Religion or Science... Why not Both?

[PhoenixAlive]

I've noticed that quite a few people on the board struggle with faith, or are atheists, because they see science and religion as two warring forces that can't co-exist.

As a Catholic who was raised to believe in evolutionism, and science AS WELL as Faith in God, I don't understand why this is such a hang-up for people.

Any opinions are welcome.

[Age of Ignorance]

Evolution and Creationism can co-exist in a social environment, but not in an internal mentality.

Evolution and faith can co-exist internally.

Science and creationism can co-exist internally.

See what I'm getting at?

[Thurineth]

Because they clash.

Religion says one thing, yet Science the other?

[TheKnight]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

I've noticed that quite a few people on the board struggle with faith, or are atheists, because they see science and religion as two warring forces that can't co-exist.

As a Catholic who was raised to believe in evolutionism, and science AS WELL as Faith in God, I don't understand why this is such a hang-up for people.

Any opinions are welcome.

I think the problem is that people are unwilling to live with unresolved problem. The biggest problem, on both sides, is the lack of willingness to study and actually learn. Biased scientists refuse to learn about religion, biased religionists refuse to learn about science.

For one, science rarely contradicts religion.
For two, religion isn't about historical accuracy. As a believer in Judaism, I can recognize that the purpose of the Bible (while it does offer accurate history IMO) is not to be a history book, but a book of ethics. It's a book on how to live your day to day life by offering examples and stories from the history of the Jewish people.

Also, what many must realize is that science is not absolute. Science, though trustworthy, is not an end all be all to everything. One must realize that science does get things wrong sometimes and there have been times when new theories arise that abolish old ones.

Ultimately, we have to use our judgment. The fact that science appears to contradict a certain religious teaching doesn't mean a person should give up religion completely. It simply means that person must adapt in such a way that the two co-exist peacefully. And, if there is an actual contradiction, that's fine too. The fact that two things contradict one another doesn't mean that either one or the other is false. It simply means that our understanding doesn't offer us the clarity to decide whether one is more true then the other.

[Algernon]

I believe science and faith go hand-in-hand.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Laura

Because they clash.

Religion says one thing, yet Science the other?

Not really. Science gives an explanation of how God works his miracles. Just because God made man in his own image doesn't mean that man didn't evolve into that image. The miracle is that we are sentient creatures and for some reason, we were given this gift. Just because there was a big bang doesn't mean that God didn't set the laws of physics to react that way.

[swimmer92]

I believe in creation and I believe every word the Bible says, and in the book of Colossians it warns people about philosophy and human tradition. I believe that Satan uses science to take people from God

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by swimmer92

I believe in creation and I believe every word the Bible says, and in the book of Colossians it warns people about philosophy and human tradition. I believe that Satan uses science to take people from God

So you believe every word of the bible in a literal context?

Is there any chance you could site the passage from Colossians that you mentioned so that we can talk about it?

How does science distance people from God?

[Toast]

Because you can't believe two different things at once. Science is using facts we know, whereas religion is believing in something irrational and unprovable. It's pretty much opposite.

[Oiseau the Little Bird!]

Science is obviously a tool of Satan to discredit God for creating such a wonderful, amazing planet.

[Thurineth]

Science is fact and theories. Religion is based on stories.

Therfore they clash. If God and Science work together, then what about evoloution? Our gene pools?

Our world is created from particles, nothing more.

[Magic.]

I think science can proove that a God exists, no matter what religion the God belongs to.
Science say there was a stable state until it all suddenly changed and hey presto - creation! Religion says pretty much the same thing. As stable statse doesn't randomly change without an external input, it shouldn't be crazy to suggest that that was the influence of a "God".

[Thurineth]

Originally Posted by magiciansasssistant

Science say there was a stable state until it all suddenly changed and hey presto - creation!

Particles can be stable and collide at any point in time. Its like that now.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Laura

Science is fact and theories. Religion is based on stories.

