are science and religion connected?

[blazedaces]

You guys all think that "entropy", rocks possibly knocking the earth out of orbit (which is about as likely to happen as getting cancer from radio waves), and the sun swallowing us up are ... not related. Entropy is the underlying principle that gives us confidence one of these things will eventually happen, that it's inevitable.

-blazed

 

[yossarian22]

You guys all think that "entropy", rocks possibly knocking the earth out of orbit (which is about as likely to happen as getting cancer from radio waves), and the sun swallowing us up are ... not related. Entropy is the underlying principle that gives us confidence one of these things will eventually happen, that it's inevitable.
-blazed

I am guessing that The Executive was referring to proton decay or something similar. That's what I got out of it.

Anyhow, it is ludicrously easy to reject Scientology as a religion. I consider it more of a neurotic dogma (which large portions of Islam and Christianity have degraded into)

 

[Zero Beat]

Since "The Executive" was quoting something that had to do with Astrophysics, then his meaning of entropy was that of Cosmology(next closest thing), which states that the universe would reach its maximum "disorder," or our solar system, if you want to call it a "closed system," would reach a maximum state of commotion, of some sort, and die off. (Heat Death)

However, what's with this crap about a rock hitting the Earth and knocking it off its orbit? Nonsense.

Reminds me of that stupid question; "If everyone jumped at the same time, would the Earth move?" Die in a fire.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

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.

So having an answer to within .0001% accuracy is the same as not having any answer (or an ostensibly WRONG answer) at all? Please.

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..

Shouldn't we judge an answer by the logical arguments used to arrive at it? That's the HUGE difference between science and religion. Science accepts evidence that contradicts extant models (and in fact ACTIVELY searches it out) and then creates new models to support observations. Religion does not. You have to accept the canon 'as is.' That what it IS, is some set of immutable 'sacred truths' that people in the religion believe in. Religion provides "answers," but they aren't based on any sort of rigorous inquiry.

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...

Well since that's inherent in the very definition of religion: you accept beliefs from the word of a book or leader BASED ON FAITH; it's not a misleading generalization at all.

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.

Believable? Wow. Have you really read the Bible? I mean talking snakes deceiving women? The Tower of Babel explaining the diverse languages of the world? Every species in the world saved by a guy with a boat from a global flood? People living for centuries? The whole cosmogony is like something out of D&D. And I'm not talking about Scientology in my counter example. And anyway in a couple millenia any other text will be as old is the Bible now. Does that all of the sudden mean it has more credibility? Not to mention that there are dozens of religions predating Christianity. Perhaps we should convert to Zoroastrianism.

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.

I'll have you know, sir, that the glorious Church of the Subgenius is a proud tax-paying institution unlike those phony Scientologists. We're the first 'Industrial Church.' Praise "Bob."

Entropy, or rather the 2nd law of thermodynamics, doesn't say that eventually we MUST be hit by a rock or the sun will swallow us up, it says that the entropy or disorder of the universe will eventually be maximized, i.e. the energy of the universe will settle to a basically homogeneous and useless state. Different models of the universe say different things.

As for proton decay, no conclusive evidence of it has ever been observed but it is predicted by many Grand Unified Theories and Supersymmetric Models. Incidentally I did a 30 min talk about it earlier this year.

 

[Zero Beat]

Not to mention that there are dozens of religions predating Christianity. Perhaps we should convert to Zoroastrianism.

600 b.c. is but a fly next to the Egyptians in terms of dating back. But yes, for the sake of the point, you're dead on.

As for proton decay, no conclusive evidence of it has ever been observed but it is predicted by many Grand Unified Theories and Supersymmetric Models. Incidentally I did a 30 min talk about it earlier this year.

You know, the only reason we've been able to record so much crap within the past 20 years of Astronomical advances, is because the Universe is so **** spacious, of course. Things, which would normally take billions of years to occur(SuperNovae, Neutron Stars[2+3 solar masses]--->Black holes) are only known because there's so many **** things simultaneously happening.

However, not to be narrow minded but in the case of Proton Decay, with a half life that extensive(10^32), well I don't think it could ever be measured in terms of evidence. Not disagreeing with anything you said, just adding to it; that's a lot of zeros.

 

[The Executive]

Entropy, or rather the 2nd law of thermodynamics, doesn't say that eventually we MUST be hit by a rock or the sun will swallow us up, it says that the entropy or disorder of the universe will eventually be maximized, i.e. the energy of the universe will settle to a basically homogeneous and useless state. Different models of the universe say different things.

