topic isn't about creation or the beginning, it's about the connection between science and religion.

 

[cF=)]

If you are wrong in your knowledge of science and try to establish a link between religion and the big bang theory, then you obviously don't understand where science has its limits and wrongfully make such comparison.

There is no link between science and religion because one is a blind and unfounded belief while the other seek the most rational theory from observations, experiments and logical assumptions.

Everything else is explained in my last post.

 

[Ørion]

IMO, there is no reason to believe that things like the big bang and evolution cannot coexist with the christian religion. It is clear that Genesis uses some symbolism etc. and it is possible that God created life by using these things as his tools. Besides, even if you are not religious, you are still using faith that something like the Big Bang could happen randomly. Personally, I would rather put faith in a God than in nothing.

 

[The Executive]

IMO, there is no reason to believe that things like the big bang and evolution cannot coexist with the christian religion. It is clear that Genesis uses some symbolism etc. and it is possible that God created life by using these things as his tools. Besides, even if you are not religious, you are still using faith that something like the Big Bang could happen randomly. Personally, I would rather put faith in a God than in nothing.

Oh dear, you shouldn't have said that!
/sarcasm

God created science. God created religion. Science and religion are connected via sharing the same Creator.

Now, watch as my humble, completely sound post gets ripped to tiny shreds.

 

[cF=)]

Now, watch as my humble, completely sound post gets ripped to tiny shreds.

I already answered this point by saying there is no reason to believe a superior being made it all happen. It's your choice to think so, but could you dig me any proof contradicting that a toothbrush might be behind the secrets of our Universe instead of a tall white man with a beard?

It all goes down to the burden of proof, which you theists seem to dodge endlessly. If you use unfounded thoughts to get your point across, the comparison you made fail. Also, what does that mean? :

Personally, I would rather put faith in a God than in nothing.

Congratulation, you purposefully avoid using logic in your everyday life.

 

[TheManaLord]

They're societally related because they are both used to explain.

What's wrong with that?

 

[cF=)]

They're societally related because they are both used to explain.

Probably, but their explanations are as near as the two magnetic poles of earth

 

[The Executive]

I already answered this point by saying there is no reason to believe a superior being made it all happen. It's your choice to think so, but could you dig me any proof contradicting that a toothbrush might be behind the secrets of our Universe instead of a tall white man with a beard?

It all goes down to the burden of proof, which you theists seem to dodge endlessly. If you use unfounded thoughts to get your point across, the comparison you made fail. Also, what does that mean? :

I love this argument.

You cannot prove or disprove theology.

Once again, you cannot prove or disprove theology. As AltF4 has stated, you can come to conclusions using evidence (or lack of) that push your belief in one direction or the other, but you can't really get there unless you jump over some gaps. You can't justify or condemn faith based on empirical evidence that doesn't exist.

As for the marijuana thing, I'm still working on it. There are more pressing things to take care of, so I'll likely just PM you.

 

[cF=)]

You can't justify or **** faith based on empirical evidence that doesn't exist.

I know my beliefs have no support, so I'll devote my life to them. Is that what you're telling me?

 

[Wolfang]

Why muist they be mutually exclusive? Why can't they work together? I've heard the argument that evolution can't be true because the fact that it takes species billions of years to evolve portrays a weak and stupid God who could not initially achieve results He wanted in his creations and thus had to wait. However, one of God's primary virtues is patience. Could it be that evolution was part of His plan (not evolution to the extent that Darwinism would have you believe, but to a lesser degree)?

Thank you..I agree. Well me personally, I believe in adaptation over evolution (causes less fuss, and yea, they're different), but on the main point, YES science and religion are connected. They both cover such a wide base, and both have things that cannot be explained (if you need an example, start pointing fingers and ask for "proof"). The two subjects coincide and conflict so often; how can they not be connected?

 

[cF=)]

Well me personally, I believe in adaptation over evolution (causes less fuss, and yea, they're different)

I'd be more than interested if you could explain to me what you know about evolution and why the scientific community is wrong in their theories?

They both cover such a wide base, and both have things that cannot be explained

So music is related to kung fu because both have such a wide base? Please tell me you're joking, that's not even an argument. On top of that, you're openly saying science can't explain everything, thus it is merely the same as religion. That's such a link, wow... I never would've thought about it myself

 

[Wolfang]

I'd be more than interested if you could explain to me what you know about evolution and why the scientific community is wrong in their theories?