Therfore they clash. If God and Science work together, then what about evoloution? Our gene pools?

Our world is created from particles, nothing more.

I believe in evolution. But why did we evolve the way we did? Why were we given sentience?

[Thurineth]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

I believe in evolution. But why did we evolve the way we did? Why were we given sentience?

Geographical factors. Natural Selection.

[Jack]

Because science and faith are sort of opposites. If you believe in the basics of scientific theory I can't see how you could believe in God unless in that segment of your life you suspend your belief in science.

For example for most scientific theories, generally when theories are created there is a hypothesis and a null hypothesis if you cannot show a significant probability that the hypothesis is true then you must accept the null hypothesis. So as the onus of proof is placed on the person wishing to prove that something exists (as proving something doesn't exist is impossible) the hypothesis must be that God exists and the null hypothesis must be that God does not exist. Therefore by the basic principles of science if you can't prove (at least to a certain extent) that God exists then you must accept your null hypothesis which is that God does not exist. Unless you can suspend your belief in science I don't understand how you can believe in God.

I can also see how people can say "God might exist" and still believe in science like agnosticism, but not active belief.

However, I can understand how certain, specific scientific beliefs such as evolution and the big bang can go hand in hand with religion. Just not science as a general entity.

[BigBL87]

Originally Posted by swimmer92

I believe in creation and I believe every word the Bible says, and in the book of Colossians it warns people about philosophy and human tradition. I believe that Satan uses science to take people from God

FWIW, it is Colossians 2:8, which is essentially warning against the heresy of Gnosticism, not against science.

Originally Posted by Laura

Science is fact and theories. Religion is based on stories.

Therfore they clash. If God and Science work together, then what about evoloution? Our gene pools?

Our world is created from particles, nothing more.

I would say that science is theories (nothing in science is really ever completely certain, after all), whereas religion is faith/belief. I would object to stories, personally, because the Bible has been shown to be historically accurate, at least in some portions, on numerous occasions.

Also, I have a hard time with saying that evolution and genes mean that Science and God cannot coexist. I am a Christian, and believe that evolution is a potentially valid belief in how the world came to be as it is. From an Old Earth Creationist/Theistic Evolutionist perspective on Genesis, there really isn't anything that conflicts, with the exception of Darwinian Evolution being based completely on chance and all. As far as genes go, considering that the recently retired head of the Human Genome Project (Francis Collins) is a Christian, I find it hard to say they can't mix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

[Thurineth]

Originally Posted by BigBL87

FWIW, it is Colossians 2:8, which is essentially warning against the heresy of Gnosticism, not against science.



I would say that science is theories (nothing in science is really ever completely certain, after all), whereas religion is faith/belief. I would object to stories, personally, because the Bible has been shown to be historically accurate, at least in some portions, on numerous occasions.

I called them stories, since they were passed down as such by word of mouth BEFORE the bible was written. They will have been twisted through tellings, before they were in the bible so dates might historically be accurate, but "I" don't believe events were.

Science, fair enough, a lot of it has not been proven and still remains theories but a lot of it has been proven. DNA for instance, cells etc. Based on these facts we can try and trace back what happened.

Originally Posted by BigBL87

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis...ns_(geneticist)

Also, quoting a blank wikipedia page doesn't prove your point..

[BigBL87]

Originally Posted by Jack

For example for most scientific theories, generally when theories are created there is a hypothesis and a null hypothesis if you cannot show a significant probability that the hypothesis is true then you must accept the null hypothesis. So as the onus of proof is placed on the person wishing to prove that something exists (as proving something doesn't exist is impossible) the hypothesis must be that God exists and the null hypothesis must be that God does not exist. Therefore by the basic principles of science if you can't prove (at least to a certain extent) that God exists then you must accept your null hypothesis which is that God does not exist. Unless you can suspend your belief in science I don't understand how you can believe in God.