To clear any confusion, this is what I was referring to when I spoke of entropy.

 

[blazedaces]

The second law of thermodynamics states the entropy in a closed system tends to increase. Every other statement (including the so-called definition above) is an application of this law. If we consider the universe to be a closed system and if we assume that entropy has a maximum (says who?) then the statement holds true.

Regardless, saying they aren't related is like saying "the law of gravity states two object of mass exhibit a force of attraction towards each other, not that the moon will orbit around the earth, seesh".

You're not seeing the big picture, and to be frank, I don't care much about this topic as it has almost nothing to do with our current debate...

Let's please move on...

-blazed

 

[The Executive]

The second law of thermodynamics states the entropy in a closed system tends to increase. Every other statement (including the so-called definition above) is an application of this law. If we consider the universe to be a closed system and if we assume that entropy has a maximum (says who?) then the statement holds true.

Regardless, saying they aren't related is like saying "the law of gravity states two object of mass exhibit a force of attraction towards each other, not that the moon will orbit around the earth, seesh".

You're not seeing the big picture, and to be frank, I don't care much about this topic as it has almost nothing to do with our current debate...

Let's please move on...

-blazed

Saying what aren't related?

 

[blazedaces]

Saying what aren't related?

The Law of Gravity and the moon orbiting the earth...

-blazed

 

[Zero Beat]

At least the intellectual level was rising. Well, go back to your endless debates about why religion is obviously not reliable and how perpetual science is.

There's only two groups here, the ones who accept religion blindly, and those who know better than that. I'm failing to see the difference between this topic, and the other two 'How can Anyone...'

 

[The Executive]

At least the intellectual level was rising. Well, go back to your endless debates about why religion is obviously not reliable and how perpetual science is.

There's only two groups here, the ones who accept religion blindly, and those who know better than that.

I know better than to accept anything blindly. I accept religion based on personal experience, not because it was spoon-fed to me.

That's neither here nor there, though. (despite that this tpoic derailed a while back)

I'm failing to see the difference between this topic, and the other two 'How can Anyone...'

Well, there would be three identical threads right now but snex and yossarian have hijacked one over "Spinoza", so we're back down to two. It's really not necessary to have more than one.

 

[Wolfang]

Mmmm, this thread was wrong on the very second post. I wonder why nobody is actually answering the question straight, but I keep getting tangents and words being put in my mouth about .0001 accuracy being the same as none at all when the statement had nothing to do with accuracy, just whether or not the answer is available, yet some are too busy trying to find a defense that they just say whatever can be used. Dirty and slow. I guess I'll just ask the question again, and maybe someone can comment on that instead of gold foil experiments.

Is there any link between science and religion?

 

[Zero Beat]

If you look at successful religions, you notice they all appeal to a variety of psychological stimuli in people; the Abrahamic religions are all so similar because they've evolved in accordance of what must be scientifically true for a religion to thrive. Anyone can make a cult, you really just have to know how.

Thus, there is a science to religion, a science of religion. But, there is no religion of science.

Not unless the terms are so abstractly defined that anything can be religion, and anything can be science.

And let's ignore Scientology, it's just a freaking cult. Happy?

 

[Wolfang]

No I wasn't looking for happiness thanks

 

[blazedaces]

Define Link. What are you looking for? Are you asking for an arbitrary similarity between two subjects? What's the point?

Are you asking if there's a correlation (common trend) between some aspect of one and the other? I'm seriously confused as to what you ever wanted (from the get-go).

-blazed

 

[Wolfang]

I didn't make this thread and I obviously wasn't here from the get-go, so I don't know what your talking about. I also didn't ask the question for my sake, its just the question of the thread. If you can't find a point to the debate, its whatever. Question is still there.

 

[blazedaces]

I didn't make this thread and I obviously wasn't here from the get-go, so I don't know what your talking about. I also didn't ask the question for my sake, its just the question of the thread. If you can't find a point to the debate, its whatever. Question is still there.

I apologize, for some reason I thought you started the thread, my bad.

But you are asking the question now... so can you answer mine anyway? Define link, what do you mean, what kind of answer would suffice? Give me an example maybe of two other subjects that have a "link"...