So music is related to kung fu because both have such a wide base? Please tell me you're joking, that's not even an argument. On top of that, you're openly saying science can't explain everything, thus it is merely the same as religion. That's such a link, wow... I never would've thought about it myself

Of course its an argument, its the debate itself, and I never said the scientific community is wrong If you want me to say I'm joking, wish granted. And again...I did not say that they are the same, I said they coincide and conflict. The thread is asking if they connect, not if they are the same....

I did say that both religion and science have things that cannot be explained, so your right, I should have said they both have things that haven't been explained. Sorry about that.

And yea, kung foo and music are related in certain aspects, but I don't care to explain old films.

 

[The Executive]

I know my beliefs have no support, so I'll devote my life to them. Is that what you're telling me?

Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

In other words, faith is the "evidence" of what Christians "know" to be true within their own hearts that has been revealed to them by God.

I count divine revelation as a support if there ever was one, despite the prevailing belief on this forum that such a concept is nonexistent.

 

[cF=)]

And yea, kung foo and music are related in certain aspects, but I don't care to explain old films.

I like humour, and I now see where you're coming from with in a deeper perspective. Preferably, I would've liked these answers first, but I still have to disagree with your connection between religion and science.

Science will never say it knows it all, even if we (some day) obtain explanations about everything. It will just be the most rational and logical answer to the mechanics of the Universe. Religion, on the other hand, prefer to spiritually answer everything with one unprovable constant: God. So how are both seeking the unknown if the latter already gives out it's opinion?

I count divine revelation as a support if there ever was one, despite the prevailing belief on this forum that such a concept is nonexistent.

Sadly, special pleading isn't an argument in this forum. Nice try though.

 

[Wolfang]

Science will never say it knows it all

True, and neither will religion. Last time I checked they both don't know when the world will end. Another connection maybe?....

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

In other words, faith is the "evidence" of what Christians "know" to be true within their own hearts that has been revealed to them by God.

I count divine revelation as a support if there ever was one, despite the prevailing belief on this forum that such a concept is nonexistent.

Well if you're going to allow THAT kind of reasoning, then you have to accept the fact that J.R. "Bob" Dobbs told me in a personal revelation that the spaceships from Planet X are going to come save me from Earth's destruction on July 5, 1998 (it's not REALLY 2008 right now, nor is it REALLY Earth, it got switched with Mars long ago), but ONLY if I send $30 to the Church. OK well maybe it wasn't a PERSONAL revelation but this guy I really trust said HE had a personal revelation so that's good enough right?

True, and neither will religion. Last time I checked they both don't know when the world will end. Another connection maybe?....

The sun will eventually destroy Earth if nothing else does.

 

[yossarian22]

Well if you're going to allow THAT kind of reasoning, then you have to accept the fact that J.R. "Bob" Dobbs told me in a personal revelation that the spaceships from Planet X are going to come save me from Earth's destruction on July 5, 1998 (it's not REALLY 2008 right now, nor is it REALLY Earth, it got switched with Mars long ago), but ONLY if I send $30 to the Church. OK well maybe it wasn't a PERSONAL revelation but this guy I really trust said HE had a personal revelation so that's good enough right?

Unfortunately, this is eerily similar to many alien based "religions". The stupidity of man is unrivaled.

The sun will eventually destroy Earth if nothing else does.

Unless we get hit by a rock and knocked out of the Sun's gravity well through a series of wildly improbably events.

 

[Wolfang]

Who cares how, I was talking about when, and somehow that spawned what scenario can end the world...all I'm saying is that religion and science share a base that neither proclaims that it knows the answers to everything.

 

[Zero Beat]

Unfortunately, this is eerily similar to many alien based "religions". The stupidity of man is unrivaled.

Really? Think about that one for a moment. Our stupidity is unrivaled...Quite the claim to make.

Unless we get hit by a rock and knocked out of the Sun's gravity well through a series of wildly improbably events.

Knocked out of the sun's gravity. You've got jokes.

I can very well see how religion and science are related; oh yeah. We're the center of the universe, the earth is flat, that good stuff.

Funny how something as simple as(Not back then, but yet again, I'm talking to someone from today) the heliocentric model stepped all over that. Just a quick example, really.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Unfortunately, this is eerily similar to many alien based "religions". The stupidity of man is unrivaled.