The thing is, I don't need God's existence to be empirically proved to me to believe. I see evidence, data if you prefer, that leads me to believe in God's existence. The Big Bang, the design I see in nature, history, etc. lead me to believe that God exists. So, I while there is not proof, there is evidence to the affirmative, so at worst I would say it is inconclusive.

Under the scientific method here, I would challenge you to prove to me macro-evolution. The fact is, we see evidence of it in the fossil record (just has I see evidence of God in history, nature, cosmology, etc), but we are not able to directly observe the evolution of one species into another. So, under your reasoning, macro-evolution doesn't jive with science either.

Originally Posted by Laura

I called them stories, since they were passed down as such by word of mouth BEFORE the bible was written. They will have been twisted through tellings, before they were in the bible so dates might historically be accurate, but "I" don't believe events were.

Science, fair enough, a lot of it has not been proven and still remains theories but a lot of it has been proven. DNA for instance, cells etc. Based on these facts we can try and trace back what happened.

Also, quoting a blank wikipedia page doesn't prove your point..

My bad, the last parenthese didn't get incorporated into the link. It's fixed now. I realize wikipedia is not an academic source, the information can be found elsewhere as well, it was just the easiest link.

You are painting far to wide of a swash with your comment on the Bible, there. The Bible was not "written," it was assembled from the writings of a good number of authors. Under the Mosaic Authorship approach, the 5 books of the Pentateuch are believed to have been written by Moses. Now, Genesis would fall under your "stories," as Moses would either have to A) Relay the stories he was told by humans or B) Relay the inpiration of God in is writing. Since I can't prove inspiration empirically, I will give you the Book of Genesis on that one. However Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy are all believed to have been written by Moses, and the events would have occured during his lifetime. The same goes for a great number of the prophetic books, as they are believed to be authored by the person that they are named after.

In the New Testament, the gospels are first hand accounts (with the exception of Luke, who assembled his writings from the writing of others as any good 1st century historian would) from men who walked with Jesus. The majority of the rest of the book (Acts and Revelation being the exceptions) are letters to churches written by Paul.

So, not, the great majority of the Bible is NOT stories relayed onto paper that have been told some time. The vast majority of the text is assembled from manuscripts from the person who experienced the event first hand.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by BigBL87

The thing is, I don't need God's existence to be empirically proved to me to believe. I see evidence, data if you prefer, that leads me to believe in God's existence. The Big Bang, the design I see in nature, history, etc. lead me to believe that God exists. So, I while there is not proof, there is evidence to the affirmative, so at worst I would say it is inconclusive.

Oh I understand that you don't need empirical evidence proved to you in order for you to believe, that attitude just somewhat clashes with science. I can't say I've ever seen any evidence to the affirmative for God?

Under the scientific method here, I would challenge you to prove to me macro-evolution. The fact is, we see evidence of it in the fossil record (just has I see evidence of God in history, nature, cosmology, etc), but we are not able to directly observe the evolution of one species into another. So, under your reasoning, macro-evolution doesn't jive with science either.

But there is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution? There is no need to directly observe it for there to be sufficient proof for it. Similarly macro-evolution (if you will accept speciation as macro-evolution) has been observed.

[Thurineth]

Originally Posted by BigBL87

The Bible was not "written," it was assembled from the writings of a good number of authors.

Therefore it was written. It had to be written somewhere along the line. So writings/written. Sorry for my terminology not being the greatest.

[BigBL87]

Originally Posted by Jack

But there is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution? There is no need to directly observe it for there to be sufficient proof for it. Similarly macro-evolution (if you will accept speciation as macro-evolution) has been observed.

But, what about the scientific method that you just outlined? There is no way to test the hypothesis. We can look at evidence (just like I see evidence of God) but neither can be tested empirically with the scientific method. We can test micro-evolution (specialization) empirically, because we can observe it. We cannot, however, test the evolution from one species to another, because we cannot observe (and therefore test) it, we cannot test our hypothesis.