-blazed

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Mmmm, this thread was wrong on the very second post. I wonder why nobody is actually answering the question straight, but I keep getting tangents and words being put in my mouth about .0001 accuracy being the same as none at all when the statement had nothing to do with accuracy, just whether or not the answer is available, yet some are too busy trying to find a defense that they just say whatever can be used. Dirty and slow. I guess I'll just ask the question again, and maybe someone can comment on that instead of gold foil experiments.

Is there any link between science and religion?

What constitutes a "link" in the first place?

If you think it's reasonable to say there is a link between science and religion just because they don't have the answers, you might as well say that an infant and Stephen Hawking are linked because they both haven't solved quantum gravity. The manner of approach to actually getting answers in science and in religion are diametrically opposed. In that sense there is no link.

 

[Wolfang]

HyugaRicdeau, your not thinking very deep if you can't find ONE link between a child and Stephen Hawking.

THEY BOTH CAN'T HAVE KIDS.

That's one.

As for asking for what a link is? Well, some kind of relation, a connection, um...a nexus? Idk, I find the word link is kinda basic for a debate group, but that's what I mean.

And to answer (HyugaRicdeau) your question yes I think there is a link between religion and science.

As for your question (blazedaces), anything, even something simple as the concept of creationism is a link, but even if its something arbitrary, it still counts, yes? I don't see why not.

 

[blazedaces]

HyugaRicdeau, your not thinking very deep if you can't find ONE link between a child and Stephen Hawking.

THEY BOTH CAN'T HAVE KIDS.

That's one.

As for asking for what a link is? Well, some kind of relation, a connection, um...a nexus? Idk, I find the word link is kinda basic for a debate group, but that's what I mean.

And to answer (HyugaRicdeau) your question yes I think there is a link between religion and science.

As for your question (blazedaces), anything, even something simple as the concept of creationism is a link, but even if its something arbitrary, it still counts, yes? I don't see why not.

Alright... so religion and science are both words spelled with letters. Let's see... there exists people who study science but also believe in religion. What else... there's books written about both... And they both cause headaches once in a while, I think.

What in the world is the point of this? Everything according to this definition is therefore linked. If you can name two things that you can't find some arbitrary similary between... you're not trying hard enough. Go ahead, I dare you.

The word linked loses all meaning and value. There's no point in saying anything is linked... because everything is linked. It's a complete waste of a sentence.

-blazed

 

[Zero Beat]

Why all this unnecessary inaccuracy? Did you guys even bother reading my post?

Got some great debating going on.

 

[blazedaces]

Why all this unnecessary inaccuracy? Did you guys even bother reading my post?

Got some great debating going on.

I tried to look... what post are you referring to? What unnecessary inaccuracy?

-blazed

 

[Zero Beat]

I tried to look... what post are you referring to? What unnecessary inaccuracy?

-blazed

He asked, and I answered accordingly.

If you look at successful religions, you notice they all appeal to a variety of psychological stimuli in people; the Abrahamic religions are all so similar because they've evolved in accordance of what must be scientifically true for a religion to thrive. Anyone can make a cult, you really just have to know how.

Thus, there is a science to religion, a science of religion. But, there is no religion of science.

Not unless the terms are so abstractly defined that anything can be religion, and anything can be science.

And let's ignore Scientology, it's just a freaking cult.

There you have it. He gave me one of those IM answers, and that's all my input got. Apparently it was overlooked by his supposed "better posts."

 

[blazedaces]

He asked, and I answered accordingly.


There you have it. He gave me one of those IM answers, and that's all my input got. Apparently it was overlooked by his supposed "better posts."

Your post doesn't ask a question. What do you want as a response?

-blazed

 

[Zero Beat]

Your post doesn't ask a question. What do you want as a response?

-blazed

My post, was an answer to his[Wolf] question. I was just looking for approval or disapproval with some feedback.

Remember, we're here to learn from each other, not argue.

 

[Wolfang]

....so lol, I'm not gonna quote anyone's statement to question someone's question so I can question them in order to get a response to my comment; instead I'm going to get back on topic, if that's O.K. Please read the whole thing before backwashing this post, I promise, it's not that long.

After thinking about it for a little, my final conclusion on whether science and religion are connected is...yes. Surprise (not). This time though, I'll give a real answer since typing words like "arbitrary" or "link" on a light note seems to spawn a full examination of simple definitions, or cynicism....

Anyways, the link between them is belief.

No sense of right and wrong, or perversion of the sort, my answer is simply belief. Remember, I'm thinking on terms or religion on a whole, not just Scientology, atheism, agnostics, Christianity, and devil worship (just what I've seen in the debate hall). This is the defining tie because followers can believe in creationism, adaptation, a broad base form of karma (every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction), etc.