Oh that reminds me, it was actually a revelation from an entity called Jehovah-1 who it turns out is the same entity behind basically every other religion on Earth. So there we go! "Bob" is now fully on the same level as other divine revalations.

Unless we get hit by a rock and knocked out of the Sun's gravity well through a series of wildly improbably events.

Yes that's true, although we would still have to deal with the death of the galaxy, or the universe.

Who cares how, I was talking about when, and somehow that spawned what scenario can end the world...all I'm saying is that religion and science share a base that neither proclaims that it knows the answers to everything.

It's grossly misleading to even put them in the same category based on that. Science makes (in principle) testable predictions about things that could be verified experimentally. Religion just declares it by absolute fiat and usually goes out of its way to make it UNtestable or unfalsifiable. Science doesn't have the answer to everything, neither does religion. But science will get you somewhere towards answering them, religion won't.

 

[Wolfang]

It's grossly misleading to even put them in the same category based on that. Science makes (in principle) testable predictions about things that could be verified experimentally. Religion just declares it by absolute fiat and usually goes out of its way to make it UNtestable or unfalsifiable. Science doesn't have the answer to everything, neither does religion. But science will get you somewhere towards answering them, religion won't.

And again, who cares about testing that theme when neither know the answer. It's not misleading at all cause apparently thats a fact, and only one of the many connections, its just that one falls in the mild/nobody should really care category.

And sure, I agree with you that science most of the time has tangible evidence and religion almost never does, but that doesn't make them SO opposing that they don't correlate on some aspects.

As for probing and questioning? Well dude, it depends on what you want answered, because I'm sure they both answer some things that get you closer to the truth, but they both also contradict their own inquiries time and time again, but that's what I said before.. I do wonder what religion you are talking about when you say its goes out of its way to declare "fundamentals" absolute fiat, but that's just me speculating,since the debate is about religion as a whole right? Now that's misleading, grouping all religion and saying what can give answers or not...


(absolute and fiat mean the same thing...unchangeable)

 

[The Executive]

Well if you're going to allow THAT kind of reasoning, then you have to accept the fact that J.R. "Bob" Dobbs told me in a personal revelation that the spaceships from Planet X are going to come save me from Earth's destruction on July 5, 1998 (it's not REALLY 2008 right now, nor is it REALLY Earth, it got switched with Mars long ago), but ONLY if I send $30 to the Church. OK well maybe it wasn't a PERSONAL revelation but this guy I really trust said HE had a personal revelation so that's good enough right?.

No, it's not even close. I was quoting a millennia-old text (which also happens to be the most-printed book in existence, so either it's true or we all fall for the same stuff over and over) which is relatively believable in comparison to the grossly exaggerated Scientology picture you paint. Please, if we're going to debate religion, let's stick to actual religion, not a documented pyramid scam who only put the word 'Church' in their name to get tax deductions.

The sun will eventually destroy Earth if nothing else does.

There's always entropy.

 

[yossarian22]

Really? Think about that one for a moment. Our stupidity is unrivaled...Quite the claim to make.

My use of rhetoric has this nasty tendency of causing myself to dig a very very deep hole for myself

No, it's not even close. I was quoting a millennia-old text (which also happens to be the most-printed book in existence, so either it's true or we all fall for the same stuff over and over) which is relatively believable in comparison to the grossly exaggerated Scientology picture you paint. Please, if we're going to debate religion, let's stick to actual religion, not a documented pyramid scam who only put the word 'Church' in their name to get tax deductions.

...
So your argument is "We can't all be idiots"

 

[cF=)]

No, it's not even close. I was quoting a millennia-old text (which also happens to be the most-printed book in existence, so either it's true or we all fall for the same stuff over and over) which is relatively believable in comparison to the grossly exaggerated Scientology picture you paint. Please, if we're going to debate religion, let's stick to actual religion, not a documented pyramid scam who only put the word 'Church' in their name to get tax deductions.

My holy book is better then yours?

Dude, get out of here. A thousand years old book? Pretty much a reason to disagree with archaic idiots claiming stuff we have no idea about. Printed many times? Appeal to popularity. How do you even prove your god is superior to Brahma, Buddha, or even Allah? These are also gods you should hold respect to by your criteria.

 

[Zero Beat]

There's always entropy.

I'm afraid there have been way too many close calls when it comes to meteors hitting the Earth, as opposed to waiting it out through entropy.

Nature's far more forgiving in terms of time, than flying rocks of death.