The thing is, I do think that evolution between species is possible. I'm just pointing out that one of the crucial theories in science really doesn't really follow the scientific method. If one is to hold another area to the scientific method, their area should be held to it as well.

Originally Posted by Laura

Therefore it was written. It had to be written somewhere along the line. So writings/written. Sorry for my terminology not being the greatest.

But the fact stands that the majority of it was not "handed down in stories," but was written from a first hand account. It was not written by some person who had heard a lot of stories and decided to combine them from memory into a book.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by BigBL87

But, what about the scientific method that you just outlined? There is no way to test the hypothesis. We can look at evidence (just like I see evidence of God) but neither can be tested empirically with the scientific method. We can test micro-evolution (specialization) empirically, because we can observe it. We cannot, however, test the evolution from one species to another, because we cannot observe (and therefore test) it, we cannot test our hypothesis.

In my original post I talked of proof. Not everything has to be observed in the literal sense for it to be proved or tested by scientific theory.

Just a bit about observation:

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counter intuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference.

This article would probably interest you:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
According to that macro-evolution does chime with scientific method.

[PhoenixAlive]

The world is full of phenomena that cannot be explained fully through science. The way I would describe it is that science (genes, physics, biology, evolution, the big bang) are the medium for God's message. In other words, science is legitimate, but that is because God made it so.

Here is an excerpt of an essay explaining how the writer sees proof of God through science.


QUOTE:


" Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.
How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."
Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."

Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billions of these letters in every human cell!!
Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.14
Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.
Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it. "

Here is the full essay if you would like to read it. Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God

[Xujhan]

However amazing a mathematical universe might be, isn't a god by definition more amazing? The entire argument seems self defeating; if it's too improbable that the universe came into being as a nonliving clump of elementary matter, isn't it infinitely more improbable that a super-intelligent being existed before it to create it? How can you demand the existence of a god to explain the existence of the universe without also demanding an explanation for the existence of god? That's one of the standard atheist arguments.

In ancient civilizations, the world was the limit of human understanding and religion was used to explain beyond that limit. All ancient cultures had religious explanations of the creation of the world. Now we understand the world and how it was created, and it's the universe that is the limit of our understanding. Now, Christianity is used to explain the origins of the universe. But is it so hard to believe that one day we may come to understand the origins of the universe just as we once came to understand the origins of our world?

At any point in time, science and understanding fill a portion of what we can comprehend, and the unfulfilled remainder is left to religion. Science is always growing. At some point, it may be that we outgrow our need for religion entirely. I also feel that there are moral reasons to abandon religion in favour of atheism, in addition to scientific ones, but those are much harder to use in debate and also somewhat off topic.

[swimmer92]

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" Colossions 2:3


'O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” 1Timothy 6:20


There are so many more also, too many to post here

[Grizabella]

The world is full of phenomena that cannot be explained fully through science.

So, having an explanation that reads like mythology is ultimately better than admitting that we don't know everything yet? Humans not being able to explain something doesn't make it inexplicable or supernatural. All those points in the essay prove is that science can't explain everything, and it freely admits that.

[PhoenixAlive]

I guess I just like to believe that there is room for both science and faith...

[I ♥ Jehovah Shalom!]

Thats a good question.. This may not apply but like I'm a Christian and yet I love science.. Everytime I learn something in science, it makes me think about how great GOD did in making it.

[BigBL87]

Originally Posted by swimmer92

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" Colossions 2:3


'O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” 1Timothy 6:20


There are so many more also, too many to post here

Just to point it out...

Notice that the first of those says "takes you captive," it doesn't say that that philosophy, tradition, etc. are inherently bad.

The second of these is a clear, CLEAR reference to Gnostic heresy, not science.

Truly, I find the deepest faith as one that is not bases solely on faith itself but is also grounded in reason.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

I find that they can co-exist. Science cannot currently explain everything, hence, you can have faith in something. Science and religion may indeed say opposite statements, however, there is no reason why you cannot have both. Science is to be analyzed by science whereas religion is to be analyzed by religion. If you keep them separate, then there is no problem. However, many people don't and try to mish-mash them together and that is where the large mess occurs.