Somehow I can feel that I need to write the following because some may not catch my point:

I don't care about the differences between the two, I'm just answering the thread question and hoping other debaters might absorb what I'm saying, hopefully without being sardonic; and forgive me for using the word "karma". It seems to rile people up for some reason.

 

[blazedaces]

You completely ignored our points and re-hashed your original statement.

We bring up good and true points and I don't recall anyone insulting you even once, yet you brushed them all off with a wave of the word sardonic (which is insulting by the way). We're trying to be civil, but we're also having a debate here, a serious discussion where we're supposed to doubt each other and try our best to prove the other wrong (thus the name "debate hall"). You don't want to be part of that? You would rather simply state your own opinions? Fine.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you on this.

-blazed

 

[Wolfang]

You completely ignored our points and re-hashed your original statement.

We bring up good and true points and I don't recall anyone insulting you even once, yet you brushed them all off with a wave of the word sardonic (which is insulting by the way). We're trying to be civil, but we're also having a debate here, a serious discussion where we're supposed to doubt each other and try our best to prove the other wrong (thus the name "debate hall"). You don't want to be part of that? You would rather simply state your own opinions? Fine.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you on this.

-blazed

Wow, honestly everything you said doesn't apply to me except that I re-hashed two of my points from earlier, but I guess I'll see you some other thread maybe since your done with this one. Either that or your pouting at my opinion on things. And yes sardonic means insulting, cynical, wry, ironic, very sarcastic, or in good humor, but you seemed very bent out of shape at my words. Practice what you preach and just debate if I'm so contradictory to this thread. And I promise, I was never arguing with you, I'm talking to everyone, you just keep pointing yourself out. If this is the debate you want, bring it, cause I love debating.

Oh yea, and if you want to determine if Im listening or not?

Why all this unnecessary inaccuracy? Did you guys even bother reading my post?

Got some great debating going on.

I tried to look... what post are you referring to? What unnecessary inaccuracy?

He asked, and I answered accordingly.


There you have it. He gave me one of those IM answers, and that's all my input got. Apparently it was overlooked by his supposed "better posts."

Your post doesn't ask a question. What do you want as a response?

My post, was an answer to his[Wolf] question. I was just looking for approval or disapproval with some feedback.

Remember, we're here to learn from each other, not argue.

Promise, I read every word, and anything before it, but as you can see, there isn't much debating going on in these quotes, agreed?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Wolfang:

It has nothing to do with you, just the very question itself is devoid of any real meaning in the first place. Blazed explained why very clearly. To say they are linked in that they both have something to do with belief is just restating the obvious. In terms of how science and religion go about determining what is an appropriate belief, they are nearly diametrically opposed, so all similarities in that direction END THERE. There is nothing enlightening about this "link," so who cares? It's about as profound as saying that an amoeba and humans are both animals. So what? Also, atheism is not a religion.

I think if we want to have a meaningful conversation we should ask what the point of this question is in the first place.

 

[blazedaces]

Wolf, I apologize if I was not clear. I did not mean that sardonic is defined as insulting, I meant that by calling our post content and our arguments as simply sardonic you are insulting us and our posts.

Now, I know you weren't talking about the posts you quoted when you made that accusation. You deliberately ignore points brought up by people (not only myself) and then continued debating. You call me sardonic, blatantly insult me, misquote me, and then ask me to "practice what I preach"?

And, "everything I said" only included re-hashing of statements and ignoring posts.... and you admitted to doing half of that. It doesn't matter if you read the posts, but ignored them or if you literally avoiding reading the words inside them (I assumed you read them), you still didn't respond as if they existed...

As Hyuga said above, the debate lacks any real meaning (at least according to your use of the terms). I was simply trying to convince you of that, but if I can't... it's not really worth my time to do so.

Seriously, I knew where the debate was going to go. I would ask you, in a polite way, because I was getting tired of sounding like a broken record, what exactly you mean by belief, because if you just mean we chose to hold it as a partial truth for a moment in our lives... then yes, it's true, but if you meant that we believe in it blindly (like we do religion) then I would disagree.

You would then continue to argue semantics with me about what the word belief actually means, showing how we actually "believe" in science... but it would get to the point that belief would no longer hold substance anyway... And the viscous cycle would continue.

-blazed

 

[Wolfang]

No, both of you are right, it does end at belief, but as you see, my post was at like 4: something in the morning, the insomnia hit, I was tired, and said just about anything. I didn't see anyone bring up the point of belief, but whatever, its up there twice then. Yea, I'm convinced that's there only link, sorry I didn't have the foresight when I was worn out...

But anyways, if that's the case, then why this question was asked can only really be answered by the person who made the thread.

 

[yossarian22]

Might as well add more fuel to the fire and actually answer the bloody question.

They are connected, as both religion and science arose from the same philosophical roots. Science just turned out to be vastly more useful than religion in the practical world.

Wolfang does make a semi interesting point on the matter of belief. Science automatically assumes that induction is a valid process, but I cannot see much more room for belief to tie the two together. Assuming our senses are correct could be considered a belief I suppose, but the other position (our senses are somehow incorrect) cannot be coherently asserted.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

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)

It wasn't a star that exploded in the Big Bang. But I agree that everything in the universe's history, including evolution and the Big Bang, couldn't have happened without the intervention of God. It's statistically more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble the various pieces of metal into a fully working Boeing 747 than for people to have evolved from one-celled organisms completely by chance.

 

[The Executive]

It wasn't a star that exploded in the Big Bang. But I agree that everything in the universe's history, including evolution and the Big Bang, couldn't have happened without the intervention of God. It's statistically more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble the various pieces of metal into a fully working Boeing 747 than for people to have evolved from one-celled organisms completely by chance.

That would require, let's see...complete functional wiring, heat/ac, a working power source, etc...yep, that's not going to happen. Not with a twister.

I believe the probability associated with this was 10 to the -40000th power, and that's being optimistic.

 

[Zero Beat]

It wasn't a star that exploded in the Big Bang. But I agree that everything in the universe's history, including evolution and the Big Bang, couldn't have happened without the intervention of God. It's statistically more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble the various pieces of metal into a fully working Boeing 747 than for people to have evolved from one-celled organisms completely by chance.

That's a very uneducated post you've got going on there. Try to actually inform yourself instead of just accepting God as the answer to everything.

Completely by chance? I wonder where this crazy mentality derives from.

 

[blazedaces]

That's a very uneducated post you've got going on there. Try to actually inform yourself instead of just accepting God as the answer to everything.

Completely by chance? I wonder where this crazy mentality derives from.

As sad as this sounds, ignorance. Lack of knowledge inspires us to derive (or should I say rationalize) explanations that would further support our beliefs even if those explanations have no basis of truth whatsoever. If we don't know the truth, then we don't know that those explanations are not true. We ignore the fact that we have just as little reason to believe they actually are true.

-blazed

 

[Zero Beat]

Yes, I know it's ignorance, but ****, one would assume that if you're here, you've at least done an adequate amount of research on these INFAMOUS topics.

Well, rather ignorant than stupid. Carry on.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

It wasn't a star that exploded in the Big Bang. But I agree that everything in the universe's history, including evolution and the Big Bang, couldn't have happened without the intervention of God. It's statistically more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble the various pieces of metal into a fully working Boeing 747 than for people to have evolved from one-celled organisms completely by chance.

Somehow I don't believe you've actually done a calculation that supports this.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

That's a very uneducated post you've got going on there. Try to actually inform yourself instead of just accepting God as the answer to everything.

Completely by chance? I wonder where this crazy mentality derives from.

First of all, science never explains where the Big Bang came from.

Also, pure evolution claims that, while only the organisms with beneficial mutations survive, mutations happen completely at random. However, this would mean that the vast majority of mutations are harmful, meaning that beneficial mutations would be extremely rare. This, coupled with the sheer number of mutations required to get from a one-celled organism to a person, shows that some intelligent agent (God) must have intervened.

 

[cF=)]

It's useless guys, just... don't.

His posts are all built around the same gullible logic.

1) I misinterpret science (or completely ignore valuable information that I could get on the net)
2) The misinterpretation now succeeds in opening to door to an almighty being.
3) God is proved.

I stopped reading at #1 and I don't think anybody should waste his time instructing a 13 years old. If you even refute his argument, he'll jump on another concept that he probably won't understand any better and you'll have to give him a biology 101 class to refute his idiocy.

Shiny Noctowl: Here's a website if, one day, you have the motivation to actually understand evolution concepts. Nobody should be entitled to teach you things you don't know, and you should have a minimum of intellectual honesty in the debate hall.

-- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=41