You don't adopt the biological paradigm and then try to mix that with the psychodynamic paradigm yet keep them separate at the same time. If you do, you're very likely to get some big mess, which is the same for science and religion.

People feel some need to try and put the two together in some obscure hope and then they get the big mess. But give a simple analogy of apples and oranges and that makes sense... .

If you begin comparing science and religion, the two have different viewpoints, follow different paradigms, what is the expected outcome(s)? To show one is "better"? Time and time again, it ends with people describing what science and religion are, and assuming they understand them both, they smash them together once again.

[pbandjay]

Aren't most faiths and religions based on miracles? And a miracle can be considered something that can't be scientifically explained. Bam! (lol I'm in a weird mood today)

I do believe that there are many assumptions in scientific study that in which we must have faith as well.

A mathematical example is this: Where did the number 1 come from? Did we not create the numbers? How do we know that 1+1=2? This seems trivial to show but mathematically can we even prove it? Or do we just assume it is true based on our own definitions? Yes, we do have a lot of math that we have studied, but could it all be based on something that we created and defined ourselves?

There are many basic assumptions in science as well, and there are many resources that write about them. Most of them are something along the lines of:

The Universe is real (i.e. true/physical universe).
It is orderly.
There are laws that govern the universe and they are understandable/discoverable.
They don't change with spacetime.
All of our ideas can be changed according to what information we have and discover in time.
We have our human senses and they are reliable.
(probably many more...)

Bleh bleh.. So I guess my point is this: Don't we have to believe in science as well?

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by pbandjay

Aren't most faiths and religions based on miracles? And a miracle can be considered something that can't be scientifically explained. Bam!

Miracles are evidence for a certain belief.

Originally Posted by pbandjay

I do believe that there are many assumptions in scientific study that in which we must have faith as well.

This is quite true, however, many of these assumptions we have some reason for assuming them, that is, there is some evidence and understanding of their origin, etc... .

Originally Posted by pbandjay

There are many basic assumptions in science as well, and there are many resources that write about them. Most of them are something along the lines of:

The Universe is real (i.e. true/physical universe).
It is orderly.
There are laws that govern the universe and they are understandable/discoverable.
They don't change with spacetime.
All of our ideas can be changed according to what information we have and discover in time.
We have our human senses and they are reliable.

These can be explained using various theories, thus, they are not an assumption that we assume with little reason for. Some have more than others though. Unfortunately for you though, you chose some rather awful examples (i.e. the one on human senses).

Originally Posted by pbandjay

Don't we have to believe in science as well?

We have to have some amount of faith in science, yes, however, we may be able to test and/or explain something about that faith. That is, if we do a test, we have to have faith that it is going to be true. We can test for that, such as, re-do the test over and over on different or the same person and eventually, it will be so improbable, we can conclude it is impossible for that test to have been wrong (i.e. compare the other results to that one).

So while there is faith, that faith can be explained and tested easily usually but there is little blind faith.

[<:3 )~]

I was watching a program on this!
Well basically...it's that both Science and Religion search for the Ultimate Truth [that being the origin of the Universe, where we came from and all of that sort of thing]. On some points, it seems that they do contradict at the surface, that is. The Catechism has always seemed to hold issue with some prominent scientists, and the majority of the population who was Catholic, say, followed suit in agreeing strongly with the Catechism's decisions. Despite my vague anecdote, I hope that I'm making sense :P . Church authority has been scared of Science before as there was no clear, true explanation at the time to explain away the Bible's shortcomings. So, the general rift in the relationship between Church and Science was created early on and has just never quite been mended.

[pbandjay]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

These can be explained using various theories, thus, they are not an assumption that we assume with little reason for. Some have more than others though. Unfortunately for you though, you chose some rather awful examples (i.e. the one on human senses).

I am sorry but you said "theories" not "facts"--by doing so, you are still making assumptions. Anything can be explained using theories. Don't some theorize that the holocaust never happened? What about the city of Atlantis? This just leads back to the question of faith.

I chose those examples because I did say "basic assumptions", and there are many writings on the ones I posted.. I didn't just make them up. Would you rather I state assumptions such as "The existence of the Higgs particle"?

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

We have to have some amount of faith in science, yes, however, we may be able to test and/or explain something about that faith. That is, if we do a test, we have to have faith that it is going to be true. We can test for that, such as, re-do the test over and over on different or the same person and eventually, it will be so improbable, we can conclude it is impossible for that test to have been wrong (i.e. compare the other results to that one).

I'm not referring to precision-testing in particular. To me, it sounds like you're just trying to sound smart but nothing you said disagrees with my views in any way. For that, I cannot figure out your point, other than you just like to try to outsmart people.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by pbandjay

I am sorry but you said "theories" not "facts"--by doing so, you are still making assumptions.

I'm not sure what your point exactly is. Yes you do make assumptions in science but nowadays, many of them can be in some way quantified, so it's less of blind faith.

Originally Posted by pbandjay

Anything can be explained using theories. Don't some theorize that the holocaust never happened? What about the city of Atlantis? This just leads back to the question of faith.

Now you've distorted the meaning of what a scientific theory is. When they theorize that the Holocaust never happened, their subjective views come into the mix, the same with the city of Atlantis. They can explain those events, however, a scientific theory must be falsifiable, testable. How are you going to test your theory on the Holocaust? Start another one? Make another city of Atlantis? When they "theorize" about something specific, for it to be a scientific theory, you must have a way to test it. Take the gas chambers, let's say you have some theory about them. How are you going to test it? Make your own and put some animals or humans in there?

Originally Posted by pbandjay

I chose those examples because I did say "basic assumptions", and there are many writings on the ones I posted.. I didn't just make them up. Would you rather I state assumptions such as "The existence of the Higgs particle"?

I never said you made any of them up. You didn't seem to follow my point though. I said that they are not something we assume with little reason for, which relates to the paragraph you had before that.

Originally Posted by pbandjay

I'm not referring to precision-testing in particular. To me, it sounds like you're just trying to sound smart but nothing you said disagrees with my views in any way. For that, I cannot figure out your point, other than you just like to try to outsmart people.

I'm aware you weren't referring to precision-testing and it sounds to me like you didn't understand what I said at all. So, to make it simpler for you, yes there are beliefs in science BUT there are few blind faith ones. We have some amount of certainty for the beliefs.

And why does my view have to disagree with yours?

[pbandjay]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

I'm not sure what your point exactly is. Yes you do make assumptions in science but nowadays.

I stopped reading your post after this point, as I usually do after the first sentence in all of your posts. I am not arguing about the faith in scientific theory being less blind at all. I was just saying that I believe even science requires faith.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by pbandjay

I stopped reading your post after this point, as I usually do after the first sentence in all of your posts. I am not arguing about the faith in scientific theory being less blind at all. I was just saying that I believe even science requires faith.

I've been agreeing with this, but I specified that it is NOT BLIND faith. I don't see why you're arguing about something I'm agreeing with you over. Perhaps you could read the rest of the post, as I see no point in stating you'll comment only on the first bit and ignore everything else.

[Dream]

I think that religion and science can exist together in philosophical terms. The problem with them existing together is really more sociological than religious/philosophical. Different interests do not want to give up power or want to gain power, and they are essentially competing. To admit that science and religion can go together would be to give up power.

[pbandjay]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

I've been agreeing with this, but I specified that it is NOT BLIND faith. I don't see why you're arguing about something I'm agreeing with you over. Perhaps you could read the rest of the post, as I see no point in stating you'll comment only on the first bit and ignore everything else.

I am not arguing at all. I simply made a statement about assumptions and science. And I don't read your posts because they always have some sort of negative mentality in them that makes them annoying to read. Sorry mate!